Abandonement, surrender? now I'm confused

theEnd

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

They have now paid this month's rent, so are still my tenants - and technically still my tenants until July, unless a surrender is agreed. Nothing to do with what I'd like,but everything to do with what the law says.

Sounded like you wanted to chase them for the rent until you find a new tenant, plus the advertising costs.

Under your contract, you may be entitled to them, but I doubt you'll get them.

ConfusedofYorkshire

isn't it part of most ASTs that you can't leave the property for more than a certain amount of time? or that you have to inform the landlord if its more than 14 days? something like that anyway

allthingsmustpass

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

the tenant hasn't actually formally said they wish to surrender their tenancy.

I thought they asked for an early termination and you turned them down, now its a problem they aren't giving it up? eh? They are still renting the property. That they aren't there much isn't all that relevant in my view. Its possible you are making more of this than is necessary.

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

I don't believe the tenant has any intention of paying rent on 2 properties for the next 6 months

Thats a judgement/assumption which might be wrong. Do you even know they are paying rent on the other property? Maybe they have more money than you think. Renting has been a financially astute move for some time now.


Anyway, better to have negotiated an early ast termination in the first place I think. A lesson for anyone watching, just be reasonable and pragmatic.

Another lesson I would derive from this and stories like it is to not be such a nut about it all. Some of these accidental landlords appearing on these forums lately just can't seem to leave well enough alone and resort to spying on their tenants and getting all in a panic at the most innocent or non problematic of things... getting the wrong end of the stick, jumping to conclusions etc etc. Better to mind your own, respect a tenants privacy and assume that they are in fact fully functioning adults with lives of their own. Stop being so precious about your (or more likely the banks) tedious house!

Good luck to all. Deep breaths everyone. Dont panic mr manwaring

tumbledowngirl

allthingsmustpass wrote: »

I thought they asked for an early termination and you turned them down, now its a problem they aren't giving it up? eh? They are still renting the property. That they aren't there much isn't all that relevant in my view. Its possible you are making more of this than is necessary.


Thats a judgement/assumption which might be wrong. Do you even know they are paying rent on the other property? Maybe they have more money than you think. Renting has been a financially astute move for some time now.


Anyway, better to have negotiated an early ast termination in the first place I think. A lesson for anyone watching, just be reasonable and pragmatic.


Another lesson I would derive from this and stories like it is to not be such a nut about it all. Some of these accidental landlords appearing on these forums lately just can't seem to leave well enough alone and resort to spying on their tenants and getting all in a panic at the most innocent or non problematic of things... getting the wrong end of the stick, jumping to conclusions etc etc. Better to mind your own, respect a tenants privacy and assume that they are in fact fully functioning adults with lives of their own. Stop being so precious about your (or more likely the banks) tedious house!

Good luck to all. Deep breaths everyone. Dont panic mr manwaring

Just to clarify - as a tenant, be reasonable and pragmatic BUT don't expect the tenant to do the same. After all, they're doing all landlords a favour by living in the property. Err, ok - whatever you say.

AFK_Matrix

Well the tenant has actually paid you rent you say even after you said they had refused and it sounds like they do want to actually have 2 rented properties, nothing wrong with this.

I would just leave it all and see if the next months payment comes in and then start making some decisions. If he pays next month then all is fine and you have no worries, if they don't pay then things get tricky. You could go for the Section 8 route if they don't pay for 2 rent periods and I am sure others can give other alternatives as they are far more knowledgeable than me.

tumbledowngirl

AFK_Matrix wrote: »

Well the tenant has actually paid you rent you say even after you said they had refused and it sounds like they do want to actually have 2 rented properties, nothing wrong with this.

I would just leave it all and see if the next months payment comes in and then start making some decisions. If he pays next month then all is fine and you have no worries, if they don't pay then things get tricky. You could go for the Section 8 route if they don't pay for 2 rent periods and I am sure others can give other alternatives as they are far more knowledgeable than me.

Yes, the rent was paid late yesterday after the LA finally got to speak to the tenant.
I posted because I wanted clarification of what would happen if we simply let the original agreement run as usual - I am happy to see what happens next month, but LA says that if we were then to go to court for non payment of rent, a judge could well say we had not been fair or reasonable to the tenant, by not actively looking for a new tenant.
The problem is that the tenant is saying one thing ("I want you to look for a new tenant") while also saying the complete opposite ("I don't legally have to inform you that I have 2 properties") and also telling the LA that he has virtually moved out.

allthingsmustpass

The sooner amateurs like this are put out of business by much needed legislation and professional companies the better. At the very least there should be an IQ test! :rotfl:

Deary me.

DRP

an awkward situation.

I think you've probably had some good advice from RAS , G_M and others - sounds like you have to follow the correct procedure, tick the boxes and tell your agent to pull his finger out!

Kynthia

OP, according to tenancy law you have no need to mitigate your loss should your tenant move out and not pay rent during a tenancy. As you now have received rent and are up to date I'd cool down and see what happens. If the tenant has indicated they are happy to pay rent on two properties then let them. I'd maybe ensure the LA informs them they are also responsible for the CT in both and if it was in your contract with them jot yo irate the property unoccupied for more than 28 days at a tine, that they are responsible for this too.

Guest101

Kynthia wrote: »

OP, according to tenancy law you have no need to mitigate your loss should your tenant move out and not pay rent during a tenancy. As you now have received rent and are up to date I'd cool down and see what happens. If the tenant has indicated they are happy to pay rent on two properties then let them. I'd maybe ensure the LA informs them they are also responsible for the CT in both and if it was in your contract with them jot yo irate the property unoccupied for more than 28 days at a tine, that they are responsible for this too.

I wouldn't bother with the unoccupied bit. U can't prove they didn't stay one night in 28 anyway.

But they are responsible for reporting damage and maintaining the property