RANT ! - I quite possibly have the meanest landlord !

mart.vader

Werdnal wrote: »

The landlord has no obligation to actively market or relet the property whilst the OP has a valid and binding fixed term tenancy agreement in place. OP, do not walk away as this will lead to court claim, possible credit record problems and no reference which will hamper your future renting/mortgage application issues.

OK, Werdnal, I just thought I'd suggest it.

martinsurrey

princeofpounds wrote: »

Actually if you did surrender the tenancy and then disappear and it went to court, and then you were to defend it, you might be able to argue that the landlord failed to mitigate his losses by not looking for another tenant. That might reduce your liability for the remaining rent.

Claimants DO have a duty to mitigate their losses, rather than let them mount indefinitely so they can be claimed from the defending party.

But I'm not sure that it will get you that far, as any judge will clearly see what is going on and will still be likely to charge costs against you etc too.

You (tenant) can’t just surrender the tenancy,

BOTH parties have to surrender it; he is as much a part of the contract as you and one side cannot pull out alone.

As such you are liable until the end of the fixed term, unless he agrees.

Until the contract is formally over (by what ever method, fully executed deed of surrender, notice at end of fixed term, s21, s8 notice ect) the OP is fully liable for all rents.

xylophone

Is there any possibility that you can remain in your property and commute for six months?

RAS

Any chance of finding a Monday to Friday lodger until October?

JimmyTheWig

sussexchick wrote: »

I have offered to pay fees for a new tenant and pay rent until such time that a new tenant has been found

You need to be careful about this offer.
He could take you up on it and then not find a new tenant (because "he doesn't have time") and you'd be liable for the full rent for the full time. I.e. if he was _really_ mean he could agree to your suggestion and get what he wanted!

I agree with the suggestion of finding a new tenant yourself and with those who suggest that you sub-let.
Alternatively, would it be worth offering the landlord, say, two months rent here and now (on top of fees for a new tenant) to agree to break the contract? If he can then let it out straight away he's up on the deal. And while it means you'll be paying two months rent more than you "should" it gets you out of your situation for cheaper than having to pay rent there for the next 6 months.

newsgroup_monkey

xylophone wrote: »

Is there any possibility that you can remain in your property and commute for six months?

This is in another of Sussex Chick's threads.....

New job is 150+ miles away.

ISTR she has also already asked her company for relocation help and the answer is no.

franklee

When you take the new job you're going to get a house share or the like and still be based in your current property right? You will be going home weekends (unless your new friends invite you to parties etc.). Meanwhile to make ends meet you will be taking in a lodger. Many of your possessions will still be at your old home and you will retain a bed there ...

Mishomeister

Have you tried to offer him money say £500.00 for an agreement to terminate the rent. That could serve him as a payment for his time and 'hassle' of finding a new tenant.

Kynthia

Just to say that I've been told that a LL doesn't have to mitigate their losses during the fixed term of a tenancy. This is because there is a signed contract agreeing to pay rent for a period of time. Before a tenancy begins or within a SPT there is a need to mitigate.

If you are unable to persuade your landlord that you will do all the work to find replacement as well as pay all the costs so that he's not out of pocket, then use the argument that if you don't go you will be unable to pay rent and will require eviction so that you can claim social housing. Otherwise you may need to decide whether to take a lodger and come back every weekend. Or you could sublet but this is against the terms of you lease and a risk as what if your tenants don't pay rent and you need to evict them?

N79

princeofpounds wrote: »

Actually if you did surrender the tenancy and then disappear and it went to court, and then you were to defend it, you might be able to argue that the landlord failed to mitigate his losses by not looking for another tenant. That might reduce your liability for the remaining rent.

Claimants DO have a duty to mitigate their losses, rather than let them mount indefinitely so they can be claimed from the defending party.

Claimants have general duty. Whether that duty extends to surrendering a tenancy early is not certain. Precedent, admittedly from commercial tenancies, is that the LL does not have such an obligation. (Reichmann and Dunn v Beverage and Gauntlett)

In particular, the Judges directly addressed the issue of why a general duty to mitigate losses does not extend to an obligation for the LL to find new tenants in paragraph 40. I see no reason why the same objections would not apply to a residential tenancy.