Rental arrears in someone else’s name

FreeBear

BonaDea said: You might find someone willing to take a lodger who helps out in some way for a reduced rent.

When I was a landlord I didn't mind tenants having a cat.  I don't think the cat is a major problem.  A badly-behaved dog, on the other hand ....

I'm kinda working towards having another lodger. But the place is in a bit of a mess, and I could really do with help (holding stuff up, maybe painting, and cleaning, lots of cleaning).

Don't mind cats, but not dogs, even well behaved ones (if there is such a thing).

@oa@oatsinthewater21 - Ping me a message with the area you're looking in.

propertyrental

AskAsk said:

I think the notice is to evict you as you are a joint tenant but you won't be liable for the rent arrears as you were not advised of that before you were added to the tenancy.  I didn't even think you could add someone to a AST but would need to start a new one. 

I stopped adding tenants and removing them when I found out you couldn't do this but need a new AST every time someone leaves and a replacement was found.  It affects the deposit protected as well as that has the names of the tenants with interest in the deposit.

There is a well known and legally valid way to change one (or more) of the tenants on a joint and several tenancy, without creating a new tenancy or messing around with the deposit.

You execute a deed of assignment.

The incoming /new joint tenant takes on all the rights and obligations of the departing joint tenant. All joint tenants (both original and new) and the landlord must sign and execute the deed.

In a properly drawn up Deed it will specify

* that the new JT has paid the outgoing tenant their share of the deposit, and in return becomes entitled to the deposit held by the LL

* that the new JT accepts the details in the original inventory (which of course he should check)

* that the rent is up to date and the new JT will therefore only become liable for future arrears

I suspect this LL/agent was attempting (but failing) to draw up something similar with the addendum. The requirement for all parties to sign appears not to have happened, and even if it did I doubt it would stand up in the way a properly executed deed would. It also seems to have ignored the key elements above, though an executed deed lacking all these details would still be valid.

AskAsk

propertyrental said:

AskAsk said:

I think the notice is to evict you as you are a joint tenant but you won't be liable for the rent arrears as you were not advised of that before you were added to the tenancy.  I didn't even think you could add someone to a AST but would need to start a new one. 

I stopped adding tenants and removing them when I found out you couldn't do this but need a new AST every time someone leaves and a replacement was found.  It affects the deposit protected as well as that has the names of the tenants with interest in the deposit.

There is a well known and legally valid way to change one (or more) of the tenants on a joint and several tenancy, without creating a new tenancy or messing around with the deposit.

You execute a deed of assignment.

The incoming /new joint tenant takes on all the rights and obligations of the departing joint tenant. All joint tenants (both original and new) and the landlord must sign and execute the deed.

In a properly drawn up Deed it will specify

* that the new JT has paid the outgoing tenant their share of the deposit, and in return becomes entitled to the deposit held by the LL

* that the new JT accepts the details in the original inventory (which of course he should check)

* that the rent is up to date and the new JT will therefore only become liable for future arrears

I suspect this LL/agent was attempting (but failing) to draw up something similar with the addendum. The requirement for all parties to sign appears not to have happened, and even if it did I doubt it would stand up in the way a properly executed deed would. It also seems to have ignored the key elements above, though an executed deed lacking all these details would still be valid.

Yeah, I think I saw the deed of assignment but that needs a solicitor?  I issued the contracts myself, so it was easier to issue new contracts.

propertyrental

AskAsk said:

propertyrental said:

AskAsk said:

I think the notice is to evict you as you are a joint tenant but you won't be liable for the rent arrears as you were not advised of that before you were added to the tenancy.  I didn't even think you could add someone to a AST but would need to start a new one. 

I stopped adding tenants and removing them when I found out you couldn't do this but need a new AST every time someone leaves and a replacement was found.  It affects the deposit protected as well as that has the names of the tenants with interest in the deposit.

There is a well known and legally valid way to change one (or more) of the tenants on a joint and several tenancy, without creating a new tenancy or messing around with the deposit.

You execute a deed of assignment.

The incoming /new joint tenant takes on all the rights and obligations of the departing joint tenant. All joint tenants (both original and new) and the landlord must sign and execute the deed.

In a properly drawn up Deed it will specify

* that the new JT has paid the outgoing tenant their share of the deposit, and in return becomes entitled to the deposit held by the LL

* that the new JT accepts the details in the original inventory (which of course he should check)

* that the rent is up to date and the new JT will therefore only become liable for future arrears

I suspect this LL/agent was attempting (but failing) to draw up something similar with the addendum. The requirement for all parties to sign appears not to have happened, and even if it did I doubt it would stand up in the way a properly executed deed would. It also seems to have ignored the key elements above, though an executed deed lacking all these details would still be valid.

Yeah, I think I saw the deed of assignment but that needs a solicitor?  I issued the contracts myself, so it was easier to issue new contracts.

No. As long as you use a decent one (freebies on the web so compare them) you can execute it yourself. Just need everyon's signatures + witnesses. Much easier than faffing around with new deposits, check out inspection, new inventory + re-issuing all the required docs (EPC. gas, 'how to rent' blah blah.....)

saajan_12

Seems lots of people are jumping to the answer we would like rather than properly considerign the alternative. 

1. You legally can have a joint and several tenancy on a larger property, when in practice people use a designated room and share the kitchen / common areas.
               This is only advisable for tenants that know eachother, but legally there's no exclusion. 

2. You legally can join a joint & several tenancy via a deed of variation, where an incoming tenant steps into the shoes of the outgoing tenant (or some other combination). The new tenant will be (jointly) liable for all obligations under the tenancy including rent and property condition since the original inventory, and will (jointly) be entitled to receive the deposit return.
               When I had tenants that wanted to swap around (a group of friends) I advised them of the amount of rent arrears (£0) and suggested they check any damage done to date between them. However legally I doubt there's obligation to provide advice. 

3. You can be held liable for the £ rent arrears and can be evicted as you are now party to a joint and several tenancy. If you end up paying then you may also have a claim against the downstairs tenant as the intention was for you to pay your share only, but that's separate to the LL's claim. 

The potential arguments against this are not guaranteed, but 
a) The variation was not signed as a deed and so you did not enter the J&S tenancy. 
b) It was fraudulent on the part of the LL. 

I would say both of these have a < 50% chance of working, but you don't have a lot to lose so may as well try. 

Danien

Can I ask what convinced you OP to be jointly liable for rent and damages with a stranger?

As someone who has rented most of their adult life, I would never have considered signing something like that even if the rent was up to date. You don't know the other person and could be liable for thousands of pounds having done nothing wrong or having no control over the situation. This situation could easily have occurred if the rent was up to date when you signed the contract, or the other tenant could have trashed their rooms or common areas - you would be liable!

My interpretation is that the landlord has organised the tenancy this way, rather than two AST's for the rooms you occupied with access to shared areas (I've had these multiple times) so that they get two bites of the cherry to get arrears and damage costs back - if one person builds up arrears or damages the property, they have two chances of recovering their losses.

And getting you to sign to be liable for someone else's rent arrears that already exist without telling you, is blatantly nefarious and as far as I understand, makes what you signed null and void, there is no 'meeting if the minds', you were deliberately tricked.

caprikid1

Danien said:

Can I ask what convinced you OP to be jointly liable for rent and damages with a stranger?

As someone who has rented most of their adult life, I would never have considered signing something like that even if the rent was up to date. You don't know the other person and could be liable for thousands of pounds having done nothing wrong or having no control over the situation. This situation could easily have occurred if the rent was up to date when you signed the contract, or the other tenant could have trashed their rooms or common areas - you would be liable!

My interpretation is that the landlord has organised the tenancy this way, rather than two AST's for the rooms you occupied with access to shared areas (I've had these multiple times) so that they get two bites of the cherry to get arrears and damage costs back - if one person builds up arrears or damages the property, they have two chances of recovering their losses.

And getting you to sign to be liable for someone else's rent arrears that already exist without telling you, is blatantly nefarious and as far as I understand, makes what you signed null and void, there is no 'meeting if the minds', you were deliberately tricked.

I am not sure how this helps the OP in the current situation. 

RHemmings

Danien said:

Can I ask what convinced you OP to be jointly liable for rent and damages with a stranger?

As someone who has rented most of their adult life, I would never have considered signing something like that even if the rent was up to date. You don't know the other person and could be liable for thousands of pounds having done nothing wrong or having no control over the situation. This situation could easily have occurred if the rent was up to date when you signed the contract, or the other tenant could have trashed their rooms or common areas - you would be liable!

My interpretation is that the landlord has organised the tenancy this way, rather than two AST's for the rooms you occupied with access to shared areas (I've had these multiple times) so that they get two bites of the cherry to get arrears and damage costs back - if one person builds up arrears or damages the property, they have two chances of recovering their losses.

And getting you to sign to be liable for someone else's rent arrears that already exist without telling you, is blatantly nefarious and as far as I understand, makes what you signed null and void, there is no 'meeting if the minds', you were deliberately tricked.

My interpretation is that the OP will be better off if this is handled by The Property Ombudsman Service. As failing to provide full and pertinant information on the OP signing the contract (that the current tenant owes rent and the new tenant may become liable for it) breaks the code - in my fallible opinion. 

One this hits the courts, the ombudsman will likely not act - in my opinion. I think best to go the ombudsman route. Especially given what @saajan_12 says. 

Replying to @caprikid1 (car or island?), if the Property Ombudsman agrees that the process was blatantly nefarious when the code is that everything has to be open, honest, and properly described, then this may help the OP. 

Yorkie1

Myci85 said:

This sounds all kind of dodgy to me (I used to work in a letting agency), not least because in what appears to be a standard letter they are sending out, they aren't even using correct grammar... 'instituting legal proceedings'? I think they mean 'instigating'.

No. "Instituting" is the correct phrase. Refer to s.3 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 for examples.