PDA

View Full Version : Are three tenants jointly liable for whole rent?



Pobinr
25-01-2008, 16:45 PM
I'm just about to let a large flat to 3 sharers. I want to ensure if one moves out the others are responsible to pay the whole of rent not just two thirds. If they sign one agreement with all their names on as opposed to three individual agreements am I covered in the event of one moving out ?
I think that type of agreement is called tenant in common.
Any advice appreciated thanks

Poppy35
25-01-2008, 18:25 PM
you need an assured shorthold agreement which covers that tenants are jointly and severally liable.

Pobinr
26-01-2008, 07:37 AM
So if they sign the usual Shorthold Assured tenancy agreement then they must ensure I get paid 100% of the whole rent each month even if one moves out y/n ?
Is that whaty jointly & several means ?
Thanks

justaboutsane
26-01-2008, 08:27 AM
Yes if they sign ONE agreement they must ensure between them that the rent is paid. Make this CRYSTAL clear to the tenants though as sometimes they miss that one.

bagpuss
26-01-2008, 17:43 PM
One more point, if I may butt in, can you use a standard AST as a 'joint and several' agreement and maybe add an extra clause or do you have to have a specially written one if it's for for more than one tenant?

Poppy35
26-01-2008, 18:20 PM
most standard ast's will state that the tenants are responsible jointly and severally

bill65
27-01-2008, 12:44 PM
If I might add a word of caution.

A joint tenancy cannot exist unless the following four unities exist:

AG Securities v Vaughan 1990



(1) Unity of Possession: Each co-owner must be entitled to possession of the whole land with the others. This does not mean that the co-owners must actually occupy the property. If one occupier moves out a joint tenancy will continue unaffected. It is to do with legal entitlements (which parliament can modify, e.g. domestic violence or under the Trust of the Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996) and not be de facto use.

(2) Unity of Interest: The interest of each tenant must be identical in extent, nature and duration. One cannot have a larger interest than another. No joint tenancy is possible between a freeholder and a leaseholder. Similarly, no single joint tenant can sell or lease the land because he does not have the whole legal estate.

(3) Unity of Title: All joint tenants must claim title under the same act or document, for example, by the same conveyance or by the same act of adverse possession.

(4) Unity of Time: The joint tenant’s interest must have been acquired at the same time.

In other words, if there are locks on the bed room doors, than there cannot be a joint tenancy, for there will be no unity of possession.
It might be in your interest to have a deed of trust drawn up for it will matter not what the agreement is express to be.

jeffrey
27-01-2008, 16:40 PM
bill: 'Unity of Possession' summary is almost right- but "possession" does NOT equate to "occupation". One can be in possession by:
a. occupying; or
b. receiving rents and profits.

Bel
28-01-2008, 08:17 AM
Yes if they sign ONE agreement they must ensure between them that the rent is paid. Make this CRYSTAL clear to the tenants though as sometimes they miss that one.

This is an important point; unless you lay down the law, tenants can make wrong assumptions regarding their personal liability for rent. It makes it so much easier if you can provide a framework of action in advance of anything happening; eg the correct procedure when one of the tenants gives notice.

bill65
28-01-2008, 09:01 AM
I posted a cautionary note for the benefit of the OP. Co-ownership can be a tricky subject, when you create a joint tenancy, you create de jure one person. That person must have exclusive possession of the whole of the property. If locks are fixed to bedroom ( which is quit common under such circumstances) doors, this would be sufficient to sever the joint tenancy and therefore joint and several liability.

jeffrey
28-01-2008, 09:30 AM
I posted a cautionary note for the benefit of the OP. Co-ownership can be a tricky subject, when you create a joint tenancy, you create de jure one person. That person must have exclusive possession of the whole of the property. If locks are fixed to bedroom ( which is quit common under such circumstances) doors, this would be sufficient to sever the joint tenancy and therefore joint and several liability.
No. That reply confuses:
a. legal ownership; and
b. equitable (beneficial) ownership.

Legal ownership (by two or more) is ALWAYS joint. There is no other way to hold it. They become jointly and severally responsible for all obligations irrespective.

Equitable ownership can be joint ("beneficial joint tenants") or in common ("beneficial tenants in comon"). The tenancy obligations have nothing to do with equitable ownership; so lockable bedroom doors leave all obligations jointly and severally binding on all co-tenants.

bagpuss
28-01-2008, 20:02 PM
Thanks for the advice everyone.

The bedrooms doors aren't lockable anyway - my future tenants are an engaged couple so I guess that won't be a problem for them.:D

jeffrey
29-01-2008, 09:18 AM
...esoecially as lockable chastity belts seem to have lost popularity in recent centuries...