Abandonement, surrender? now I'm confused

tumbledowngirl

This is my second post on this issue, but things have moved on from my original post so a new post seems like a good idea.

To recap - tenants have moved into another property,without informing us and 6 months before the end of their agreement. Hadn't paid this month's rent and were ignoring all communications from LA.

Today, LA sent another email, requesting permission to enter the property - on the pretence that he was doing a viewing. We questioned this tactic, concerned that it was dodgy. LA also reminded tenant that he was still liable for the property until a new tenant moved in, and also the re-letting fee and overdue rent.

Tenant immediately replied that he was happy for the LA to go into the property tomorrow. LA then spoke to tenant on the phone and tenant said they had "virtually moved out and would clean the house tonight, ready for the viewing tomorrow." Tenant paid this month's rent at the same time.

So...has the LA inadvertently ended the tenancy with his tactic?

He says that he never gets a signed deed of surrender until a new tenant is about to move in. Can the current tenant claim that the agreement was terminated by the LA when he arranged viewings (mythical or otherwise), and therefore refuse to pay rent on any void period or re-letting fees?

Fair to say, I am confused and concerned that we may have been stitched up by our LA...

ConfusedofYorkshire

I'm not sure of the legality- but it seems to me that if they paid the rent and have now entered communication it might just be a lot less stressful to be rid of them and get the house relet- rather than persuing them and it getting compicated.

But then i like an easy life:) but I understand that you might be out of pocket.

ViolaLass

I can't see how the tenant would be able to argue that a viewing being arranged means the tenancy has been terminated, by either party.

G_M

Tenant appears cooperative.

Get something signed!

A statement that they wish to surrender the tenancy, such surrender to take place when a new satisfactory replacement tenant is found.

It should also state that the tenant understands that rent and all associated costs and responsibilities for the tenancy remain in place until that date.

get it signed dated by both tenant and landlord or agent.

Leave a space below where the final surrender date can be inserted and again signed by both.

If tenant declines to sign the document in advance of the actual surrender, point out that without it you cannot seek a replacement tenant and he will therefore have to continue the tenancy to its end..

Without an actual surrender date, the document has limited legal value since it does not/cannot end the tenancy, but it adds some protection, and certainly makes clear both sides' intentions.

tumbledowngirl

ConfusedofYorkshire wrote: »

I'm not sure of the legality- but it seems to me that if they paid the rent and have now entered communication it might just be a lot less stressful to be rid of them and get the house relet- rather than persuing them and it getting compicated.

But then i like an easy life:) but I understand that you might be out of pocket.

I'm all for an easy life too :-)
However, we're unlikely to get a new tenant in before the next rent is due, plus there is £150 + vat re-letting fee and we don't know what state the house has been left in etc. Tenants say they have left the heating etc on timer, so someone has to be accountable for the bills until a definite surrender has been agreed.

tumbledowngirl

G_M wrote: »

Tenant appears cooperative.

Get something signed!

A statement that they wish to surrender the tenancy, such surrender to take place when a new satisfactory replacement tenant is found.

It should also state that the tenant understands that rent and all associated costs and responsibilities for the tenancy remain in place until that date.

get it signed dated by both tenant and landlord or agent.

Leave a space below where the final surrender date can be inserted and again signed by both.

If tenant declines to sign the document in advance of the actual surrender, point out that without it you cannot seek a replacement tenant and he will therefore have to continue the tenancy to its end..

Without an actual surrender date, the document has limited legal value since it does not/cannot end the tenancy, but it adds some protection, and certainly makes clear both sides' intentions.

Thank you very much for this info - NOW I understand!
Just one thing - when you say, " a satisfactory replacement tenant is found", do you mean exactly that, or do you mean when the replacement tenant's agreement starts (with regards to being responsible for the rent)?

Also, if the old tenancy agreement started, say, on the 25th of the month, but the new tenancy starts on the 10th, would the old tenant be liable for the whole month's rent or only part, pro-rata?

ConfusedofYorkshire

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

I'm all for an easy life too :-)
However, we're unlikely to get a new tenant in before the next rent is due, plus there is £150 + vat re-letting fee and we don't know what state the house has been left in etc. Tenants say they have left the heating etc on timer, so someone has to be accountable for the bills until a definite surrender has been agreed.

that makes sense:). and it sounds like some posters have good ideas for getting an agreement now. Think of it as positive that there is now a line of communication. Hopefully you can get this sorted without financial loss. :beer:

G_M

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

Just one thing - when you say, " a satisfactory replacement tenant is found", do you mean exactly that, or do you mean when the replacement tenant's agreement starts (with regards to being responsible for the rent)?
It's catch 22! Frankly, a LL would be mad to sign a new TA with a new tenant till the current tenant is gone. But you don't want to end the current tenancy till you have a new one lined up.......

So I would find a new tenant, then sign the surrender with current tenant and get keys etc, and then sign new TA. If there's a few days gap, even a week, such is life.

Also, if the old tenancy agreement started, say, on the 25th of the month, but the new tenancy starts on the 10th, would the old tenant be liable for the whole month's rent or only part, pro-rata?

Up to you! If the current tenancy is periodic, the law says the tenant should pay a full tenancy period (even if they move out / surrender mid-period). This always seems harsh to me, and bound to lead to dispute. I would charge pro-rata.

G_M

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

...
However, we're unlikely to get a new tenant in before the next rent is due, plus there is £150 + vat re-letting fee and .

The document I described above could also specify the tenant is liable for a £150 + VAT re-letting fee if you wish.

Or indeed any other conditions you want.

Whether the tenant is happy to sign on that basis, only time will tell.

tumbledowngirl

Spoken to LA this morning.
He won't get a surrender until a new tenant is agreed. He does say, however, that an email to the tenant, stating that he is liable for all rent and related costs until a new tenant is found, will suffice.

While the tenant has said he's happy for property to be actively marketed etc, he also says that he didn't have any legal obligation to inform LA he'd moved out and it was nobody's business if he had 2 properties under lease. While this is, of course, true it does rather worry me - why try to assert your rights under a tenancy agreement you claim to want to surrender?

Also, LA has said that by not agreeing to surrender, we would lose any case brought in court as we would be judged to be not "fair and reasonable" by refusing the tenant to leave the agreement, but in addition, not making his life as easy as possible once he'd done so (ie we now have to actively market the property and get a tenant in asap, whether we want to or not).

Is this really the case? Does this mean that a 12 month AST is in no way worth the paper it's written on??

allthingsmustpass

I don't really see much of a problem here, the tenant is still paying rent and they are right that its no-ones business but their own if they pay for another rental at the same time.

They wanted to move out so request termination of AST, didn't get it, moved on anyway and now are paying for both properties.

You have a let property with rent coming in and no wear and tear or damage because the property isn't being lived in. Much. Who knows maybe they will choose to flit between one and the other since they're close and they're paying for it still.

Are you all in a tizzy over nothing?

Sounds to me like their prompt response to the agent regarding the viewing is due to their view that if you get someone else in before the end of their tenancy thats cheaper for them than paying for the remainder of their term.

And regarding :
"why try to assert your rights under a tenancy agreement you claim to want to surrender?"
Why not? It hasnt been surrendered so the rights remain. Make your mind up!


If I am understanding this correctly it sounds like you've shot yourself in the foot after getting into a panic after finding they had a new property. What better for a landlord than rent coming in but no tenant in the property? doh! :rotfl: