Part 4 notice of termination after 6 years, process

[bipped]

were two names on the original lease agreement 5.5 years ago, which I have a copy of. I assume they are or were a couple. I don't know if they are still together or if one tenant was removed from the tenancy.

If there was a joint tenancy and one party moved out but didn’t give written notice to the landlord or agent to relinquish their interest in the lease and didn’t assign to a replacement tenant, are they still a joint tenant? Is updating the rtb register sufficient to sever their contractual rights if none of the three original parties sign any documentation to amend or vary the lease.

If a joint tenant moves out they may not be surrendering their tenancy - they could be working away, sick, or caring for someone for a long time especially if they are part of a couple and the other partner is paying the rent.

@LarryScott,
Would both joint tenants need to be named on the NoT or would it be enough to just name the remaining original tenant and ‘all other occupants’ ?

 

[LarryScott]

Would both joint tenants need to be named on the NoT or would it be enough to just name the remaining original tenant and ‘all other occupants’ ?

I don't think "all other occupants" would work if one of them was a formal tenant.

I think a better question is what happens if you include expired tenants. Is it safer to included former tenants, than risk it.

Is updating the rtb register sufficient to sever their contractual rights if none of the three original parties sign any documentation to amend or vary the lease.

I would say that it is a matter of just informing the RTB. You have to tell them if there is an update. There could be issues if you rely on that information later.

It can probably be used against the landlord, but not necessarily in favor of the landlord.

If the NoT only had 1 name but the landlord never updated the list of names on the RTB registration, then I expect it would cause the NoT to be invalid, even if the landlord can show that they were notified of the departing tenant.

In this case, presumably, the agent updated the registration for some actual reason. Ideally, they were officially notified.

 

[Wavelly]

If the NoT only had 1 name but the landlord never updated the list of names on the RTB registration, then I expect it would cause the NoT to be invalid, even if the landlord can show that they were notified of the departing tenant.

In this case, presumably, the agent updated the registration for some actual reason. Ideally, they were officially notified.

Yes apparently the agent was requested to update the lease a couple of years ago to remove one of the named tenants, as they had moved out. The RTB registration was updated to list only the remaining tenant, to match the updated lease. Hopefully the agent has documentation of all this on their records.

The problem is that I happen to know that the removed tenant is now back living there (I only know this because I recently recieved an email from the OMC about on issue with our tenants and they named the removed person.).

I think we're just going to go with what is on the current tenancy registration with the RTB, and hope the agent can back it up if it ends in a dispute. I'm kind of expecting it at this stage.

 

[Greenbook]

I think we're just going to go with what is on the current tenancy registration with the RTB, and hope the agent can back it up if it ends in a dispute. I'm kind of expecting it at this stage.

If the other tenant is in occupation, I think you need to issue separate NoTs to both tenants.

The one to the tenant you know about should stand by itself.

If the other guy has indeed moved out or isn't a tenant, then the separate one to him is irrelevant. If, on the other hand he has moved back in and reactivated the tenancy, then he has a valid NoT.

Another example though of what a morass the PRS does. There are incredibly strict legal rules which have to be followed to the letter, but they don't reflect what goes on with tenants in real life.

 

[bipped]

If, on the other hand he has moved back in and reactivated the tenancy, then he has a valid NoT.

That’s the bit I wondered about. There’s two things, the signed lease, and the registered tenancy which is the state record. I thought the legal document was the lease/contract and just updating the tenancy registration didn’t create or dissolve any contractual liability.

Say a joint tenant wanted to move out and assign to a replacement. If that happens with documented pre-authorisation of the landlord and agreement of the other tenant, the original and new parties to the lease are clear. The rtb register update is just an administrative step to record the state record after the fact.

Is there no need to sign a variation or addendum (don’t know the correct term) if there’s any change to the lease parties? What happens for example if a landlord / owner changed and the tenants remained? Surely the update to the rtb register is not sufficient to change the legal contract - wouldn’t the new owner need to have the change documented and proof first before the RTB is updated?

I get that a tenancy doesn’t end without a legal termination notice from either the landlord or the tenant/s, it’s changes during the term that I’m curious about and the documentation owners need. It was all very laisez-faire in the past.

 

[Greenbook]

Surely the update to the rtb register is not sufficient to change the legal contract - wouldn’t the new owner need to have the change documented and proof first before the RTB is updated?

I don't think it is sufficient. Otherwise, you could evict a tenant just by taking his name off the register.

Landlords need to be very careful and paperwork conscious these days. It would think it is best to be on the safeside and get signed confirmation from the tenant that he is leaving and giving up the lease of hisown accord. We're seeing from this post the type of problems now being caused by the casual nature of the relationship in the past.