Tenancy notice

MrsAmanda_2

Well, you could always do what my previous tenant did.

He contacted the Letting Agent on 6th October, tending notice, saying he was vacating on 18th Oct (his rent day). The LA reminded him that (a) he was required to give a month's notice, and (b) that the notice period was supposed to commence from rent day. Therefore he would be liable to pay rent on the property until 17th November regardless of whether or not he was occupying the property.

He said, 'so sue me'.

I was due to give birth at the time (which he knew) so had other priorities. He ended up getting away pretty much scot free.


So, you could just not pay any more rent, disappear on 1st April, and tell him to take you to court.

N79

To the OP and those questioning the lack of flexibility within the law regarding notices, you might be interested to know that there is a logical reason why the law has not been changed to allow part periods.

English tenancy law is based on tenancies which contain a whole number of periods. For a tenancy with a calendar monthly rent payment frequency, each period is equal to a calendar month. If the law allowed part rental periods then it would be difficult to calculate the amount of rent owed. This is because different calendar months have different numbers of days and so there are a number of approaches that you can take to calculate the "daily" rate.

One would be to multiply the monthly rent by 12 and then divide by 365 - but obviously this does not work in a leap year. Another option would be to take the monthly rent and divide by the number of days in the month - but again, this varies between 28,29,30 and 31 depending on the month and year. Whichever method you use, you end up with different days in the tenancy having a different rate of rent. The potential for disputes in calculating how much rent to pay for a part period is large. Similar objects occur for quarterly, 6 monthly and annual tenancies. In theory they don't occur for weekly or lunar month tenancies - but these are rare for many types of tenancy and English law primarily developed around agricultural tenancies which would have long (annual) periods.

Therefore the approach taken by English law is as follows. If the LL and T can come to a mutual agreement on the part period rent then fine, let them get on with it. If they can't then rather than wasting court time trying to reach a reasonable settlement in all cases the law simply disallows part periods. A simple and ultimately money saving solution for all!

MrsAmanda wrote: »

Well, you could always do what my previous tenant did.

He contacted the Letting Agent on 6th October, tending notice, saying he was vacating on 18th Oct (his rent day). The LA reminded him that (a) he was required to give a month's notice, and (b) that the notice period was supposed to commence from rent day. Therefore he would be liable to pay rent on the property until 17th November regardless of whether or not he was occupying the property.

He said, 'so sue me'.

I was due to give birth at the time (which he knew) so had other priorities. He ended up getting away pretty much scot free.


So, you could just not pay any more rent, disappear on 1st April, and tell him to take you to court.

This is (one of) the reason why you should take a deposit! You have up to 6 years to pursue the unpaid rend should you wish.

ViolaLass

MrsAmanda wrote: »

Well, you could always do what my previous tenant did.

He contacted the Letting Agent on 6th October, tending notice, saying he was vacating on 18th Oct (his rent day). The LA reminded him that (a) he was required to give a month's notice, and (b) that the notice period was supposed to commence from rent day. Therefore he would be liable to pay rent on the property until 17th November regardless of whether or not he was occupying the property.

He said, 'so sue me'.

I was due to give birth at the time (which he knew) so had other priorities. He ended up getting away pretty much scot free.


So, you could just not pay any more rent, disappear on 1st April, and tell him to take you to court.

Did he cause damage that wiped out the deposit or did you just not take one?

MrsAmanda_2

Oh, we had a deposit - 6 wks rent. But, he 'forgot' to pay one month's rent, and did enough damage to our property (including throwing away our dining table because he had his own) that the deposit was wiped out. I posted about it here at the time. Hugely stressful and big lessons learned. Not a mistake I'll be making again.

Sorry to the OP for sending this off on a tangent, was just pointing out that some tenants can and do manage to get around that rule!

CHARLEENE

Thank you all for all your help and advice re the above.

Maybe you can help me further please?

In the end I paid my rent upto the 25th April although I actually moved out on the 13th.

The landlord has asked if new tenants can move in on 21st April. I have no issue with this and have bent over backwards to ensure that the landlord has been able to secure new tenants. Viewings have been arranged and I have agreed as long as the letting agent was present (as I work shifts and its difficult for me to be there).

When I left the property I ensured it was clean and tidy, even down to having the windows cleaned. Now it has come for me to try and re-claim my deposit the letting agent has told the landlord that I have left the place in a 'dirty state' and that they will have have it proffessionally cleaned.

Therefore the landlord is holding my deposit which I need to pay for my new property. I have already had to pay two weeks rent on two properties because of the mis-understanding of the termination period.

Before I left I took photos of the condition I had left the property in (on advice of a friend) and in no way was it 'dirty'.

When I originally moved into the property I had to redecorate as it was in such as state...even the oven didn't work!

My landlord lives in America and I have had lots of issues with the plumbing (not managed by the letting agent) and that was one of the main reasons I left.

There is now two letting agents involved..the new one and the original. In fact the new one came with a builder on friday to see about repairing the kitchen floor (it had bowed and even though I had reported to the landlord that it was dangerous) was left unrepaired. She collected the keys from me to take him around...and never returned them!!!

Anybody got any ideas where I stand on this?

DVardysShadow

CHARLEENE wrote: »

... Anybody got any ideas where I stand on this?

Do you intend to go back and clean some more or have you surrendered the tenancy? Did you go through a formal checkout. Because in your position, I would be arguing to get the keys back [unless I had surrendered the tenancy] to deal with the allegations. Never mind the new tenants.

G_M

If new tenants move in on 21st you should get some rent back. LL cannot accept rent from 2 tenants simultaneously.

What evidence do you have that you eft the plac clean? Check-out inventory signed? Photos? Witnesses?
What evidence has the agent provided that it needs cleaning? And what quotes/invoices have they shown you for the cleaning?
What evidence is there that the property was cleaner when you moved in originally than when you moved out (check-in inventory)?

Use the deposit protection scheme arbitration process if you want to contest deductions.

satchmeister

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Do you intend to go back and clean some more or have you surrendered the tenancy? Did you go through a formal checkout. Because in your position, I would be arguing to get the keys back [unless I had surrendered the tenancy] to deal with the allegations. Never mind the new tenants.

Quite, the OP has paid rent and should 'move back in' until the end of the tenancy. The LL can't get double rent and should have had a formal checkout. If the deposit is not paid back immediately in full the very least the OP should be doing is preventing the new tenants moving in as the OP has been flexible and has had no goodwill in return.

French_Knickers

What the OP hasn't said but I know (I'm sure they won't mind me saying), Is that letting agent 1 did the original inventory but the OP has never seen it (I think) and holds the deposit but letting agent 2 has let the property this time and is saying it needs cleaning and letting agent 1 are simply taking letting agent 2's word. IMO it is the responsibility of letting agent 1 who actually dealt with the letting in the first place to come and verify the condition against their own original inventory?

I wouldn't allow the new tenants in early unless I had written confirmation that my deposit was on its way back. I'd be pointing out how they owe you some rent back to. Unless the agents played ball, I'd also make no secret of the various problems you are having when you speak to the new tenants, after all they can see how clean or not the house is for themselves and will also be handing over a hefty deposit! They won't be too keen to do so if in their opinion the house is clean and you are being stitched up.

G_M

1) the original inventory is only relevant if it was signed by the tenant
2) The deposit is the reponsibility of the LL, so that's who the OP should be claiming it from
3) change in letting agent mid-tenancy does not alter the LL's responsibility regarding deposit return, or the tenant's obligation to return the property as it was at the start.
4) Check-in and check-out can (and often is) done by different people/agents or inventory clerks - it is an objective description of the property. What matters is what's written/agreed at start and end, not who wrote it.