PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.ending a joint tenancy agreement question
Options
Comments
-
No, as the tenant was still in residence.[*]Did the joint tenancy end for both of them after the notice period ended?
Yes, as the tenant remains in residence[*]Is my friend (not his gf) still legally a tenant in the property, after he validly served a notice and left during this time?
No. The current tenancy continues.[*]Did a new tenancy arise after the tenancy period ended but his ex gf remained0 -
☝️So by that measure the tenant has no legal right to end the joint tenancy (because you claim it subsists if one of them remains), even though this has been established as a matter of fact in the case law posted earlier in the thread...
Both positions cannot be true. Either the tenant has a legal right to end the joint tenancy or they do not.Disclaimer
The information I post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, medical or professional advice of any kind. I accept no liability for the accuracy of the information reported.0 -
I feel bad for your friend as you have asked a question, gotten the answer about a billion times yet still arguing, that is if this friend exists and you are not purely bored and looking for an online debate.0
-
-
Wow. Just.... wow! I turn my back for 24 hours and......!!
The one glimmer of hope for the OP's tenant friend is the above.But the landlord has accepted that one tenant has left and the other remains. They have confirmed this in emails.
What do these emails say, precisely?
If the landlord has offered the remaining joint tenant a new sole tenancy, and that offer has been accepted, then that combined with the departure of the other joint tenant at the expiry of the notice period would end the joint tenancy (just as if both joint tenants had left).
A new tenancy would then exist. Of course, that means the deposit associated with the joint tenancy should be un-protected and returned (to one or other of the joint tenants). And a new deposit taken and protected (unless the LL chose not to take a deposit).
The new tenant should also of course be given an EPC, gas report, gov leaflet etc as with any new tenancy - did this happen?
I suspect not, in which case 'The Tenant' in the original joint tenancy has held over, rather than vacating as required and remains fully liable. As someone pointed out on page 5 above somewhere, 'The Tenant' is a single legal entity and thus by one individual remaining, 'The Tenant' has not vacated as per the notice.0 -
As was quoted previously by another poster, the relevant cases are Sims and Fulham Lbc vs monk. From sims case:
"Where a tenancy of land is held by more than one person, those persons hold the tenancy jointly. In Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v. Monk [1992] AC 478 ("Monk"), the House of Lords unanimously held that, where such a tenancy is a periodic tenancy, which can be brought to an end by a notice to quit, the common law rule is that, in the absence of a contractual term to the contrary, the tenancy will be validly determined by service on the landlord of a notice to quit by only one of the joint tenants"
*Clause 100 is consistent with a common law principle which is not now attacked, and its effect is anyway mitigated by clause 101. Further, it is not an unreasonable provision, in that someone's interest has to suffer when one of two joint periodic tenants serves a notice to quit. If the result is not as decided in Monk, either the tenant who served the notice is forced to remain a tenant against her will, or the landlord is landed with one tenant instead of two, which means less security - and, in a case such as the present, a family property occupied by a single person. Just as a joint tenant in Mr Sims's position can claim that the outcome determined as correct in Monk is harsh, so could a joint tenant in Mrs Sims's position or a landlord in Dacorum's position contend that either of the alternative outcomes is harsh."
In the Fulham LBC vs Monk case it was found that (legal website summary).
The Court held that the tenant’s right to occupy the original property was grounds for few protections and that strong security of tenure did not stem from a joint periodic tenancy. In this case, it suffices for one of the tenants to give notice to quit, permission from both is not necessary. Further, the continuation of a joint tenancy requires all of the joint tenants to desire its continuation. Here, the Court viewed that the matter was relatively straightforward, utilising the analogy of contract law to state that should determination of a contract rest upon the consent of all signatories, it supposes that in the absence of one party’s consent, the other signatories have effectively entered into an indefinite contractual obligation. Such a supposition is unreasonable and does not reflect the likely intentions of the parties at the time of contracting. The same holds in application to tenancy contracts, and so the desire for determination by one joint tenant suffices for the ending of the whole tenancy."Disclaimer
The information I post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, medical or professional advice of any kind. I accept no liability for the accuracy of the information reported.0 -
Wow. Just.... wow! I turn my back for 24 hours and......!!
The one glimmer of hope for the OP's tenant friend is the above.
What do these emails say, precisely?
I can find out.If the landlord has offered the remaining joint tenant a new sole tenancy, and that offer has been accepted, then that combined with the departure of the other joint tenant at the expiry of the notice period would end the joint tenancy (just as if both joint tenants had left).
Or what I think is more likely the case as has been stated by Shelter, it doesn't matter (in terms of the tenancy ending) whether the other tenant stays, as his valid notice to quit legally ends the joint tenancy at the end of his notice for all tenants. At that moment, the existing joint tenancy cannot subsist past that point because the NTQ was served and he can unilaterally do this as was found in case law. If no new tenancy agreement has been agreed with the remaining tenant, then they are at risk of eviction, but if the EA/LL continue to accept rent payments from the remaining tenant without trying to evict them, then it is possible a new tenancy will have been deemed to have arisen (whether it is formally agreed or not). This is apparently the case in commercial tenancies and I cannot see why that wouldn't be the case here also, as it makes perfect logical sense.A new tenancy would then exist. Of course, that means the deposit associated with the joint tenancy should be un-protected and returned (to one or other of the joint tenants). And a new deposit taken and protected (unless the LL chose not to take a deposit).
He told the EA to give her the deposit.The new tenant should also of course be given an EPC, gas report, gov leaflet etc as with any new tenancy - did this happen?
No she has not been given any of that or signed any new contract, but for the reasons above I don't think it matters in terms of whether the joint tenancy was ended.I suspect not, in which case 'The Tenant' in the original joint tenancy has held over, rather than vacating as required and remains fully liable. As someone pointed out on page 5 above somewhere, 'The Tenant' is a single legal entity and thus by one individual remaining, 'The Tenant' has not vacated as per the notice.
But with the EA accepting in writing that she is now the sole tenant, and with them taking rent payments and not in any capacity trying to evict her, and in the context of legal precedents which state that where rent is being taken a tenancy exists, I very much doubt it is possible for any claim to double rent as I stated previously, and I also believe she is on a new tenancy that arose by them informally agreeing it and by accepting her rent. If they'd have tried to evict her and sent her letters saying she must vacate, then maybe, but this categorically hasn't happened and it seems this is very relevant.Disclaimer
The information I post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, medical or professional advice of any kind. I accept no liability for the accuracy of the information reported.0 -
Can I refer you to post 12 in this thread here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76294622#post762946220 -
Can I refer you to post 12 in this thread here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76294622#post76294622
Indeed. The OP is hellbent in reading what he wants to see to try and prove himself right even if that means completely missing the important parts or misinterpreting what is being said. The OP has told us the ex-gf has not signed a new tenancy agreement and if the OP wants to believe that a new tenancy has been created solely in her name simply because she did not vacate the property by the end of the notice period even though that is not what happened in any of the quoted case law then so be it.0 -
Lover_of_Lycra wrote: »Indeed. The OP is hellbent in reading what he wants to see to try and prove himself right even if that means completely missing the important parts or misinterpreting what is being said. The OP has told us the ex-gf has not signed a new tenancy agreement and if the OP wants to believe that a new tenancy has been created solely in her name simply because she did not vacate the property by the end of the notice period even though that is not what happened in any of the quoted case law then so be it.
We have asked two separate solicitors what will happen exactly in this situation and await their responses. I will post the responses here for anyone interested.Disclaimer
The information I post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, medical or professional advice of any kind. I accept no liability for the accuracy of the information reported.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards