Help/Advice Needed - Tenant wanting break agreement!

princeofpounds

Also, on reading subsequent posts, let's make one thing very clear:

YOU CANNOT JUST TAKE A DEPOSIT BECAUSE YOU FEEL AGGRIEVED.

A deposit is there for loss or damage. If you mutually agree a surrender on any terms you don't get to swipe the deposit, you only get a chance to get it if the tenant causes you loss by breaking the tenancy agreement in place. They haven't done that yet, and there is no automatic forfeit for mutually changing an agreement.

And the utilities are nothing to do with you. They are not your responsibility to chase up, the debt is attached to the person and not the property, and you do not get to sue the T for them, that is the job of the utility companies. And where you get silly ideas like adding in the cost of hiring debt collectors to collect a debt that doesn't even exist yet and has no legal relationship to you I don't know.

That's not to say that you can't ask for monetary compensation to agree a release, but you really seem to be in love with overcomplication. Here is how I would deal with it:

- Remind them of their remaining obligation and that the liability rests with them unless the tenancy
- Propose some simple terms on which you will accept surrender of the tenancy. I personally think the idea of a payment equivalent to 3 months rent is a good, simple one.
- The main alternative would be to leave the tenancy running until the place is re-let and charge letting costs to them, but that might lead to more uncertainty in a number of areas (utilities, viewings, suitability of tenants, abscondment of old tenants etc).
- Wait for a yes, no, or counter-offer
- When agreed, write up a simple contract of surrender (a deed if you really must), take the key and any monetary amounts agreed, hand back deposit minus justified damages and get re-letting.

taxsaver

Hi Steve, I think you're in a tricky situation here. On the one hand you have every right to insist that they honour their obligations to you and ofc you naturally want to protect your financial position and the well-being of your own family.

The problem for you, in my mind, is that if you don't manage to reach an agreed position they will (as you've clearly stated) leave anyway and your only recourse will be to pursue them through the courts. If they have not formally vacated (even though they might have physically left) then you cannot simply re-take possession yourself without going through all the legal requirements, which will cost you further time and money and lost rent - they might even maliciously damage the property at the point of leaving. Naturally you can take legal action against them for all such events but frankly you cannot afford to! Also do not forget the old saying about 'suing a man of straw'!

So, much as it might stick in your throat I feel you might be best to simply agree that they can leave on 30th June in return for paying one further month's rent (i.e. to 31 July but still formally vacating on or before 30 June) plus loss of deposit. You take over utility charges from the point at which they leave... you'll only have to suffer standing charges as there will be no consumption of note. As a back-stop you might have to accept not getting the 'extra' month's rent that I'm suggesting, which I know will not be good for you but it'll be better than having a fight on your hands. They should also undertake to co-operate fully with any and all re-letting activities.

Good Luck!

jjlandlord

princeofpounds wrote: »

YOU CANNOT JUST TAKE A DEPOSIT BECAUSE YOU FEEL AGGRIEVED.

A deposit is there for loss or damage. If you mutually agree a surrender on any terms you don't get to swipe the deposit, you only get a chance to get it if the tenant causes you loss by breaking the tenancy agreement in place.

Again, landlord can ask for anything in order to accept the offer to surrender.
So if he proposes to keep the deposit and tenant accepts there is absolutely no problem: The deposit is the tenant's money, he can agree to hand it over to the landlord.

stevekoz

princeofpounds wrote: »

Also, on reading subsequent posts, let's make one thing very clear:

YOU CANNOT JUST TAKE A DEPOSIT BECAUSE YOU FEEL AGGRIEVED.

A deposit is there for loss or damage. If you mutually agree a surrender on any terms you don't get to swipe the deposit, you only get a chance to get it if the tenant causes you loss by breaking the tenancy agreement in place. They haven't done that yet, and there is no automatic forfeit for mutually changing an agreement.

And the utilities are nothing to do with you. They are not your responsibility to chase up, the debt is attached to the person and not the property, and you do not get to sue the T for them, that is the job of the utility companies. And where you get silly ideas like adding in the cost of hiring debt collectors to collect a debt that doesn't even exist yet and has no legal relationship to you I don't know.

That's not to say that you can't ask for monetary compensation to agree a release, but you really seem to be in love with overcomplication. Here is how I would deal with it:

- Remind them of their remaining obligation and that the liability rests with them unless the tenancy
- Propose some simple terms on which you will accept surrender of the tenancy. I personally think the idea of a payment equivalent to 3 months rent is a good, simple one.
- The main alternative would be to leave the tenancy running until the place is re-let and charge letting costs to them, but that might lead to more uncertainty in a number of areas (utilities, viewings, suitability of tenants, abscondment of old tenants etc).
- Wait for a yes, no, or counter-offer
- When agreed, write up a simple contract of surrender (a deed if you really must), take the key and any monetary amounts agreed, hand back deposit minus justified damages and get re-letting.

err, no need to shout at me.

if you've read original post then you'll see that the original scenario 2 was equal to three months rent. Based on the fact that they have little income at the moment i proposed they forfeit the deposit as part of that value - not becuase i like over complicating matters and not because i think i can just have it. But because then they'd only need to find an additionaly £475 not £950 - didn't think that was an unreasonable thing to do. Nor do i propose swiping the deposit following the surrender agreement. I'm not a thief and nor do i like the conatation. It formed part of the surrender agreement that we request forfiet, we weren't demanding it, it like all the terms were under negotiation.


In addition they've already told us they can't have the tenancy remain running and they remain liable for the costs. they can't afford it. If i follow that scenario you propse, the relet costs are still equal to the deposit paid - so if forfeited they woudn't need to find any additional cash its already there, again i think that makes it easier for them financially. Again a reason i proposed it originally.

"you only get a chance to get it if the tenant causes you loss by breaking the tenancy agreement in place. They haven't done that yet"

they pretty much have as i said, they've said they are leaving as of 30th June. So regardless i imagine they'll be leaving no matter what is agreed or not.

In addition as i've stated i know there is damage to the property and as such i'd be requesting an amount to cover those damages anyway. Again i'm not just after swiping it.

If it were your house, the deposit was there, and your tenant turned round and said they were leaving mid term (quarter way through i might add) what would you do - give them it back and say ok. thanks for the keys and cheerio??

Again as for the utilities. i was told to make them aware of this. I have been told that in circumstance where no person can be chased the owness for payment falls under the owner of the property - if that is teh case or not i don't care, i want my !!! covered and thats all that was there to do to say they remain liable to pay them or they'll be chased by costs - not by me by debt collectors and that will include on average a 15% fee.......which they have to pay. Not me. I'm not bothered who chases them or why or when, i just want them to know they remain obligated for these up to the point they leave.

stevekoz

taxsaver wrote: »

Hi Steve, I think you're in a tricky situation here. On the one hand you have every right to insist that they honour their obligations to you and ofc you naturally want to protect your financial position and the well-being of your own family.

The problem for you, in my mind, is that if you don't manage to reach an agreed position they will (as you've clearly stated) leave anyway and your only recourse will be to pursue them through the courts. If they have not formally vacated (even though they might have physically left) then you cannot simply re-take possession yourself without going through all the legal requirements, which will cost you further time and money and lost rent - they might even maliciously damage the property at the point of leaving. Naturally you can take legal action against them for all such events but frankly you cannot afford to! Also do not forget the old saying about 'suing a man of straw'!

So, much as it might stick in your throat I feel you might be best to simply agree that they can leave on 30th June in return for paying one further month's rent (i.e. to 31 July but still formally vacating on or before 30 June) plus loss of deposit. You take over utility charges from the point at which they leave... you'll only have to suffer standing charges as there will be no consumption of note. As a back-stop you might have to accept not getting the 'extra' month's rent that I'm suggesting, which I know will not be good for you but it'll be better than having a fight on your hands. They should also undertake to co-operate fully with any and all re-letting activities.

Good Luck!

I'm thinking similarly. Thank you for your reply.

may_fair

mlz1413 wrote: »

The LL, stevekoz, has agreed to let them go early.

If he had said "no your in your fixed term" then I'd agree with your statement.

No, OP has not agreed a surrender; he has stated terms under which he would agree a surrender and the tenant has not accepted those terms.

stevekoz

jjlandlord wrote: »

Again, landlord can ask for anything in order to accept the offer to surrender.
So if he proposes to keep the deposit and tenant accepts there is absolutely no problem: The deposit is the tenant's money, he can agree to hand it over to the landlord.

thank you. as stated above, it was simply part of negotiations and nothing has been agreed as yet. It is within our right to request it.

may_fair

princeofpounds wrote: »

I think a professionally-produced deed of surrender is overdoing it slightly. There will be more than enough evidence of a contractual agreement if the parties both have a written contract, without putting it in the form of a deed. And even making a deed is possible without an expensive lawyer.

Sure it might be even more peace of mind for the LL so if you can get T to pay for one, great, but it's likely to be superfluous.

A surrender is not a contractual arrangement; there is no consideration.

There may be evidence of a surrender by operation of law (if T moves out and LL takes possession), but in that case you have a potential area of contention, with one party arguing that there has/hasn't been a surrender or arguing as to the date on which the surrender took place etc.

Far better to formalize a surrender by a Deed, so that there is certainty on both sides. It also protects the LL from any subsequent, malicious, allegation of illegal eviction.

stevekoz

may_fair wrote: »

A surrender is not a contractual arrangement; there is no consideration.

There may be evidence of a surrender by operation of law (if T moves out and LL takes possession), but in that case you have a potential area of contention, with one party arguing that there has/hasn't been a surrender or arguing as to the date on which the surrender took place etc.

Far better to formalize a surrender by a Deed, so that there is certainty on both sides. It also protects the LL from any subsequent, malicious, allegation of illegal eviction.

Also what we've been advised to protect legally makes sense and as such we will have one drawn up. All we need to do is agree the terms.

princeofpounds

A surrender is not a contractual arrangement; there is no consideration.

Actually, what you have said is a fair point, but if monetary amounts are being demanded in compensation then there is a consideration, or alternatively it is just the amendment of an already-existing contract, so I'm not sure it's quite so simple.

In any case a deed is fine if you can get one out of the situation.

If it were your house, the deposit was there, and your tenant turned round and said they were leaving mid term (quarter way through i might add) what would you do - give them it back and say ok. thanks for the keys and cheerio??

No, of course not. But you are missing an important distinction on the deposit; that it already is set aside as a deposit for a contractual arrangement. So it's not necessarily unemcumbered money to be bounced around.

For instance, let's say T paid a deposit as part of the agreement. But then both parties agree that T will forfeit the deposit for surrender. Fine. But then T takes landlord to deposit arbitration. LL can't prove any damage. Arbitration might award deposit to T anyway as it is under their scheme.

Or T agree LL can have deposit. LL re-enters house on surrender of tenancy and finds that T has stolen fittings to value in excess of deposit. LL no longer has address for T - what now?

Agreeing a sum of money equal to the deposit fine, just be aware that the deposit isn't under your direct control at all points and has rules on its use separate to what you may wish to do with it.