Who pays the rent?
June 18, 2006 9:03 AM Subscribe
3 people sharing a flat: How are contracts to 3 separate people enforced? (UK)
We're renting a flat through an agent and trying to work out:
a) If one of us sends written notice that they wish to leave, can the agents insist that only written notice from all of us is good enough?
b) If that person is let out of the contract, whether the rest of us are liable for more than our original 1/3?
c) If one person refuses to pay, the rest of us are liable for more than our original 1/3?
Our contract only mentions the total monthly rent amount, not our individual responsibilities. The relevant clauses in the contract are:
"As joint and several tenants to be responsible for all obligations under this agreement"
"To pay the rent, whether formally demanded or not, and all other sums..."
"The tenants have the right to determine their term by giving at least 2 months written notice..."
I guess I'm asking how 3 legally separate individuals can be bound by one contract. How can that possibly work?
We're renting a flat through an agent and trying to work out:
a) If one of us sends written notice that they wish to leave, can the agents insist that only written notice from all of us is good enough?
b) If that person is let out of the contract, whether the rest of us are liable for more than our original 1/3?
c) If one person refuses to pay, the rest of us are liable for more than our original 1/3?
Our contract only mentions the total monthly rent amount, not our individual responsibilities. The relevant clauses in the contract are:
"As joint and several tenants to be responsible for all obligations under this agreement"
"To pay the rent, whether formally demanded or not, and all other sums..."
"The tenants have the right to determine their term by giving at least 2 months written notice..."
I guess I'm asking how 3 legally separate individuals can be bound by one contract. How can that possibly work?
Since the contract has the three of you listed as joint and several, you are not legally separate under the contract.
posted by sanko at 9:39 AM on June 18, 2006
posted by sanko at 9:39 AM on June 18, 2006
I am not a lawyer nor do I live in the UK, but rental contracts I've signed with roommates were of two types:
1) Each of us had a separate contract with the landlord. If one person moved out, the landlord could --and would-- put another tenant into the apartment. This was in a college town environment and the apartments were off-campus alternatives to dormitories.
2) the more common contract has each renter on the lease and together they are responsible for the entire rent. It doesn't matter to the landlord is they are each paying a third or someone is paying for all. As long as the entire rent amount was paid he'd be happy.
If the rent -- in whole or in part -- was not paid, the landlord could seek the rent from the remaining tenants. If my two roommates left town without paying the rent, I would be held liable for the whole rent amount.
In your case you appear to be in a similar position as my second case. You may be three legally separate individuals but you joined together to rent the flat. It sounds like the language you've quoted means you will be liable for the rent amount with or without your roommate.
If that person is "let out of the contract" that would mean that he would no longer be liable for the rent on the place. The full rent for the flat would still be due whether there were 3 of you living there or 1.
By having multiple people on the contract, the landlord knows that if the rent does not get paid he can legally get the money from any one of the three tenants.
Now, your landlord may determine without the Roommate, the remaining roommates will not be able to make the entire rent payment each month and may use that as grounds to terminate your contract or ask you to find another guarantee of creditworthiness [either another roommate, or a cosigner].
I guess what I am saying is you do not have individual rights in your lease unless each tenant has signed an individual lease with the landlord.
posted by birdherder at 9:49 AM on June 18, 2006
1) Each of us had a separate contract with the landlord. If one person moved out, the landlord could --and would-- put another tenant into the apartment. This was in a college town environment and the apartments were off-campus alternatives to dormitories.
2) the more common contract has each renter on the lease and together they are responsible for the entire rent. It doesn't matter to the landlord is they are each paying a third or someone is paying for all. As long as the entire rent amount was paid he'd be happy.
If the rent -- in whole or in part -- was not paid, the landlord could seek the rent from the remaining tenants. If my two roommates left town without paying the rent, I would be held liable for the whole rent amount.
In your case you appear to be in a similar position as my second case. You may be three legally separate individuals but you joined together to rent the flat. It sounds like the language you've quoted means you will be liable for the rent amount with or without your roommate.
If that person is "let out of the contract" that would mean that he would no longer be liable for the rent on the place. The full rent for the flat would still be due whether there were 3 of you living there or 1.
By having multiple people on the contract, the landlord knows that if the rent does not get paid he can legally get the money from any one of the three tenants.
Now, your landlord may determine without the Roommate, the remaining roommates will not be able to make the entire rent payment each month and may use that as grounds to terminate your contract or ask you to find another guarantee of creditworthiness [either another roommate, or a cosigner].
I guess what I am saying is you do not have individual rights in your lease unless each tenant has signed an individual lease with the landlord.
posted by birdherder at 9:49 AM on June 18, 2006
Response by poster: One person wrote to the agency giving them notice that they wished to leave. The agents are saying this is invalid and the only only thing they'd accept is notice from all of us that we all wish to leave.
Since the contract has the three of you listed as joint and several, you are not legally separate under the contract.
Can one person unilaterally release themselves from this? The contract I signed had all three of our names on. Surely it becomes invalid?
posted by cillit bang at 9:58 AM on June 18, 2006
Since the contract has the three of you listed as joint and several, you are not legally separate under the contract.
Can one person unilaterally release themselves from this? The contract I signed had all three of our names on. Surely it becomes invalid?
posted by cillit bang at 9:58 AM on June 18, 2006
Simply saying 'I don't want to comply with my obligations under this contract any more' (which is effectively what your flatmate is doing) doesn't invalidate a contract.
Forgetting the legalise for a minute (it's unlikely to go to court!), seems to me like you have two options:
You either get a new housemate and the lease stays the same, without telling the landlord - the new person pays out the bond for the person leaving so everyone's square. It's standard houseshare etiquette that the old person is responsible for the rent until the new person moves in.
Or you get the landlord to agree a variation to the contract for the new person. In this case you may be charged a fee as the landlord will need to change the contract, check references for the new person and pay out the bond for the person leaving. This will relieve the person leaving from their obligations under the contract and is the proper (though more expensive) way of doing things. Again, houseshare etiquette says that the person moving out should pay the admin fee for varying the contract - that's the price for buying out of the contract that they signed up to.
posted by bella.bellona at 10:12 AM on June 18, 2006
Forgetting the legalise for a minute (it's unlikely to go to court!), seems to me like you have two options:
You either get a new housemate and the lease stays the same, without telling the landlord - the new person pays out the bond for the person leaving so everyone's square. It's standard houseshare etiquette that the old person is responsible for the rent until the new person moves in.
Or you get the landlord to agree a variation to the contract for the new person. In this case you may be charged a fee as the landlord will need to change the contract, check references for the new person and pay out the bond for the person leaving. This will relieve the person leaving from their obligations under the contract and is the proper (though more expensive) way of doing things. Again, houseshare etiquette says that the person moving out should pay the admin fee for varying the contract - that's the price for buying out of the contract that they signed up to.
posted by bella.bellona at 10:12 AM on June 18, 2006
Response by poster: I should add that the other person wishes to leave at the end of June and the whole contract ends a month later anyway, so the only dispute is who pays rent for July. Getting a new tenant isn't really an option.
I'm hoping that either:
a) My flatmate's notice is accepted as applying to all of us (ie determining the "term" of the contract). We all leave and everyone's happy.
b) My flatmate's notice is ignored. His portion of the rent gets taken from his deposit money. He's not happy, but I get to stay on paying normal rent.
Is there a 3rd option where he gets his deposit back and I have to pay the whole lot?
posted by cillit bang at 10:22 AM on June 18, 2006
I'm hoping that either:
a) My flatmate's notice is accepted as applying to all of us (ie determining the "term" of the contract). We all leave and everyone's happy.
b) My flatmate's notice is ignored. His portion of the rent gets taken from his deposit money. He's not happy, but I get to stay on paying normal rent.
Is there a 3rd option where he gets his deposit back and I have to pay the whole lot?
posted by cillit bang at 10:22 AM on June 18, 2006
Best answer: The deposit would be returned after you all move out at the end of July - that works like the rent in that the agent considers it as one lump rather than three.
You and your remaining flatmate have to pay all the rent for the remaining month if the other flatmate moves out. Sounds like your agent is thinking you all want to move out - in which case yes, you would need signatures from all three of you. You might wish to find some way to reassure the agent that the rent will all be paid somehow.
posted by altolinguistic at 10:27 AM on June 18, 2006
You and your remaining flatmate have to pay all the rent for the remaining month if the other flatmate moves out. Sounds like your agent is thinking you all want to move out - in which case yes, you would need signatures from all three of you. You might wish to find some way to reassure the agent that the rent will all be paid somehow.
posted by altolinguistic at 10:27 AM on June 18, 2006
Response by poster: Thanks for your help everyone. Can I get specific answers to these two questions:
- Is it my flatmate's right to pull out of the contract unilaterally, even though there's no provision for doing so? He seems to think so.
- If he does have a right (or more importantly, the agent decides he has a right), does that mean the contract collapses?
posted by cillit bang at 10:58 AM on June 18, 2006
- Is it my flatmate's right to pull out of the contract unilaterally, even though there's no provision for doing so? He seems to think so.
- If he does have a right (or more importantly, the agent decides he has a right), does that mean the contract collapses?
posted by cillit bang at 10:58 AM on June 18, 2006
your first point - theoretically yes, though in practice you all three went into this together so it's bloody rude unless he can find a replacement.
your second point - no, the other two become liable. That's what joint tenancies are about.
posted by altolinguistic at 11:14 AM on June 18, 2006
your second point - no, the other two become liable. That's what joint tenancies are about.
posted by altolinguistic at 11:14 AM on June 18, 2006
Best answer: He doesn't have the right to pull out of the contract unilaterally, no. IANAL, and IANARUK (I am not a resident of the UK), but, as I understand it, here as long as his name was on the lease, he would not only be responsible for 1/3 of the rent, but, in fact, all of it (as all you are responsible for your share, and for ensuring the whole amount is paid). The agent couldn't let him out of the lease without having the other two tenants resign the amended lease.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:20 AM on June 18, 2006
posted by jacquilynne at 11:20 AM on June 18, 2006
He can't pull out of the contract unilaterally. The contract terminates only under the conditions stated in the contract - end of lease or with 2 months' notice.
Which means he is still under contract and hence liable for the rent.
Which means if he doesn't pay the last month's rent, he's still liable (well, you're all still liable). Most sensible thing to do would be to take it out of his bond - speak to the landlord, see if they're willing to do that (accept 2/3 rent for the last month and then only give 2/3 bond back to you and other remaining flatmate. But don't go on about the personal situation - landlords don't care, they just want the easy way out - and this gives them an easy way of getting their money without the hassle of going legal on you.
posted by bella.bellona at 11:49 AM on June 18, 2006
Which means he is still under contract and hence liable for the rent.
Which means if he doesn't pay the last month's rent, he's still liable (well, you're all still liable). Most sensible thing to do would be to take it out of his bond - speak to the landlord, see if they're willing to do that (accept 2/3 rent for the last month and then only give 2/3 bond back to you and other remaining flatmate. But don't go on about the personal situation - landlords don't care, they just want the easy way out - and this gives them an easy way of getting their money without the hassle of going legal on you.
posted by bella.bellona at 11:49 AM on June 18, 2006
I highly recommend the newsgroup uk.legal.moderated for your UK legal questions.
posted by grouse at 1:36 PM on June 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by grouse at 1:36 PM on June 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
- Is it my flatmate's right to pull out of the contract unilaterally, even though there's no provision for doing so? He seems to think so.
Not really. He doesn't have to live there but he still owes someone money assuming he signed a lease through next month. Whether it's the landlord or it's you he'll end up paying is another question. If the landlord holds you accountable for the missing 1/3 (which he can and probably will if the guy leaves town), you and your remaining roommate will almost certainly be within your rights to recoup that money from the bum roommate (check with your local laws, IANAL, I have no clue how small claims are handled in the UK).
- If he does have a right (or more importantly, the agent decides he has a right), does that mean the contract collapses?
The contract does not collapse. Someone (or all of you) will still owe the landlord money. This is exatly why the "joint and severably" language is there. It's meant to protect the landlord when one of the tenants is a flake. The landlord can get all the money from whoever he finds it easiest to get it from. See above.
posted by jaysus chris at 2:02 PM on June 18, 2006
Not really. He doesn't have to live there but he still owes someone money assuming he signed a lease through next month. Whether it's the landlord or it's you he'll end up paying is another question. If the landlord holds you accountable for the missing 1/3 (which he can and probably will if the guy leaves town), you and your remaining roommate will almost certainly be within your rights to recoup that money from the bum roommate (check with your local laws, IANAL, I have no clue how small claims are handled in the UK).
- If he does have a right (or more importantly, the agent decides he has a right), does that mean the contract collapses?
The contract does not collapse. Someone (or all of you) will still owe the landlord money. This is exatly why the "joint and severably" language is there. It's meant to protect the landlord when one of the tenants is a flake. The landlord can get all the money from whoever he finds it easiest to get it from. See above.
posted by jaysus chris at 2:02 PM on June 18, 2006
Response by poster: Not really. He doesn't have to live there but he still owes someone money assuming he signed a lease through next month. Whether it's the landlord or it's you he'll end up paying is another question.
Maybe I don't mean unilateral. Can he make an agreement with the landlord that he's out of contract and no longer liable, without involving the other tenants?
He thinks that it's surely illegal that our contract appears to require him to get my permission before he can leave. I'm wondering what happens if he convinces them of this.
posted by cillit bang at 3:10 PM on June 18, 2006
Maybe I don't mean unilateral. Can he make an agreement with the landlord that he's out of contract and no longer liable, without involving the other tenants?
He thinks that it's surely illegal that our contract appears to require him to get my permission before he can leave. I'm wondering what happens if he convinces them of this.
posted by cillit bang at 3:10 PM on June 18, 2006
Best answer: Can he make an agreement with the landlord that he's out of contract and no longer liable, without involving the other tenants?
He can't make an agreement with the landlord without your consent that changes your contract with the landlord or his contract with you.
He thinks that it's surely illegal that our contract appears to require him to get my permission before he can leave.
It doesn't. He can leave whenever he feels like it. He'll still have to pay you rent whether he's living there or not though. That's what your contract requires.
posted by grouse at 4:12 PM on June 18, 2006
He can't make an agreement with the landlord without your consent that changes your contract with the landlord or his contract with you.
He thinks that it's surely illegal that our contract appears to require him to get my permission before he can leave.
It doesn't. He can leave whenever he feels like it. He'll still have to pay you rent whether he's living there or not though. That's what your contract requires.
posted by grouse at 4:12 PM on June 18, 2006
It's everyone's responsibility to see that the landlord gets the full amount of rent.
It's individually your responsibility to pay your share of the rent.
Your roommate could give 2 months notice that he wishes to terminate the rental agreement, He is still liable for those 2 months after he gives the notice. This notice would break the entire contract, and you and your remaining roommate would have to get out or sign another contract for however long you wish to be there.
So Yes, if one person wishes to leave, he gives his two months notice, and at the end of those two months, the contract is finished. He cannot be held to a contract that he has met all obligations to fullfill. He does have to give his two months notice, and he does have to pay for those two months. It is your landlord's choice on whether or not to let you two sign a short-term contract (probably won't).
For the future, look up "roommate contracts" online, and find one that has wording in it that you are comfortable with.
posted by hatsix at 10:16 PM on June 18, 2006
It's individually your responsibility to pay your share of the rent.
Your roommate could give 2 months notice that he wishes to terminate the rental agreement, He is still liable for those 2 months after he gives the notice. This notice would break the entire contract, and you and your remaining roommate would have to get out or sign another contract for however long you wish to be there.
So Yes, if one person wishes to leave, he gives his two months notice, and at the end of those two months, the contract is finished. He cannot be held to a contract that he has met all obligations to fullfill. He does have to give his two months notice, and he does have to pay for those two months. It is your landlord's choice on whether or not to let you two sign a short-term contract (probably won't).
For the future, look up "roommate contracts" online, and find one that has wording in it that you are comfortable with.
posted by hatsix at 10:16 PM on June 18, 2006
hatsix: where does the 2 months figure come from? Any legal basis of are you just suggesting a form of reasonable behaviour?
While IANAL, the question of whether your landlord lets your housemate out of your contract is moot I would say, if he still expects the full amount of the money then you will likely still be in a position to pursue the defaulting housemate for the cash which you will still be liable to pay as a result of the joint and several clause within your contract. The answer you need is likely to be about the ease with which you could get this money and any legal difficulty connected to it. It's time for your visit (in real life, not just the website) to the Citizen's Advice people, housing law is one of their most popular topics!
posted by biffa at 3:57 AM on June 19, 2006
While IANAL, the question of whether your landlord lets your housemate out of your contract is moot I would say, if he still expects the full amount of the money then you will likely still be in a position to pursue the defaulting housemate for the cash which you will still be liable to pay as a result of the joint and several clause within your contract. The answer you need is likely to be about the ease with which you could get this money and any legal difficulty connected to it. It's time for your visit (in real life, not just the website) to the Citizen's Advice people, housing law is one of their most popular topics!
posted by biffa at 3:57 AM on June 19, 2006
Also, if he just decides to up and leave, the landlord will continue to charge you full rent and there's probably nothing you can do about it short of taking your ex-flatmate to court. I say 'probably' because I'm not familiar with how this works in the UK, but I'd be very surprised if this wasn't the case.
When joint and several liability goes wrong, it's always the most responsible party (the one who cares about their credit rating or who doesn't want their name on a tenant database) who ends up paying. That's why landlords love it. Of course, if I was a landlord I would do it too.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 3:58 AM on June 19, 2006
When joint and several liability goes wrong, it's always the most responsible party (the one who cares about their credit rating or who doesn't want their name on a tenant database) who ends up paying. That's why landlords love it. Of course, if I was a landlord I would do it too.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 3:58 AM on June 19, 2006
That comes from the original post:
"The tenants have the right to determine their term by giving at least 2 months written notice..."posted by hatsix at 11:03 AM on June 23, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
I don't really understand your a) - if one person wishes to leave and they send notice to the agent, all that's really saying is that they should not be held liable for the rent any more, and that the remaining tenants should be applied to for monthly costs. If you (meaning 'all three of you') wish to terminate the tenancy, you collectively have to give two months' notice and all move out at the same time.
In the past I've found this an OK arrangement, we had one problem with a housemate who wanted to move out but we agreed that she should find a replacement before she did so, in order that the rest of us not be shafted for her share of the rent, and finding a replacement tenant was very easy.
Good luck!
posted by altolinguistic at 9:36 AM on June 18, 2006