UK Landlord Forum / Life

Hi

Just looking for some advice on behalf of a friend as their current landlord is refusing to speak to them about terminating the tenancy. 

My friend and their partner lived in private rented accommodation and a new tenancy agreement was signed last year (apologises that I don't know the details but I think it was fixed term for 3 years.??).

Since the tenancy was renewed, it has come to light that the partner was abusive to my friend and was found guilty of very serious offences involving my friend's child.  As a result the partner was arrested by Police and was sent to prison for over 25 years earlier this year.

My friend understandably wants to move on their life and a key part of this is moving out of the property to start over somewhere new.  The problem for my friend is that the agreement is joint tenancy and the landlord is refusing to terminate it.

My friend has been found accommodation by Local Authority but is still liable for rent at the former property.

My friend has been seeking legal advice but no-one seems to have any idea how to resolve the issue without going to court again.

My friend and their child has been through years of abuse, a very stressful court case and just when they thought everything was over, they have the landlord refusing to terminate the agreement.

Any advice welcome - sorry I've had to keep it vague.

The landlord is clearly an arsehole.I wonder how far he would pursue this if she stops paying,giving  2 months advance notice of this to enable him to get another tenant.He may decide it is not worth the bother of taking her to court. I think she would have a very strong case to defend it.I do understand though that the idea of more court hearings could be unbearable.

To be fair to the landlord, it needs the consent of all the joint tenants to end a fixed term tenancy, so if Johnny Jailbird won't play ball, there's not a lot the landlord can do until the fixed term ends, unless there's a break clause that he can exercise on his side.

I'd like to think there is something related to common sense that could kick in - but I guess that's not going to happen..

I would imagine the likelihood of the man in jail even knowing,let alone caring enough to take action, is  extremely remote.I suspect it just suits the landlord to stick to the rules rather than act like a human being.

It's all very well wanting to bend the rules but the landlord can hardly let the place out to someone else whilst there's already an existing tenancy in place. The situation at the moment isn't in anybody's interests: the two tenants are still liable for the rent and the landlord is stuck with an empty property that is therefore probably uninsured.

If the landlord were to issue a Section 8 on the mandatory grounds of criminal behaviour, that should end the tenancy. Do we know whether the landlord is being deliberately difficult or is just out of his depth? (Who does three year tenancies these days, for a start?) It might just be a question of pointing him in the right direction and maybe subbing some of his costs.

You make an interesting point.If both tenants are liable to pay the rent,could the landlord go after the man in prison if she refuses to pay? Mind you,I don't suppose they can earn money sewing mailbags in solitary.
Legofan-Common sense is not very common.

Simon - had a quick look at Section 8.. Not sure that this could be issued as the actions of the ex-partner were never directed against the property, the landlord, or even the neighbours..

It's not a case of asking for rules to be bent. There has to be some legitimate route to allow the termination of tenancy - it's just no-one seems to know how without everyone going off to court unless (and I'm assuming here) the landlord agrees to end the tenancy early.

I cannot, for one moment, believe that the ex-partner would willing sign a document to allow the termination of the joint tenancy. They would get great pleasure from knowing that they are still able to mess with my friend's life and they didn't have to do anything other than to refuse to sign a piece of paper.

You're right about the rent - at the moment my friend is having to pay rent on the two properties (which is not sustainable) and I hardly think the ex-partner is in a position to pay their share..

Anyway - thanks for the information folks. I think I'll leave it there and hopefully a legitimate course of action will present itself..

Quote from: heavykarma on September 11, 2019, 09:15:03 AMThe landlord is clearly an arsehole.

I don't see this in the same way. The friend referred to here wasn't forced, by anyone or circumstance, to move out of the property being rented - that was a choice made. I certainly understand the desire to move on, but the offender is locked away for a good many years and unless there are undisclosed third parties involved, and the friend is really in some kind of witness protection programme, then there was probably no risk in remaining at the property where a tenancy exists for some time yet.

The Landlord can't be considered an arsehole because they're not demonstrating supposed common-sense in allowing someone with a sob story(!) to end a fixed term tenancy - that's the whole point of them, right? Otherwise people would just up-and-leave for any reason. Are we really saying some reasons are valid and some are not valid? We're in the realms of total subjectivity again then! Oh, got a new job? Feel free to end the tenancy in the fixed term. Parents want to be in a different catchment area for the new school? End it. An ex. or their oppos are chucking fire-bombs through the letterbox? Move on without notice.

The fixed term would have come to an end in due course... or the friend could have worked in tandem to get new suitable and agreed Tenants arranged for the Landlord... but the friend here just jumped into Council accommodation, seemingly... and possibly didn't think [hard] about any of the consequences. I mean... the fault doesn't lie with the Landlord in this scenario... the poor SOB is just letting out property.

I think the key is getting the Landlord's agreement and the assumption must be that the Landlord doesn't want to lose-out financially... so the solution must be in the friend working to find suitable new Tenants and ensuring the Landlord doesn't suffer financial penalty... at that point, maybe the Landlord doesn't care quite so much? You can't envisage that the Landlord has a vested interest in keeping someone where they don't want to be (even if they're not physically there, of course). A property should be lived in to be maintained correctly, no-one wants a building sitting empty, even if it's being paid for.

My reading of this is that the landlord has not attempted to find a solution,but is stubbornly holding the tenant to the agreement,using the lack of  requests rom both tenants as justification.I have had tenants ask to move out within a couple of months,various reasons,homesick,lost job,one got offered a kidney transplant.My rule has always been that I will agree to remarket,as long as rent is paid until  new tenant signs,and the costs involved in the reletting are deducted from the deposit.I have never had anyone refuse.There is no mention of the landlord making this offer.Obviously he should not be left out of pocket,but there are times when discretion can be exercised.I can't agree that the woman and her child could realistically stay there.They could,through no fault of their own,be the talk of the neighbourhood.

As regards the rights of the prisoner to remain on the lease,assuming this would be a civil matter,are there pro bono lawyers eager to win compensation for a paedophile? One would hope it would be laughed out of court.

The trouble is you can't have any new tenants until the existing tenancy is brought to an end. Normally that's not a problem as long as there's mutual consent - you don't need to do much more than shake hands and wave goodbye. The trouble is here you don't have mutual consent. The landlord can't end the agreement without the consent of both tenants. The female tenant can't unilaterally end the agreement. The male tenant won't (we presume) agree to end the agreement. Unless there's something in the way of a break clause, the only way I can think of to kill it is a Section 8.

Legofan - take a look at Ground 7A:

was committed in, or in the locality of, the dwelling-house, or
was committed elsewhere against a person with a right (of whatever description) to reside in, or occupy housing accommodation in the locality of, the dwelling-house,

...and ground 14:
   
The tenant or someone living with him has caused a nuisance to neighbours, visitors or others in the locality or has been convicted of using the property for immoral or illegal purposes or has been convicted of an indictable offence committed in the locality.

Are those any good? Failing that, you could probably find something under Ground 12: there's usually a term in the contract about not leaving the property empty. The point is you'd be giving the landlord an open goal: nobody's going to contest it so it doesn't need to be a particularly strong argument.

Quote from: heavykarma on September 12, 2019, 08:41:11 AMThere is no mention of the landlord making this offer.

Quite... but, similarly, there's no mention of the Tenant making this offer.

I understand what you are saying,but I have never once in 20 years been asked by a new tenant or LA if the previous tenancy has been formally ended.The risk to the landlord of going ahead with new tenants is surely negligible? I would imagine the prisoner is using his energies to avoid being beaten up,rather than swotting up on lease laws. 

So the landlord is clearly being an arsehole for not breaking the law because he'd probably get away with it? What about his hypothetical new tenants? Does it undermine their rights if their tenancy is illegitimate?

Yes,if his attitude is "computer says No",I would call that being an arsehole,given these particular circumstances.Sometimes the ends justify the means.I once entered one of my rentals when I suspected criminal activity,saw what was happening,posted 24 hr. notice of inspection for the next day through the letterbox.I then went back, took the stuff I found to the police,and told them I was calling a locksmith.They totally agreed with me,and told the LA they had instructed me to do this.Some of the gang phoned and threatened me when they found they were locked out.I promised I would hand over new keys if they met me next day at the police station.They did not show.They had my home address,and threatened to show up,but did not.They must be out of jail by now,but I have not been served with any writs so far.

I wonder if the landlord's strict law-abiding principles will change if the woman stops paying? Will he accept having an empty property while trying to get the prisoner to agree? Of course,the latter may use his time in prison to take a law degree,and launch his own legal case.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that the landlord may be an arsehole (It's not like there's a shortage of arsehole landlords in the world!) but it's far from clear that's the case.

Is it not also possible that he just doesn't know how to end it legally and is afraid of the consequences of cocking it up? There are plenty of perfectly good landlords out there who have never had to issue a Section 8 or even a Section 21 and who don't know enough about the law to know what they can or can't get away with.

This sort of situation is not without precedent (sadly) so it stands to reason that there must be a legal solution to it.

If, having been presented with that legal solution, the landlord is still obdurate then, yes, an arsehole he be. 

Maybe Legofan could help her friend by informing the landlord about the possible solutions to the dilemma.The woman is still paying rent by the sound of it,so negotiations could start from a position of good will.I do question the nature of the legal advice the lady was given.It does not sound as if S8 was suggested.