PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

Am I right?

2»

Comments

  • Engeroosi
    Engeroosi Posts: 493 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    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
    G_M Posts: 51,977 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    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
    may_fair Posts: 713 Forumite
    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
    G_M Posts: 51,977 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    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
    may_fair Posts: 713 Forumite
    edited 27 July 2011 at 1:08PM
    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
    may_fair Posts: 713 Forumite
    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
    The_Palmist Posts: 789 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    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.
    Nothing is more damaging to the adventurous spirit within a man than a secure future. - Alex Supertramp
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 597.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.6K Life & Family
  • 256.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.