Am I right?

Engeroosi

At the end of the day the tenant ended the tenancy and was happy to pay the last months rent even though they wouldn't be there for the final 2 weeks. Only because someone else has benefited from them moving out early do they decide they are hard done by!! They could easily of stayed until the end of the month, hence preventing someone else moving in!

G_M

may_fair wrote: »

No. Where rent is paid in advance for a particular period it is deemed to be applicable for any part of that period so that if the tenancy comes to an end during the period no refund is due.

Happy to be corrected if this is true mayfair but it is news to me. Can you substantiate?

may_fair

G_M wrote: »

Happy to be corrected if this is true mayfair but it is news to me. Can you substantiate?

Information gleaned from 'lawcruncher' on LLZ of whose knowledge and professional expertise I am confident (he's the one who wrote the post you sometimes link to regarding a LL's right of access). For his comments about rent paid in advance, see posts #9 and #12 in this link.

G_M

may_fair wrote: »

Information gleaned from 'lawcruncher' on LLZ of whose knowledge and professional expertise I am confident (he's the one who wrote the post you sometimes link to regarding a LL's right of access). For his comments about rent paid in advance, see posts #9 and #12 in this link.

Thanks mayfair - a fascinating thread and perhaps a glimpse as to why there are so many landlordzone defectors here...... it did get a bit off-topic.

Mind you, so do we from time to time!

As for 'lawcruncher's' explanation, without following up the sources he refers to (I doubt MY local library has them!) I remain around 80% convinced. It does sort of tie in with the logic of notice in a periodic tenancy having to tie in with the rent period.

But there seems an innate unfairness to it. That it allows a landlord to keep rent from tenant 1 whilst simultaneously taking rent from tenant 2.

But then 'fair' and 'law' are not synonyms!

may_fair

G_M wrote: »

Thanks mayfair - a fascinating thread and perhaps a glimpse as to why there are so many landlordzone defectors here...... it did get a bit off-topic.

Hmm, yes, well...you get used to DrunkenJedi after a while, and like I said (I'm westminster over there), the arguments can be entertaining.

As for 'lawcruncher's' explanation, without following up the sources he refers to (I doubt MY local library has them!) I remain around 80% convinced.

I've done some digging and found an example of case law to support it:

William Hill (Football) Limited -v- Willen Key and Hardware Limited [1964] 190 EG 867

The tenant surrendered the lease, but the date of surrender fell between two rent days. He sought credit for the rent due for the remainder of that rent period. Held: In the absence of an explicit incorporation of it in the lease, the 1870 Act did not apply, and the rent payment due at the start of the quarter remained due in full and unapportioned. Apportionment Act 1870

Source

Which I found from a mention on here reporting various cases; see the penultimate paragraph:

"This is because rent payable in advance is not apportionable once it accrues due."

I also found this on another legal website:

Rent payable in advance is not apportionable under the Apportionment Act 1870. Accordingly, where the landlord re-enters for non-payment of rent payable in advance, and the re-entry takes place before the end of the period covered by the rent, he is entitled to recover the whole installment (Ellis v Rowbotham (1900) and Re Aspinall (1961)). The principle has been more recently upheld in the case of Capital & City Holdings v Dean Warburg (1989) in which it was held that a landlord could recover from the sureties the whole of an installment which accrued due just before the date on which the lease was forfeited.

In addition, where a lease is surrendered between rent days, the tenant is not entitled to recover any part of an installment of rent payable in advance and paid before the surrender unless there is clear agreement to that effect (William Hill (Football) v Willen Key and Hardware (1964)).

Source

may_fair

Just one further point; the rule only applies to rent which is payable in advance.

As you're probably aware, rent is, by default, payable in arrear - so the contract must specify that the rent is payable in advance for the rule about rent paid in advance being non refundable/apportionable to apply.

Otherwise, the Apportionment Act 1870 kicks in (or so I gather, as I haven't read it, and don't plan to do so anytime soon).

The_Palmist

Let me put it this way:

You gave your 4 weeks notice but formally moved out at the end of second week i.e. handed over keys etc. Now after a few days you decided to move back in and make full use of the rent already paid. Would you expect your LL to keep the property vacant for you and allow you back in for a week ?

I am not sure where you stand legally on this one but I would imagine once you have "formally" moved out, LL is entitled to do whatever with the property.

I don't see why the LL should pay you your rent back if you have already moved out but I hope you get some money back.