Removing fellow tenant?

Valord

Hi all, wondering if anyone could maybe offer some advice on something. Hope this is the right place to post it.

A friend and I have been living together in an apartment for close to 2 years now. We get along pretty well and think we may want to renew our lease together at our current place, which is coming up in summer.

Our apartment is 3-bedroom and in the previous year we had a different person in the third room, but she decided to move out to live with her boyfriend instead. To replace her, in summer 2016 the other housemate brought in a friend of hers from college and he signed his name on the lease.

This turned out to be a pretty bad move. Things started out alright and we were all friendly and got along okay but things just deteriorated to the point where now, neither of us can stand this other guy. He's incredibly obnoxious and inconsiderate and he's gotten worse and worse as time has gone on. I'm not going to rant about the details, but the point is that we absolutely do not want to be living with him once this lease expires.

But as far as we can tell, he's never actually done anything to violate the contract and he pays his rent on time. The worry we have is that if we tell him we don't want him to renew the lease with us, he won't just go, because that's the kind of person he is.

So my question is, do we have any recourse to just force him to leave at that stage? We kind of feel like the combination of the fact that we were in the apartment first and we're in the majority gives us some kind of leverage, as well as the fact that I'm personally the sole person who deals with the landlord, but we don't know that and I know that he's a legal tenant and all tenants do have rights to the place they're renting.

What can we do in this situation?

davindub

He has part 4 rights so he has tenancy rights.

You will need to address it with him on a personal level.

Valord

davindub wrote: »

He has part 4 rights so he has tenancy rights.

You will need to address it with him on a personal level.

That sounds like what I was worried about. So does this mean that if he chooses to stay, our only options will be to stay with him or leave?

Samuel T. Cogley

Valord wrote: »

That sounds like what I was worried about. So does this mean that if he chooses to stay, our only options will be to stay with him or leave?

Yep.

antoinolachtnai

You could all end the lease and have the landlord give a new lease to the two remaining people.

You could ask him to leave now, giving him fair notice. You explain that the arrangement betweeen the three of you has broken down irretrievably as a result of his behaviour (which you should be able to identify specifically) and you want him to leave. Alternatively you could give him a warning

He does have rights in relation to the landlord under the lease but that doesn't entitle him to treat the two of you how he pleases and live how he pleases.

That does not mean the 'divorce' is straightforward. You all have rights. You can't kick him out for no reason but he can't behave unreasonably either.

You really have to sort this out for yourselves. There is no real forum you can bring it to.

pilly

antoinolachtnai wrote:

You really have to sort this out for yourselves. There is no real forum you can bring it to.

I agree, this is something you're going to have to be brave on.

Samuel T. Cogley

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You could all end the lease and have the landlord give a new lease to the two remaining people.

I'm afraid not as the other tenant has Part IV rights.

antoinolachtnai

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm afraid not as the other tenant has Part IV rights.

It would have to be a new tenancy rather than a continuation of the old tenancy.

Samuel T. Cogley

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It would have to be a new tenancy rather than a continuation of the old tenancy.

There's no way to terminate the current Part IV. You don't even get the 6 month probation period at the start of subsequent Part IV's anymore.

antoinolachtnai

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

There's no way to terminate the current Part IV. You don't even get the 6 month probation period at the start of subsequent Part IV's anymore.

If the tenants give notice then it is over really. The three tenants could have a row over this. If that happened I think the relationship between the tenants would have broken down and the tenancy they share would be best brought to an end.

FishOnABike

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If the tenants give notice then it is over really. The three tenants could have a row over this. If that happened I think the relationship between the tenants would have broken down and the tenancy they share would be best brought to an end.

Son effectively two of the tenants can decide to hand their notice of termination to the landlord and look for somewhere else to rent but can do nothing about the third tenant (the problem one) if he decides to stay put. I don't think this is the solution the OP is looking for.

OP and the other long standing tenant will have to address the problems they have with the other tenant's behaviour with him. Point out what he is doing and what he needs to change.

It might worsen the atmosphere but if he is not made aware of his problem behaviour (and possibly things made difficult for him) he is not going to change.

Some people just don't get along - one good reason to have one tenant to a property with others as licencees, it helps deal with situations like this.

antoinolachtnai

No. That is not what I meant. Two of the three tenants can decide that they want the other out. The other can either agree and leave or the tenants can all accept that the tenancy has irretrievably broken down. If they accept that then the tenancy has to end and they should give notice.

Som of the tenants can then enter into a new tenancy, if the landlord is agreeable.

None of this is painless.

Samuel T. Cogley

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

No. That is not what I meant. Two of the three tenants can decide that they want the other out. The other can either agree and leave or the tenants can all accept that the tenancy has irretrievably broken down. If they accept that then the tenancy has to end and they should give notice.

Som of the tenants can then enter into a new tenancy, if the landlord is agreeable.

None of this is painless.

It really isn't clear what your suggesting. However the tenancy can't be ended without mutual agreement from all parties. All tenants have joint and severable (if I'm using that term correctly) Part IV rights.

While there may be an action in equity that the relationship has broken down, I'm not sure solicitors and court is a particularly cost effective option. If the 'problem' tenant digs their heels in they can't be moved out by legal means.

stefanovich

How about telling him to his face?

antoinolachtnai

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It really isn't clear what your suggesting. However the tenancy can't be ended without mutual agreement from all parties. All tenants have joint and severable (if I'm using that term correctly) Part IV rights.

I think you mean the tenants liability is 'joint and several'.

If the tenants can't get on with one another and no one wants to leave then the tenancy has to end. There is no 'law' that says the tenants can do this or must do this but it is really the only workable course of action.

While there may be an action in equity that the relationship has broken down, I'm not sure solicitors and court is a particularly cost effective option. If the 'problem' tenant digs their heels in they can't be moved out by legal means.

There is certainly a real problem for the OP there. The legal system just isn't much good at dealing with personal disputes in a domestic setting. On the other hand it will provide little practical protection to a joint tenant who has made him- or herself unwelcome and who has not been cooperative in resolving the situation.

Samuel T. Cogley

Okay but to be clear there is no mechanism for doing this. The only thing they can do is ask.

davo10

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I think you mean the tenants liability is 'joint and several'.

If the tenants can't get on with one another and no one wants to leave then the tenancy has to end. There is no 'law' that says the tenants can do this or must do this but it is really the only workable course of action.
.

I don't really understand what you mean by "has to end". In practical terms, the op cannot force the other tenant to leave against his will, and the LL cannot evict if he hasn't broken the terms of the tenancy.

There are only two ways this can go, the op asks him to leave and he does, or the the op and friend leave and find somewhere else to live. Either way, someone may have to leave of their own volition, not because they can be forced to.

The_Conductor

davo10 wrote: »

There are only two ways this can go, the op asks him to leave and he does, or the the op and friend leave and find somewhere else to live. Either way, someone may have to leave of their own volition, not because they can be forced to.

This isn't entirely accurate- as the two original tenants still have obligations towards the landlord if they choose to leave, and the tenancy is not specific to one party- all three of them are jointly and severally responsible for the tenancy. So- if Parties 1 and 2 vacated the property- but Party 3 refused to- despite signing up to it- Party 1 and 2 are still responsible for the rent and/or any damage that might occur to the unit.

Its not even that they can reassign the lease- if they cannot guarantee any prospective leaseholder private and peaceful enjoyment of the property.

This is something that the three current leaseholders are going to have to sit down and discuss amongst themselves. By having the new person sign the lease- they are a tenant with the selfsame rights that tenant 1 and 2 have- and tenant 1 and 2 have obligations associated with tenant 3- whether they like it or not.

This is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. One way or the other- all three of the current tenants are going to have to sit down and come up with a common course of action- in agreement with one another- tenant 1 and 2 can't bugger off and do their own thing- however, nor can they rely on the agreement of tenant 3 to whatever their preferred course of action might be.

Realistically- I'd suggest the tenancy be formally ended by all three- with an agreed move-out date- and all three move out. Obviously tenant 1 and 2 would have to come up some manner of procurring a fresh tenancy (either here or elsewhere).

FishOnABike

davo10 wrote: »

I don't really understand what you mean by "has to end". In practical terms, the op cannot force the other tenant to leave against his will, and the LL cannot evict if he hasn't broken the terms of the tenancy.

There are only two ways this can go, the op asks him to leave and he does, or the the op and friend leave and find somewhere else to live. Either way, someone may have to leave of their own volition, not because they can be forced to.

Or they may all have to accept the current, less than ideal situation. With the scarcity of accommodation none of the three tenants may be willing to give up the security of their current part IV tenancy.

Valord

pilly wrote: »

I agree, this is something you're going to have to be brave on.

stefanovich wrote: »

How about telling him to his face?

The_Conductor wrote: »

This is something that the three current leaseholders are going to have to sit down and discuss amongst themselves.

I'm not sure why people seem to think we wouldn't be telling him. The plan was never to somehow completely avoid the discussion until the lease is up and then have him come home from work to find the locks changed with all of his stuff in a pile outside the door. We will be discussing this in the coming weeks, my question was just to try to figure out what the laws are regarding the situation if he takes a certain stance.

We'd estimate about a 50% chance that when we ask him to move out, he will dig his heels in and refuse. Now at least we know that he will have the leverage in this situation and it will be us looking for a new place. It feels unfair from our perspective, but if it's the law then we have to just deal with it.

FishOnABike wrote: »

OP and the other long standing tenant will have to address the problems they have with the other tenant's behaviour with him. Point out what he is doing and what he needs to change.

It might worsen the atmosphere but if he is not made aware of his problem behaviour (and possibly things made difficult for him) he is not going to change.

Some people just don't get along - one good reason to have one tenant to a property with others as licencees, it helps deal with situations like this.

We're a bit beyond just addressing the problems at this point. Discussions have been had and rules made, and ignored. The third tenant has quite a short temper and does not like having these things pointed out to him again, so we just have to live with them for now.

Lesson learned on the lease issue though. I've been living with others for a few years now and never had a problem like this, but I suppose there's a first time for everything, although our landlord did want all residents to sign. If there is only one person who signs, does that mean the other tenants do not have part 4 rights?

The_Conductor wrote: »

This isn't entirely accurate- as the two original tenants still have obligations towards the landlord if they choose to leave, and the tenancy is not specific to one party- all three of them are jointly and severally responsible for the tenancy. So- if Parties 1 and 2 vacated the property- but Party 3 refused to- despite signing up to it- Party 1 and 2 are still responsible for the rent and/or any damage that might occur to the unit.

Its not even that they can reassign the lease- if they cannot guarantee any prospective leaseholder private and peaceful enjoyment of the property.

Just to be clear, we do still intend to fulfill the lease. We're only a few months away from it and can't really afford to lose the deposit either way. The issue is just about renewing this lease when the time comes.

4ensic15

The way the legislation works is that if one or more tenants does not want to renew a lease, the remaining tenants or tenant retain their part iV rights and are entitled to stay on but must pay the full rent. They may be able to sublet or bring in licensees to pay the rent if allowed.

Valord

Sorry for necromancing this thread but I have a followup question regarding the new 4% rent increase cap and it's related to the original discussion, as we have all started discussing this.

Year 1 it was Me, Tenant A and Tenant B who signed the lease.
Year 2 it was Me, Tenant A and Tenant C.

Between year 1 and year 2 there was no rent increase, presumably because of the law stating that rent increases could only occur after 24 months of tenancy and Tenant B leaving and being replaced evidently did not change that as A and I both stayed. I recently contacted the property manager about A and I staying another year again, and she did say the 4% rent increase would apply, which I understand, as landlords are allowed to increase by 4% annually after the initial price freeze.

Now my question is, if A and I both left, and C stayed, then what happens? Would it still be a 4% increase? Would it be frozen completely? Or would they be free to treat it as a new lease and set whatever rent they wanted? I'm hesitant to go to the property manager directly because I don't want them to be aware of any internal arguments here, was just wondering about it because of what position it would put everyone in.

Valord

Valord wrote: »

Sorry for necromancing this thread but I have a followup question regarding the new 4% rent increase cap and it's related to the original discussion, as we have all started discussing this.

Year 1 it was Me, Tenant A and Tenant B who signed the lease.
Year 2 it was Me, Tenant A and Tenant C.

Between year 1 and year 2 there was no rent increase, presumably because of the law stating that rent increases could only occur after 24 months of tenancy and Tenant B leaving and being replaced evidently did not change that as A and I both stayed. I recently contacted the property manager about A and I staying another year again, and she did say the 4% rent increase would apply, which I understand, as landlords are allowed to increase by 4% annually after the initial price freeze.

Now my question is, if A and I both left, and C stayed, then what happens? Would it still be a 4% increase? Would it be frozen completely? Or would they be free to treat it as a new lease and set whatever rent they wanted? I'm hesitant to go to the property manager directly because I don't want them to be aware of any internal arguments here, was just wondering about it because of what position it would put everyone in.

It would still be 4% because the rent control is tied to the property, not the tenancy.

Valord

Deleted User wrote: »

It would still be 4% because the rent control is tied to the property, not the tenancy.

Oh I see. I was under the impression that it was tied to the tenancy and that rentals going newly on the market were able to set whatever starting rates they wanted.

pwurple

Even with a new lease the 4% still applies.

You'd think, you could open it up to the free market, and let the market decide what the rent will be, but no. You have to stick to 4% (and take the rest of the market value under the table). It's the govt setting up a property black market for some unfathomable reason.

Baby01032012

piratequeen is correct..even if ye all left and a new tenancy started it would be 4% based on what ye were paying. Just another point...its a continuing tenancy as there is still tenant C...anyone taking over from you and tenant A will have the same part iv rights as tenant C as it is a continuation of that lease...you dont need to sign new leases every year...you gain part iv rights of tenure once you are there greater than 6 months.

The_Conductor

Valord wrote: »

Oh I see. I was under the impression that it was tied to the tenancy and that rentals going newly on the market were able to set whatever starting rates they wanted.

Nope- its 100% definitely associated with the property- and not the tenant.

spaceHopper

Valord wrote: »

Now my question is, if A and I both left, and C stayed, then what happens? Would it still be a 4% increase? Would it be frozen completely? Or would they be free to treat it as a new lease and set whatever rent they wanted?

If you are leaving then it doesn't affect you why do you care? Are you trying to make trouble for C because you don't get on?

Valord

spaceHopper wrote: »

If you are leaving then it doesn't affect you why do you care? Are you trying to make trouble for C because you don't get on?

Well I don't see how we could make any trouble, we aren't the ones setting the rent. We just wanted to know if, without us staying, could it possibly go up by much, in which case C couldn't stay either. But evidently that is not the case.

Who will be leaving has still not been finalised. It's not like it would be our decision one way or another what the rent would be going forward. It is just very clearly a lot less than it should be right now and it would probably be about 25% higher without the price capping.

Valord

pwurple wrote: »

Even with a new lease the 4% still applies.

You'd think, you could open it up to the free market, and let the market decide what the rent will be, but no. You have to stick to 4% (and take the rest of the market value under the table). It's the govt setting up a property black market for some unfathomable reason.

It does really seem to have hurt supply in the area alright. I have mixed feelings about the rule as it does keep the rates down but it makes finding a new place difficult.