is tenant in breach of agreemnet and what to do

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    is tenant in breach of agreemnet and what to do

    I have issued a tenancy agreement in the name of two people. tenat A &b .I suspect that one of the tenants (b)have moved out and has been replaced by someone. Does this make the agreement in valid and what should I do? I have previously told my tenant A to make sure he informs me of any change in tenants, but he has obviously not done this.

    #2
    No, it's still valid. During the fixed term that you granted, A and B remain liable. Tenants cannot 'change' at law, unless you as L consent. Don't!
    JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
    1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
    2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
    3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
    4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

    Comment


      #3
      So if I had to visit the property, once giving notice and find that tenant B has moved out and someone else is sharing with tenant A(2 BEDROOM APARTMENT). What then?

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by jkdoc7 View Post
        So if I had to visit the property, once giving notice and find that tenant B has moved out and someone else is sharing with tenant A(2 BEDROOM APARTMENT). What then?
        *sigh* and double *sigh*

        Comment


          #5
          Tenants A & B are still your tenants, even if they do not both live there. Occupier C is not a tenant, they will, in effect, be a lodger of tenant A or an excluded occupier. This need not worry you, as if you need to evict A & B then C will automatically be evicted by the bailiffs at the same time.

          Comment


            #6
            Thank you very much.

            Comment


              #7
              even thought tennant b isnt there they both still liable even at end of term!

              Comment


                #8
                This sort of situation wouldn't arise if agents weren't charging so many fees for re-printing the contract with a different name on it

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by thekaver View Post
                  even thought tennant b isnt there they both still liable even at end of term!
                  Yes.

                  Tenant A + B signed a contract. They both signed a contract to rent your property for a fixed term, and cannot get out of that fixed term without the proper proceedures taking place ( many posts on this are here )

                  If tenant B leaves, then tenant A still has to pay the full rent, as sometimes tenant B cannot be found or traced.

                  One thing you can do, is say that tenant A is subletting, which is not allowed. ( He will be subletting so as to be able to pay the rent due of 50% from A and 50% from C. )

                  Insist that tenant C be put on the tenancy, and they both pay for the change of tenancy agreement.

                  Or, as mentioned, leave it as it is, but be careful, as if you accept "C" without a contract, then you may be giving a verbal agreement for "C" to be a tenant.
                  But you still want the FULL details of the sub-tenant "C", but make sure it is known, if everything else fails, that tenant "C" is a lodger and has no rights, as they have not signed any contract with you.

                  Suggestion .........
                  Listen to tenant "A", as am sure he has "C" there to be able to pay the full rent, so tread carfully, but be authoritative on the lodger part, as you need the rent, so be diplomatic / kind. And just tell Tenant A that as he is the only legal tenant, he is responsible for all the rent, but it's your house / flat and you need to know who is there.

                  R.a.M.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I disagree with ram.

                    Tenant A is not sub-letting. To sublet, tenant A needs to have left the property (ie be a non-resident landlord) and let the property to Occupier C - thus giving Occupier C tenancy rights.

                    As it is, Occupier C has minimal tenancy rights.

                    Presuming the initial fixed term is still in force, you can not add Occupier C to the tenancy without the agreement of missing Tenant B (Deed of Assignment).

                    Once the fixed term is over, tenant A is at liberty to terminate the tenancy without tenant Bs co-operation, and with your agreement, could enter into a new tenancy with Occupier C.

                    As has been said already, Tenant A probably has Occupier C their to enable them to afford rent - that is to your advantage.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Snorkerz View Post
                      I disagree with ram..
                      Not a legal answer, just food for thought.

                      If Tenant "A" says to tenant "C", give me money to stay here, then tenant "A" is subletting, is he not ?

                      Only the landlord can ask for money, but if "A" askes for rent money, then "A" becomes a landlord ?

                      Tenant "A" offers the premises to tenant "C". via verbal agreement to use all facilities, pay half the gas, electric, phone and possibly council tax, then has not "C" entered into a verbal contract to pay rent for the joy of living in the premises with "A", thereby becoming a tenant of "C" ?

                      Tenant "A" and evict Tenant "C", but Landlord cannot evict tenant "C", as he has no contract with "C".

                      MANY tenants sublet, AND they live on the premises. I have done it in the past many years ago. You don't have to "not" live on the premises to be guilty of subletting in violation of the "no subletting" clause in the AST.

                      R.a.M.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Correction to post 10

                        error.

                        Please replace
                        "then has not "C" entered into a verbal contract to pay rent for the joy of living in the premises with "A", thereby becoming a tenant of "C" ?

                        With
                        then has not "C" entered into a verbal contract to pay rent for the joy of living in the premises with "A", thereby becoming a tenant of "A" ?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by ram View Post
                          error.

                          Please replace
                          "then has not "C" entered into a verbal contract to pay rent for the joy of living in the premises with "A", thereby becoming a tenant of "C" ?

                          With
                          then has not "C" entered into a verbal contract to pay rent for the joy of living in the premises with "A", thereby becoming a tenant of "A" ?
                          No- if A resides, any 'sub-tenant' of his/hers is only a lodger at most.
                          JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                          1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                          2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                          3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                          4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                          Comment

                          Latest Activity

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X