From: usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk 
  
 On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 12:51:30 +0100, Max Demian  
 wrote: 
  
 >On 04/09/2025 12:11, Jon Ribbens wrote: 
  
 >> What do you mean by "won't"? If a person won't accept liability for 
 >> a debt they owe then generally speaking they get taken to court and 
 >> a judge says they do owe it and then you send bailiffs after them, 
 >> etc. 
 > 
 >There isn't a debt here, just potential liability if the rent isn't 
 >paid. Why should he be liable for unpaid rent in a property he doesn't 
 >live in? 
  
 Because he signed a contract agreeing to be liable for the rent for the 
 duration of the tenancy, irrespective of whether he actually uses the 
 property or not. That contract is not affected by his domestic problems. 
  
 Now, it may well be practically and financially advantageous to all three 
 parties (landlord, departed tenant and remaining tenant) to terminate the 
 existing joint tenancy and replace it with a new tenancy on the sole name of 
 the remaining resident. There's no reason why that shouldn't happen, if it 
 suits all of them. And, in many real life cases, that's what does happen. 
 But none of them have the legal power to force that situation on the others 
 if they are not willing to agree to it. 
  
 This is something that any two people, in any kind of relationship, have to 
 consider when entering into a joint contract such as a residential tenancy 
 (or, for that matter, a mortgage). The legal agreement, and all the 
 obligations that go along with it, does not automatically terminate should 
 the couple later go their separate ways. Sometimes, it's relatively simple 
 to restructure their legal obligations so as to release one party from them. 
 But it isn't always, and it can't be assumed that it will be. So it's a risk 
 that enyone entering into a joint contract has to consider, and accept, 
 before agreeing to it. 
  
 Mark 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)