Fixed term rental contract default

G_M

Geordielad wrote: »

Although I'm not grateful for all your replies I'm somewhat confused.
Are they liable for the rent from the day they should have moved in is basically what I'm asking.
There is a legal distinction here.
No, since they did not move in, no tenancy started, so no rent is due.


But a contract was signed (saying they would move in and take up a tenancy in the future on xx date) and they breached that contract - so you can sue for your loss. You are not claiming rent, you are claiming a loss resulting from a breached contract.



I apologise if I sound ungrateful, I'm certainly not, but could I ask for a more simplistic answer please?
Are they responsible for the rent until I find another tenant or not?

They are responsible for your losses.

Geordielad

G_M wrote: »

They are responsible for your losses.

Thank you very much G_M

Geordielad

Thanks for all the advice, I am extremely grateful. Now can someone
Point me to a template or draft me a correctly worded letter that I can send to the couple that have breached the contract, informing them I intend to pursue any lost income through court?

Thanks in advance.

Slithery

Surely you won't know how much your loss is therefore how much you'll be claiming from them until you re-let the property?

I'd just wait until then before sending them a 'Letter Before Action'.

Geordielad

Slithery wrote: »

Surely you won't know how much your loss is therefore how much you'll be claiming from them until you re-let the property?

I'd just wait until then before sending them a 'Letter Before Action'.

Thanks Slithery

pickledonionspaceraider

Just advertise for another tenant OP - You have already known about this for two weeks so assuming advertising is well underway

Chasing two people who have been made redundant is morally outrageous - for bills in a house they haven't even lived in - this is a case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting shafted

There could be any number of reasons the proof was unable to be provided - maybe they were not given any, do not have access to a scanner, as they may well be homeless now or sofa surfing

If you had taken a months rent up front and a security deposit like most landlords, you would have been covered for now - and could re-advertise so at least some of the issue is with you (or your poor choice of estate agents)

Trying to get your hands on their potential redundancy money , when this situation is in at least partly your responsibility for not covering yourself, is just grasping

HampshireH

By!pickledonionspaceraider19th Jan 19, 2:49

Just advertise for another tenant OP - You have already known about this for two weeks so assuming advertising is well underway

Chasing two people who have been made redundant is morally outrageous - for bills in a house they haven't even lived in - this is a case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting shafted.

By reading the thread you would know the OP is already trying to get tenants. That wasn't their question.

Its pretty ignorant to presume the OP is rich getting richer whilst the poor get poorer.

Homeownership doesnt make a person a rich person. 5 minutes on these forums are evidence of that.

The OP could equally have been relying on the income to pay bills & why shouldn't they? It wasn't the OP who screwed them over. They shafted the OP over at the last minute and without notice.

It's morally wrong to sign a contract and not fulfill you duties. But this isn't about morals. It's about a debt owned and being able to reclaim it.

Geordielad

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

Just advertise for another tenant OP - You have already known about this for two weeks so assuming advertising is well underway

Chasing two people who have been made redundant is morally outrageous - for bills in a house they haven't even lived in - this is a case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting shafted

There could be any number of reasons the proof was unable to be provided - maybe they were not given any, do not have access to a scanner, as they may well be homeless now or sofa surfing

If you had taken a months rent up front and a security deposit like most landlords, you would have been covered for now - and could re-advertise so at least some of the issue is with you (or your poor choice of estate agents)

Trying to get your hands on their potential redundancy money , when this situation is in at least partly your responsibility for not covering yourself, is just grasping

A little information pickledonion. I'm by no means rich. I'm a self employed joiner, in the last 18 months I've used £6000 savings, all I had, and lost a year's wages after an accident that snapped my rotator cuff tendons cleanoff, and subsequent surgery to reattach them, leaving me unable to work.
My rental income was my only income, I'm just getting back to work, and slowly paying back money to family members that helped me while I was incapable of work. In short, I'm on the bones of my 4r5e.
The prospective tenants were supposedly made redundant before Christmas, yet waited until three days before the moving in date before informing that agent they wouldn't be moving in. I've had daily viewings, so far with no luck. So if you think I'm sat here going through my property portfolio whilst checking my Audemars Piquet watch for the time, think again,

Comms69

ThePants999 wrote: »

Apart from the redundancy payment, which even if statutory could be as high as £15,240 each.

Or as low as £700...

CIS

The issue in raised in Leeds v Broadley is not exclusive to someone being resident or just the end of a tenancy. The key thing it confirmed was that holding a material interest on a property of 6 months or greater makes you the owner for the purposes of council tax.



Where a person is the owner of a property in council tax legislation then they fall liable for the council tax - whether that be being resident or by virtue of being the owner of an unoccupied property.



So, if you hold that interest on an unoccupied property, then you fall liable for the council tax.



Of course, whether or not the person did hold the material interest is a point that is there for discussion.