Landlord Chasing Invalid(?) Debt from 2005

[spurious]

In September 2005, four of us signed a short-term assured tenancy agreement from September - June (a bog standard student tenancy agreement). We signed as a group.

In October, one of us left, and the landlord agreed for this to happen providing we find a replacement tenant (which we did). When the new tenant moved in, the landlord amended the contract to include her name and change the duration of the contract (from when she moved in until June). Although she signed it, none of us initialled or signed the amendments to show consent to the changes.

In February, two of us moved out, leaving one of the original four and the new replacement tenant. Since then, every year or so, the landlord sends us a statement claiming we owe him rent. We have ignored him because we believe the contract to be invalid. I understand that we left before the original contract had expired and if the original contract had not been interfered with, we would still be liable. However, he is claiming different amounts for each of us, and the fourth person (who left owing him nothing) hasn't been mentioned at all. Since we all signed together, surely we're all liable, if at all (which I don't think we are)?

The latest update, and the reason for this post, is a letter received today threatening a county court claim against us for the rent plus interest. From our perspective, the landlord changed the rules of the contract, amended it, but did so without our consent, thus invalidating the contract. He is now chasing three of us for differing amounts despite four of us signing the contract, which was changed anyway.

Could somebody please help with some advise on how to respond?

[Steve__M]

As someone who lets a house to sharers, with occasional changes of individual tenants, I'm an interested observer. When one of them "did a runner" the remaining tenants accepted his responsibility for the rent, but that did not absolve him of responsibility.

You haven't said so, but I assume that after you left, the landlord was only receiving rent from the new tenant and the "fourth person".

You haven't said which three the landlord is chasing - I'm assuming the three that moved out in October and January. What's he claiming off each?

I would say that on balance of probability, whether you signed the new contract/amendment or not, you found the new tenant, the contract was issued with your consent and you continued to pay rent. Therefore the contract is valid. This is probably the key question and I may be wrong.

I assume you are "jointly and severally liable". But this means (I think) that he can choose who he wants to sue and for how much. Presumably he is not suing the 4th person (or the new tenant) because they have paid their rent. But there is nothing to stop him from doing so.

[spurious]

Well the discrepancy seems to be that the landlord has changed the rules and isn't treating everyone fairly. From my perspective:

1. This was a joint tenancy. There wasn't a separate contract for each tenant, so if there is a sum outstanding, he needs to take all four of us to court, not just the three he claims owe money.

2. The LL allowed one tenant to leave the contract early. Though he is claiming she owes him money, it's nothing like the amount she'd have to pay him if he asked her for rent for the duration of the contract. Yet when it comes to other people, he's claiming rent right up until the end of the contracted period. This seems unfair.

3. The LL changed the contract half way through the contracted period. He did this to add a new tenant, and simply scribbled out the old tenant that the new one was replacing. None of us consented to this, or signed or initialled any changes. Surely that invalidates the enforceability of the contract?

Do you think it would be a good idea to get the LL to send a copy of the contract he is claiming we have broken? If it's the original one, we can say it no longer applies because we know he changed it. If he sends the changed one, we can say we didn't consent to the changes (which we didn't) and thus it's invalid.

Thoughts?

[Nightmare4banks]

In my view:

1.Had each tenant signed seperate agreements,the landlord would have to chase each tenant that owed him money.

2.However,because all four tenants signed the agreement - the landlord can chase only one of them for the arrears owed regardleess of who owes them if he opts to do so as SteveM stated - "jointly and severely liable".

3.Personally I think he would NOT able to sue the new tenant as this tenant was never on the agreement that had the four other tenants plus it would be unfair to make her do so.

4.Spurious,you should request payment of the arrears from the other tenant(s)/sue the other three ex-tenant(s) for the arrears and then pay the landlord because this problem will not go away.

[Steve__M]

Sounds like the landlord has made the following judgement call.

The two tenants who stayed till the end of the tenancy are not liable for anything as they paid their fair share.

The tenant who left in October is liable, but their liability is reduced because they found another tenant to replace them.

The two tenants who left in January are liable because they didn't find new tenants.

Personally, I was thinking that accepting the new tenant in October would absolve the first tenant who left - he said "Yes the tenant can leave if a replacement is found" and he crossed out their name.

Double-checking Wikipedia on joint and several liability, it says that (if the landlord's case is right) the landlord can sue anyone or all of you for the whole debt, then it is up to those that are successfully sued to obtain any appropriate share of the money from the remaining tenants. Which is what N4b and I are saying. The landlord would be better not to involve himself in deciding which of you he thinks is liable.

[Ed999]

You need to see a solicitor for proper advice. The issues of law and fact that you have raised are too complex for simple self-help remedies.

The principal legal issue you face is the question of joint and several liability. It is a question of fact as to whether or not the tenancy agreement which you signed made the tenants jointly and severally liable.

You need to show the original tenancy agreement to a solicitor, and you need to explain to him all the relevent facts concerning its signature by the original tenants, in order for the solicitor to advise you. Whether the original tenants are both jointly *and* severally liable can only be decided from the wording of the relevent provisions in the tenancy agreement.

It is a question of fact as to whether the later amendments to the agreement are valid, and this will be a question of fact for the court to decide, based on all the evidence.

As a matter of law, it is NOT correct to say that the amendments invalidated the contract. If the amendments were invalid then the original contract simply continues in its original terms - without any of the original terms being changed in any way! The court will simply consider your liability for rent under those original terms.

If the amendments were valid, then your liability for the rent payments is determined by the amended terms of the contract. If you agreed the amendments verbally (as opposed to signing or initialling the document) then the amendements are nonetheless *valid*. There is a possible difficulty in proving what was agreed, if an amendment is verbal; but this is a difficulty of evidence only: as a matter of law a verbal amendment of the contract is capable of being valid.

For an amendment of the contract to be valid, however, there must also be consideration given by the parties. A contract requires three things (and so does a contract amendment): namely offer, acceptance, and consideration. The latter is usually money, but this can be e.g. the release of a debt: so if the contract amendment released one of the original tenants from the debt (i.e. released him from payment of the rent) then consideration was given and the amendment is capable of being valid and enforceable.

It is a question of fact (for the court to decide) as to whether what you did amounted to a valid amendment of the original contract; but in either case you potentially remain liable for any rent arrears, either under the original contract or under the amended contract.

Who is liable depends on whether the liability is joint and several (in which case any single tenant is liable for the whole of the arrears) or is merely joint (in which case the landlord would have to sue all the tenants, as each may only be liable for part of the debt). But in either case, if the landlord sues you then you *are* going to be liable to him: either for the whole debt or for part of the debt.

Unless, of course, the landlord gave you a release from the debt. A prudent tenant will obtain a written release by deed from his landlord upon making the final payment of rent that is due, if the tenancy contract is still continuing between the landlord and other parties. If you have no written evidence that you were given such a release then you will still be liable to the landlord.

However, if you gave proper written notice to the landlord to end the shorthold tenancy, then you would have been released from the rent liability from the date that the tenancy ended. Any one of joint tenants can give such a notice, and it will be effective (provided it gives the proper period of notice). The landlord will then enter into a new tenancy with the remaining tenants, one that you will not be party to nor liable for the rent under.

There are many complex questions of fact that you have not properly set out in your posting, above, which gives little by way of detail. These matters of fact the court will look into.

I repeat that you need to see a solicitor for proper advice. The issues of law and fact that you have raised are too complex for resolution here.


Advice & opinions on this forum are offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.