Ending tenancy by mutual agreement mid-month

princeofpounds

This isnt a rent payment, its a payment to end a contract.

Actually, if we are being really pedantic, that is not the case unless it is made explicitly clear in any cancellation agreement.


For instance, if you are leaving mid-month, a LL might say 'I will charge you half a month of rent to terminate the tenancy right now'.


Given you have stayed into a new rental period, you will in fact have liability for the rent for the full month as well (as per the Apportionment of Rent).


Obviously that is pretty far-fetched.


The main points to bear in mind are that:


a) the agreement can be whatever you (and more importantly the LL) like
b) it is important the agreement is clear


If I were the LL, given I had a tenant starting the next day I would be happy to pro-rata your rent for the month. But that is not something I have to do. Legally, whether we cancel the contract or not, you have liability for the whole month.


But in the back of my mind, I would be bearing in mind the risk that if I charge a whole month, you might not be happy and remain in occupation, which would screw up my new letting.

Guest101

princeofpounds wrote: »

Actually, if we are being really pedantic, that is not the case unless it is made explicitly clear in any cancellation agreement.


For instance, if you are leaving mid-month, a LL might say 'I will charge you half a month of rent to terminate the tenancy right now'.


Given you have stayed into a new rental period, you will in fact have liability for the rent for the full month as well (as per the Apportionment of Rent).


Obviously that is pretty far-fetched.


The main points to bear in mind are that:


a) the agreement can be whatever you (and more importantly the LL) like
b) it is important the agreement is clear


If I were the LL, given I had a tenant starting the next day I would be happy to pro-rata your rent for the month. But that is not something I have to do. Legally, whether we cancel the contract or not, you have liability for the whole month.


But in the back of my mind, I would be bearing in mind the risk that if I charge a whole month, you might not be happy and remain in occupation, which would screw up my new letting.

The tenant should only hand over money if it is explicitly clear in a cancellation agreement, otherwise it is just rent and the contract continues, which makes it obviously pointless.

Which is why a signed surrender document is important.

jjlandlord

From the OP there seems to already be an agreement and the landlord has already re-let.
OP is just asking about a refund on the rent because the tenancy will end before the end of the rent period.

What OP has paid is rent due under the tenancy. He is not entitled to any refund.
The landlord may agree to refund, or may not. There is nothing OP can do about it.

In the circumstances, if the landlord refuses to refund I would not make a fuss and just move on.

bris

It's called mitigating a loss so the LL can't ask for anything he wants.
As the new tenant is moving in the next day there is no loss so the LL is only entitled to the pro rata rent. If the LL has paid to find the new tenants then this would be classed as a loss but we don't know if this is the case here or not. All this talk of asking for anything he wants is just nonsense.

Pixie5740

OP, you're right in thinking that the landlord can't charge you and another tenant rent for the same property at the same time.

Sometimes when a tenancy agreement is ended early, a landlord will charge the outgoing tenant a fee for breaking the contract early, usually to cover the costs of advertising for a new tenant. Has your landlord mentioned anything like this or is it just rent that is due?

My tenancy will end part way through a rental period (Scotland so a bit different from your situation) so I will pay pro-rata rent for 9 days. The landlord is using the calculation:

Rent=Monthly Rent*12months/365days*9days

It seems fair to me so could be worth proposing to your landlord.

jjlandlord

Here we go again...

The rent issue has nothing to do with mitigating loss or charging rent to two tenants at the same time.
Rent is payable in advance and when it fell due it fell due as a whole, which the tenant has paid.
If the tenancy ends by agreement before the end of the period covered by the rent then there is no legal entitlement to a refund.

As for accepting an offer to surrender, the landlord is free to accept, refuse, or state his conditions.
If he does not accept then the tenancy continues and rent continues to accrue as a debt. There is no loss to minimise.

Guest101

bris wrote: »

It's called mitigating a loss so the LL can't ask for anything he wants.
As the new tenant is moving in the next day there is no loss so the LL is only entitled to the pro rata rent. If the LL has paid to find the new tenants then this would be classed as a loss but we don't know if this is the case here or not. All this talk of asking for anything he wants is just nonsense.

No, your talking nonsense.

This is nothing to do with minimising losses.

The tenant has requested to end the contract.

The LL can refuse or accept and state their conditions. If they dont agree the DEBT continues to mount.

Nothing to do with losses whatsoever.

mrginge

bris wrote: »

It's called mitigating a loss so the LL can't ask for anything he wants.
As the new tenant is moving in the next day there is no loss so the LL is only entitled to the pro rata rent. If the LL has paid to find the new tenants then this would be classed as a loss but we don't know if this is the case here or not. All this talk of asking for anything he wants is just nonsense.

LL does not have to mitigate loss for a tenant terminating a contract early.