Can a LL deduct extra rent from deposit for after tenant has left property

grey_lady

Really hoping someone knows the answer to this, basically LL served section 21 / exercised a break clause in the tenancy agreement - this was served correctly.

Tenant stayed an extra two weeks after that expired and paid the two weeks rent, LL wants to deduct a further two weeks rent from her deposit - his reasoning is that he is entitled to this as tenant paid monthly.

Tenant handed over the keys on day 14 and spent quite a bit of money having the place professionally cleaned, windows, carpets all done and feels that's it's a bit unfair to be expected to pay another two weeks rent when she doesn't have possession of the property.

Personally I think the landlord is being greedy, but I'm guessing there's a correct legal answer as to whether she's liable or not and I'm hoping someone here's might know.

Fire_Fox

Did the tenant give notice of the date they were intending to move out? IMO if not the landlord is not being unreasonable asking for rent, they could not get another tenant in.

How much the tenant spent cleaning the place is irrelevant, that was not a favour to the landlord that was to leave the place in the same condition as at the start of the tenancy in order to get the damage deposit back.

19lottie82

unless an agreement was arranged with the LL previously, that they could stay an extra 2 weeks (and pay for only the 2 weeks), then yes, they can claim for the rent for the whole month.

grey_lady

LL was never intending to get another tenant in, LL plans to move back in and eventually sell property. The section 21 expired on 30/9 tenant told LL on the 25/9 that she would be remaining until 14/10 and paid rent up to then. LL would have had to go to court for a possession order but that would have taken a couple of weeks anyway
so LL didn't.

Does that make any difference?

Tenant had just rang Shelter and theyve told her that it's not reasonble for the LL
to want the extra rent and advised her to go to court to recover the money if the dispute process fails.

Fire_Fox

Since the tenant kept the landlord informed and he has not incurred any losses no he is not entitled to any extra rent.

G_M

I'm stumped!

What exactly are the terms of the break clause that the landlord relied on?

* LL gave notice according to break clause to end tenancy on X date.
* tenant failed toleave, so tenancy continued
* to gain possession, LL would have had to apply to a court
* since tenancy did not end on X date, but continued, then the only way to now end the tenancy (I think!) would be either by mutual consent (which clearly did not happen) or by a further notice, again in accordance with the break clause.
* tenant kept LL informed of his intentions - but did this constitute notice? And if so, did it comply with the terms of the break clause (unlikely).

Altough I am uncertain how a court would rule, I believe the wording of the break clause is the key here.

RabbitMad

Yes, the LL is entitled to the rent for the full period and if the T hasn't given notice in writing could demand the rent for the following period too.

The section 21 doesn't end the tenancy but the break clause does; however all that happens with the break clause is that a spt comes into effect and to end that the T has to serve notice that ends at the end of a rent period

xoAmyox

BUT, did the landlord move in in those two weeks, or do anything otherwise not in keeping with the tenancy continuing?

If he did, you could argue that the tenancy surrender was accepted by him through his actions?

G_M

RabbitMad wrote: »

Yes, the LL is entitled to the rent for the full period and if the T hasn't given notice in writing could demand the rent for the following period too.

The section 21 doesn't end the tenancy but the break clause does; however all that happens with the break clause is that a spt comes into effect and to end that the T has to serve notice that ends at the end of a rent period

I seriously doubt that a SPT can be created mid-way through a fixed term.

Just because an attempt was made to apply the break clause, if the tenancy continued, then it would be under the original fixed term.

Whether the tenant could then invoke the break clause would depend on its wording. eg
* was it only invokable AT the 6 months point (for example)
* or at any time AFTER the 6months point?

RabbitMad

but you are at the end of the fixed term as the break clause has the effect of altering the fix term. hence why a spt arises.

It is similar to a clause that states the rent and another clause that states a rent increase at certain points, the original contract remains but the increase clause effectively rewrites the rent clause

G_M

RabbitMad wrote: »

but you are at the end of the fixed term as the break clause has the effect of altering the fix term. hence why a spt arises.

I disagree.

You are NOT at the end of the fixed term.

The break clause allows the option of terminating the tenancy early. However, if the tenant remains in occupation, and continues to pay rent, then the tenency has not been terminated and the fixed term continues....