Own a house with sibling but she won’t let me live there unless I pay full half of market rent. House is for sale too My sister and I own the property that was my mums until she passed. Unfortunately my sister and I don’t speak at all and for me glad that we never will again. We went to mediation after my mothers death and we both agreed that I would live in the house and rent out 2 rooms. This meant I could keep an eye on the lodgers. Renting rooms on the rent a room scheme allowed us to give them 1 months notice to leave without a problem. Also gave my sister access freely rather than renting out the property completely, where none of us could access the house. My sister does not live there but comes and goes as she pleases and stays when she wants. The washing machine broke, She comes there to do her washing, has done for 8 years as she doesn’t have a WM. I asked her to pay for half, she refused. (I wasn’t living there for 4 years when I was living with my then husband and didn’t use the machine in that time) but she has always used it including the lodger. If She was accepting a portion of the rent as we had one person living there, who has now moved out and As we were going to have lodgers renting rooms in the future, isn’t she liable for a share of any repairs and bills in general as she would have been collecting the higher portion of the rent too. Bills would also be higher with more people living there that I would be expected to be paying for. Living on my own I am frugal and careful so bills would be smaller. This was all it took to fall out with her, the washing Machine!, My sister, a week before Xmas when this happened, demanded I leave with a weeks notice, even though we had agreed in writing through mediation we will rent the rooms out for 1 to 2 years before we think about actually selling. I then receive a solicitors letter from her demanding back pay for bills and back rent she is now demanding I pay her. She has also told her solicitor she is paying £900 a month in rent else where which I know for a fact is untrue as she is still at the place she has lived at for the last 10 to 12 years at £320 a month. I am currently homeless and living with friends as I don’t know if I would be forced to have to pay her a rent to live in my own home, if I was to move back int9 the house until it is actually sold. I am not working, going through a divorce, (husband and I are amicable).my sister has a place to live but I don’t surely under the circumstances, Can I not live in the house, till it is sold as that shows I have been willing to sell? I have not got a permanent base and now lockdown. Also we had an offer on the house a week before lock down, she agreed to that if she got another ten thousand (they did give that) but then she decided she wanted another 25 thousand more and a week to meditate and think about it so we lost the sale. Surprise surprise!! I wanted to sell at the price we were offered but it has to be 50/50. So unless she agrees a price it won’t sell even if I want it sold at a reasonable price as it seems she has final say, so I am constantly trapped. I wanted to sell at the price offered, the estate agent tried to explain to her there will be a recession and house prices will go down, that was pretty obvious that lockdown would create those issues but she has no insight to see that. She has a new estate agent now! Unfortunately I don't think she will sell now until she gets what she thinks the property is worth which will not be the original asking price anymore and I worry she will hold out for months to years. We will probably now lose at least 50 to 75 thousand on this house sale due to coved and the knock on affect it will have and her refusal to take the good offer at the time we needed and should have taken. Can I do anything to claim that back because she refused the sale leaving a massive loss for us both. Where do I stand? Can I live in the house and pay the bills only but no rent as it’s on the market anyway. I had moved back into the house to also help look after my disabled mother before she passed and because I was separated from my husband (my sister isn’t very sympathetic towards me in that anyway, hence moving back to live with mum but I had lived in the house all my life 40 years apart from 4 years, being married). My sister has not lived in the house for over 20 years. The house sits empty, she won’t rent it out or allow rooms to be rented with me in it so we are both not making any income, can I claim for loss of income as she won’t allow the rooms to be let, as agreed in mediation. I am still paying all the bills as she won’t add her name to the bills and only she can call the companies to do that they won’t add her at my request and she certainly won’t volunteer to do that so I have no choice, yet again forced and trapped. can she legally stop me living there if I have nowhere else to go and I am not working so can not afford the high market rent she wants. I am paying council tax, gas elec, house insurance as my names were on them and she will not contact them to put her name so it could be jointly paid. I am keeping all receipts of this. I agreed to sell the house about a month and a half after our falling out and she was free to get estate agents in from Feb 2019 onwards but she didn’t till October put it on the market. I fled the house after receiving A threatening letter from her solicitor, demanding back rent of up to £15,000. My sister is a very vindictive person, I personally think undiagnosed with PPD thus trying to reason with her is just impossible. My sister falls out with a lot of people, I don’t but she cannot see maybe it’s down to her not everyone one else. We had an agreement in mediation but anything we agreed, the moment we row or disagree she changed her mind, regardless of what we agreed and the mediators wrote it down. I followed the agreement and never threatened her with selling the house anytime but eventually with the not being allowed to say nothing, behave , Do as your told and comply with her or she would threaten to demand I leave the house and sell with a days notice at times. so in the end rather than be blackmailed by this anymore I said yes please sell it, I can’t be held to ransom every 5 mins by you it’s a form of blackmail. I just want to move on with my life. Please advise if I live in the house till it’s sold.
It’s your house You can’t be forced by a co-owner to pay rent for a property you own. You can’t be forced by a co-owner to sell if you don’t want to. You can’t be forced by a co-owner to pay to maintain the property.or to pay utilities. Of course, if no one maintains the property or pays the rates then eventually you won’t have a property but you can’t be forced to. This applies to her as much as it applies to you. It’s possible, even likely, that your mediation agreement meets the requirements of a contract. If it does, then breaching it will allow the aggrieved party to sue for damages. The good news is, you can get on with your life right now - sign over the house to your sister and walk away. Except you can’t because your interest in the house needs to be dealt with in the divorce. If you want your “fair share” and your idea of what that is is bigger than hers then you have to fight for it - lawyer up.
Inferring from the question, it appears that: The tenancy is an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The tenancy agreement started on 16 December 2014. The initial fixed term was for 12 months. (Please comment below if any of this is incorrect). A Section 21 order gives notice that, unless the tenant leaves by the date given in the document, the landlord will begin legal proceedings against the tenant, in order to obtain a court order forcing the tenant to leave. To answer the OP's questions: Does it mean that she wants to use her right to cancel the contract after 2 months? It looks like that to me but I am not 100% sure. Yes - but if this is before the end of the fixed term (which I'm assuming is 15 December) there must be a clause in the tenancy agreement (normally called a "break clause") allowing the fixed term to be terminated early. If there is no break clause, then you cannot be asked to leave before the end of the fixed term. What does it mean "after 16/11/2015"? After can mean anything... even end of contract in December. Yes. The landlord would like you to leave before the date shown - but if you don't, the landlord can begin legal proceedings any time after that. Is this a legal document or just something she made up? It is a legal document. Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 allows a landlord to ask a tenant to leave without having to give a reason. The landlord must meet certain conditions in order for the notice to be valid. What happens if I want to leave the house later because I don't find alternative? You'll need to discuss that with the landlord. However, if you don't leave by the end of the fixed term, you are entitled to stay (and pay rent!) until a court (not the landlord) orders your eviction. EDIT: This website goes into a lot more detail about the whole Section 21 procedure.
Landlord-tenant law is an area that is heavily statute-based, jurisdiction-dependent, and far from uniform across the country. A complex, specific, multi-part question like this one is not going to get a simple answer. In general, though, I can clear up some of the confusion with a quick example. Let's say you abandon your lease, but as you do so, you write a letter to the landlord saying: "While I won't be living there any more, my friend's band needs a place to practice. They have agreed to pay half my rent if you let them play there 4 nights a week. They'll be starting on Tuesday at 11 PM: please have a set of keys waiting for them at the front desk." The landlord does not give your friends the keys. They re-key and clean the apartment and rent it two months later. Are you going to stand up in court and argue, with a straight face, that you should only be liable for half the rent for those two months because of the landlord's "failure to mitigate"? Again, jurisdictions differ, but the duty to mitigate is not absolute. If the landlord could rent out a $1,000/month apartment for $5 a month, it doesn't have to do that, and you can't make the Court take $5 a month off their damages if they refuse to do so. Also, you seem to be confused about what subleasing is. A sublessor owes duties to you; you still owe the duty to your landlord to get the rent paid. A sublease is an agreement between you and a third party to pay you rent. It does not affect your relationship with the landlord at all, unless it's a breach of your agreement with the landlord or of local law protecting the landlord from unauthorized subleasing.
Assuming you have a six-month Assured Shorthold Tenancy, you don't have to give any notice at all. As long as you are not in occupation after the end of the tenancy (which means moving out before it ends), that's it. For example, this page from Shelter says: The general rule is that the tenant can leave on the last day of a fixed-term tenancy without giving notice, and this will end the tenancy.[2] If the tenant remains even a day longer than the last day of a fixed-term tenancy, a statutory periodic assured shorthold tenancy will arise, which the tenant can end by serving a valid notice to quit. [2] Right d. Flower v. Darby (1786) 1 T.R. 159; Cobb v Stokes (1807) 8 East 358. This is extremely bad news for landlords, who don't (necessarily) get any notice that they have a void. In general, I would say you ought to give a month's notice (full disclosure, I am a landlord), on the other hand, if they haven't fulfilled their responsibilities perhaps not (but you may have an exaggerated idea of their responsibilities). If you do this, don't expect to get a good reference from your landlord! (Which is going to make it harder to find somewhere else to live). You should also anticipate difficulties in recovering your deposit (you are legally entitled to it back, but that doesn't mean your landlord can't be difficult about it - possibly even requiring you to sue for it). I have just noticed the second part of your question. If you do nothing (in other words, stay in residence), at the end of your Assured Shorthold Tenancy you will switch to a periodic tenancy. The landlord can't force you to switch to another six-month contract, but on the other hand, if you don't, they are perfectly entitled to give you two months notice. If they are smart, they will give you this notice now, so that you can only stay for two months on the periodic tenancy. Note that the letting agent has an incentive to get you and the landlord to sign another contract (they can charge the landlord a fee for it), so they may not be being entirely honest about whether a periodic tenancy is an option. (On the other hand, a poor landlord may be more interested in locking a tenant in for six months.)
Fact is, your things are gone, disappeared, you are not going to get them back. You can try to get money by suing your parents. But suing your parents is rarely a good long term strategy. Your father made some argument why he isn't going to give you any money for your losses; whether it is a good or bad argument is irrelevant until you take him to court, and then what counts are the arguments that his lawyer will make, which will be much better arguments. In court, you would have to actually prove your losses. Have you got a receipt for your winter boots? How long ago is "when you were 19", important to estimate their value now. You would have to prove that you didn't just abandon everything. Did you just leave, or did you sign a contract that your parents should look after your things, and you would pay them some rental fee for the space in their loft, for example? How many years time did you have to pick up your things?
If you want to protect yourself or any property interests you may have in this circumstance you have to talk to a lawyer. You cannot get (or trust) legal advice from the internet. I will, however, make the following personal observations: I only provide a W-9 to people who are paying me money, and who request it as a condition of paying me. I don't know of a legal requirement to supply it after the fact. However, not providing it to someone who did pay you more than $600 in a tax year could certainly make it difficult for them to comply with their tax filing obligations. I do not sign any agreements, assignments, or contracts, without what I consider to be fair consideration. E.g., if on leaving a job (as has happened) I am asked by a former employer to sign something that I am not already obligated to sign due to some prior contract, then I negotiate what is commonly called a "severance package." They pay me and/or extend benefits, and I sign something that limits their liability.
Children own their personal property Although legal guardians may place limits on access or use. Unless the aunt is a legal guardian she has no right to retain them. Ask for their return. If she refuses, sue for their return.
I am not a lawyer; I am not your lawyer. You do not cite a jurisdiction so this makes it very difficult to get a definitive answer. What follows is for Australia but the general principles are common law and would be applicable to other common law jurisdictions except where statues apply or case law has diverged. In the first instance, it seems that you were not party to any arrangement to pay for the electricity. So on the face of it you are not party to any contract requiring you to pay. Even if there was such an agreement: family, domestic, social and voluntary agreements (which this would be) are presumed not to be intended to legally bind the participants. Whether this presumption would be overturned would depend on the specific facts. On the face of it, there is no legal obligation to pay. Your options are: Do nothing; this puts the ball in their court, they can: Forget about it (it would then be over) Attempt to sue you with little prospect of success (which would cost them and you a lot more than $50 irrespective of who won) Do something illegal like beating you up (you really need to assess this risk) Tell everyone they know (in person and on social media) what a skiving prick you are (you could probably sue them for damages but that's not really going to happen, is it?) Pay them what they are asking Offer to pay them something less. Option 1 is likely to break any relationship you have with the person, Option 2 is likely to preserve it and Option 3 could go either way. Ultimately, like most legal questions, this is not about the law; it's about relationships ... broken ones mostly.