Landlord now wanting to stay in residence too!

[T4NKG1RL]

Hi All,

 

On behalf of son who is a Uni student - he signed up to a fixed term tenancy agreement with a fellow student (5th Sept 2011 - 31st May 2012) for a 4 bed house which landlord, who was owner in residence there, had decided to vacate and make a student let.

 

All signed & sealed on 24th May 2011. Landlord seemed ok and is an acquaintance of the other tenant-to-be. Landlord did not want a deposit and has set a reasonable rent of £160 pp pcm for this 4 bed house. Landlord liable for any council tax outstanding and water charges for duration of tenancy.

Tenants liable for gas, electric, internet, tv, phone etc

 

He had apparently later mentioned to the other student tenant (after signing tenancy agreement) that if they had no luck in finding a further 2 students he would find 2 other student tenants. (Their tenancy agreement makes no mention of a further 2 student tenants and clearly states their rent & terms for those 2 tenants).

 

So the guys moved in yesterday and son has just rung to say that the landlord has decided tonight that he's not going to be moving out!

 

Question is - where does this leave them? Clearly they have a fixed term AST yes? Enforcing it however puts them at risk of being chucked out at the start of term! Any ideas/thoughts/suggestions on how I can advise them?

Thanks

TG

Edited September 11, 2011 by T4NKG1RL

[mariner51]

IMO if LL remains resident in property, then Ts could become lodgers. Signed AST complicates matters. When did Ts take possession of property? I assume a 12 month fixed term?

Advise son & co-T to seek advice of college accom officer or S Union. I don't do student lets or lodgers.

If son & friend were renting a 4 bed property at reasonable £160 pp pcm, why would they think they would be the only 2 tenants?

Is it a joint AST or did son sign for exclusive use of room and shared facilities?

[T4NKG1RL]

"he signed up to a fixed term tenancy agreement with a fellow student (5th Sept 2011 - 31st May 2012) for a 4 bed house which landlord, who was owner in residence there, had decided to vacate and make a student let. All signed & sealed on 24th May 2011"

Its a fixed term AST for the dates as shown and the issue of the landlord not vacating is a breach of the contracted tenancy agreement which was signed on 24th May with the tenants being the only joint tenants with no joint and several liability clearly agreed and documented. The area is the sort of place where 100 pcm per room is considered a good rent - (not the most affluent part of the UK). The 2 tenants moved in on the 10th and not the 5th September as agreed since the landlord was playing hard to get. We are seriously concerned that as lodgers they have no rights pretty much - thats why they signed for an AST to make sure they couldnt be scr*w*ed over by a LL. So what to do - can they tell the LL to get out? Can they be evicted without notice? Does the LL deciding to ignore the contract he signed up to render the AST contract null?

[mariner51]

The contract to supply may have been 'signed & sealed' on 24 May but the Tenancy and hence AST did not become effective until son moved in (10 Sept)

"the tenants being the only joint tenants with no joint and several liability"

This phrase concerns me. Either the Ts had individual ASTs for room & communal areas - ind liable or it was a joint tenancy for whole property with only lead T named (solely liable to LL?) or all Ts were listed in AST hence 'joint & severally liable' so any one could be liable for full costs of AST in case of any T defaulting.

If av area rent for similar property is £100 pp pcm did not £160 pp ring any alarm bells?

[T4NKG1RL]

£100 pp pcm is a good rent for the area not an av rent. The fact that it was 2 of them in a 4 bed house instead of 4 and this was 'mates rates' meant that ofc no alarmbells rang. £320 would be the expected rent for a very basic 4 bed student house.

There are several clauses in the TA which the three of them drafted including the no joint & several liability, I believe they agreed this clause because all 3 of them at some time got stung for someone else's rent. The LL agreed that if anyone doesn't pay up he'll go after that tenant for his rent arrears and not the remaining tenant. 2 tenants are named on the AST for the whole property. They actually moved their belongings in May 2011 with LL's written agreement and took up residence on the 10th September.

The questions remain -

So what to do - can they tell the LL to get out? Can they be evicted without notice? Does the LL deciding to ignore the contract he co-created & signed up to render the AST contract null?

(He is going to SU today for advice - thanks)

Edited September 12, 2011 by T4NKG1RL

[Snorkerz]

Can you clarify how the property is described on the AST?

 

Is it '123 High Street, Anytown'; or something like

'Upstairs front bedroom, 123 High Street, Anytown'?

 

Is there one tenancy agreement between son and friend and landlord, or do both son & friend have their own agreements?

 

----------------------------

 

okay, having re-read the posts, I think the bits in bold apply.

 

Your son & friend have exclusive use of the property for the period of the tenancy agreement and can not be evicted unless they breach that agreement - and even then only with a court order.

 

Landlord can hop-it, or pay rent to s&f as a lodger if hey are happy for that to happen - although landlord is likely to not be a happy bunny to live with.

 

Landlord can not let the remaining rooms to anyone else, it is no longer his to let, he has let it to s&f.

 

If landlord refuses to leave, or imposes new tenants, s&f should speak to the Tenancy Relations Officer at the local council who will explain all of this to the landlord, and also explain that that would be harrasment/constructive illegal eviction. That is a criminal offence which could carry a 6 month prison sentence / £5k fine. S&f could also launch a civil claim for illegal eviction (mega bucks in some cases!).

 

The addition of a 3rd tenant would make this a HMO - if the property doesn't comply with HMO regs then there could be major fines there too. If the property would require a HMO licence (depends on local regs) and isn't lcensed, then thats more fines AND s&f could apply for rent to be repaid too!

Edited September 12, 2011 by Snorkerz

[T4NKG1RL]

Sorry for delay in replying - SU and Shelter most helpful - turns out contract is described as 'sham'. Had meeting with LL, outcome is that all parties walked away unharmed! Just helped son & fellow tenant sign new AST with reputable, and more importantly, experienced LL. Thanks for all input!

TG