One of two tenants breaking lease halfway through

runswithascript

I have been living with my housemate for the last year, both of our names are on the lease, and we are due to renew shortly.

My housemate has just told me that she may move in with her partner before the lease is up and I am unsure what this will mean, or what my options will be, or if we should renew at all.

My housemate has suggested we mention this to the estate agency we have the lease with, and see what they say, but I fear they will tell us we will have to leave now if we cannot commit to a year. It was also suggested that when my housemate wants to move out I find someone else and sublet, but I think this may not be entirely legal, and also I could be left having to cover any damage etc if caused by a new housemate, or bills - worst case scenario - though I guess this is what a deposit is for.

I want to do the right thing by all concerned, but also to not lose my home.

Can anyone offer advice?

Victor

There is a procedure where your current flatmate can assign her interest in the property to a new person. You and the landlord/agent should have a strong say in the replacement person.

Are at least some bills in the current flatmate's name to prevent them doing a runner?

Estate agent will try to charge fees and/or increase rent. They can't do this if it is a rent protection zone.

runswithascript

Victor wrote: »

There is a procedure where your current flatmate can assign her interest in the property to a new person. You and the landlord/agent should have a strong say in the replacement person.

Okay, so we do not have to mention it before signing? I just thought if we did, everything would be above board, and they would not tell me I have to leave when my housemate does.

Victor wrote: »

Are at least some bills in the current flatmate's name to prevent them doing a runner?

All bills are in my name, I pay the bills from my account, housemate pays rent from their account.

Victor wrote: »

Estate agent will try to charge fees and/or increase rent. They can't do this if it is a rent protection zone.

We are in a rent protection zone.

davindub

Victor wrote: »

There is a procedure where your current flatmate can assign her interest in the property to a new person. You and the landlord/agent should have a strong say in the replacement person.

Are at least some bills in the current flatmate's name to prevent them doing a runner?

Estate agent will try to charge fees and/or increase rent. They can't do this if it is a rent protection zone.

The outgoing tenant does not have an defined interest to assign, the options actually lie with the remaining tenants.

runswithascript

I spoke to Threshold and the PRTB today, and was given different advice from each. I am going to put to the former what the latter told me, and see what they say, waiting on a call back.

Threshold: I am are already protected with rights as there over a year, as the property is kept well, and the rent always paid on time, but sign the lease without mentioning to the estate agent that one tenant may move out anyway, as it gives me extra protection. When my housemate wants to move out, they needs to give the estate agent the appropriate several weeks notice, as cited in the lease for the notification period for termination of tenancy. I then ask the estate agent if they are happy for me to find someone. 80% of the time they are fine with this, the other 20% of the time they will say it is not okay, but I will be entitled under law to move someone else in to pay the rent, once I send notification to the estate agent I have done so - even if they have told me this is not okay.

PRTB: I may end up in a situation where my housemate chooses to sublet - in which case they will get to decide who moves in, and I will not have a say in it. The only way to make sure this does not happen, would be to tell the estate agent up front this may be happening, get it agreed and signed by all of us that I will get to pick the new tenant, and have the several week period to do so. Being up front does not put me at risk of having to move out now.

I really want to make sure I have a say in who I would live with, and do not end up in a situation where my housemate tells me they have found somewhere, they move out in a week, but they have found someone to sublet.

Ashbx

If you do go down the sublet route, could you not talk to your friend about it? Tell her you want to know and approve the person she will be getting to replace her. I don't see why this would be a problem!

Fian

runswithascript wrote: »

I spoke to Threshold and the PRTB today, and was given different advice from each. I am going to put to the former what the latter told me, and see what they say, waiting on a call back.

Threshold: <snip> I then ask the estate agent if they are happy for me to find someone. 80% of the time they are fine with this, the other 20% of the time they will say it is not okay, but I will be entitled under law to move someone else in to pay the rent, once I send notification to the estate agent I have done so - even if they have told me this is not okay.

.

This is not correct. You can't move someone else in without the consent of the landlord - who is entitled to decide who he/she leases their property to. Unless they signed a lease with you that gives you this right - which would be very surprising.

However your friend is entitled to give notice if the landlord refuses to allow her to assign. This means s/he will not be stuck with the whole of the lease.

Nevertheless your friend would be better advised not to sign a new lease if she knows she is going to move out.

If your landlord consents to a new tenant that is fine, and you should probably look to source that tenant yourself to make sure you are happy with them. If not you could find yourself with a choice between paying the rent alone or moving out.

Edit:

By the way neither of you need to sign a new lease - your existing part IV tenancy does not expire with the 12 month lease.

the_syco

runswithascript wrote: »

I spoke to Threshold and the PRTB today, and was given different advice from each. I am going to put to the former what the latter told me, and see what they say, waiting on a call back.

From other threads here, the advice Threshold gives often colours outside the lines of the law.

runswithascript wrote: »

My housemate has just told me that she may move in with her partner before the lease is up and I am unsure what this will mean, or what my options will be, or if we should renew at all.

I read that as; when her partners lease is up, they'll be moving in together.

runswithascript

Just to be clear, my priorities are that I can continue living here if my housemate leaves, and secondly so I get to decide who I will be living with, or at least to propose possible tenants to the estate agent, and that I will have a reasonable time to find the right person. I also want everything to be above board when someone else moves in, and the estate agent and landlord happy.

I need to decide which puts me in the best position for this to occur, either signing the lease without mentioning anything to the estate agent until such time as my housemate wants to move out, or mentioning that it might happen to the estate agent before we sign the new lease, and possibly asking them to draft something where I would get a say in who moves in?

Claw Hammer

davindub wrote: »

The outgoing tenant does not have an defined interest to assign, the options actually lie with the remaining tenants.

It is only the outgoing tenant who can assign their interest in the lease. Anything else is a subletting or a new lease.

Claw Hammer

I don't understand why a lease is being signed at all. The tenancy is Part IV so there is no need to sign a lease other than for the agency to earn a fee. I would stall on signing until the new tenant is ready to move in.

runswithascript

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I don't understand why a lease is being signed at all. The tenancy is Part IV so there is no need to sign a lease other than for the agency to earn a fee. I would stall on signing until the new tenant is ready to move in.

The current tenant has no immediate plans to move out, they said in six months - maybe.

If we stall one signing I would worry this would cause problems some how.

davindub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is only the outgoing tenant who can assign their interest in the lease. Anything else is a subletting or a new lease.

Not to be offensive, but are you using the word "assign" as in the meaning of the act or are you using that term in a cursory manner?

I feel we have been over the nuances of this before. There is nothing to assign, no lease, no exclusive access, etc and the outgoing tenant is still jointly and severally liable on the lease.

Claw Hammer

davindub wrote: »

Not to be offensive, but are you using the word "assign" as in the meaning of the act or are you using that term in a cursory manner?

I feel we have been over the nuances of this before. There is nothing to assign, no lease, no exclusive access, etc and the outgoing tenant is still jointly and severally liable on the lease.

The outgoing tenant has an interest in the lease which is capable of being assigned. The act does not define assign.

davindub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The outgoing tenant has an interest in the lease which is capable of being assigned. The act does not define assign.

No it doesn't, but they do use it as the verb in certain paragraphs, so when you talk about sub-let, sub tenancy, assignment, etc, it would be clearer if they are used in the same context.

Anyway...

1. The act says "No separate Part 4 tenancy to arise in multiple tenant's favour." therefore there is no tenancy to assign. Anyway, partial interest in leases don't exist outside of the RTA, they hardly exist within the context of. Sublets can be done, but I can't imagine a situation where 2 business partners form a partnership, lease a premises and subsequently without any permission from the other partner, someone else is now sharing occupation.

2. the assignment of a Part 4 tenancy with respect to only part of the dwelling, the subject of the tenancy, is prohibited...blanket ban on partial assignments.

Anyway, I suppose you could argue your way, but there is nothing to support the concept of interest in a tenancy beyond an ambiguous phrase used on the RTB website to describe what is assignment.

antoinolachtnai

Just a few notes:

1 you can’t half-break the tenancy. You (the two of you collectively) are either breaking it (and giving up vacant possession to the landlord) or you are not.

2 in practical terms you (singular) need to decide what you want to do when your associate leaves. Do you want to leave too? Or do you want to carry on the tenancy on your own, perhaps bringing in another person who may or may not work out?

3 Once you decide what you want to do, just negotiate with the landlord or agent to get what you want.

4 you cannot impose a new tenant on your co-tenant without that co-tenant’s consent. It is just not a practical thing to do firstly. Secondly, this is really getting involved in the running of the household. The law has only a very limited role to play in the operation of a private household.

5 Tenancy law by and large regulates the relationship between landlord and tenant. It does not have much to do with the relationship between tenants.

KellyXX

If one person on the lease leaves then I believe the remaining party is responsible for 100% of the rent due from then on.
As you will be paying 100% of the rent then it is in your interest to get it sorted out.
Approach the landlord, tell him the situation. I'm pretty sure he will let you sublet to whoever you like as long as he gets his rent paid on time and in full.

TheChizler

KellyXX wrote: »

If one person on the lease leaves then I believe the remaining party is responsible for 100% of the rent due from then on.

Only if they're correctly removed from the lease/tenancy. Otherwise they're jointly and severally responsible meaning they can be responsible for the entire rent even if they don't live there.

Claw Hammer

davindub wrote: »

No it doesn't, but they do use it as the verb in certain paragraphs, so when you talk about sub-let, sub tenancy, assignment, etc, it would be clearer if they are used in the same context.

Anyway...

1. The act says "No separate Part 4 tenancy to arise in multiple tenant's favour." therefore there is no tenancy to assign.

This does not follow. There is an interest in a tenancy which is a different matter to assigning the tenancy itself.

davindub wrote: »

Anyway, partial interest in leases don't exist outside of the RTA,

Utterly wrong. If an apartment is jointly owned, as many are each joint owner has an interest in the lease.

davindub wrote: »

2. the assignment of a Part 4 tenancy with respect to only part of the dwelling, the subject of the tenancy, is prohibited...blanket ban on partial assignments.

Assignment of an interest in a lease is a diferent matter to assigning part of a dwelling.
[/QUOTE]

davindub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

This does not follow. There is an interest in a tenancy which is a different matter to assigning the tenancy itself.

Utterly wrong. If an apartment is jointly owned, as many are each joint owner has an interest in the lease.

Assignment of an interest in a lease is a diferent matter to assigning part of a dwelling.

Again, I think you are using assignment in the wrong context here.

I don't get the reference to jointly owned, the concept of joint tenants and tenants in common are significantly different from the concept of leasing a premises/ residential unit.

Anyway, I suppose we will agree to disagree, unless you have examples of where a court has held that someone can establish an interest in a lease and transfer without permission (please don't use tenancy in common, which does have transferable interests, each party has their defined interest in the property).

Claw Hammer

davindub wrote: »

Again, I think you are using assignment in the wrong context here.

I don't get the reference to jointly owned, the concept of joint tenants and tenants in common are significantly different from the concept of leasing a premises/ residential unit.

Anyway, I suppose we will agree to disagree, unless you have examples of where a court has held that someone can establish an interest in a lease and transfer without permission (please don't use tenancy in common, which does have transferable interests, each party has their defined interest in the property).

A joint tenancy can be converted into a tenancy in common by the unilateral act of one tenant severing the joint tenancy. Numerous houses are held by married couples on long leases such as 999 years. Most apartments hare held on leases of hundreds of years. many by joint owners. Both persons have an interest in one lease. The principles are exactly the same no matter what type of premises are involved.

davindub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A joint tenancy can be converted into a tenancy in common by the unilateral act of one tenant severing the joint tenancy. Numerous houses are held by married couples on long leases such as 999 years. Most apartments hare held on leases of hundreds of years. many by joint owners. Both persons have an interest in one lease. The principles are exactly the same no matter what type of premises are involved.

Done away with in the 2009 reform act.

Claw Hammer

davindub wrote: »

Done away with in the 2009 reform act.

The 2009 Act still allows severance with the consent of the other co-owner. It is clear that an outgoing tenant can arrange the severance of the joint tenancy and assign with the agreement of the continuing tenant.

davindub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The 2009 Act still allows severance with the consent of the other co-owner. It is clear that an outgoing tenant can arrange the severance of the joint tenancy and assign with the agreement of the continuing tenant.

But not unilateral as you stated, which was a equitable remedy applied to registered interests anyway....and you will note from case law where these have been applied.

Anyway, you might note that the 2009 act relates to Conveyancing.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

But not unilateral as you stated, which was a equitable remedy applied to registered interests anyway....and you will note from case law where these have been applied.

Anyway, you might note that the 2009 act relates to Conveyancing.

The 2009 Act is the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act. A lease is an interest in land.

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

The 2009 Act is the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act. A lease is an interest in land.

Is it?

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Is it?

Yes.

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

Yes.

All those poor unfortunate leasors providing equipment will now have to package land with the lease?

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

All those poor unfortunate leasors providing equipment will now have to package land with the lease?

This is gibberish. What does it mean?