A question about leaving a joint tenancy

[Pandora]

I was wondering if I could draw on the general wisdom of the forum. I'm planning to move in with my boyfriend in December. He's in a shared house, with a joint tenancy. The contract is fixed term to November 1st 2010. His letting agents have previously said the contract will become rolling after this date, with a one month notice period.?

As I understand it, the only way to end a joint fixed term tenancy is for all tenants to give joint notice as they are all jointly liable for the rent. However, once on rolling, if any one tenant gives notice, this breaks the tenancy for all tenants.?I got that info from Shelter's website, so if anyone knows different please let me know!?

My question is, at what point does the notice period for the rolling contract start? As I understand it, to give notice to move out 1st Nov, notice would have to be given 1st Oct. Notice given between 1st Oct & 1st Nov would allow you to move out on 1st December. However, what I can't work out is if notice is given in this period, is it given on the fixed term or rolling contract?

What I'm trying to work out is the implications of worst case scenario - if his housemates don't find someone to take the room, can he move out without being liable for the rent?!?

Thanks for all help! ??

[DJKillaQueen]

The rolling notice period (it's called a periodic tenancy) begins when the periodic contract starts on Nov 1st, so notice given from 1st Oct to Nov 1st would be according to the fixed term contract.

He wouldn't be liable for rent as the fixed term tenancy will have come to an end at his moving out day, and providing all the notice given is correct (under the terms of the tenancy) then it is the responsibility of the other tenants to fill the room or make up the short fall in rent.

At the end of the day the rent is a block amount for the entire dwelling agreed by the joint tenants that live there. If one moves out, the other tenants will still have to pay the agreed fee for the property amongst themselves.

[zeban]

DJKQ is absolutely right.

[womanofdulwich]

cant you just see this being a nightmare with the governments housing benefit policy?

[DJKillaQueen]

Absolutely and some local authorities are already having problems with private landlords they can no longer place families on low incomes with.

And that combined with changes to capital funding of social housing and a comment made during the spending review which was that whilst extisting social housing tenants will continue to have the lower rents with regulated annual increases, new tenants will face rents that are 80% of the going local market rate.

It means that instead of creating much more desperately needed affordable housing, they are giong to make social housing equally unaffordable. It's a totally ridiculous policy towards something that is an essential. We are going to see the return of homelessness and families living in one room. The poor and low waged will become trapped.

What will it take to get through to those privileged brats that we have an affordable housing crisis in this country. The seem hell bent on adding to it.

[ClareC]

Where is the sense in that? Surely it will simply mean a return to the days when private landlords say no to social housing?

It always used to be considered higher risk letting but coupled with less than Market rate rent plus not being paid the rent direct from the LA, why would any private landlord bother?

I know nothing about this btw just can't see any sense in it!

[Huguenot]

Private landlords can't afford to leave housing empty, they need to maximise return on their asset/investment.

The rent defaults to the highest rate possible given the quality of the stock and means of their potential customers.

There's a perfectly valid argument that housing benefits have merely subsidised exploitative private landlords, and that limiting that subsidy will drive rents down.

Deflating rental returns may well make housing a less attractive investment, removing the impetus behind the price bubble and actually making housing more affordable.

If that proves true DJKQ, then potentially your own arguments are the greatest enemy of your long term goals?

Again, I'm a big supporter of the welfare state, and believe there are many that deserve that support. It's just important to realise that the greatest plans can go awry through exploitation, and that the welfare system does have a massively distorting effect on society.

[zeban]

There isn't any sense in it whatsoever. Homelessness will indeed increase. Many private landlords who rent shared houses create separate tenancies for each room now for their tenants, and it does make sense all round because the landlord is liable for anyone moving out however the problem with this is that the landlord will mostly just want to fill the room as quick as possible so they will let the room out to anyone, which could create problems for the other tenants. Sharing is not easy, especially when it's with people you don't know, I've got some nightmare stories like being woken up at 5am by my lovely (not!) flatmate having a party of about 20 in his room! OR being shouted at and threatened to have my stuff thrown on the street because I dared put the heating on!

And now single people under 35 cannot claim for a 1 bed (studio flats are counted as studio flats in this and the amount for a one bed only really covers a studio anyway in many areas considering how absolutely ridiculously high private rents are). This just seems like discrimination against me. Some people don't have friends or families to house them if things go wrong.

I'd love the priviledged brats to try and live with some of the people I have!!!

[Huguenot]

Whilst there are undoubtedly exceptional circumstances, I can't believe that people in their twenties whose rent is being paid for by other people should start demanding one bed flats.

Up until my 30th birthday I lived in shared flats with all the trouble that brings. I didn't like all my flatmates, and they didn't all like me. I spent two years with four blokes living in a one bed flat in Kennington.

I had the same problems with one flatmate who worked in the booze trade, with late nights and late starts. Getting woken at 2am when him and his pissed up colleagues arrived back for a party was a nightmare.

That's life, you make compromises.

The sense of entitlement that radiates from a significant number of those living on benefits is quite shocking.

As I say, I believe in the welfare state, but it's NOT there to give one bed flats to people in their twenties. That's not discrimination.

[womanofdulwich]

wont this also have big implications for HMO's? having to be licensed etc? i think they will have to move pretty quickly to catch up with all the admin that exists . ah well a lot of consultancy working coming up for some one I expect............

[zeban]

It is discrimination against single people. And of course I'd love to be able to pay my full rent I certainly don't see it as an entitlement, it makes me miserable actually to have to rely on anyone, and I have become ill from worry because I know this is not a sustainable life for me, or anyone, made worse by peoples attitudes. Pretty much everyone would love to have a decently paid job and a secure roof over their head that they can afford. I'm 27 Huguenot, not some 21 year old and the last role I worked in my salary was ?16,000. The salaries in many work places is phenomenaly low, and not in line with market rents in the least.

I do not see my generation ever being able to afford to buy a house- I'm guessing you did. I don't even aspire to. I'd be happy just to be able to pay for a simple studio flat from an ok salary and a job that suits my capabilities- this is what MY generation would like. Simply to avoid homelessness and being stuck in the trap of benefits is what many working class young people who were born in London want- no doubt lower than your expectations in your 20s. And before you ask, I've worked since I was 15- I've paid into this system too.

AFFORDABLE housing is all that can alleviate this problem

[Huguenot]

:)) That's genuinely hilarious.

"no doubt lower than your expectations at my age"

Bloody hell, I think you're a bit divorced from reality! At 27 I was flat sharing with two mates selling classified advertising on a salary less than yours and my only 'expectations' were to someday get pissed and shagged. Being permanently skint didn't attract either beer or girls.

That's what it's like for 27 year olds. That's life. If you want the trappings of wealth that most people don't acquire until middle aged it's because you're being avaricious, not because you have a right to it.

I was jealous of people who'd bought houses a few years previously after the crash in '93. There was no feasible way I could ever afford to buy a property.

I probably had a vague feeling that "I'd just be happy just to pay for a simple studio flat from a modest salary"

There is no doubt that you genuinely feel that you've got it harder than everyone else. You haven't. What your generation seems to have is a lot more self-regard than previous generations, and an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

You're not even 'trapped' on benefits. Instead of making yourself sick you should be thinking about what the skills are that you need to acquire to get a better paid role, and then buckle down and do it.

At some time over the next few years you should also think about the compromises you'll need to make to find a partner with whom you're willing to make a major joint property investment.

[Pandora]

Thanks for the advice DJKillaQueen. I spoke to the private sector housing team at Southwark - they were very helpful. As the fixed term has come to an end, and it's a periodic tenancy (got my terminology sorted now!), one tenant giving notice gives notice on the whole property, so he is only liable for rent to the end of his notice period. If the landlord continues to accept rent from the remaining tenants, then a new periodic tenancy is created by implication, or the landlord can ask the remaining tenants and any new tenants to sign a new fixed term tenancy.

I'm not going to get into debates about affordable housing... I do have one rant about shared housing however! I've been in shared houses for the last 10 years, with all the ups and downs that brings. What would make life a lot easier, however, would be if living as shared tenants (so not related or in a relationship) was a recognised status. I currently live with people who have luckily turned out to be wonderful and reliable, but when I met them and took on joint responsibility for a large sum of money each month, they were essentially strangers and I could have been left liable for their share of the rent had they not been so reliable. Another problem I've had is getting contents insurance - there's only a couple of companies who will insure my belongings while I'm in a shared house without locks on my bedroom door.

I'm not in any hurry to buy a house (which is good, because I don't think anyone would be in a hurry to give me a sufficient mortgage!), but I do wish that private tenants were a little more protected - it's frustrating when you have to move out because the landlord is selling up, or when the estate agents decide to charge you ?200 for changing one name on the joint tenancy, when actually the remaining tenants have done all the work finding the new person... but hurrah for Southwark Private Sector Housing Team, they know their stuff and were very helpful going through it all with me.

[zeban]

Ok Huguenot:

You obviously don't know anything about the benefit system if you don't understand that it is a trap. That's why people end up on it for so long- NOT because they're lazy as you may well think.

'There is no doubt that you genuinely feel that you've got it harder than everyone else'- errr no I get the feeling I've had it harder than you by the general tone of the debates we've had but maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're one of those people who had it really tough and so have developed a bitter attitude that the youth get everything now, unlike when I was young and you had to fend for yourself.

But you're right, I clearly have higher aspirations than you did at 27, but they're not for wealth or to 'find a partner with whom you're willing to make a major joint property investment.' As I said, I'm not interested in buying houses, I think it's a very British thing, and the whole idea of making an investment from houses has been at the expense of renters. I don't care about owning anything. I'd just like to feel secure in a flat ie. not have the law favour landlords no matter what, and housing I can afford. I'm not saying it should be as low as council housing but just somewhere in between.

[zeban]

Also Huguenot, it may be so that 'At 27 I was flat sharing with two mates selling classified advertising on a salary less than yours' BUT I'm pretty damn sure rent prices were lower then. That's the point. I don't have a problem with low salaries, I have a problem with low salaries + v.high rent prices. If salaries went up in accordance then fine.

Being dependent on a partner to me is far worse than asking your fellow humans to help you out once in a while. I'm not going to be in a wrong relationship because it works out better financially. How many people are stuck in this situation? many I think you'ld find.

[Ridgley]

I agree with you zeban, we need affordable housing if what DJKQ is saying is true that they will be increasing rents by 80% this will makes things unaffordable my question to this government is how are they going to deal with key workers who decide to move out of London and work elsewhere because of this? I feel this going to have knock on effect.

[Huguenot]

I'm afraid not zeban, but your absolute conviction that you're getting it harder than others is part of the problem.

A three double bed flat in ED is 1,200 per month, quite sufficient luxury for a 27 year old. That's 400 quid a month each. When I was 27 I actually paid just over that per month, on a slightly lower salary, albeit in Balham.

On 16k a year, your take home is 1,080 per month, meaning that 400 quid is about 37% of your take home - well within the 'affordable' zone.

Most importantly it's definitely NOT in the zone where you should be taking money from your neighbours to pay for a more luxury or indulgent lifestyle that includes having your own flat.

The people that are subsidising you through their taxation are people who have less than you!!!

When Cameron cuts housing benefit I worried because I thought the recipients were the needy poor described by DJKQ, so I was very concerned.

Now that I realise that actually it's going to 27 year olds who think they have a right to their own one bed flat paid for by other people I can only applaud him!

[zeban]

Huguenot, I couldn't get a 3 bedroom house unless I could afford a deposit for a 3 bedroom house. Landlords don't rent a whole property to single people on a small income you have to find other tenants first if you do this which is a massive risk in itself. If you can move in with friends great but if not it's more complicated and less secure.

Do you realise that people who get housing benefits are on very low incomes (I think the threshold is around ?12,000) so they ARE needy..needy of social housing of which there isn't any, and needy of affordable housing of which there isn't any of that either. So what are they supposed to do?

Are you telling me if a woman finds herself in a domestic violent situation and leaves her boyfriend/husband, it's ok for her to just go and find a houseshare with some strangers is it? knowing how detrimental this could be to her state of mental health?

I've had a friend who was attacked by her flatmate. And yes, these are all extreme situations but for those who are vulnerable, it can push people over the edge. And no I'm not talking about myself but quite frankly if you want to interpret that I don't really care, I'd prefer to speak up for people who might be scared to speak up for themselves, of whom I've met many.

It's really difficult both when you are trying to find somewhere to live and when you are in a flat looking for a housemate.

[Huguenot]

Sure, those are the challenges faced by everyone in finding flats and flatmates - it doesn't mean it deserves a handout.

There are exceptions, and should be judged accordingly.

I just don't think mid-twenty year olds on 16k per year who fancy having their own flat at taxpayers expense count as needy.

40 year olds with two kids to support on 12k a year do need some social support.

[zeban]

If you'ld read my post you would realise at ?16,000 I wasn't entitled to any help with housing. And I was sharing at this point. But then my flatmate moved out and I was liable for the rent which I couldn't pay.

It is around ?12,000 that you can get ANY help with housing. Anything above that you're completely liable for the whole amount yourself. And you don't get your full rent paid ever apart from when you're unemployed or on incapacity benefit. A 27 year old on ?16,000 doesn't get their rent paid for them, a 27 year old on ?12,000 doesn't get their rent paid for them.

[DJKillaQueen]

Well first of all H you forget that a third of those working need HB as well. You can not persist with this argument that market forces correct affordability. That has NOT been the case in the UK for 20 years. And you know the reasons why as well as I do. 1300% increase in house prices over two decades is ridiculous growth. Now that the FSA are making changes to mortgage lending rules we should start to see some return to what should have been in place instead of the ridiculous range of products that landed us where we are now.

Some local authorities are already having problems rehousing families in the private sector because of the changes to HB rules (HB which has by the way always been capped to reflect local market values anyway - the differece now is that the cap has nothing to do with local market values). Landlords are NOT reducing rents, because they have mortgages to pay and need to recoup their mortgage.

You have absolutely no understanding of what is going on, how people become trapped on low pay or benefits through no fault of their own. Worse still you have nothing to suggest that would help to change that. You are a classic case of those done good should sacrifice nothing from the housing gravy train they've ridden for so long. Worse still you attribute that successful gravy train to some myth of hard work on your part. MOST people work very hard, whatever job they do and whatever they earn. That gravy train for some has only served to incresingly lock out a growing section of the public from affordability of basic housing. That is a FACT, backed by every think tank, economics organisation, the IMF and so on.

The real question is what do we do about it. The coalition however seem only intent on adding to the problem.

Pandora I whole heartedly agree of with your views on legislation to protect private tenants. On the continent, private tenants do have those protections. France has rents set by the local authority and rises regulated. Tenants are given far more security of tenure and longer tenures and so on. Renting is not a stigma and many people will rent the same home for half their lives or longer. We have absolutely the wrong attitude to housing in this country.....both as a commodity and investment and home.

And let me just say this.....the key to achieving anything starts with having a secure and appropriate base to start from. Having a home (rented or owned) that you feel secure in is a major part of that. You can survive without gas or electric or phone for short periods but you can not survive without a roof over your head. If we want people to get back to work, or get better jobs, or achive in life, then they need a calm place to start that journey from. For some, they will be lucky enough to have a family home they can share (with parents usually). For others they will need a place for themselves and their partners and children. They won't get anywhere in life in they are constantly worrying about eviction or living in overcroweded accomodation. This is an important thing.

They only factor in how much you earn should be the size and location and luxury of the property you afford to rent....not whether you can afford to rent anything at all.

[zeban]

Thank you! :)

[Huguenot]

As I've said DJKQ, I'm not against welfare, I'd just like to see it being applied appropriately.

I've also certainly not argued that no-one gets trapped on benefits, I have no doubt that they do. However, mid twenties single ladies on 16k a year who want their own flat are most definitely not discriminated against, and not trapped on benefits.

Your argument is flawed though: "Landlords are NOT reducing rents, because they have mortgages to pay and need to recoup their mortgage"

If they can't reduce the rent because they're not financially robust enough to pay the mortgage without them, and if noone can afford the rent, then they're forced to sell the house... which has a deflationary effect on house prices. That's your goal isn't it?

I've already argued that the housing market is distorted by the massive incentives given to wealthy middle classes to enter the market as BTL landlords. I've argued that those incentives should be removed. So I'm hardly a 'classic' gravy train-er am I?

It's easy to see how an increase in accessibility and quantity of housing benefit would simply incentivise landlords to put the rent up. If we accept that clear argument, then we must also acccept that a decrease in benefits forces rents down.

[DaveR]

We had rent control and (in effect) guaranteed tenancies for life before. It wasn't a panacea. If you had a secure tenancy you couldn't move. If you didn't have one, you couldn't get one. Landlords with sitting secure tenants had zero incentive to maintain/improve properties, and massive incentives to use dubious means to get them out.

Also, this is easy to say:

"We have absolutely the wrong attitude to housing in this country.....both as a commodity and investment and home."

but not necessary easy to change. Changing landlord and tenant law isn't necessarily going to stop people wanting to buy - most of the people on this forum complaining about housing are saying "we want prices to fall so that we can buy"

[zeban]

Huguenot, do you actually read through what I write or do you just like playing devils advocate because I always rise to your ridiculous posts? You live in Singapore for gods sake and have clearly never been either a. homeless or b. on benefits. Your problem is you can't get over the fact that they're called benefits which is actually completely misguided -don't ask me why they're called that but no one grows up to think I want to be on benefits!

I'm not as eloquent as DJKQ when making my points and maybe get way too personal, but her post above hits the nail on the head.