Agent issued 2 sets of keys for same room

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

    #16
    Originally posted by sc52 View Post
    Assured shorthold for a shared house.
    Rooms not specified, determined on a first come basis.
    If there are two bedrooms and one is materially better than the other, one tenant is always going to feel worse off, unless the rent is split unevenly.
    Working on a first come first served basis is just going to cause issues.
    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
      In principle, I would think that it does make a difference because if the rooms are let on an individual basis then once a tenant has taken possession of a room then no-one can in effect evict him as happened here.
      It any individual agreement is a licence then the room need not be specified. If any individual agreement is a tenancy agreement then the room must be allocated.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
        It any individual agreement is a licence then the room need not be specified. If any individual agreement is a tenancy agreement then the room must be allocated.
        Even if the agreement is a licence, I would think that once a person has picked a room then a licence is created for that room, in which case a second person coming afterwards will not create a licence for the same room and that second person will have no right to occupy the room.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
          Financial loss does not always come into it. If you send away for a blue jumper and they send you a green hat of the same value they cannot argue you have suffered no loss. If you book a room with a sea view and are given one with a mountain view are you to have no redress if the room price is the same for both? If someone bangs you on the head and you suffer pain but no loss of income you are entitled to compensation.
          Fair enough!

          It is not entirely clear here whether there is a single or multiple letting, but I do not think it makes any difference if the deal was that rooms were allocated on a first come first served basis
          .

          It does make a difference, surely, since with a multiple letting on a joint AST, the keys should be released to The Tenant (single entity) who can in practice be one of the Ts or all of them in a bunch. Then the joint Ts must decide between them which bedroom each of them sleeps in; it is nothing to do with the LL. Usually, and especially with students, they all know each other anyway and they know well before the tenancy starts whose bedroom will be which. If there is a very small bedroom, they either draw lots, or someone volunteers to have that one in exchange for not having to clean the toilet ever, or whatever. But in a joint AST the LL/agent cannot say 'First come first served as far as keys to rooms go', as all the Ts will have access to all the property.
          'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
            But in a joint AST the LL/agent cannot say 'First come first served as far as keys to rooms go', as all the Ts will have access to all the property.
            But if there is an agreement between landlord and tenants which says that the agent will allocate the rooms then that is an agreement binding the tenants between themselves. Whilst it is of course true that on a joint tenancy each tenant is entitled to occupy the whole, that needs to be interpreted as the tenants together are entitled to occupy the whole, otherwise you would have the absurd position where each tenant could insist at any moment on occupying the same space. A joint tenancy is not undermined simply because the tenants agree that one will have the use of one room and the other another.

            Comment


              #21
              But the issue here is that the tenants haven't agreed who should have which room.
              They've both elected to have the same room (prompted by the agent who gave both of them the bigger room believing them both to be "first").

              The agent needs to point out the the current occupant that they were actually second and therefore didn't pass the first come first served test.
              Bet they won't.
              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                But the issue here is that the tenants haven't agreed who should have which room.
                We do not know precisely what was agreed, but if the letting was on the basis that rooms would be allocated by the agent then that binds the tenants - though they are of course free to agree a different arrangement later.

                Comment


                  #23
                  If Agent was able to allocate rooms, why did mother drive 200 miles to 'bag' the 1st (best) room?
                  Also mother is not a tenant to whom rooms are available, LA was wrong to hand over any keys, if not accompanied by son (tenant).
                  The other tenants could complain to LA about his cavalier attitude with duplicate keys. If son wanted the best room, he should have accompanied his mother and occupied that day IMO.

                  In any house share, the first tenant present will take the 'best' room, esp if all are equally priced.
                  If I were the son I would be embarrassed if other tenants felt I had orchestrated this attempt at a room grab by my mother.

                  I would suggest 'natural justice' prevailed if son ended up with least desirable room, and certainly would not take it out on fellow tenants.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    The son is entitled to appoint an agent to collect keys. The fact is that the agent handed the keys to the parent.

                    The agreement was that the agent would allocate keys on a first come first served basis.

                    Comment

                    Latest Activity

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X