One tenant wants to quit the other three don’t

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "16/10/2016 - 11:57":

Hi Mandy

That's where we part on our understanding again. Mine is thus ...

"The Tenant" in the first case is a party of four.

When re-let to three of the four or even plus one "The Tenant" is a different group, hence a brand new tenancy for the purposes of law and cannot therefore be treated as a continuation.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "16/10/2016 - 12:36":

Hi Mark

Until the other day, that was my understanding too. However, I then attended a course, taken by someone who used to represent tenants in court for many years, in addition to being a portfolio landlord for even longer. She now works as trainer with a leading landlord organisation.

The trainer made it clear that once served on a particular individual, the new prescribed information need not be served again provided the new AST is for the same property. Likewise, the individual is not entitled to another fixed term in statute (though of course this can be granted by contract in the new AST). The same is true for the right to rent check; you need only look at the Home Office guidance and will see that.

This makes sense, because if you look at form n5b (the accelerated possession claim form), item 2 asks the claimant to state the first AST then any subsequent ASTs made with the tenant (including the tenant's successor) against the same property. If new ASTs had the effect in law of creating a brand new tenancy, and cancelling any action that had been taken regarding the original AST, why would the court be looking at previous ASTs?

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "16/10/2016 - 13:12":

Your colleague is correct in my opinion, however, a new tenancy with different tenants is not a continuation in my opinion. In this case the first tenancy was with a 'partnership' of four people. The new tenancy might well be three of the same four people but that in itself is a different 'partnership' so far as my understanding goes.

I use the word partnership liberally as I appreciate its not the same as two or more people trading together with a view to making a profit. My point though is that the tenants are different, perhaps the word 'unit' might be even better to describe the different groups.
.

I have thought of an easier way to explain this.

Tenant group one tenancy has been ended by one of the group serving valid NTQ. On the basis the tenancy has ended the deposit needs to be unprotected.

If the property is re-let to a new group of tenants, comprising some of the previous tenants and perhaps one other this is still a new group, hence it is a new tenancy and not a continuation. It must be treated as if none of the existing group had previously occupied the property, regardless of whether another person joins the new group or not.

I hope that helps.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "16/10/2016 - 14:36":

The question is where does the law treat the individual separately, regardless of their being a member of a joint tenancy unit. As in right to rent, it is clear the law will at least sometimes divide the tenant unit down into individuals.

However, as this can add complexity and confusion, and a landlord could easily make a mistake, in practice it is probably best to err on the side of caution and treat the everyone within the tenancy unit as one brand new tenant, at least as far as possible.

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "16/10/2016 - 14:48":

"If new ASTs had the effect in law of creating a brand new tenancy,"

They do. There is not the slightest doubt.

", and cancelling any action that had been taken regarding the original AST,"

That's the case, as well.

Now, when you look at specific requirements, e.g. GSC certificates if a copy was already given you probably do not need to give it again.
But that's really specific to each requirement rather than a general rule.