Out of work and need to end STA

grifferz

jamie11 wrote: »

Wrong. This smells like an agent trying it on. OP should make an effort to speak directly to the landlord and sort it out.

Sorry perhaps I was not clear: I'm not talking about OP's exact situation, I'm asking about a hypothetical situation where the landlord says "I'll let you out of the tenancy as long as you pay unrelated sum of £X".

We know this is unfair, but the tenant is in a difficult situation because the landlord doesn't have to agree to the early release. Tenant can say, "no that's unfair" and stay in the agreement or else they can pay up and be released. Once they are released, do they have to take the landlord to court to get that £X back?

I don't know if that is the case or not, but if you say it's not, how would it work then?

thesaint

Scottish law is completely different.

grifferz

thesaint wrote: »

Scottish law is completely different.

Sure, so is it the case in Scotland that it would likely go like this:

• Tenant says, "I need to get out"
• Landlord says, "Fine, but I need you to pay unrelated sum £X"
• Tenant says, "No that is unfair, I will pay only your costs to re-let the property which you already said are £156 so I'm paying that"
• Landlord says, "No deal. You pay that £156 plus £X"
• Tenant leaves
• Landlord makes no effort to mitigate loss, takes tenant to court for £156+£X+all the months of rent where property sat empty
• (former) Tenant points out that they agreed to pay the £156, does pay it now if it hasn't been paid already
• Court rules that landlord tried to impose an unfair charge and made no effort to mitigate their own losses so probably takes no further action against former tenant

???

In England and Wales would this outcome be less likely as there is no requirement for landlord to mitigate losses?

tim123456789

grifferz wrote: »

Sure, so is it the case in Scotland that it would likely go like this:

• Tenant says, "I need to get out"
• Landlord says, "Fine, but I need you to pay unrelated sum £X"
• Tenant says, "No that is unfair, I will pay only your costs to re-let the property which you already said are £156 so I'm paying that"
• Landlord says, "No deal. You pay that £156 plus £X"
• Tenant leaves
• Landlord makes no effort to mitigate loss, takes tenant to court for £156+£X+all the months of rent where property sat empty
• (former) Tenant points out that they agreed to pay the £156, does pay it now if it hasn't been paid already
• Court rules that landlord tried to impose an unfair charge and made no effort to mitigate their own losses so probably takes no further action against former tenant

???

In England and Wales would this outcome be less likely as there is no requirement for landlord to mitigate losses?

The (current) legal interpretation of this situationj in England is that sums owed for breach of contract do need to be mitigated,

but

a court has rulled that the total rend due (but not yet paid) under the terms of a fixed length tenacy is a debt owed and not a sum due because of a breach. As such this loss does not need to be mitigated.

So the LL can demand whatever amount he likes to release T early from the contract and (assuming it's less than the total owed) T has no legal recourse to challenge it as "unfair" (and FWIW nor can T impose conditions on the LL's use of the property after it is vacated).

HTH

tim