In a previous blog post last year, we looked at a possession case issued by Westminster City Council where there had been a joint tenancy. One tenant (A) moved out and the other (B) remained in occupation. When B later died, A survived the joint tenancy and was not occupying the property. B's grandson was in occupation and possession proceedings were brought to recover the property. B's grandson then claimed that he was entitled to succeed the tenancy, implying that the whole joint tenancy was surrendered when A moved out.  

In the first instance, the court found in favour of the grandson. Westminster City Council successfully appealed and in 2023 - the court found that there had been no implied surrender of the tenancy. Our previous blog looked at the reason for the court's decision and the implications.

This matter has been back in court recently with a further appeal from the grandson. He asked the court to consider the effect on the original joint tenancy of a new sole tenancy being granted to B with A's consent. The court found that the grandson was wrong to assume that there had been a grant of a sole tenancy from Westminster to his grandmother. The appeal was dismissed. 

The court held that there had been no finding in proceedings so far that a sole tenancy had been granted. Such a finding may have been implicit in the first judgment, but there was no explanation for the basis of that finding. Further, there was no evidence that the landlord had treated A as a new sole tenant. Rather, the landlord's behaviour was consistent with treating her as a continuing joint tenant:

• Whilst Westminster City Council had removed A's name from the rent account because joint tenants are ‘jointly and severally liable’ for rent, this was not inconsistent with the continuation of a joint tenancy - with the landlord simply electing to pursue only one of the tenants for the rent. 
• Westminster City Council had not amended the start date of the tenancy on their records, which remained the start date of the original joint tenancy. 
• Although Westminster City Council had subsequently rehoused B - over a year after he had left the property in question - this was done on the basis that he was homeless. It is possible to be homeless and remain a joint tenant if it is no longer reasonable to continue to occupy your former home and so this too was not inconsistent with the tenancy being treated as a continuing joint tenancy.

Finally, there wasn't any evidence that B had consented to any such grant, therefore, the outcome of the previous judgment on this matter remains valid. 

Where there is a joint tenancy and one party has vacated the property, tenants should know they could face unintended consequences by failing to formalise the arrangements. Options to formalise the arrangement include assigning joint to sole where available or formal written surrender of the joint tenancy where the landlord agrees to regrant a sole tenancy to the remaining tenant. The unintended consequences of failing to do so include the departed tenant remaining jointly and severally liable for any and all rent arrears, and/or the remaining tenant not being able to pass on the tenancy by way of succession.  

For more information or advice on surrendering a joint tenancy, please contact me.