Entitled To Rent Refund?

MattyB801

Hi All,

We recently moved out of a rented property where we had been tenants for over a year.

Our rental period was from the 26th to the 26th of each month. We left the house on April 6th 2010, but unfortunately I didn't stop my standing order in time on the 26th March, so they recieved the full monthly rent.

We have now moved out of the premises, and have recieved a cheque from the landlord for some of our unused rent back. However, its not the full amount, but about half of what we're owed. I worked it out that we were in the house for 11days from 26th March to 6th April. Therefore we are owed approximately 19 days rent back. Is this right?

I called the estate agents for advice, who told me that the land lord is not obliged to give ANY money back, and that we should be thankful for what we have been given!? Is this right? If we had known that was the way it worked, we obviously would have stayed until 25th April to maximise the rent we had paid!!

Any ideas?

Cheers. Matt

PS: our contract DOES not say anything about a rent refund or otherwise, but to me it makes perfect sense? In the same way if you cancel your car insurance mid term you get the pro-rata'd balance back (minus admin etc).

PSS: The landlord had a new tenant move in just 4 days after we left! So effectively are earning 'double' rent?

Planner

Unless you had your landlords/agents permission to leave midway through a rental period then you are responsible for rent up until the end of a rent period.

Your rental period is likley to be the 26th to the 25th of a month or vice versa as 26th to the 26th is a month and 1 day.

So, did you have permission to leave mid-way through your rental period?

Can you 'prove' the other tenant moved in shortly after you left?

MattyB801

Planner wrote: »

Unless you had your landlords/agents permission to leave midway through a rental period then you are responsible for rent up until the end of a rent period.

Your rental period is likley to be the 26th to the 25th of a month or vice versa as 26th to the 26th is a month and 1 day.

So, did you have permission to leave mid-way through your rental period?

Can you 'prove' the other tenant moved in shortly after you left?

As for permission....I guess that no we didn't. We didn't ask for permission, we just sent a letter on 5th March giving our 1 month's notice, telling them our last date at the property was 6th April. They called to say thats fine, and that we would need to drop keys with the EA so that they could show people round, which was fine.

As for proving it, well the estate agent did tell us that the house was let as of the 9th April....and we know people moved in on that day.

To be fair, the land lords have been great, and if i'm honest, we've been good tennants (kept it very clean, and maintained/improved the gardens and generally left it better than we found it!!).....so its not the end of world if this is how it ends....just wanted to know if its worth pushing for the full amount!?

Matt

Annisele

I suppose it depends on how badly you need the money, but personally I don't think I'd pursue this one.

You should have given notice to leave on the 25th of a month. Clearly you didn't know that - and if you had known you would have done it - but the landlord can't be blamed for the fact you didn't know.

The LL's take on this might have been "cheeky tenants giving me notice in the middle of a rental period, they're not entitled to anything...but on the other hand they were good tenants...and they might not have understood the contract properly...I guess they reckon they're due 19 days back, so I'll be nice and meet them halfway".

On the other hand, the fact that the property was let by 9 April means that it was only empty for two days. A court might (and I'm no expert) order the LL to give you a refund for 17 days (the 19 days you thought you should have had, less the 2 days the property was empty). Since it sounds as though you've had a 10 day refund already, you're only really talking about a week's rent.

Fire_Fox

I do not agree with Annisele.

Whilst you had no legal right to move out in the middle of a rent period it appears that your notice was accepted, it is unfortunate you do not have this in writing. A landlord is NOT entitled to taken rent from two parties for the same property and the same dates; if you were not released from the tenancy early then you have full rights to use the property. In which case the landlord (or his agent) cannot legally give keys to a new tenant! In my view the re-let proves that the landlord accepted the earlier tenancy had been terminated so you are due a rent refund from the 9th to the 25th of the month so sixteen days.

Annisele

Fire Fox is probably right; he usually knows more than I do about this sort of thing

He's definitely right about the arithmetic - it's 16 days and not the 17 days I suggested.

If the LL is deemed to have accepted the earlier tenancy had been terminated (which it seems he must have done in order to relet) couldn't the OP argue he should get 18 days refund? The LL didn't have to accept surrender in the middle of the rental period, but he did - so couldn't the OP say that the surrender occurred on the 6th (when he moved out) rather than on the 9th (when the new peeps moved in), and therefore OP should get a refund from the 7th to the 25th?

MattyB801

Many Thanks for all of your replies, they are very helpful.

If when we sent our notice, the land lord called back and said, yes thats fine but you do realise your tenancy will last you through until then 25th April, we would have gladly said, ok then, fair douz, we'll stay. (We had no real immediate push factor and we really enjoyed living there).

However, as has been mentioned, the landlord should not really be accepting rent from 2 tennants for the same period, therefore at a minimum, I would expect a rent refund from the 9th April to the 26th?

Ah well, worst comes to the worst, we'll take it as a lesson learnt. The LL is due to get back to me today with her decision on whether or not we are entitled to the rest, so i'll keep you posted.

N79

You are only entitled to a refund from when the new T took up residence if you agreed this with the LL in the conditions of the early surrender and the LL is entitled to include any costs associated with the refund before refunding it (but these are likely to only be in the order of GBP10-20 - any more is taking the !!!!).

Whether it is worth persuing is another matter. It might be best to see this as a learning curve. Finally, the agent works for the LL and has no obligation to give you any advice.

N79

Annisele wrote: »

If the LL is deemed to have accepted the earlier tenancy had been terminated (which it seems he must have done in order to relet) couldn't the OP argue he should get 18 days refund? The LL didn't have to accept surrender in the middle of the rental period, but he did - so couldn't the OP say that the surrender occurred on the 6th (when he moved out) rather than on the 9th (when the new peeps moved in), and therefore OP should get a refund from the 7th to the 25th?

The flaw in this reasoning is that just by accepting surrender does not commit the LL to having to refund all rent after the date of surrender. Normally, surrender is subject to conditions such as paying the rent to the end date of the tenancy or the occupation of the property by new Ts. In the absence of such an agreement then the only logical conclusion is that the T remains liable for the rent due under the tenancy.