Eviction notice + Leaving early

You can just not pay it...nothing the landlord can effectively due in 6 months.

They can't make that stipulation.

Really simple here. The rent is for the entire property not an individual basis. As a group you are responsible for the ENTIRE rent. If somebody moves out before the end they should continue paying the rent they are obliged to pay. If the person leaving is refusing to pay the remaining group have to cover the rent but can bring a small court claim against that person.

As the idea of a short term let, who wants to stay such a brief time? They can't stop a short term lease as such but they don't have to accept who you find.

This is where you stand legally but I am sure others will mention the lack of enforcement.

Have you seen their rental contract?

The law changed you don't need a rental agreement as you get a standard set of rights and obligations

Do you each pay the landlord your portion directly, or does one person collect all the rent and pay it in one go?

I think a decent landlord would be reasonable here. He is asking you to leave so if you fund alternative housing that meets your needs why would he block you taking it

I agree. You are either giving back the house or you are not. Until it is given back then the house commands the full rent payable.

Can you explain why somebody in control of a property should not pay full rent?

It is the people leaving that should continue to pay the rent that is the point

Not how it works I am afraid. You misunderstand what under control means. They are in possession which mean under their control. Tenants do not have the right to move people in and out as they choose. Who is going to want to move in for a couple of months? How long will it take them to find them?

The landlord is not putting in restriction they exist as part of the rules. The group of people rent the property they as a whole are responsible for the rent. Landlords are in no way obliged to sort out the dynamic and agreements within that group. Rent is for the property and the group are responsible. One othat group doesn't pay the remaining group must pay the shortfall and then they can go after the non payments on the individual. That is how the law works even without a contract.

This is the adult world where somebody pays and the view the landlord should doesn't make any sense to me. Can you explain how they should given the group agreed to rent the entire property and not a room from the landlord. Do you think that would work in a hotel or restaurant?

If the group agreed to rent the entire property then they should pay for the entire property. They should also be allowed to propose a replacement tenant yet the landlord is refusing this.

However can you show where the OP has stated that they agreed to rent the entire property and that they dont just rent a room? You have no idea on the actual conditions the OP rents under yet are fully confidant that what you say is correct.

By moving in together they made that agreement whether you want to believe that or not. They changed the law so after 6 months the rules apply regardless of contract.

As I said who wants to move in short term? Where will they get them? How will the vet them? Afte six months the tenant has rights so it would always have to be shorter than 6 months.

The tenants still have to give a full valid notice just like a landlord. No mention of any kind of notice from the tenants

Is your only stumbling block the fact the landlord won't accept a short term tenant? If that was not an issue you would agree full rent is due?

Do you think it would be a fair situation for tenants and landlords that any time the correct notice is given on a shared place that some random person can be moved in to the place so that one tenant can avoid their financial responsibilities?

There actually is - basically why civil courts exist....

Ill make this a bit more clear. If they agreed as a group to rent the entire property then they should pay for the entire property. If one moves out then they should have the option of replacing them.

You seem to be presuming that in this case everyone in the house moved in together and agreed to rent the entire place. I see nowhere this mentioned. All I see is the OP said this.

if they moved in as a group i would expect them to say "when we moved in".

Your posts are correct if they all moved in as a group and agreed to be jointly and severely liable for the whole rent. But i do not see how you can say that is definitely the case in this situation based on the info provided.

The minute they moved in they became part of a group. Nothing to do with if they moved in at the same time. That is where you are failing to understand. When you move in to a shared place you are agreeing to be jointly responsible.

I point to where I asked you questions about the fairness on tenants and landlords with random people moving in. I am answering you and you are not answering the questions I put to you. Could you do me the courtesy of fully replying to the questions I asked you so I can understand what you are saying?

Doesnt your view mean that when someone moves in they join a group and group responsibility automatically, but you dont apply the same standard when someone wants to move out that they get to disengage from that group responsibility of the house (as others are remaining).

if others remain, the OP is no longer part of the group. If nobody remains, the landlord has the house back and whether they choose to rerent for a short period or not is only the landlords problem.

You can leave a group once you discharge your responsibilities. What would the point of a group be if you can just say "I'm out" once there is any responsibility?

I find some of these argument incredibly childish. The issue is with the other tenants. They should have a joint adult discussion.

They either pay the full amount or they all move out and make the place available to the landlord. They just have to agree the details among themselves. At no point is it reasonable to have the property in their possession and not pay the full rent

I’m not a landlord, but I agree with the posters you allude to. Why? Because they’re correct. You can have your own agenda, but facts are community property.

Stop giving incorrect information. A tenant cannot be brought to the small claims process in court. That is utter nonsense. The small claims process is for taking cases against businesses.

Its is actually simple. you are jointly and severally liable for the rent. That is the most common arrangement, and since there is no written agreement to the contrary, that is what is going to stand.

You can either a) make up the rent between ye or b) not make up the rent and the landlord would be entitled to take it out of yer deposits at the end.

And if the deposit doesn't cover it, well then there is jack sh!it nothing the landlord can do about it unless he wants to take ye to and RTB tribunal for the sake of a few hundred quid. Even if he got a judgement, he'd have no chance of collecting it.

That is what it boils down to. Take it or leave it girl.

If you read what I said you would know it was the other tenants can bring the non paying tenant to small claims court for the rent they pay for them. Nothing to do with the landlord. Are you saying that is incorrect.

I also think who advertised place should have impact on if they are jointly and severally liable - I also think if they pay landlord individually or if one person pays landlord it should impact it. However I've no legal backing or rtb cases to my view so my view isn't really worth much.

What's the legal backing to you view? Especially interested in your viewnl that lack of any written or verbal lease making it defacto group lease and not a defacto individual lease.

Op just to give you an oversight of the relevant law here, it is a bit tricky.

1. It is most likely that you and the other residents share a tenancy. The landlord is entitled to the entire rent for the property. There is no mechanism currently to reduce the rent on the basis that less persons are resident in the property.

2. The landlord cannot exercise control over the property beyond what is reasonable for a lessor, they need to allow the tenancy holders to enjoy the property. This means you can take in licencees (once there is no overcrowding) . The landlord must be advised of the persons resident in the property, but that is all. I am leaving out some related points about licensees contained in the legislation, but you can read up on that. The above is not effected by tenancy terms agreed, the legislation and practice covers it.

3. You are free to leave within the notice period with no penalty if the landlord is the party issuing notice.

I think your best bet is to reason with the LL who understandably wants minimal fuss, but reason that you are taking in a short term licensee and the LL does not have the legal responsibility of an additional tenant here. The licensee can request to become a tenant but as notice has been given the LL can refuse on that basis, so you would be responsible for the licensee.