Terminating rental contract early - advice please

MRSB

Hi,

We will be moving out of our rental property 3 months before the end of our contract in order to make sure we secure a property in another area, as we are relocating to an area where rental property is very limited.

Is it worth enquiring as to whether we might be able to terminate our contract early to coincide with our relocation? Or should we accept that the 3 months surplus rent is lost money? We have already paid for this three months rent in advance (paid ten months upfront) which is why I am wondering whether it is worth bothering to enquire at all with the letting agent about this.

I will look at our rental contract for further information on the matter, as I think there was 'loss of deposit' quoted for early termination, but I doubt it will say anything about refunding of rent paid in advance?

Any advice appreciated, sorry if this is a silly post - it's just troubling me a little!

Thanks everyone.

arbrighton

MRSB wrote: »

Hi,

We will be moving out of our rental property 3 months before the end of our contract in order to make sure we secure a property in another area, as we are relocating to an area where rental property is very limited.

Is it worth enquiring as to whether we might be able to terminate our contract early to coincide with our relocation? Or should we accept that the 3 months surplus rent is lost money? We have already paid for this three months rent in advance (paid ten months upfront) which is why I am wondering whether it is worth bothering to enquire at all with the letting agent about this.

I will look at our rental contract for further information on the matter, as I think there was 'loss of deposit' quoted for early termination, but I doubt it will say anything about refunding of rent paid in advance?

Any advice appreciated, sorry if this is a silly post - it's just troubling me a little!

Thanks everyone.

There have been many threads by people seeking to terminate rental contracts early and I don't think having paid up front will make a great deal of difference.
Try searching to see advice in other threads- some as recent as last week.
And if you do want to continue with questions here, you will need to state the following before anyone can help
1) England, Wales or Scotland?
2) Have you signed an assured shorthold tenancy? What are the dates stated on it?
3) Have you had notification that your deposit is protected?

FireWyrm

Generally speaking, you owe the rent for those three months and nothing much you say will change this. Most LAs will talk about having to foot 're-let' and 'advertising' fees which somehow always seem to come to the same amount of money you would have spent on the rent anyway. You can ask, but dont be suprised if the answer is a flat 'no'.

More to the point, you should check your contract because most have a clause prohibiting you leaving the property unattended for any length of time. I was in this almost exact situation and ended up essentially camping in the rented house for 3 days out of 7 while my family went to our new house. I kept this up for 3 months just as you might have to. On the plus side, there was no way they could argue regarding 'cleanliness' of the property because I spent my evenings sans TV actually cleaning from top to bottom.

There is nothing stopping you exploring the concept of voluntary surrender, but my bitter experience is that it actually ends up costing more in the long run.

tim123456789

FireWyrm, I cannot agree with you that a clause requiring a tenant not to leave the property unoccupied is the slightest bit enforceable.

If tenant wants to accept whatever risks are associated with doing that, then that is entirely for him to decide and not something the LL can dictate.

pmlindyloo

There is nothing to lose by asking your LL if you can surrender the property (get any agreement in writing)

Although it is true that you are liable for the rent until the end of the contract unless you ask you won't know!

Not all LLs are uncooperative so you may be lucky and he may well be able to find another tenant to replace you and refund some of your rent.

MRSB

arbrighton wrote: »

There have been many threads by people seeking to terminate rental contracts early and I don't think having paid up front will make a great deal of difference.
Try searching to see advice in other threads- some as recent as last week.
And if you do want to continue with questions here, you will need to state the following before anyone can help
1) England, Wales or Scotland?
2) Have you signed an assured shorthold tenancy? What are the dates stated on it?
3) Have you had notification that your deposit is protected?

Hi, sorry was in a tiz when I wrote the post so didn't search the forum very well. I've had a look at some of the other threads, which have been helpful.

We are in England, and have signed an assured shorthold tenancy, this is the second contract for this property the first contract expired on October 7th 2012, and the current contract has dates of 8th October 2012 to 7th August 2013.

Our deposit is protected, and we have paid an extra £200 into this as part of a pet agreement.

I have now looked at our rental contract, and it does not say anything about early termination. I have emailed the letting agent to ask where we stand with this as I was sure that there was a clause, but this may have been on the previous contract which I have not checked.

We will be looking to move in to the new property on 1st May, and have been very lucky be allowed to secure it so far in advance of our moving in date.

Thanks

julieb1987

I don't think he can keep your deposit. It's worth discussing early surrender with him. Usually you have to pay any outstanding rent whilst the property is unoccupied, up until the end of your tenancy. If he gets new tenants in before your agreement expires (7th August), then he cannot take rent off you. You may have to pay the re-letting fees though, so you need to work out which is likely to cost you less money.

G_M

tim123456789 wrote: »

FireWyrm, I cannot agree with you that a clause requiring a tenant not to leave the property unoccupied is the slightest bit enforceable.

If tenant wants to accept whatever risks are associated with doing that, then that is entirely for him to decide and not something the LL can dictate.

Not so.

The reason most tenancy agreements have such a clause is because..... all buildings insurance policies have such clauses.

If the tenant breaks the clause and leaves the property 'unoccupied' for longer than the period specified, the landlord's insurance would be invalid. Fire? No valid insurance claim!

The clause IS enforcible, though I agree it is difficult.

In practice the LL would need proof (difficult to obtain without being accused of harrasment!), and would then need to go to court, either to claim compensation (for what loss, if there has not been an insurance claim rejected?), or for possession, which a court would be unlikey to grant, again unless there had actually been an uninsured event (stable door, horse, bolted!).

So
* in law? Yes, a valid clause.
* in practice? Tough to enforce
* in ethics? Comply! It's not fair to invalidate the LL's insurance

BillNBob

In effect you will be in breach of contract, LL can and I would think will want the rent paid until the end of contract plus any agents re-letting fees, loss of rent if it is empty after your contract ends to him reletting.
You could be charged for cleaning costs, when the property is left it will build up dirt (apparently) our LL tried to charge us for moss on the drive!! amongst other things.

We lost our deposit as it was rent owing, dont be fooled into thinking it will be easy to get any of it back.

I know Ive been there.

dancingfairy

Unfortunately you have paid up front so you are not in quite such a good position. There is always the chance that the landlord (note landlord not agents) may agree to an early surrender. You will not know what their plans are unless you ask.
As said they may be happy to agree a surrender subject to you paying reletting fees or some such.
Getting your deposit back is a completely separate issue and has no bearing on whether you are allowed to terminate your tenancy early.
df

moneyistooshorttomention

FireWyrm wrote: »

Generally speaking, you owe the rent for those three months and nothing much you say will change this. Most LAs will talk about having to foot 're-let' and 'advertising' fees which somehow always seem to come to the same amount of money you would have spent on the rent anyway. You can ask, but dont be suprised if the answer is a flat 'no'.

More to the point, you should check your contract because most have a clause prohibiting you leaving the property unattended for any length of time. I was in this almost exact situation and ended up essentially camping in the rented house for 3 days out of 7 while my family went to our new house. I kept this up for 3 months just as you might have to. On the plus side, there was no way they could argue regarding 'cleanliness' of the property because I spent my evenings sans TV actually cleaning from top to bottom.

There is nothing stopping you exploring the concept of voluntary surrender, but my bitter experience is that it actually ends up costing more in the long run.

Very honourable of you.:T

Errrm....I am wondering whether you might have "camped out" more often than necessary though in the old place? The reason being that I understood that house insurance policies (and presumably, from that, rental terms) state that a property mustnt be unoccupied for more than 30 days. I would imagine OP therefore can fulfil any occupancy condition there is by coming back for 2 days (ie more than 24 hours) once every 30 days and that would be that condition matched then.