We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
Does an evicted tennant have to pay a full months rent when evicted mid term?
goonarmy
Posts: 1,006 Forumite
As above. Tried to get an answer to this already but not happened. Keep it simple and general, e.g. Tennant and Landlord. Arrears, possestion orders, gas certs etc are not part of the issue.
0
Comments
-
Question already asked by OP and answered there:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4909473
Note that that previous thread was locked because of OP's behaviour towards members.0 -
Yes. A tenant is responsible for the rent based on rent periods. So, if the rent is due monthly and they stay on in a property into day 1 of a new period, then they are liable for the rest of that month.I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion. Don't go acting on legal advice you get from a stranger on the internet!0
-
jjlandlord wrote: »Question already asked by OP and answered there:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4909473
Note that that previous thread was locked because of OP's behaviour towards members.
Has been asked, hasnt been answered sadly. Your posts were deleted too. Dont have anything to add? Then swerve this thread.0 -
gordonbennet wrote: »Yes. A tenant is responsible for the rent based on rent periods. So, if the rent is due monthly and they stay on in a property into day 1 of a new period, then they are liable for the rest of that month.
So in effect the notice could be served so that the Landlord receives a months rent for 1 days occupency on purpose and then the property relet and charged a second time for that same rent? Nice little earner.0 -
Also clearly sates this has been asked before.0
-
Surely IF the property is re-let for whole/part of that month, then your rent is pro-rated/refunded - the landlord doesn't "double dip".
We are surrendering our tenancy early (so similar): if the LA re-lets for part/all of the time between leaving and the end of our contract, then our rent will be pro-rated/refunded. If not, then we are liable. Not quite the same, but should be similar re re-letting.0 -
Surely IF the property is re-let for whole/part of that month, then your rent is pro-rated/refunded - the landlord doesn't "double dip".
We are surrendering our tenancy early (so similar): if the LA re-lets for part/all of the time between leaving and the end of our contract, then our rent will be pro-rated/refunded. If not, then we are liable. Not quite the same, but should be similar re re-letting.
How would a tennant whos moved out know though?0 -
Ok. I've looked at the other thread and may see where your confusion lies. As stated, it may be around your use of the word "eviction". You are I think talking about someone who has been given notice (probably s21) and has left at the end of the notice period, which happens to fall in the middle of a rent month. They are feeling evicted, where technically they have left before actually being legally evicted.
When someone is served notice, it is notice of eviction, not the eviction itself. A s21 states that possession will be required AFTER a certain date. If the tenant doesn't move out by the date stated (and they are within their legal right not to do so) then the LL may resort to legal eviction by gaining a possession order from the courts.
SO, in answer to your question, if a LL serves a s21 which expires mid month, and the tenant moves out mid month, then legally a refund is not due because (despite what they may think) they weren't actually being legally required to move out by then. Only AFTER then, so not receiving a refund would be legally acceptable.
In this situation it would make sense for the tenant to speak to the LL ahead of time and negotiate a departure date. If it suited both parties to actually end the tenancy mid month, then it would be reasonable for the LL to only be paid up to the day of departure. But if they have already paid to the end of the month, then they are able to stay until then.I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion. Don't go acting on legal advice you get from a stranger on the internet!0 -
So in short, tenants issued with a s21 should negotiate an actual departure date with the LL and pay accordingly.I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion. Don't go acting on legal advice you get from a stranger on the internet!0
-
gordonbennet wrote: »So in short, tenants issued with a s21 should negotiate an actual departure date with the LL and pay accordingly.
But the LL has no legal reason to agree to it, morals aside?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.1K Spending & Discounts
- 243K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards