End of student tenancies as we know them?

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Willis at 21/05/2025 – 18:25
The change in RRB as drafted is that NTQs can be withdrawn by mutual agreement; there is nothing in there solidifying what has been established through case law. The change I’m referring to will invalidate a lot of that prior case law (which mostly focusses on couples/abusive relationships). I would be applying the new provision of the1977 Act to prevent eviction which is the whole point of that Act. The point of putting a clause in the contract means the disgruntled odd-ball cannot claim that was a resolution invented after the contract was entered into. I’d want to have the documentary evidence that it was all above board from the outset.

Reply to the comment left by Simon F at 21/05/2025 – 18:56
As I said Simon, I think youve misunderstood it. Mutual agreement means between the Tenant and the landlord. To my knowledge there is nothing in the RRB changing the definition of a joint tenancy and therefore all tenants would still be required to act unanimously.

Yes, of course, mutual agreement means between LL & Tenant. The situation under discussion here is when the individuals that constitute Tenant are not acting / communicating unanimously, they cannot be forced to. If the LL receives a partially signed NTQ and then later a partially signed request for the NTQ to be withdrawn, the LL has to make a choice as to which he/she acts on. My proposition is that it is prudent to set out in the agreement how that choice will be made, and that a majority rule in such a situation is a reasonable criteria to apply.

Reply to the comment left by Simon F at 22/05/2025 – 12:30
My understanding of the legislation is that this clause wouldn’t be enforceable.

Any tenant can provide NTQ unilaterally, but all tenants+ landlord need to agree to withdraw the NTQ.

Happy to be corrected.

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Willis at 22/05/2025 – 12:35
As others have said, the basis that one in a joint tenancy can give a valid NTQ is that the Tenant must be viewed singularly in a joint contract. There’s no basis for viewing a request to withdraw the NTQ in a different way, so any subset of the group can fully represent the Tenant in that respect too. Mutual here does not imply mutually within the group, only between LL and Tenant.

Reply to the comment left by Simon F at 22/05/2025 – 12:45
I think I understand you now.

In a joint tenancy, the tenants are in law just known as “The tenant”. Regardless of how many physical tenants are named on the contract.

So the question is then , by “Tenant” is a NTQ required by all or just 1 physical tenant. I would have thought this would have been defined in law, as it’s common practice for any tenant to hand in notice today.

I see issues no matter which way it’s taken. If all are required, a tenant that wants to leave is trapped, unable to serve to NTQ. Probably common in student lets, but also where people form relationships, take new jobs elsewhere and need to move.

But then if it’s singular, then in theory it can be abused. A couple break up, one hands in NTQ, the other hands in withdrawal for NTQ. Landlord approves it, and the other tenant remains trapped (like in Scotland). Potentially more common if one of the tenants is related to the landlord, but given the number of managing agents and their capacity to make rational decisions this could go either way. If they take the route to just deny all withdrawals, then the change in law would have no effect.

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Willis at 22/05/2025 – 13:20

It is defined in law. Common law and case law. LBH&F v Monk, Simms v Dacorum BC etc.

One joint tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy, (for everyone) by serving a valid Notice to Quit privided there is no contractual undertaking to the contrary. As things stand, once served it cannot be withdrawn even if both party’s agree. The proposal in the RRB is to allow withdrawal by mutual consent, but unless all the tenants agree, this would not be possible. If it were possible it would mean that an individual could be trapped in a tenancy indefinitely.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 22/05/2025 – 18:50
Unless I’ve missed something, That matches my original understanding. Any tenant can give NTQ, it cannot be withdrawn, but under RRB it can be withdrawn but all tenants and landlord must agree to withdraw it. It makes sense for an “accidental” notice, but in reality people give notice because they intend to leave, even if it’s just 1 tenant on the agreement, not all of them. It still has the same issue that 1 tenant can give notice, not tell the others and the tenancy will end without them realising. But that doesn’t match what Simon says above, about treating all tenants as “Tenant” in a joint tenancy.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 22/05/2025 – 18:50
Why do you say all persons that form the Tenant would need to agree to withdraw the NTQ? Parliament opted not to follow Scotland in that respect. I agree with the point that it would be unreasonable to trap someone in a Tenancy indefinitely but it does not follow that it is a requirement in law post RRB that all sign a withdrawal of an NTQ for it to have validity. It is equally unreasonable for 1 of 5 to end the tenancy of others in a student group prior to exams. When the Landlord is put in a position of having to chose the lesser of two evils, the response needs to be lawful, reasonable and rational. Holding a student on a joint contract to the terms of a contract until the end of an academic year if his/her fellow occupants need the accommodation through exams and cannot afford to increase their contributions is all of reasonable, rational and lawful as far as I can see.

Reply to the comment left by Simon F at 22/05/2025 – 20:24
As I said earlier, the reason I say that all tenants would need to agree is that there is no clause or amendment to the RRB so far that changes the common law and case law definition of a joint tenancy.