surrender of tenancy - reasonable terms?

tumbledowngirl

AFK_Matrix wrote: »

Can I just ask as I have been following the 2 threads off and on, but you say the Tenants have said they want a new tenant to be found. But have these tenants actually said this to YOUR face or has the LA said this to you?

I am just wondering if it came through the LA, could he be pushing this as he knows he is going to get a fee out of you and the new tenant, so win win for him?

I only ask as he seems hell bent on getting you new Tenants and sounds like he is chucking people at you willy nilly. Just a thought is all. If the tenants are paying the rent each month and your happy with this tell the LA to do one and you are happy for the tenants to stay.

We have had no direct contact with the tenants, you're correct.
As you may have seen in my other post, I feel the agent has forced the surrender situation with both parties, through chosing to advertise and show the property to prospective tenants in order to gain access to the property and open up lines of communication with the current tenant.

All we have seen is a copy of an email that the agent sent, asking for permission to access the property to conduct a viewing and reminding the tenant of their responsibility to pay the rent and all costs associated with the AST until such a time as a new tenancy is agreed.

In return, the tenant's email reply said he was happy for the viewing to take place.

The latest email from the agent includes a reply from the tenant that simply says the tenant will surrender the property once a new tenant has been found. The agent hasn't included the email he sent to the tenant that got this response.

I feel very strongly that we have been pushed into this position by the agent's scare tactics about having to mitigate losses by getting a new tenant in asap.
My response is to get the surrender from the tenant asap, so that a new tenancy can be agreed as and when we find tenants that suit us - NOT when either the agent or tenant puts pressure on us to do so.

By doing this, we are actually saving the tenant from having to pay next month's rent, which is why I thought a small settlement may be reasonable - given that we've had to spend a lot of time this week sorting out a situation which was of the tenant's making, not ours. Maybe I'm being unreasonable??

tumbledowngirl

jjlandlord wrote: »

If they pay rent monthly in advance on, say, the 1st of the month, and tenancy ends on 15th with surrender as re-let agreed, the tenant is not entitled to any refund of rent paid (about half a month).

It is up to the landlord to agree to that.

So now I'm confused - refund due or refund not due??
Every person I ask has a different answer.

jjlandlord

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

So now I'm confused - refund due or refund not due??
Every person I ask has a different answer.

Refund is not 'due' as the tenant is not entitled to it.
If the tenant requests it as a condition of the surrender it is for you to agree or not.
If he doesn't request it, then you are entitled to keep the money, or you can decide to refund it out of good will.

tumbledowngirl

jjlandlord wrote: »

Obviously it depends on who wishes to end the tenancy.
If it is the tenant, I don't see that he has any bargaining power.

The point remains that in the absence of an explicit agreement, no refund is due.

If the tenant has left the property and expressed a wish for the property to be re-let, but we have requested a formal surrender, who has in fact requested to end the tenancy?

My poor brain is frazzled!:eek:

I hope you can understand why I am confused. At various points, we have been told that we have brought about our current situation, because we refused the tenant his request to leave the agreement.
He has left the property, has taken on a new let, has apparently agreed/asked for new tenants to be found, but has paid his rent and has to continue until the agreement is surrendered. At the same time, we have been told it's not unlawful to have 2 properties rented and that until such time as he signs a surrender, he is liable for the remaining term BUT we have to be seen to be fair and reasonable in trying to find a new tenant in order to release him from the agreement.
It feels (rightly or wrongly) as if we are being told something that contradicts what we've been told previously at every turn (I mean,by the agent).

In trying to nail it down by requesting a surrender, we have been told that we shouldn't do this until another tenancy agreement is in place - yet we can't get another tenancy agreement in place until the original one has been surrendered. So we say, fine, we'll take our time making sure the right tenants for us are agreed...but then we're told we need to get new tenants sorted quickly, in order to be seen as fair to the original tenant. So then we say again that we'd like a surrender - to be told that we lose bargaining power for requesting it - so THEN we say ok, we'll let the AST roll on as per agreement, while looking for new tenants...and the whole conversation starts all over again.:(:(:(

I'll put my hands up - I am worn out with trying to work out just what is going on here and how we may or may not have caused it.:(

tumbledowngirl

jjlandlord wrote: »

Refund is not 'due' as the tenant is not entitled to it.
If the tenant requests it as a condition of the surrender it is for you to agree or not.
If he doesn't request it, then you are entitled to keep the money, or you can decide to refund it out of good will.

So the tenant is not entitled to it, but it's not lawful to take rent on the same property from 2 different sources?

Maybe I sound like a witch, but goodwill towards the tenant is not flowing out of me right now.:(

Pixie5740

You're agent sounds like an idiot with all this talk of you mitigating your losses and pushing tenants on you willy nilly. In your position I would be looking to get a new agent or go it alone.

Why don't you just ask the tenants what their intentions are? If they say that want to give up the property draft a surrender document and if they say they want to stay just let sleeping dogs lie. If the rent is late or unpaid next month cross that bridge when you come to it.

jjlandlord

I don't see what the complication is.

theEnd

jjlandlord wrote: »

I don't see what the complication is.

Neither do I.

The tenant is paying for flat they are not using.
You want new tenants as the current one is not great at paying and likely to get worse as they're now paying for 2 flats.

Suggest a surrender (as soon as possible). You keep the rent you've been paid. You could offer some back if they're not happy to surrender.

Simple.

kelpie35

Why are you still using this LA?

They seem to only cause you hassle.

Are you happy to pay people like that?

tumbledowngirl

So actually there's no complication, but even something as simple as "should I give the tenant whatever part of the rent that is left over when a new tenancy is signed" seems to be a grey area and not agreed universally here.

I have dug around the internet and the mitigating losses or not issue is another grey area.

As for sacking the LA, how do we deal with the issue of the deposit, which is held in an insurance-backed scheme by the LA? To date, we haven't actually been able to gain access to the property to see the state of it for ourselves - the LA has advised us that it may jeopardize us legally.

Maybe you can see why I'm getting myself tied up in knots. We were even told by the LA that contacting the tenants to ask what their intention was could be seen as harassment.