Tenancy agreement advice

[hcblue95]

In March I moved into a shared house with a joint tenancy agreement for 12 months. I suspected I would need to leave after 6 months and requested that the contract be for 6 months.
I was told they would only do 12 months as it was a contract for the three people sharing the house. But, the agent said in exact words;

'If you want to leave even in 3 months time you can but obviously with the consent of other 2 tenants. we have no problem with it at all.'

So I signed because I knew it would not be difficult to find someone to replace me. Now I am being told they will not transfer my tenancy to a new person even though I have found someone willing to move in.

If anyone with knowledge could offer some advice please. Does this email from the agent act as an addition to the contract and can I use it, or is it basically useless and just his word but not official enough to use against them?

Cheers in advance.

(As an additional note, he has obviously told me before the law change that i's not a problem transferring the tenancy because at the time they could charge extortionate fees to change the name. Now they can't charge and it's not in their interest to do it.)

 

[aguero93:20]

In March I moved into a shared house with a joint tenancy agreement for 12 months. I suspected I would need to leave after 6 months and requested that the contract be for 6 months.
I was told they would only do 12 months as it was a contract for the three people sharing the house. But, the agent said in exact words;

'If you want to leave even in 3 months time you can but obviously with the consent of other 2 tenants. we have no problem with it at all.'

So I signed because I knew it would not be difficult to find someone to replace me. Now I am being told they will not transfer my tenancy to a new person even though I have found someone willing to move in.

If anyone with knowledge could offer some advice please. Does this email from the agent act as an addition to the contract and can I use it, or is it basically useless and just his word but not official enough to use against them?

Cheers in advance.

(As an additional note, he has obviously told me before the law change that i's not a problem transferring the tenancy because at the time they could charge extortionate fees to change the name. Now they can't charge and it's not in their interest to do it.)

Does your tenancy agreement prohibit sub-letting?

 

[hcblue95]

Does your tenancy agreement prohibit sub-letting?

I think so, I could double check but I would rather not have to sublet because that would be quite complicated with deposit and if the replacement tenant caused any trouble. I would rather transfer it and not need to worry.

 

[aguero93:20]

I think so, I could double check but I would rather not have to sublet because that would be quite complicated with deposit and if the replacement tenant caused any trouble. I would rather transfer it and not need to worry.

Double check. If it doesn't then that'll give you a good bit of leverage with your landlord, subletting isn't ideal for you but it's even less ideal for them. Plus, on the deposit front you leave your deposit with the landlord and you take the deposit from the new tenant, so it's no difference to you. Sounds to me like the landlord just wants to avoid the hassle of switching tenants (speaking from experience) so if you can paint a worse scenario for them without breaching your lease then they'll probably give in.

 

[BlueMoonRisin’]

Does your tenancy agreement prohibit sub-letting?

So you can smash the windows and torch the place? ; )

 

[aguero93:20]

So you can smash the windows and torch the place? ; )

That's plan B.

 

[BlueMoonRisin’]

That's plan B.

What's plan P, pyromaniac pikey?

 

[hcblue95]

Double check. If it doesn't then that'll give you a good bit of leverage with your landlord, subletting isn't ideal for you but it's even less ideal for them. Plus, on the deposit front you leave your deposit with the landlord and you take the deposit from the new tenant, so it's no difference to you. Sounds to me like the landlord just wants to avoid the hassle of switching tenants (speaking from experience) so if you can paint a worse scenario for them without breaching your lease then they'll probably give in.

Ah I see your point, I'll take a look that's a good idea thanks.

Just looked and one of the clauses is: the tenant must not assign, underlet or part with or share the property etc.

 

[aguero93:20]

What's plan P, pyromaniac pikey?

Smash the landlord's wife's back doors in, obviously.

 

[BlueMoonRisin’]

Smash the landlord's wife's back doors in, obviously.

Ah, plan S then; )