Would DD have a chance at winning a MCOL claim

[YourOpalBear]

DD is in a joint contract with two flatmates, both of which were her friends. In March out of the blue one of them - let's call her Alice - claimed she had vacated the premises and stopped paying bills. DD and the other flatmate argued that the bills were fixed monthly but the third flatmate did not care so DD and her flatmate shared it amongst themselves. The rent for March was paid. In previous emails, she had asked the landlord to allow her to pay less rent as she was covering rent for two places in the same town.

It came to light a few days ago that Alice had only partially paid rent for April and a small amount for May. Since Alice had insisted she pay the landlord directly from April, DD and her flatmate were unaware until the landlord emailed them. He told them he would be contacting guarantors or deducting from the deposit.

The two girls emailed Alice and asked why she was now withholding rent and reminded her of avenues for financial support they had recommended when Alice claimed she had financial hardship. I In response, Alice claimed they had not engaged in the tenancy replacement process enough. The reasons she had cited was the criteria and the lack of availability to conduct viewings. The girls had stated they would like to live with another student, early 20s to mid 20s and female. Alice had ignored this and sent them male professionals in their 30s and insisted to the landlord that since these prospects fit the objective criteria he should ignore the other's preferences and rent to them which he ignored. Moreover, in the beginning, when Alice had a cold she asked the girls if they could conduct viewings to which they obliged since they were available however after that she had emailed them asking for their schedules so she could book in viewings for them to conduct. The girls said they were away, occupied and could not do viewings with 30 minutes notice but Alice would not accept it.

Now, Alice is claiming the arrears is all their faults. The girls know that they are on a joint and several contract so would like to avoid a CCJ and would pay up if Alice does not by the deadline using hardship funds. However they are seeking to be reimbursed. Would this be likely given the circumstances? Alice claims she and her guarantor are unable to pay since her parent's home country is in conflict. We know if this is true and the girls win a MCOL judgement? she will get a CCJ but how likely is this? Also when raising a MCOL would it be best to do it after the tenancy has ended to ascertain the total debt.

How much loss we talking here?

1400 altogether

Each? Or your daughter’s share £700

Either way… I am afraid that there was a lot of information in your op and I have to be honest i didn’t read it all so I’ll leave it for someone else!

If Alice and her guarantor genuinely cannot pay, a successful claim against her will result in her having a CCJ against her name, but it will leave your daughter and her friend an additional £115 out of pocket (£205 if the amount owed goes over £3,000).

It is impossible to say for sure whether they would win. That depends on the evidence. However, they are required to take whatever steps they can to mitigate their losses. The judge may take the view that the criteria they have set for another tenant are too narrow - that they should be willing to accept an older woman who is not a student, for example. If that is the judge's opinion, they won't get all their money back even if they win.

Could they really be forced to live with someone they do not want to and sign a contract with them? Their justification for a student was that students need guarantors so there will be someone with a fixed address in case a tenant absconds. Alice proposed only three students, one who withdrew before the viewings and two who withdrew the day after application when viewings were being conducted.

No-one will force them to live with anyone. However, if the judge thinks that their criteria are too narrow, they will only be awarded any loss up to the point where someone the judge regards as suitable would have been able to move in. Any losses after that point would be down to them. Of course, if the judge thinks their criteria are reasonable, they could be awarded the full loss.

Why aren't they looking for a new tenant themselves? Why are they leaving it all to Alice? The judge may view that as a failure to take adequate steps to mitigate their loss. Also, I can understand them wanting more than 30 minutes notice for a viewing, but failing to tell Alice when they are available to conduct viewings may go against them.

Your daughter and her flatmate should be doing everything they can to find a new tenant.

I agree that the girls should also be looking for a new flatmate - and be able to evidence this. So they could, for example, put a flatmate wanted ad on a student noticeboard and photo it as proof. There are often people at universities and colleges who help students find accommodation and they can contact any such accommodation office and ask if they know of anyone.

I dont think any judge should need to have it explained to them why 2 young women would prefer a female flatmate. However they would need to spell it out if it came to court. Also that if the new flatmate was not a student they would need to pay council tax, Requesting another female student is not an unreasonable ask, limiting the age range may be.

If it goes to court they should also claim Alice's share of any fixed bill costs - so internet, tv license if they have one, standing charges for utilities but not a full 1/3rd of all those bills.

The home country in conflict only matters for the guarantor. Alice has a legal obligation to pay and she needs to access hardship funds and/or look for work/additional work. If she cant pay immediately when she leaves college she may have full time work and be able to pay later. The 2 girls need to balance the cost of MCOL against the risk that even if they win they may not get anything back.

Will the property be vacant rent still being paid over the long summer break?

No she issued a notice to quit in the beginning of the month as during April a reolacement tenant was not secured.

So tenancy ending for all in a few weeks?

In 6 yes, It was meant to end a month earlier by Alice served notice meaning DD has took book a hotel for the few days she has exams during which the tenancy has ended

Did you daughter and other flat mate not try to bring someone else in?

They found out she had left the property and in April the girl declared she wanted to be replaced. They could see the girl had an ad on spareroom for the room so they didn't feel it was necessary to make another one. They asked around at uni but nobody was looking.

All a bit weird and passive

I don’t think a claim would have a leg to stand on and you’d end up more out of pocket

Quite, they haven't done anything demonstrable to fill the room at all.

Odd isn’t.

Any claim would be laughed out of court. These aren’t vulnerable children.

It’s not really the time of year for people to be moving and I think they are being a bit restrictive in their tenant criteria. It is probably people who are slightly outside the ‘norm’ who are going to be available at this time of year anyway.

Female for student house, student preferred is probably enough.

There might be a lovely mature student or postgrad in her late twenties who would be a perfect fit.

Put the ad everywhere!

If the tenancy is ending soon anyway so you know that it's £1400 between them it is probably not worth the risk of going to court, given that they did nothing themselves to find a new tenant that they can evidence. It's a life lesson for them. They can chase Alice without going to court and try to shame her to pay something if they have mutual friends. They also need to consider why Alice left and if their behaviour contributed to why she left them with the bills.

No, a claim would not be laughed out of court. They may have a claim against Alice. However, the judge may well take the view that the amount they can claim is limited due to the criteria they have imposed for a new tenant and their failure to do anything themselves to mitigate their loss.

I don't think I can have understood correctly because who on earth is going to want to move into a student house at this stage of the year? Surely expecting the remaining two girls to find someone was always going to be pretty impossible?

My dd only has about 4 weeks of exams left but most of her friends either have finished or are due to finish in the next week.

Can you get advice from the Uni OP?

And when the judge enquiries as to what effort the dd and fellow flat mate made to find a replacement they 🤷‍♀️ and say - the dodgy flatmate we are claiming against took out a local ad so we left her to it, 100% confident that she’d sort because we trusted she was really on it 🤔

They don’t need to accept someone who isn’t a student as the property will lose its council tax exemption. Alice is liable until someone your dd is willing to live with is found. Your dd and her friend need to mitigate their losses so need to be reasonable about a replacement but to be honest this is on Alice who sounds v hard work and has basically left your dd and her friend in the lurch. In your dd’s shoes I would actively look for a replacement. I would also pursue Alice for her share of anything that has to be paid. Sounds like Alice might just leave the country though? In the future there are companies that will act as guarantor so your dd would only ever be liable for her bit and I would suggest she looks into that. Alice’s behaviour is shitty and I wouldn’t think twice about issuing proceedings against her.

Also get the uni involved - I think they will take a dim view of Alice’s conduct.

As I say, that would limit the amount they would be awarded as they had not taken adequate steps to mitigate their loss but it won't wipe out their claim completely.

These are fully fledged adults

I suspect the judge would dismiss as a spat that was the upshot of no one taking any active interest in securing a replacement