[Closed] Tenancy IANAL

Is this right?

I dunno you wrote it

X has no say in the matter, no chance to meet the new tenant.

That doesn't seem right, by what you wrote both X and Y are still the joint tenants on the agreement. Kick the imposter out and X can find their own replacement for Y?

My wife rents her property out and she says that as far as she is aware, the first tenancy agreement would be in place until the 12 months had expired unless she (my wife) tenant X, Tenant Y AND the new tenant were all in written agreement that the original tenancy was null and void and a brand new tenancy was drawn up for the two people who would be residing at the property.
She says that as far as she is aware, if this hasn't happened, she'd be seeking to have the new tenant removed and tenant y would still be liable with tenant x under the original agreement.

Is Joint the same as Joint & Several in this case?

Km79 - exactly, not to mention the safety implications, I don't understand how this can be acceptable. I assume the new tenant has his own agreement, whether it mentions X or not I don't know.

Twice - no idea. The original agreement was joint signed by X and Y

(Obviously proper legal advice will be taken)

[quote=llama ]It's not a sublet. X does not sign an updated tenancy agreement with the new tenant or letting agency.

I'm not quite sure how both those statements can be true. IANAL and I have no particular experience with tenancy agreements, but it seems Y is still legally the tenant.

I would consult Z on this.

Sounds to me like Y has sublet, she'd need landlords permission for that. And if the Landlord has given permission she would have changed the terms of the tenancy so X could walk i would imagine.

Monksie - yes, but removing the new tenant is not a good outcome for X given the time that is likely to take. This has taken place over several months, the new tenant clearly has rights, even though he is clearly a terrible choice for X

It is not a sublet. I suspect that the reason a new agreement was not made up was that the agency made a mistake and it slipped by. TBH, if they had made out a new agreement, X may well have signed it at the time.

Find a replacement to take on your daughter's room and get the hell out of dodge.

You might be legally on the right side but it would be the quickest and easiest route out

My wife has just asked a friend who works for Shelter. The advice is: Original agreement stands as X and Y are legally bound tenants (assuming nothing has occurred to null and void the original agreement) and are subject to the content of that agreement. New person has no rights at all to be in the property unless X has signed a new tenancy agreement to allow new person to be there. Shelter person says X needs to contact letting agent immediately and preferably in person to ask for a copy of the current agreement which will either have

a) X and Y as tenants. In which case, new person needs hoofing out by the agents ASAP as he is there in breach of the tenancy. If the new person is there under these conditions (resident with the full knowledge of the agent without a signed agreement, counter signed by X), the agent are in breach of the contract and X can tell the agents that X is giving notice and vacating without further liability as the agent have breached the terms of the contract.

or

b) new person has signed a tenancy agreement allowing new person to be there despite the property already being let to X and Y which would make new person's agreement nonsense and the agents are in deep pooh for allowing this to happen.
Shelter person says that if the agents have any idea that this situation has arisen without the signed agreement of both X [b]and[[/b] Y. the agents have acted illegally and Shelter would be very interested in hearing from X. In fact, Shelter person says X should contact Shelter first thing tomorrow morning and if before that time, new person makes any further acts on aggression, intimidation etc, X should call the police (which wouldn't do X's case any harm at all when talking to the agents and advising the Poice have had to be called.

My wife says if it was her property and she caught wind of this, she'd ask me to ring my brothers and go round to the house to assist new person in leaving and would be contacting Y very quickly to remind Y of Y's continuing obligation with regard to the only valid and current contract (while checking with X that X was OK).
Shelter will help.
PS. Shelter person says, although it pains her to say it, new person has very little rights, if any, to be at the property.

I am a lawyer and I agree with monksie/shelter , but don't take my expertise in landlord and Tennant on trust I was very good at it 25 years ago , and am working from first principals not current experience.

It does sound to me like Y has sublet, since it was Y's representative, not the landlord or their letting agent. Is it clear whether they pay rent to Y or the original landlord/agent? In any event it's a mess, and a decent letting agency (there must be some somewhere) wouldn't (knowingley) allow it to get this messed up, but if Y has sublet, the first they might have heard of it may have been when X asked them to re-advertise. Subletting may or may not have been allowed in the original tenancy. One thing you haven't mention is the landlord, are they up to speed on what's going on?

Some agreements allow for substitution of tenants in a joint situation. Or at least many of the ones I signed seemed to. Normally the people staying in the house find the replacement as they have to live with them.
You can look at the contract an see what it says and also look for the break clause. If you have a chat to shelter they may be able to give you a standard letter to give the agents to make them do something.

thanks all for your advise

Shelter person says X should contact Shelter first thing tomorrow morning and if before that time, new person makes any further acts on aggression, intimidation etc, X should call the police

[img] [/img]

"advice" 🙂

If X signed a contract the basic assumption is she is still bound by it. Y is in breach if the original contract but that doesn't void it for X

IANAL