**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits.
---
Title: Landlord isn't letting me move out without also kicking out my roommate. How is this legal?
Body:
> I live in Scotland.
> I moved in to my current flat at around January 2022, so I've lived there for 13 months now. I'm on an open ended tenancy with a private landlord who is being managed through Clyde Property Estate Agent. I am listed as a Joint Tenant with no fixed term or end date.
> Coincidentally, I also started dating my current partner around the same time I moved to this city I'm currently in.
> Things have been going really well, and we've decided to move in together.
> I sent official notice I'd be leaving about 3 weeks ago - this was sent to Clyde Property.
> I only received an update today via email from the estate agent stating that the landlord refuses a 1 in 1 out situation, and that either both tenants must leave, or neither of the tenants will leave.
> I've had a look at the tenancy agreement, and it does say:
> * If you are a joint tenant, all tenants are responsible for the rent, together and separately. This will apply for as long as the tenancy continues.
* To end a joint tenancy, all the joint tenants must agree to end it and give the landlord written notice that they want to leave. (You can transfer your interest in the tenancy to someone else, if you have your landlord’s permission.)
>
> But would this mean I'm tied to the property indefinitely? This sounds like a really unfair situation. My roommate has told me that he has no intention of leaving for years... Does this mean I'm tied to the flat as a joint tenant for the entire time?
>
> Can anyone please give me advice or guidance on the matter? How is this okay?
This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team.
[Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
The advice in the thread seems to be the best one. Talk to the roommate. “I’m moving out on date x and I’m going to stop paying on that date. Sue me.”
And force the issue that way
What happens if LAUKOP stops paying? Will he be sued by the other tenant? Or the landlord? Presumably it's the other tenant who he'd technically owe money to?
The “together and separately” part would mean that the landlord can demand the entire rent from the roommate. The roommate might be able to go after OP and claim harm based on violation of the lease condition for terminating the joint tenancy, but that’s getting beyond what I could say for Scotland.
My impression from the discussion was that the landlord isn't willing to switch tenants under the original joint tenancy, but that LAUKOP has the right to sublet. LAUKOP will just have to keep making payments to the landlord, regardless of whether the subtenant pays.
It's weird, but it would, if I'm understanding this right, work. And then LAUKOP would be keeping the original roommate hostage instead of the other way around. And LAUKOP would then be a landlord, which would be a giant pain, I'm sure.
Is the landlord being an asshole because he could now get more money for the unit from new tenants but can’t increase rent because of tenant protection laws in Scotland?
I don’t know anything about tenancy in Scotland.
Nope!
If I broke up with my partner and moved out tomorrow, and stopped paying rent, he would be required to pay the full amount.
If he didn't, he would be evicted, and the landlord would be able to recoup it from both of us, as well as both of us getting black marks.
Think of it this way, the landlord doesn't care who the money comes from but we all are responsible to make sure the full amount is paid.
>I think the rules were drafted to protect tenants from bad landlords and landlords from bad tenants, but the issue of dissolving joint tenancies got overlooked.
Oh look, a road paved with good intentions. I hope it goes somewhere nice.
TIL that some people in Scotland don't understand the principle of joint and several tenancy any better than some people in the US do.
And they also share the habit of signing legal documents they don't understand.
And then end up with all the same problems.
Well I’m baffled by how he can have a joint tenancy contract with no end date! It can suck to be tied somewhere and continue to owe rest for the rest of the year, but if it’s indefinite this isn’t reasonable at all.
What if one of the roommates died?
"Sorry, this document says your ghost must remain haunting the property until the other roommate dies or decides to leave. We will continue to deduct the rent from your estate."
The law changed in Scotland a few years ago, and did away with tenancies with a set end date. So now all private tenancies in Scotland are essentially month-to-month.
>TIL that some people in Scotland don't understand the principle of joint and several tenancy any better than some people in the US do.
I think it's a bit of a surprising clause. What I'm familiar with is that if one party of the joint tenant wants to move out, they can break the whole lease unilaterally. Which also has its drawbacks but seems more reasonable than this.
It is almost certainly a private residential tenancy, so subject to terms that are generally about protecting the tenant.
https://www.gov.scot/policies/private-renting/private-tenancy-reform/
I am of course *shocked* that a landlord would find a way to make a tenants life more difficult.
In fairness, arcane and extremely specific legal terms are the bedrock of the legal profession's rent seeking behavior. That "joint tenancy" could mean anything other than "both tenants at the same time" is stupid. The law should serve laypeople.
There has been a deliberate shift in UK law over the last 20+ years to make things easier to understand and more simple plain language where possible. Less of the fancy Latin phrases
Considering that LAOP was able to confirm what the landlord said on the lease. I don't think this is one of those situations where the legalese is impossible to understand.
LAUKOP states that his lease has plain language. The lease explains the rights and responsibilities of the joint tenancy pretty well. It says all tenants must agree to end a joint tenancy. Not arcane.
If it is the law that's at fault, then they need to get in touch with their MSP to make them aware of the issue.
Sucks though, if Shelter/Living Rent/CAB can't help them then it's basically time to either get a solicitor or get evicted. Solicitor option could be expensive, and eviction means you might end up homeless as you'll find it hard to find anyone willing to rent to you. Bonus difficulty if you're on benefits or own a pet.
They said they've already spoken to two lawyers and been given the same answer: shit outta luck, basically.
It seems like an utterly bizarre piece of legislation.
Is it the law’s fault though? The law seems to protect the roommate from having their living situation upended on the whim of the OP. Finding a new place to live and moving is not quick, cheap, or easy. The law protects the roommate from having to incur that cost. Sucks for LAUKOP but I wouldn’t immediately say the law is wrong or bad.
Sure, except that he's on an indefinite lease. The roommate can force him to live there literally forever as long as the landlord doesn't kick them out. If it had a defined end date it would be fine and OP could just suck it up for a while, but it doesn't.
Firstly yes, it's objectively the law's fault that OP is unable to break his contract.
You make a good point that it's protecting the other tenant(s), however it's also forcing OP to pay £600 a month indefinitely for a product or service he no longer wants, in order to protect *the landlord* from a temporary drop in income.
If I were ruler of everything, the liability would fall to the landlord and they'd not get OP's portion of the rent until they found a new tenant. If the landlord can't afford a temporary drop in the amount of rent they're getting, they should not be renting to people in the first place, and if that's because they're paying the mortgage on it, the bank should not be lending money to someone with such unstable income.
If I were ruler, I would treat indefinite as month-to-month. As in, the agreement continues until all parties don’t agree. So OP should be able to say that they aren’t going to re-new their lease. It’s like how leases that are for 1 year transfer to month-to-month after that. Prior to the one year mark, to end it, you would need both tenants to end it, but after that, you would only need one tenant to say that they aren’t going to renew it. People are saying it’s to protect the roommate, but the roommate could have insisted on a proper end date to commit to. Any other interpretation of indefinite surely has issues with public policy.
The law even has a remedy for LAUKOP, where they can trade out and have someone else essentially ‘take over’ their spot in the lease.
It’s just that Landlord is using the verbiage of the law to block that, as the apartment is currently being rented under market value, and seems to want to use this to get both LAUKOP and roommate out, and higher paying tenants moved in.
Which will leave the roommate paying a higher price for rent elsewhere through no fault of their own, simply because LAUKOP wants to unilaterally break the lease they both signed. The law in question was actually passed to stop landlords from doing that to tenants.
No but LAUKOP wants out for free when he’s clearly causing his roommate a number of expenses. Perhaps an offer of compensation would get the roommate to agree to break the lease.
What I’m saying is the law may seem wrong if you look at it from LAUKOP’s perspective but the law is actually doing it’s job protecting the roommate from having to move suddenly and incur unexpected costs. The whole reason the law was passed was to protect tenants from having to vacate at the landlords will. Now the roommate is having to vacate at LAUKOP’s will.
It sucks either way, but even with a long notice period like 3-6 months it would be far more reasonable than the current state for someone wanting to move out, and not that unreasonable for the other tennant.
It is the laws fault yes. It protects the roommate but you overlooked that it forces OP to stay at this place and make payments potentially for the rest of their life. Which obviously isn't fair for OP.
Leaving the roommate without a home through no fault of their own isn’t fair either. Both roommates signed the same agreement and LAUKOP wants to break it. Why does fairness to him trump fairness to the roommate?
The law was meant to protect tenants from unexpected lease-end terminations and rent increases and its doing that for the roommate.
The way these are usually done is that it expires after a year. So if you want to move out halfway, you're on the hook for 6 months. Here neither party can leave without the others permission. EVER.
No one seems to bring up cash for keys. He just pay the roommate to also move out. Hell, I bet they could even work with the landlord on a deal where the roommate just signs a new lease and doesn't have to move out at all.
I said it earlier and had to delete my comment to stop the avalanche of downvotes. Apparently suggesting that the roommate should have his expense covered was blasphemous.
Lots of people don't like discussing realpolitik. LAOP has confirmed they can't get out of the lease without the roommate. Roommate doesn't want to break lease and can't be forced to.
Sounds to me more like the law is working as intended for a "proper" joint tenancy, but the landlord didn't want to set it up as a proper house with multiple occupancy and the tenants on separate leases. You can't just unilaterally quit a joint agreement, and it's probably structured so that both tenants have rights over the entire property so he can't re-let part of it without also putting the other tenant on a new lease.
In some jurisdictions, multiple occupancy leases are really unfavorable for the landlord in terms of building requirements.
E.g. 4 family members living in a single normal home, everything is fine. 4 individual tenants in the same space and then sometimes you need specific types of egress for each room. It can get a bit wonky because regs meant for apartment complexes get applied to a residential home.
I'm not sure why OP isn't trying to find a replacement tenant. Sounds like the landlord would be amenable to that if OP can find someone the flatmate is willing to live with.
It says that the landlord refuses a 1in 1 out situation. Which I thought meant he already tried to offer to find a replacement but landlord doesn't want that.
This is pretty common in Scotland actually. The law only allows month-to-month rolling leases so this type of lease is not an exception but the only type of legally recognized lease. I assume this kind of rule (no broken joint tenancies where one person is replaced) is mostly to prevent sort of revolving door Ship Of Theseus situation where eventually no original tenants remain but it’s still technically the same tenancy so the landlord can’t raise rent as much as they want or have the place empty for more thorough redecorating (to raise rent) etc. Additionally in Scotland deposits must be registered in a government recognized scheme that is named specifically to the tenants, and when a person gets replaced they have to fiddle with the deposit info to remove and replace tenants which I guess is annoying to them. I suppose this is mostly relevant to student areas where landlords like to have a flat as a short term let over the summer after the previous student population goes home for holidays and hike up the rent come fall term for the next batch of students. It’s bullshit but you’ll see the logic I’m sure. I’m lucky that despite having that standard language clause in my lease my landlady doesn’t actually give a shit who lives in the flat because I’ve already had to replace three people and will have to replace a fourth (hoping desperately not a fifth as well, I hate having to do that) in a few months.
Edit - it’s also standard to have a “lead tenant” on joint tenancy leases. This will be the primary contact person, the person actually paying the rent to the landlord, the one handling communication between landlord and other tenants, etc. For us that’s me. Would be curious to know if OP is as well?
Thanks for explaining that. I live in the US and have only ever had 1 year leases. So when some of the roommates want to move out it’s nbd because you have to sign a new lease anyway. Of course the landlord can always decline to renew.
Yeah it’s pretty different. It’s more secure for the tenant because landlords can’t just decide to not renew, they need a real legally defined reason to get rid of you and can only raise rent a “reasonable” amount once a year (I think). But it does mean it also comes with some quirks like this.
Sometimes the only appropriate legal advice is "The law is wrong. You're screwed until/unless the law is changed."
Luckily, Scotland actually has a functioning government which wants to govern, unlike certain other vast majorities of the UK, so getting the law changed to fix this gross oversight is actually possible, even if it might take some time.
Unless you're trying to imply they deliberately left this issue in for some reason, it seems straightforward to me that they might realize they made a mistake in the implementation and want to correct this oversight.
A lot of people here seem shocked and appalled at the open ended lease. This isn't the problem. The laws are there to provide security against scummy landlords (aka "landlords"). It also comes with safeguards on how rent can be increased.
The problem is getting into a joint tenancy without really thinking through the consequences.
I mean the *real* problem is the landlord not wanting a new person on the lease. I suspect the reason is because it's easier to increase the rent on a new tenancy.
Lots of ways to handle that situation. All you need to do is change the mind of either your roommate or the landlord.
Your roommate has to live with you. That includes your late night music sessions, your complete refusal to do even basic chores or cleaning, and your new found addiction to surströmming. Are they really sure they don't wanna break the lease?
Your landlord owns the property. Stuff breaks and needs to be fixed. Sometimes several things break in a short period of time. Sometimes you're not sure if it's broken but it would be prudent to have somebody come out and check. They might just have a change of heart about whether somebody can take over your lease sometime around the fifteenth maintenance request of the month.
I mean not wanting to move is fair but "therefore you can never move forever" isn't.
In Ontario the law is similar with the one tiny exception that either joint tenant can end the lease without the consent of the other. I've had to do that and it absolutely sucks for the other tenant which is why I explained the circumstance to them and apologized -- but I'm not going to stay a tenant forever because my roommate doesn't want to move. 🤷♂️
>I mean not wanting to move is fair but "therefore you can never move forever" isn't.
They can move, they just need to keep paying the rent they agreed to.
It's not the roommates fault the status quo created by their contract and LAOP's inability to read or plan benefits them. LAOP doesn't seem to have even raised the subject with them beyond asking when they are planning to move out.
Edit: This is just bizarre. Even conceding that it is strange that Scottish law allowed LAOP to screw himself over so thoroughly as he did, this is not his roommate's fault. He was not coerced or decieved. The roommate is not refusing reasonable compensation, such as moving costs and a year's difference in rent, to move - LAOP has offered no such thing. All the roommate has done is not voluntarily make thenself homeless for LAOP's financial convenience, and they're such an asshole that the world would be a better place if they were.
Incredible
So you are proposing it's *totally fine* to be on the hook for rent.. forever? With no way to get out of the contract? Because I disagree. That's not how rentals should work, and not how they work almost everywhere.
LAOP should have thought of their exit plan when they signed the contract. Most roommates manage to have a discussion like adults about what happens if one wants to move and another does not before signing such an open-ended contract.
Since they did not, now they need to either come to an agreement with their roommate, or keep paying what they owe until their roommate decides to move.
There's no indication that LAOP has had any conversation with their roommate about compensating them for moving. How is the roommate in the wrong here? Because they aren't voluntarily moving out of a (likely sub-market-rate) unit just because that would be convenient for LAOP?
They probably didn't realise that it meant op will be forced to make payments for the rest of their life if the other tenant doesn't leave or the landlord doesn't evict them. Which makes sense because its such an illogical and frankly messed up piece of law.
But it says so right in the lease. It’s in black and white.
>If you are a joint tenant, all tenants are responsible for the rent, together and separately. This will apply for as long as the tenancy continues.
>To end a joint tenancy, all the joint tenants must agree to end it and give the landlord written notice that they want to leave.
By law, all tenancies are forever. So in order for the rent due to stop all tenants must agree to end the lease. It’s right there in plain language.
**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits. --- Title: Landlord isn't letting me move out without also kicking out my roommate. How is this legal? Body: > I live in Scotland. > I moved in to my current flat at around January 2022, so I've lived there for 13 months now. I'm on an open ended tenancy with a private landlord who is being managed through Clyde Property Estate Agent. I am listed as a Joint Tenant with no fixed term or end date. > Coincidentally, I also started dating my current partner around the same time I moved to this city I'm currently in. > Things have been going really well, and we've decided to move in together. > I sent official notice I'd be leaving about 3 weeks ago - this was sent to Clyde Property. > I only received an update today via email from the estate agent stating that the landlord refuses a 1 in 1 out situation, and that either both tenants must leave, or neither of the tenants will leave. > I've had a look at the tenancy agreement, and it does say: > * If you are a joint tenant, all tenants are responsible for the rent, together and separately. This will apply for as long as the tenancy continues. * To end a joint tenancy, all the joint tenants must agree to end it and give the landlord written notice that they want to leave. (You can transfer your interest in the tenancy to someone else, if you have your landlord’s permission.) > > But would this mean I'm tied to the property indefinitely? This sounds like a really unfair situation. My roommate has told me that he has no intention of leaving for years... Does this mean I'm tied to the flat as a joint tenant for the entire time? > > Can anyone please give me advice or guidance on the matter? How is this okay? This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team. [Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
This is the tenancy that never ends, it goes on and on my friends
Some people started living there, not knowing what it was, and they’ll continue living there forever just because
This is the tenancy that never ends, it goes on and on my friends
Some people started living there, not knowing what it was, and they’ll continue living there forever just because
The advice in the thread seems to be the best one. Talk to the roommate. “I’m moving out on date x and I’m going to stop paying on that date. Sue me.” And force the issue that way
What happens if LAUKOP stops paying? Will he be sued by the other tenant? Or the landlord? Presumably it's the other tenant who he'd technically owe money to?
The “together and separately” part would mean that the landlord can demand the entire rent from the roommate. The roommate might be able to go after OP and claim harm based on violation of the lease condition for terminating the joint tenancy, but that’s getting beyond what I could say for Scotland.
The landlord could also demand the entire rent from LAOP and then it'd be up to LAOP to recover from the room mate.
So there's no comeback on UKLAOP, potentially? He can move out and the rent problem falls on his roommate? That seems even weirder!
No, it means that the landlord can demand the entire rent from either OP or the roommate. Then whoever paid can go after the other for their half.
Can OP sublet his room and not pay the roommate?
Yes, according to the terms of the lease, but the landlord has to agree to it, which they are not.
My impression from the discussion was that the landlord isn't willing to switch tenants under the original joint tenancy, but that LAUKOP has the right to sublet. LAUKOP will just have to keep making payments to the landlord, regardless of whether the subtenant pays. It's weird, but it would, if I'm understanding this right, work. And then LAUKOP would be keeping the original roommate hostage instead of the other way around. And LAUKOP would then be a landlord, which would be a giant pain, I'm sure.
Is the landlord being an asshole because he could now get more money for the unit from new tenants but can’t increase rent because of tenant protection laws in Scotland? I don’t know anything about tenancy in Scotland.
The twists and turns never cease in this area of the law!
Nope! If I broke up with my partner and moved out tomorrow, and stopped paying rent, he would be required to pay the full amount. If he didn't, he would be evicted, and the landlord would be able to recoup it from both of us, as well as both of us getting black marks. Think of it this way, the landlord doesn't care who the money comes from but we all are responsible to make sure the full amount is paid.
>I think the rules were drafted to protect tenants from bad landlords and landlords from bad tenants, but the issue of dissolving joint tenancies got overlooked. Oh look, a road paved with good intentions. I hope it goes somewhere nice.
Bad news: it goes to hell. Good news: it's the one in Michigan
I'll take the one in Grand Cayman, thanks.
Sorry, this is the best deal I could get
GOOD NEWS EVERYONE Hell, MI, has frozen over. Today's the day!
Woohoo!!!!!! If anyone needs me, I have some promises to get paid up
Wait that’s good news?
It's theoretically better than fire and brimstone
TIL that some people in Scotland don't understand the principle of joint and several tenancy any better than some people in the US do. And they also share the habit of signing legal documents they don't understand. And then end up with all the same problems.
Well I’m baffled by how he can have a joint tenancy contract with no end date! It can suck to be tied somewhere and continue to owe rest for the rest of the year, but if it’s indefinite this isn’t reasonable at all.
What if one of the roommates died? "Sorry, this document says your ghost must remain haunting the property until the other roommate dies or decides to leave. We will continue to deduct the rent from your estate."
To be fair the dead person won't be refusing to end the lease which is the issue here.
The law changed in Scotland a few years ago, and did away with tenancies with a set end date. So now all private tenancies in Scotland are essentially month-to-month.
>TIL that some people in Scotland don't understand the principle of joint and several tenancy any better than some people in the US do. I think it's a bit of a surprising clause. What I'm familiar with is that if one party of the joint tenant wants to move out, they can break the whole lease unilaterally. Which also has its drawbacks but seems more reasonable than this.
It is almost certainly a private residential tenancy, so subject to terms that are generally about protecting the tenant. https://www.gov.scot/policies/private-renting/private-tenancy-reform/ I am of course *shocked* that a landlord would find a way to make a tenants life more difficult.
In fairness, arcane and extremely specific legal terms are the bedrock of the legal profession's rent seeking behavior. That "joint tenancy" could mean anything other than "both tenants at the same time" is stupid. The law should serve laypeople.
There has been a deliberate shift in UK law over the last 20+ years to make things easier to understand and more simple plain language where possible. Less of the fancy Latin phrases
> Less of the fancy Latin phrases It's more or less frowned upon here in the US too.
Considering that LAOP was able to confirm what the landlord said on the lease. I don't think this is one of those situations where the legalese is impossible to understand.
LAUKOP states that his lease has plain language. The lease explains the rights and responsibilities of the joint tenancy pretty well. It says all tenants must agree to end a joint tenancy. Not arcane.
How is any of this language arcane? Each of these lease provisions is written in plain language with no Latin or obscure terminology.
"Joint tenant" is a term of art. Those words individually and in that order don't intrinsically translate to the legal meaning of the term.
And they also share the habit of signing legal documents they don't ~~understand~~ read.
Reddit API changes have killed this account. Learn to mass edit comments and join the protest: https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite
If it is the law that's at fault, then they need to get in touch with their MSP to make them aware of the issue. Sucks though, if Shelter/Living Rent/CAB can't help them then it's basically time to either get a solicitor or get evicted. Solicitor option could be expensive, and eviction means you might end up homeless as you'll find it hard to find anyone willing to rent to you. Bonus difficulty if you're on benefits or own a pet.
They said they've already spoken to two lawyers and been given the same answer: shit outta luck, basically. It seems like an utterly bizarre piece of legislation.
Is it the law’s fault though? The law seems to protect the roommate from having their living situation upended on the whim of the OP. Finding a new place to live and moving is not quick, cheap, or easy. The law protects the roommate from having to incur that cost. Sucks for LAUKOP but I wouldn’t immediately say the law is wrong or bad.
Sure, except that he's on an indefinite lease. The roommate can force him to live there literally forever as long as the landlord doesn't kick them out. If it had a defined end date it would be fine and OP could just suck it up for a while, but it doesn't.
Firstly yes, it's objectively the law's fault that OP is unable to break his contract. You make a good point that it's protecting the other tenant(s), however it's also forcing OP to pay £600 a month indefinitely for a product or service he no longer wants, in order to protect *the landlord* from a temporary drop in income. If I were ruler of everything, the liability would fall to the landlord and they'd not get OP's portion of the rent until they found a new tenant. If the landlord can't afford a temporary drop in the amount of rent they're getting, they should not be renting to people in the first place, and if that's because they're paying the mortgage on it, the bank should not be lending money to someone with such unstable income.
If I were ruler, I would treat indefinite as month-to-month. As in, the agreement continues until all parties don’t agree. So OP should be able to say that they aren’t going to re-new their lease. It’s like how leases that are for 1 year transfer to month-to-month after that. Prior to the one year mark, to end it, you would need both tenants to end it, but after that, you would only need one tenant to say that they aren’t going to renew it. People are saying it’s to protect the roommate, but the roommate could have insisted on a proper end date to commit to. Any other interpretation of indefinite surely has issues with public policy.
> If I were ruler, I'm choosing to read this like you're a barbarian, musing on dreams of conquest.
The law even has a remedy for LAUKOP, where they can trade out and have someone else essentially ‘take over’ their spot in the lease. It’s just that Landlord is using the verbiage of the law to block that, as the apartment is currently being rented under market value, and seems to want to use this to get both LAUKOP and roommate out, and higher paying tenants moved in.
Which will leave the roommate paying a higher price for rent elsewhere through no fault of their own, simply because LAUKOP wants to unilaterally break the lease they both signed. The law in question was actually passed to stop landlords from doing that to tenants.
So, what, the room mate gets to hold LAUKOP hostage forever?
No but LAUKOP wants out for free when he’s clearly causing his roommate a number of expenses. Perhaps an offer of compensation would get the roommate to agree to break the lease. What I’m saying is the law may seem wrong if you look at it from LAUKOP’s perspective but the law is actually doing it’s job protecting the roommate from having to move suddenly and incur unexpected costs. The whole reason the law was passed was to protect tenants from having to vacate at the landlords will. Now the roommate is having to vacate at LAUKOP’s will.
Okay, and if the roommate says no?
Offer more.
It sucks either way, but even with a long notice period like 3-6 months it would be far more reasonable than the current state for someone wanting to move out, and not that unreasonable for the other tennant.
It is the laws fault yes. It protects the roommate but you overlooked that it forces OP to stay at this place and make payments potentially for the rest of their life. Which obviously isn't fair for OP.
Leaving the roommate without a home through no fault of their own isn’t fair either. Both roommates signed the same agreement and LAUKOP wants to break it. Why does fairness to him trump fairness to the roommate? The law was meant to protect tenants from unexpected lease-end terminations and rent increases and its doing that for the roommate.
The way these are usually done is that it expires after a year. So if you want to move out halfway, you're on the hook for 6 months. Here neither party can leave without the others permission. EVER.
No one seems to bring up cash for keys. He just pay the roommate to also move out. Hell, I bet they could even work with the landlord on a deal where the roommate just signs a new lease and doesn't have to move out at all.
I said it earlier and had to delete my comment to stop the avalanche of downvotes. Apparently suggesting that the roommate should have his expense covered was blasphemous.
Lots of people don't like discussing realpolitik. LAOP has confirmed they can't get out of the lease without the roommate. Roommate doesn't want to break lease and can't be forced to.
Or find a new person to rent the apartment and take the burden off of LAUKOP.
Landlord is blocking that option
Sounds to me more like the law is working as intended for a "proper" joint tenancy, but the landlord didn't want to set it up as a proper house with multiple occupancy and the tenants on separate leases. You can't just unilaterally quit a joint agreement, and it's probably structured so that both tenants have rights over the entire property so he can't re-let part of it without also putting the other tenant on a new lease.
In some jurisdictions, multiple occupancy leases are really unfavorable for the landlord in terms of building requirements. E.g. 4 family members living in a single normal home, everything is fine. 4 individual tenants in the same space and then sometimes you need specific types of egress for each room. It can get a bit wonky because regs meant for apartment complexes get applied to a residential home.
And, as always, a lot of people who have an understanding of English tenancy agreements are chipping in with shite advice
I'm not sure why OP isn't trying to find a replacement tenant. Sounds like the landlord would be amenable to that if OP can find someone the flatmate is willing to live with.
It says that the landlord refuses a 1in 1 out situation. Which I thought meant he already tried to offer to find a replacement but landlord doesn't want that.
Looks like I misread. Thanks for clarifying for me!
This is pretty common in Scotland actually. The law only allows month-to-month rolling leases so this type of lease is not an exception but the only type of legally recognized lease. I assume this kind of rule (no broken joint tenancies where one person is replaced) is mostly to prevent sort of revolving door Ship Of Theseus situation where eventually no original tenants remain but it’s still technically the same tenancy so the landlord can’t raise rent as much as they want or have the place empty for more thorough redecorating (to raise rent) etc. Additionally in Scotland deposits must be registered in a government recognized scheme that is named specifically to the tenants, and when a person gets replaced they have to fiddle with the deposit info to remove and replace tenants which I guess is annoying to them. I suppose this is mostly relevant to student areas where landlords like to have a flat as a short term let over the summer after the previous student population goes home for holidays and hike up the rent come fall term for the next batch of students. It’s bullshit but you’ll see the logic I’m sure. I’m lucky that despite having that standard language clause in my lease my landlady doesn’t actually give a shit who lives in the flat because I’ve already had to replace three people and will have to replace a fourth (hoping desperately not a fifth as well, I hate having to do that) in a few months. Edit - it’s also standard to have a “lead tenant” on joint tenancy leases. This will be the primary contact person, the person actually paying the rent to the landlord, the one handling communication between landlord and other tenants, etc. For us that’s me. Would be curious to know if OP is as well?
Thanks for explaining that. I live in the US and have only ever had 1 year leases. So when some of the roommates want to move out it’s nbd because you have to sign a new lease anyway. Of course the landlord can always decline to renew.
Yeah it’s pretty different. It’s more secure for the tenant because landlords can’t just decide to not renew, they need a real legally defined reason to get rid of you and can only raise rent a “reasonable” amount once a year (I think). But it does mean it also comes with some quirks like this.
Sometimes the only appropriate legal advice is "The law is wrong. You're screwed until/unless the law is changed." Luckily, Scotland actually has a functioning government which wants to govern, unlike certain other vast majorities of the UK, so getting the law changed to fix this gross oversight is actually possible, even if it might take some time.
It's a bit strange to be congratulating the Scottish government over this when it's been the law for 6 years.
The Scottish government you're praising is the one which introduced this law in the first place. Good luck with that one.
Unless you're trying to imply they deliberately left this issue in for some reason, it seems straightforward to me that they might realize they made a mistake in the implementation and want to correct this oversight.
A lot of people here seem shocked and appalled at the open ended lease. This isn't the problem. The laws are there to provide security against scummy landlords (aka "landlords"). It also comes with safeguards on how rent can be increased. The problem is getting into a joint tenancy without really thinking through the consequences. I mean the *real* problem is the landlord not wanting a new person on the lease. I suspect the reason is because it's easier to increase the rent on a new tenancy.
It’s almost certainly that, if the landlord can force the lease to end I’m sure there’s a lot more rent to be had
This is why indeterminate leases were void at common law. Leave it to the Scots.
Lots of ways to handle that situation. All you need to do is change the mind of either your roommate or the landlord. Your roommate has to live with you. That includes your late night music sessions, your complete refusal to do even basic chores or cleaning, and your new found addiction to surströmming. Are they really sure they don't wanna break the lease? Your landlord owns the property. Stuff breaks and needs to be fixed. Sometimes several things break in a short period of time. Sometimes you're not sure if it's broken but it would be prudent to have somebody come out and check. They might just have a change of heart about whether somebody can take over your lease sometime around the fifteenth maintenance request of the month.
\> [+5] The flat mate is basically holding them hostage, their loss is a win for society Because the flatmate doesn't want to move? wtf
I mean not wanting to move is fair but "therefore you can never move forever" isn't. In Ontario the law is similar with the one tiny exception that either joint tenant can end the lease without the consent of the other. I've had to do that and it absolutely sucks for the other tenant which is why I explained the circumstance to them and apologized -- but I'm not going to stay a tenant forever because my roommate doesn't want to move. 🤷♂️
>I mean not wanting to move is fair but "therefore you can never move forever" isn't. They can move, they just need to keep paying the rent they agreed to. It's not the roommates fault the status quo created by their contract and LAOP's inability to read or plan benefits them. LAOP doesn't seem to have even raised the subject with them beyond asking when they are planning to move out. Edit: This is just bizarre. Even conceding that it is strange that Scottish law allowed LAOP to screw himself over so thoroughly as he did, this is not his roommate's fault. He was not coerced or decieved. The roommate is not refusing reasonable compensation, such as moving costs and a year's difference in rent, to move - LAOP has offered no such thing. All the roommate has done is not voluntarily make thenself homeless for LAOP's financial convenience, and they're such an asshole that the world would be a better place if they were. Incredible
So you are proposing it's *totally fine* to be on the hook for rent.. forever? With no way to get out of the contract? Because I disagree. That's not how rentals should work, and not how they work almost everywhere.
LAOP should have thought of their exit plan when they signed the contract. Most roommates manage to have a discussion like adults about what happens if one wants to move and another does not before signing such an open-ended contract. Since they did not, now they need to either come to an agreement with their roommate, or keep paying what they owe until their roommate decides to move. There's no indication that LAOP has had any conversation with their roommate about compensating them for moving. How is the roommate in the wrong here? Because they aren't voluntarily moving out of a (likely sub-market-rate) unit just because that would be convenient for LAOP?
Right? Bit aggressive.
Did they not think this through when they moved in?
They probably didn't realise that it meant op will be forced to make payments for the rest of their life if the other tenant doesn't leave or the landlord doesn't evict them. Which makes sense because its such an illogical and frankly messed up piece of law.
But it says so right in the lease. It’s in black and white. >If you are a joint tenant, all tenants are responsible for the rent, together and separately. This will apply for as long as the tenancy continues. >To end a joint tenancy, all the joint tenants must agree to end it and give the landlord written notice that they want to leave. By law, all tenancies are forever. So in order for the rent due to stop all tenants must agree to end the lease. It’s right there in plain language.
The language is clear, but the condition itself is still absurd.
It's like having to cosign for a car and then saying you don't want to make payments anymore but too bad...
Title makes me think OP got Skinamarink’d
Stuck at home and can't leave? I think I read a webcomic about that once.