Joint Tenants - 1 leaves...1 stays but doesn't sign new AST.

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

    #16
    However, it was shown clearly that any notice served by a tenant during the fixed term is not valid.
    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 jpkeates View Post
      However, it was shown clearly that any notice served by a tenant during the fixed term is not valid.
      Unfortunately it was not; it was just asserted over and over that this was the case and most people agree (just as before Superstrike, most people believed that it was not necessary to do tenancy deposit stuff when a tenancy became statutory periodic).

      As I stated above, it is clear from statute and case law that valid notice cannot be given during the fixed term of a tenancy to end the tenancy before the end of the fixed term and it is not possible to serve valid notice during the fixed term to end a follow-on statutory periodic tenancy.

      What has not been provided is evidence in the form of statute or case law that it is not possible to serve valid notice during the fixed term to end the agreement at the end of the fixed term.

      I do not intend arguing the point further here, but if you have evidence in the form of statute or case law that supports your position, then please start a new thread so that it can be properly analysed and discussed without taking over this or any other thread.

      Comment


        #18
        Mdeb I don't think it's right that this debate should continue on every post.

        I respect you have advised OP to consult a solicitor but I think you should make it clear in your continued posts on this matter that it is simply your own interpretation and opinion.

        As others have suggested there is nothing in law for the advice you give, where there is clear law that the tenants are joint and several and cannot serve notice until AFTER the tenancy has expired.

        Comment


          #19
          http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/5

          I think this act covers what you are looking for. Section 5 (5) Confirms notice has no affect during AST and cannot prevent a periodic tenancy occurring.

          It follows on that the tenancy can end on expiry when the "tenant" shows intention to leave. You are not getting the concept that "tenant" includes all parties.

          The tenancy does not end without agreement from both tenants as they are joint and several.

          There is no point in a tenant serving notice to leave on the last day of tenancy as they are not required to do so. Infact the above act states it would have no affect as it would be issued during the period of AST.

          Therefore whether a single or joint tenant providing notice it would have no affect. The only way the tenancy would end for both Is if they both left and provided vacant possession on the day the AST expires.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Wright76 View Post
            http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/5

            I think this act covers what you are looking for. Section 5 (5) Confirms notice has no affect during AST and cannot prevent a periodic tenancy occurring.
            Set up a new thread and I will be happy to explain why I believe you are wrong.

            Comment


              #21
              You've stated reasons why you think we are wrong but you also asked for the relevant law in why you were, and there it is in black and white.

              The only part of your argument is based on the judges comment the rest is based on your misinterpretation of what a tenant is and it has been pointed out to you many times.

              I have no intention of opening another thread or arguing further. Your entitled to give advice as you deem fit but you should point out that it is your opinion and interpretation else every post regarding joint tenants is going to end in a debate and confusion for the Op.

              Comment


                #22
                OK. You have baited me.

                Your reference is to actions taken before a tenancy arises, not whilst a tenancy is in place.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Wright76 View Post
                  Mdeb I don't think it's right that this debate should continue on every post.
                  I agree.

                  Originally posted by Wright76 View Post
                  I respect you have advised OP to consult a solicitor but I think you should make it clear in your continued posts on this matter that it is simply your own interpretation and opinion.
                  I am not claiming that I am right.

                  I am claiming that there appears to be a legal argument that my interpretation of S5(2) of the Housing Act 1988 is the correct reading of the Act and that it takes agreement by the tenant (i.e. all of the named individuals) to bring a statutory periodic tenancy into being, .
                  I am happy to be shown to be wrong in my interpretation (which is based on the wording of the Act and logic), but that needs to be by the wording of the Act, legal precedents, and logical reasoning.

                  Only a judge can determine if your reading of the Act or my reading is correct.
                  Therefore there remains the possibility that one individual in a joint tenancy can prevent a statutory periodic tenancy from coming into being.

                  Given that possibility, it is prudent for a landlord to take action to protect himself as far as possible should the remaining party to the agreement go to court (or indeed the landlord going to court with a S21 on the basis that it is statutory periodic) claiming that they have a 6-month tenancy because the landlord accepted rent after the previous tenancy was correctly ended and the judge agreeing. It seems likely to me that such a tenancy would have no written agreement, putting the landlord in a very bad place.

                  Hence my suggestion that the landlord does not accept rent from any remaining party.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    You are totally misunderstanding that as a joint tenant they are the same person. One cannot agree without the other.

                    One cannot serve notice without the other and end security of tenure for the remaining party.

                    The agreement to take it to a periodic tenancy is made by either or both tenants remaining in occupation. One tenant acts for both and therefore if they BOTH don't depart it becomes periodic.

                    Section 5 2(b) that you refer to states a surrender or other action on part of the TENANT.

                    It doesn't state by one part of the tenant because they are joint and several.

                    I don't think it can be any clearer. And whilst I don't disagree that your logic would not be a fairer system, it doesn't appear in law.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Wright76 View Post
                      You are totally misunderstanding that as a joint tenant they are the same person. One cannot agree without the other.
                      Indeed this is so so so tiresome. One cannot give notice if one does not exist at all in law as party to the contract. ..... any more than I could give notice to end the tenancy of my troublesome neighbour upstairs. Could the parties to this cyclical discussion please shut up.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        My lips are now sealed Andrew!

                        Comment

                        Latest Activity

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X