Ending a Joint Lease.

noodler

Hi there,

If I give the required notice to the agency, can I leave a property at the end of it?

I don't want to be responsible for finding a replacement and just wondering what happens when I say I'll be gone in six weeks... does the agency then turn to the remaining tenant and say you have to decide if you are leaving too / gonna find someone else?

Sorry if the above sounds selfish, just trying to understand.

BrokenArrows

You're not required to find the next tenant.

Give your required notice and leave.

whomitconcerns

BrokenArrows wrote: »

You're not required to find the next tenant.

Give your required notice and leave.

Well that depends on the lease. Did you take a single lease with the other person for the entire apartment and rent?

noodler

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Well that depends on the lease. Did you take a single lease with the other person for the entire apartment and rent?

Both signed.

antoinolachtnai

noodler wrote: »

Both signed.

So do you want to end the joint lease? or not?

noodler

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

So do you want to end the joint lease? or not?

I do, indeed.

antoinolachtnai

noodler wrote: »

I do, indeed.

So both you and your joint tenant are moving out and you will leave the property vacant?

noodler

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

So both you and your joint tenant are moving out and you will leave the property vacant?

No, sorry.

The other tenant will want to stay.

antoinolachtnai

noodler wrote: »

No, sorry.

The other tenant will want to stay.

Then this is for you and the other tenant to sort out between you, on the face of it. In the meantime both you and your joint tenant are responsible for paying the rent in full.

endacl

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Then this is for you and the other tenant to sort out between you, on the face of it. In the meantime both you and your joint tenant are responsible for paying the rent in full.

Jointly and severally, once the lease remains in place. Meaning hypothetically, if you leave, and your housemate stops paying their share of the rent, you're potentially liable for the lot.

noodler

Ok, technically, I'm on the hook of the other housemate can't get a tenant in.

Grand, so even i gave the housemate a reasonable six weeks to find someone, if they can't, it's technically the case I'd still be liable?

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Ok, technically, I'm on the hook of the other housemate can't get a tenant in.

Grand, so even i gave the housemate a reasonable six weeks to find someone, if they can't, it's technically the case I'd still be liable?

It’s not just what’s “reasonable”, it’s whatever the minimum notice period is for the amount of time you have been there.

endacl

Dav010 wrote: »

It’s not just what’s “reasonable”, it’s whatever the minimum notice period is for the amount of time you have been there.

And not 'technically'. Its not a technicality. Its a legality.

And if the landlord agrees to amend the lease to include the new tenant. If not, they'll be a licensee of the leaseholders (you and your housemate) until such time as they attain tenancy rights by default. The LL might not agree to swopping people out. Look at it from their point of view. They have two tenants who have agreed to pay x amount for y months. What's in it for them aside from extra hassle?

noodler

endacl wrote: »

And not 'technically'. Its not a technicality. Its a legality.

And if the landlord agrees to amend the lease to include the new tenant. If not, they'll be a licensee of the leaseholders (you and your housemate) until such time as they attain tenancy rights by default. The LL might not agree to swopping people out. Look at it from their point of view. They have two tenants who have agreed to pay x amount for y months. What's in it for them aside from extra hassle?

Absolutely, I didn't mean to be trite when saying reasonable (6 weeks would actually be the appropriate amount of time if we were ending the lease together) and I only meant technical in the sense that it might not come to that if the other tenant can find someone.

But there seems to be no unilateral way out of this.

Marcusm

If the OP has a lease agreement for a fixed term, does not want to continue it after then end of that fixed term and has given any notice required under the lease, I find it hard to see how any of the other posters suggest that he can have a continuing liability for the rent. Part 4 grants (additional) rights to tenants but does not subject them to greater obligations than are comprised in the lease agreement with the landlord.

whomitconcerns

Marcusm wrote: »

If the OP has a lease agreement for a fixed term, does not want to continue it after then end of that fixed term and has given any notice required under the lease, I find it hard to see how any of the other posters suggest that he can have a continuing liability for the rent. Part 4 grants (additional) rights to tenants but does not subject them to greater obligations than are comprised in the lease agreement with the landlord.

Because the op says the other person wants to stay on, so unless they reassign the lease or terminate and sign a new one, they are still jointly and severally liable for the full rent

noodler

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Because the op says the other person wants to stay on, so unless they reassign the lease or terminate and sign a new one, they are still jointly and severally liable for the full rent

Does this ever get enforced in reality?

Like an agency chasing one tenant for half the rent whilst letting the other tenant stay only paying half?

antoinolachtnai

noodler wrote: »

Does this ever get enforced in reality?

Like an agency chasing one tenant for half the rent whilst letting the other tenant stay only paying half?

The landlord can chase one, other or both tenants. They are all individually liable for the full rent, not just their own portion, if one of the others doesn’t pay.

If the landlord doesn’t get the full rent by a certain point they will give notice to terminate the tenancy.

noodler

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The landlord can chase one, other or both tenants. They are all individually liable for the full rent, not just their own portion, if one of the others doesn’t pay.

If the landlord doesn’t get the full rent by a certain point they will give notice to terminate the tenancy.

Grand, so there is an incentive for the remaining tenant get someone else.

Baby01032012

Marcusm wrote: »

If the OP has a lease agreement for a fixed term, does not want to continue it after then end of that fixed term and has given any notice required under the lease, I find it hard to see how any of the other posters suggest that he can have a continuing liability for the rent. Part 4 grants (additional) rights to tenants but does not subject them to greater obligations than are comprised in the lease agreement with the landlord.

It’s not the OP it’s a joint tenancy, op can not just give notice and walk away. They are legally liable for the rent of the apartment not just their share, until someone suitable is found to replace them that is acceptable to the landlord. Don’t comment if you don’t know the law.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Grand, so there is an incentive for the remaining tenant get someone else.

Will you be looking for your deposit back? That is returned at the end of the tenancy or when you assign your interest in the lease.

noodler

Dav010 wrote: »

Will you be looking for your deposit back? That is returned at the end of the tenancy or when you assign your interest in the lease.

True.

Marcusm

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Because the op says the other person wants to stay on, so unless they reassign the lease or terminate and sign a new one, they are still jointly and severally liable for the full rent

Not if it’s a fixed term lease. The term expires in accordance with its and the obligation ceases. The other housemate might be able to come to terms with the landlord but the OP cannot be bound into a Jew lease or letting arrangement against their will and certainly is not liable for rent under a terminated agreement. Again, the terms of the original lease are critical.

Giblet

If you are out of the fixed term of the lease, and give notice you are leaving to the Landlord, Joint and Several lease technically you are giving notice for everybody. There should be a new lease drawn up for the remaining tenants if they wish to remain.

Marcusm

Baby01032012 wrote: »

It’s not the OP it’s a joint tenancy, op can not just give notice and walk away. They are legally liable for the rent of the apartment not just their share, until someone suitable is found to replace them that is acceptable to the landlord. Don’t comment if you don’t know the law.

Hilarious; I have referred to a fixed term lease agreement. If that is not the case (OP refers to required notice) then the position can be different. However, no person can be bound into a Part 4 tenancy (as you imply) against their will. If any of the tenants purport to terminate the tenancy and give the notice which is required under RTA 2004 (as amended), there is no cause of action which would permit the landlord to recover any future rent from them. Joint and several liability arises in respect of leases rather than Part 4 tenancies which can be terminated at will with the required notice. They are not collective arrangements created under a concept of joint and several liability - if you don’t believe me, find me the provision which creates these impenetrable handcuffs!

noodler

I'm gonna look up the lease again to narrow this down.

Appreciate all posts so far.

Claw Hammer

Marcusm wrote: »

Hilarious; I have referred to a fixed term lease agreement. If that is not the case (OP refers to required notice) then the position can be different. However, no person can be bound into a Part 4 tenancy (as you imply) against their will. If any of the tenants purport to terminate the tenancy and give the notice which is required under RTA 2004 (as amended), there is no cause of action which would permit the landlord to recover any future rent from them. Joint and several liability arises in respect of leases rather than Part 4 tenancies which can be terminated at will with the required notice. They are not collective arrangements created under a concept of joint and several liability - if you don’t believe me, find me the provision which creates these impenetrable handcuffs!

That is the case if all tenants vacate. One tenant cannot go and leave the landlord receiving a reduced rent. Part 4 applies to the entire letting agreement.
https://www.rtb.ie/documents/TR0716-001857/TR0716-001857-DR0316-25093%20Report.pdf

antoinolachtnai

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is the case if all tenants vacate. One tenant cannot go and leave the landlord receiving a reduced rent. Part 4 applies to the entire letting agreement.
https://www.rtb.ie/documents/TR0716-001857/TR0716-001857-DR0316-25093%20Report.pdf

Yep. If you are terminating you have to leave the landlord with vacant possession of the property.

whomitconcerns

Marcusm wrote: »

Not if it’s a fixed term lease. The term expires in accordance with its and the obligation ceases. The other housemate might be able to come to terms with the landlord but the OP cannot be bound into a Jew lease or letting arrangement against their will and certainly is not liable for rent under a terminated agreement. Again, the terms of the original lease are critical.

Well, while technically true, after 6 months they are in a part 4. So the op cannot unilaterally revoke the lease, if he says he’s not renewing it’s the lease not being renewed at all. Both people need to move out and like I said earlier, if the other person wants to stay on they would need a brand new lease in their name only, or to move out on the agreed date.

Marcusm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is the case if all tenants vacate. One tenant cannot go and leave the landlord receiving a reduced rent. Part 4 applies to the entire letting agreement.
https://www.rtb.ie/documents/TR0716-001857/TR0716-001857-DR0316-25093%20Report.pdf

That decision relates to a tenant who stayed not one who left and I don’t think you can simply read it across to mean that one tenant who gives valid notice can be tied into life in a unwritten statutorily imposed tenancy without any exit. I don’t think that’s a reasonable interpretation of the Act and, if it were, it would most likely be unconstitutional as it does not respect the fundamental rights of the tenant who no longer wishes to live there and who has never expressly agreed to be bound by such a term.

The RTA does not deal with it clearly but I cannot see any reasonable interpretation which binds every tenant by the wishes of one who wants to remain. That’s simply unconscionable.

Claw Hammer

Marcusm wrote: »

That decision relates to a tenant who stayed not one who left and I don’t think you can simply read it across to mean that one tenant who gives valid notice can be tied into life in a unwritten statutorily imposed tenancy without any exit. I don’t think that’s a reasonable interpretation of the Act and, if it were, it would most likely be unconstitutional as it does not respect the fundamental rights of the tenant who no longer wishes to live there and who has never expressly agreed to be bound by such a term.

The RTA does not deal with it clearly but I cannot see any reasonable interpretation which binds every tenant by the wishes of one who wants to remain. That’s simply unconscionable.

The RTB found each tenant was liable for the full rent. What goes for one tenant goes for another.

Marcusm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The RTB found each tenant was liable for the full rent. What goes for one tenant goes for another.

In a case where the departing tenant hadn’t even purported to end the tenancy properly so not aligned with the situation at hand. The point I made was not considered by the RTB. The other tenant had simply left.

Claw Hammer

Marcusm wrote: »

In a case where the departing tenant hadn’t even purported to end the tenancy properly so not aligned with the situation at hand. The point I made was not considered by the RTB. The other tenant had simply left.

It makes no difference. The finding was that each tenant was liable for the full rent. There was no defence for the remaining tenant to a demand for the full rent.
Howe the other tenant exited was not relevant.

Marcusm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It makes no difference. The finding was that each tenant was liable for the full rent. There was no defence for the remaining tenant to a demand for the full rent.
Howe the other tenant exited was not relevant.

That’s absolutely fine but those are not the facts here. The facts as stated by the OP are that he wishes to leave the tenancy and give the appropriate notice. In such circumstances, I do not believe that the departing tenant has any continuing obligation. The remaining tenant if he/she wishes to remain will continue to have a full liability.

antoinolachtnai

Marcusm wrote: »

That’s absolutely fine but those are not the facts here. The facts as stated by the OP are that he wishes to leave the tenancy and give the appropriate notice. In such circumstances, I do not believe that the departing tenant has any continuing obligation. The remaining tenant if he/she wishes to remain will continue to have a full liability.

Who does the OP give notice to? And of what? The tenancy isn’t ending.

boomshakalaka

Op needs to check their lease. Are they jointly and severally liable? Then they need to find a replacement or they remain on the hook for it. If it doesn't mention that then they're good to give notice

noodler

boomshakalaka wrote: »

Op needs to check their lease. Are they jointly and severally liable? Then they need to find a replacement or they remain on the hook for it. If it doesn't mention that then they're good to give notice

It does say that.

Tbh, two other occasions in same property, I found the replacement when the other person was moving out so hoping the person staying will be happy to do that.

Claw Hammer

Marcusm wrote: »

That’s absolutely fine but those are not the facts here. The facts as stated by the OP are that he wishes to leave the tenancy and give the appropriate notice. In such circumstances, I do not believe that the departing tenant has any continuing obligation. The remaining tenant if he/she wishes to remain will continue to have a full liability.

The o/p is a joint and several tenant. He can't unlilaterally sever the tenancy. As far as the lease is concerned the tenant is one person, not two. He can't give notice on his own.

noodler

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The o/p is a joint and several tenant. He can't unlilaterally sever the tenancy. As far as the lease is concerned the tenant is one person, not two. He can't give notice on his own.

I guess, if the other tenant doesn't get someone or accept who I get, then the rent won't be paid and the LL will initiate eviction procedures in any case and simply re-let.

(i.e there wouldn't be months of rent arrears being accumulated to be chased on).

Claw Hammer

noodler wrote: »

I guess, if the other tenant doesn't get someone or accept who I get, then the rent won't be paid and the LL will initiate eviction procedures in any case and simply re-let.

(i.e there wouldn't be months of rent arrears being accumulated to be chased on).

You would be better to try and get agreement on another occupant with your current flatmate or else tell him that you are going and he may well be chased for the full rent.

noodler

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You would be better to try and get agreement on another occupant with your current flatmate or else tell him that you are going and he may well be chased for the full rent.

Absolutely, I'm just preparing for a worst case scenario.

Marcusm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The o/p is a joint and several tenant. He can't unlilaterally sever the tenancy. As far as the lease is concerned the tenant is one person, not two. He can't give notice on his own.

Now you are proving that you don’t understand. If he was a joint and several tenant (if such concept existed) then the “several” nature would absolutely mean he could terminate! Part 4 confers additional rights, it does not create an unending tenancy which can only be terminated by the decision of all involved. It would be great to get the legal views but, given that a person cannot be forced to occupy any particular dwelling or have his/her freedom of movement unduly inhibited, I do not think that any reasonable construction of the RTA means that the Part 4 tenancy can be forced to continue without consent. Appropriate provisions to permit notice etc would absolutely be enforceable but the joint tenancy effectively must be capable of being terminated at the decision of either of the joint tenants. If the other tenant wishes to exercise rights to continue occupying the property then he/she must make sure that they can satisfy the obligations (ie pay rent) of the tenancy.

noodler

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You would be better to try and get agreement on another occupant with your current flatmate or else tell him that you are going and he may well be chased for the full rent.

Absolutely, I'm just preparing for a worst case scenario.

Claw Hammer

Marcusm wrote: »

Now you are proving that you don’t understand. If he was a joint and several tenant (if such concept existed) then the “several” nature would absolutely mean he could terminate! Part 4 confers additional rights, it does not create an unending tenancy which can only be terminated by the decision of all involved. It would be great to get the legal views but, given that a person cannot be forced to occupy any particular dwelling or have his/her freedom of movement unduly inhibited, I do not think that any reasonable construction of the RTA means that the Part 4 tenancy can be forced to continue without consent. Appropriate provisions to permit notice etc would absolutely be enforceable but the joint tenancy effectively must be capable of being terminated at the decision of either of the joint tenants. If the other tenant wishes to exercise rights to continue occupying the property then he/she must make sure that they can satisfy the obligations (ie pay rent) of the tenancy.

You are now deny the concept of joint and several tenants? The RTB have decided on this point. Nobody is being forced to live anywhere. What is happening is that a person enters into a contract with joint and several liabilities, there are consequences if they break the contract. Part 4 has nothing to do with breaking tenancies. It is entirely to do with protection of tenants from eviction from termination, other than in defined circumstances.
What you are saying is absurd. It would otherwise mean that the last tenant in a multigroup lease would be left paying the entire. A landlord lets to two or more people. After 6 months any one of them walks out and the landlord has no recourse for the rent or else recourse for the full amount against the continuing tenant. Nonsense, as the RTB have held. The remaining tenant can be pursued for the rent as well as the o/p, until there is a valid termination. The O/p was not forced to enter the lease, he chose to.