landlord and fixed term tenancy issue...

G_M

iang74 wrote: »

This is what we've had so far from the current letting agent:

Further to our correspondence of yesterday's date, we write to advise that your landlord will be using City & County to re-advertise and relet the property for them. Therefore, they will contact you direct in order to arrange appointments at the property.

Subsequently, as we are not reletting the property, then there will be no relet charges nor admin charges made by ourselves, but you will of course still be liable for full rental payments up to the day before a new tenant moves into the property, or to the expiry of your contract, whichever is sooner.

Does this serve as indication of our landlords intent, and does this mean we won't be liable for any re-letting charges from the new agency as our contract is not with them, and assuming they've done a deal to secure our landlords property waiving such sums?

Ah! New information! The agent, acting on the LL's behalf, has clearly agreed to the early surrender (why you couldn't tell us originally......!)
As bitter says, your contract is with the LL, not either agent. The LL(via his agent) has told you he will hold you to your contract until a new tenant is in place. This seems reasonable. As no other fees /expenses ar being imposed you have got off lightly. Nice LL.

iang74

sorry, by 'not willing to surrender' I meant release us from the terms.

G_M

I'm confused. You say:

we've had a great relationship with the landlord and letting agency, but he's not willing to surrender the contract.

but also:

Further to our correspondence of yesterday's date, we write to advise that your landlord will be using City & County to re-advertise and relet the property for them

Does the 'correspondance' relate to re-letting the property when the contract expires after 12 months, or when you want to move out after 5 months?
If the former, 7 months early is a bit soon!
If the latter, then clearly the LL IS planning to let you leave and get new tenants in.

You need to speak to the LL and confirm his intentions, then get it in writing.

BitterAndTwisted

We know what you meant and it doesn't change the responses that you've had. It's clear from the correspondence you quoted that the old agents believe that the new ones will be re-letting the property. That doesn't mean that they shall. If you require clarification about whether the new agents have been instructed by the landlord to re-let the property you should ask them IN WRITING.

iang74

UPDATE.... the landlord had two letting agencies advertising the property; our current one and another... the other one sent round two viewings, one of which said 'yes' to taking it on. I had been in constant dialogue with our landlord and the current letting agent about matters, and had come to an arrangement whereby we'd split the deposit 50/50 (£400 each) in return for: being released from the contract early, a contribution towards partial new carpets (not a neccesity, more a cosmetic thing, and certainly not as a result of any damage by us) and an agreement for us to leave without filling/painting a couple of walls)... all very cordial and certainly NOT £400 worth of remedial work required, including the carpets!

So, all going swimmingly, until today, the landlord informs me the people interested in letting have today pulled out. Our deposit arrangement remains a verbal one, although I do have email correspondence with our current agency that the details of the arrangement that I wrote out and emailed to them had also been verbally confirmed by our landlord to them, and that they were due in to their offices to hand in written confirmation, an appointment it seems has been twice postponed. Where does this leave us now??

iang74

I can also now add that the property was listed for £50 more pcm by the second agency than the current one, and that someone I knew who viewed it through the current agency, and was gutted when told it had been re-let, has just been told directly by the landlord that he now wants £650 for it, not £600 as advertised...

BornAtTheRightTime

It leaves you back as you were before negotations started and potential new tenants found I would think - but get back onto your landlord and ask him to confirm what it means to you. I would expect that the agreement over the deposit was contingent on new tenants actually going through with the let.

BornAtTheRightTime

iang74 wrote: »

I can also now add that the property was listed for £50 more pcm by the second agency than the current one, and that someone I knew who viewed it through the current agency, and was gutted when told it had been re-let, has just been told directly by the landlord that he now wants £650 for it, not £600 as advertised...

Irrelevant to you. LL is entitled to advertise and let at whatever price he chooses.

iang74

the agreement was confirmed verbally upon the landlord being advised the potential new tenants had also only verbally agreed to apply. It hadn't even got to the reference stage.

Also, With 7 months to go on the fixed term at £600, would the LL be being unreasonable not allowing another tenant in for that period at least, at that price?

prudryden

Don't worry about one potential tenant backing out. There should be more to come. I had a flat on the market two weeks ago and had 8 viewers in 5 days with 2 offering the asking price and no other requests e.g. in house movie theatre etc.