Charge for returning overpaid rent?

Lucky_Duck_2

This afternoon I was helping a colleague with some issues arising from him leaving his rented flat such as proposed deductions from the deposit.

For some reason the standing order for the rent wasn't cancelled in a timely fashion and one month's rent was overpaid. The tenancy agreement states a charge of almost £40 would be payable to return the overpaid SO.

I did wonder if this was (a) enforceable and/ (b) be circumvented by requesting the sums are returned outside of the deposit return transaction starting proceeding if necessary?

theartfullodger

Overpaid rent does not, I think, have to be returned. This £40 is cheap. Unless s21 eviction..

There is...
- the law ...
- what is fair & reasonable...

--- not always the same thing

Sibz

Not sure about the overpayment.

The deposit deductions - Make sure that the deposit was registered with a registered Tenancy Deposit Scheme... If not you should have no problem getting back the overpaid SO and the full deposit... or more through court

G_M

The two matters are unrelated.

I'm surprised you think overpaid rent does not have to be returned Artful? Any experience or precedence for this? I admit I don't know, but common sense and my amateur legal knowledge sort of suggests to me it should be returned.

An admin fee for returning it? Probably chargeable providing it accurately reflecs the admin costs involved - pretty minimal I'd have thought.

I won't comment on the unrelated deposit deductions as there's no information provided.
* Deposits: payment, protection and return

Lucky_Duck_2

Other issues are mostly unremarkable;

Check out fee £154, agreement says cost will be charged but doesn't specify an amount
Alleged lack of cleaning £100 &
A charge for repairing chips in the wall which I am told were caused by others employed by the landlord

zagubov

Wouldn't keeping overpaid rent be an example of "theft by finding"?

G_M

Lucky_Duck wrote: »

Other issues are mostly unremarkable;

Check out fee £154, agreement says cost will be charged but doesn't specify an amount if amount is unspecified, cannot be charged. Otherwise what's to stop them chargingcharge £1,154!
Alleged lack of cleaning £100 Simple. Was it as clean when they left as the inventory says it was when they arrived?&
A charge for repairing chips in the wall which I am told were caused by others employed by the landlord

Proof of the LL's contractors causing the chips?
Did the tenant report the damage done by the contractors, at the time, in writing, to the landlord?

davidmcn

zagubov wrote: »

Wouldn't keeping overpaid rent be an example of "theft by finding"?

No, I can't see there's a crime involved at all. And in any event they're offering to return the money minus the admin fee. If they weren't then I expect it would constitute unjust enrichment.

theartfullodger

G_M wrote: »

The two matters are unrelated.

I'm surprised you think overpaid rent does not have to be returned Artful? .....

Depends if tenancy agreement covers it,...

See Shelter Legal here...
http://england.shelter.org.uk/legal/rents/introduction_to_rents/payment_of_rent#1

Rent to be paid in advance

It is a common law rule that rent to be paid in advance cannot be apportioned on a time basis, regardless of how the tenancy was ended, unless there is clear wording in the tenancy agreement that states otherwise.[4]

"4" is Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd & Anor [2015] UKSC 72; Ellis v Rowbotham [1900] 1 QB 740, CA.

see...
https://swarb.co.uk/ellis-v-rowbotham-ca-1900/

However, any decent landlord/agent should refund in full. But being decent is not a requirement for a landlord: Or agent: Or tenant..... (? unless tenancy agreement says so?? )

davidmcn

theartfullodger wrote: »

Depends if tenancy agreement covers it,...

See Shelter Legal here...
http://england.shelter.org.uk/legal/rents/introduction_to_rents/payment_of_rent#1
"4" is Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd & Anor [2015] UKSC 72; Ellis v Rowbotham [1900] 1 QB 740, CA.

see...
https://swarb.co.uk/ellis-v-rowbotham-ca-1900/

Correct law in respect of apportionment during the period which the final required rental payment is meant to cover, but I think accidental payments made after the period of the lease would be purely unjust enrichment.

System

davidmcn wrote: »

Correct law in respect of apportionment during the period which the final required rental payment is meant to cover, but I think accidental payments made after the period of the lease would be purely unjust enrichment.

I would be unjustified enrichment to retain it.

A £40 fee would have to a reflection of actual costs to be fair and enforceable. They will have some bank and admin costs to process a refund and there will be some hassle of arguing (for a reduced fee) for making a silly mistake.