Mid-month tenancy termination

Yobe

Me and my girlfriend signed up to a 12 month assured shorthold tenancy contract on July 22nd last year. We pay £900pm on the 22nd of each month. There was a clause in the contract that allowed us to leave after 6 months, provided we give two months written notice.

Our written notice was received by the agent acting on our landlords behalf on 30th November 2008. They then confirmed via a letter that the tenancy expires on Feb 1st.

The landlord has since contacted us to say she has been advised we should pay the full months rent despite having to leave the property after 11 days of the month. I had assumed the final month would be pro-rated.

I've since wrote to the agency asking them to confirm their T&C's and they've replied with the following

"You served notice to terminate your Tenancy early. Your notice period is 2 months and your Landlord agreed to accept the notice as being served on the 1st December, therefore the end date of your Tenancy is the 1st February, as detailed in my letter. You are required to pay rent up to and including the 1st February 2009. If you have any queries as to how much rent you have paid, please contact your Landlord as we do not collect the rent"
Are we right to pay what the letting agent has outlined, or are we obliged to pay £900 for the final 11 days we are in the house?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Adam

Planner

Im confused over the dates here.

On what date did your fixed term begin (not the rent date unless they are the same)?

Another assumption I have made in providing the answer below is that the break clause doesnt specify that the tenancy must end on the date a tenancy period ends.

Assuming your rent date and the tenancy start date are the 22nd of the month, then I think your landlords letting agent has made a mistake here. If you served notice on the 30th Nov/1st December then, as a tenacy agreement cannot normally end 1/2 way through a tenancy period, the letting agents letter should have confirmed that your tenancy agreement has ended on the 22nd February, not the 1st, making you landlord technically correct.

The landlords agents are obviously trying to wash their hands of this mistake now. I would suggest that has you have conformation in black and white from your landlords agents (twice by all accounts) you hold the upper hand. I would write a polite letter to your landlord simply stating that you have recieved confirmation on two occasions from his agents that as of the 1st Feb 2009 the tenancy has ended (as per copies of correspondance attahced) and you will be paying rent pro-rata for the remaining 11 days (£325.48), if the landlord has any problems with this then he needs to take the issue up with his agents who act upon his behalf.

Yobe

Thank you

Your assumptions are correct, we moved in on the payment date (22nd July) and the break clause only mentions that we can leave after 22nd January provided we give two months notice.

It seems like such a grey area, but very unfair if we can be made to pay a full months rent for 11 days... on the bright side we could have left on the 23rd and had to pay £900 for the 1 day!
:beer:

tashski

I agree with Planner's view, it appears that the letting agents have made a mistake. Generally with an AST, you have to give notice in line with the rental payment due periods, i.e. four weeks notice if rent payable weekly would usually run from say a Monday to a Monday, therefore if you give notice on a Tuesday the notice can only be taken four weeks from the FOLLOWING Monday.
I would say that your landlord should claim any rents for the part month from the agent as they have made the mistake.

Planner

tashski wrote: »

I agree with Planner's view, it appears that the letting agents have made a mistake. Generally with an AST, you have to give notice in line with the rental payment due periods, i.e. four weeks notice if rent payable weekly would usually run from say a Monday to a Monday, therefore if you give notice on a Tuesday the notice can only be taken four weeks from the FOLLOWING Monday.
I would say that your landlord should claim any rents for the part month from the agent as they have made the mistake.

Agreed, LL should claim from Agents.

CrimeWave

Its not really a mistake by the letting agent. It is common practice for letting agents to use 'pro rata' charges. The letting agent acts on behalf of the landlord, they use the 'surrender' rule to agree a charge. If the landlord suddenly decides to stick his/her oar in, for which they are entitled then the letting agent must back down.

Planner

CrimeWave wrote: »

Its not really a mistake by the letting agent. It is common practice for letting agents to use 'pro rata' charges. The letting agent acts on behalf of the landlord, they use the 'surrender' rule to agree a charge. If the landlord suddenly decides to stick his/her oar in, for which they are entitled then the letting agent must back down.

What back down and pay the charge themselves?

CrimeWave

NO! hehehe Just saying the landlord can over rule the pro rata charge by saying they owe the full month.

Planner

CrimeWave wrote: »

NO! hehehe Just saying the landlord can over rule the pro rata charge by saying they owe the full month.

And what right does a landlord have to require rent payments beyond the end of a tenancy agreement?

Yobe

The law would seem to favour landlords unfairly if that were the case. We actually have good reason to suspect (but are waiting on confirmation) that the landlord has new tenants lined up to move in on Feb 2nd or 3rd, so will be collecting two lots of rent for the same house for almost three weeks!

Planner

Yobe wrote: »

The law would seem to favour landlords unfairly if that were the case. We actually have good reason to suspect (but are waiting on confirmation) that the landlord has new tenants lined up to move in on Feb 2nd or 3rd, so will be collecting two lots of rent for the same house for almost three weeks!

I would take crimewaves comments with a pinch of salt, crimewave dosent seem to understand the landlord/agent relationship and is treating them as two seperate entites, which they are not.