Rent increases when someone moves out

Curious1002 wrote: »

I did, in fact. Threshold provided me with absolutely the best advice I could get, won my case thanks to them.
There are plenty of uninformed or misinformed tenants here and lots of landlords who provide totally wrong and self serving advice to her so her best option is to contact Threshold and talk to them, not here. I guarantee they will tell her she does NOT need to pay extra. There is absolutely no chance she is liable to pay the increased rent. Period. No matter how aggravated all the landlords in here are - you do NOT pay the extra rent whatever the owner says you should do. It's his job to fill the room or to go after the initial 3 tenants who rented the place first. With no lease he can cry me a river. Wait for him to open the RTB dispute against you and people there will laugh at his face.
<MOD SNIP>

It is entirely likely that if it is a shared tenancy, each tenant is joint and severely liable for the rent. Until the op confirms the terms of the lease, you have no way of arriving at a definitive conclusion that the tenants are not liable for the rent.

What we do seem to sure if is that the op did not rent on a room only basis directly from the landlord. If the LL does not receive full rent from the remaining tenants, a notice of arrears may be issued, followed when the restriction is lifted, by eviction.

I do agree with you that threshold may tell the op not to pay, they have been known to give advice contrary to tenancy legislation and to overhold.

Incidentally, you might want to consider the implications of saying it is the landlords job to find someone to replace a departing tenant in a shared tenancy, would the op really want to leave that decision solely in the LLs hands? I wouldn’t.

You don't have to sign a lease for one to exist. There is an 'implied lease' which provides all of the protections of an actual, physical lease, under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). It is to stop unscrupulous landlords from not providing leases as a means to bypass the Act.

However, that might mean SFA to you, depending on the living arrangements. If you were paying the head tenant, who in turn was paying the landlord, then you are not covered by the provisions of the RTA. You are a licencee, and have the same rights as someone who's sleeping on the sofa after a house party.

You and the other housemate have, essentially, been fcuked over by the one who left. They should have found someone to take over their portion or regularised the situation with the rent.

I'd tread carefully. The best solution, in the medium to long term, is to get the other room rented ASAP (covering the rent between yourselves until then) and request a lease. I'd request a separate lease for your room plus equal share of the common areas, if you want some sort of security.

The landlord may refuse, as is their right. They may jack up the rent, based on where the property is and how long ago they last increased it. They could, legally, throw all your sh1t out into the front lawn and change the locks, if the lease was with the old head tenant and you and the other one are licencees.

The other option is to have one lease and you all sign it. But if this happens again, and your other housemate fecks off without saying anything, you're now responsible for the whole rent. It's much less hassle for the landlord to go this route, but it carries significant risk as well, so be prepared to stand up for yourself. You would all be joint and severally liable for the rent, not to mention any other damage that could be inflicted, so it's in your best interests to look out for numero uno.

Bottom line: Get the landlord's number, sit down and have a chat with them and see what they have to say. Get a lease sorted ASAP. Get the other room rented out even quicker than ASAP.