Leaving a rented house empty

shinytop

If a tenant is renting under a 6 month fixed term AST, is there anything to stop them moving out after, say, 4 months and leaving the house empty until the end of the contract? All rent and appropriate bills would be paid. There is nothing in the tenancy agreement that refers to this.  The ideal situation would be for another tenant to be found but that's unlikely at the moment. The only issue I can think of is the LL's buildings insurance might not allow it but that's their problem.  Any thoughts? 

Comms69

Nope that is fine. As you say the insurance may be affected, but unless stated so in the tenancy agreement, that is bad luck. 

Voyager2002

Umm... if a house is left empty then things can go wrong. For example, a leaking pipe that is not noticed could cause very destructive flooding. If you are still the tenant you could find yourself legally liable for the damage.

I think it important that you formally surrender the tenancy and of course pay the landlord full rent up to the end of the AST. Doing this might also reduce your liability to pay Council Tax.

Comms69

Voyager2002 said:

Umm... if a house is left empty then things can go wrong. For example, a leaking pipe that is not noticed could cause very destructive flooding. If you are still the tenant you could find yourself legally liable for the damage.

I think it important that you formally surrender the tenancy and of course pay the landlord full rent up to the end of the AST. Doing this might also reduce your liability to pay Council Tax.

Possibly, but it's quite easy to turn the water off (and i would hope most people do this anyway when leaving a house for more than a day or two)

MovingForwards

Is there anything in the tenancy which refers to going away / holiday as mine says I have to let the agency know.

But no, no one can stop you moving out, especially as you will continue to pay the rent and bills and not do a midnight flit.

shinytop

Voyager2002 said:

Umm... if a house is left empty then things can go wrong. For example, a leaking pipe that is not noticed could cause very destructive flooding. If you are still the tenant you could find yourself legally liable for the damage.

I think it important that you formally surrender the tenancy and of course pay the landlord full rent up to the end of the AST. Doing this might also reduce your liability to pay Council Tax.

Thanks for all the replies.  Wouldn't ending the tenancy remove any liability for the tenant to pay council tax on that property?  That would be great for the tenant but I doubt the LL would want that.    

shinytop

MovingForwards said:

Is there anything in the tenancy which refers to going away / holiday as mine says I have to let the agency know.

But no, no one can stop you moving out, especially as you will continue to pay the rent and bills and not do a midnight flit.

No, nothing like that in the agreement. 

I can assure you the tenants are very honest people and would never do anything like that...

Comms69

shinytop said:

Voyager2002 said:

Umm... if a house is left empty then things can go wrong. For example, a leaking pipe that is not noticed could cause very destructive flooding. If you are still the tenant you could find yourself legally liable for the damage.

I think it important that you formally surrender the tenancy and of course pay the landlord full rent up to the end of the AST. Doing this might also reduce your liability to pay Council Tax.

Thanks for all the replies.  Wouldn't ending the tenancy remove any liability for the tenant to pay council tax on that property?  That would be great for the tenant but I doubt the LL would want that.    

Potentially yes, but the landlord benefits from receiving payment upfront and removes their own liability as a landlord - which is extensive. 

HampshireH

shinytop said:

If a tenant is renting under a 6 month fixed term AST, is there anything to stop them moving out after, say, 4 months and leaving the house empty until the end of the contract? All rent and appropriate bills would be paid. There is nothing in the tenancy agreement that refers to this.  The ideal situation would be for another tenant to be found but that's unlikely at the moment. The only issue I can think of is the LL's buildings insurance might not allow it but that's their problem.  Any thoughts? 

It's actually the tenant problem if the tenancy agreement states they cannot leave it vacant for more than x amount of time.

I know my previous rental had a clause i couldnt leave the property empty for more than than 3 or 4 (i think it was 4) weeks without breaching the contract.
Therefore any problems as a result of doing so the landlord could have pursued me for breach of tenancy.

The tenant still remains liable so if there was a breakin or anything ........

Comms69

HampshireH said:

shinytop said:

If a tenant is renting under a 6 month fixed term AST, is there anything to stop them moving out after, say, 4 months and leaving the house empty until the end of the contract? All rent and appropriate bills would be paid. There is nothing in the tenancy agreement that refers to this.  The ideal situation would be for another tenant to be found but that's unlikely at the moment. The only issue I can think of is the LL's buildings insurance might not allow it but that's their problem.  Any thoughts? 

It's actually the tenant problem if the tenancy agreement states they cannot leave it vacant for more than x amount of time.

I know my previous rental had a clause i couldnt leave the property empty for more than than 3 or 4 (i think it was 4) weeks without breaching the contract.
Therefore any problems as a result of doing so the landlord could have pursued me for breach of tenancy.

The tenant still remains liable so if there was a breakin or anything ........

How would the tenant be liable if there was a break in? Just curious?

HampshireH

If their tenancy says they should be living there or not be away for an extended period of time and they ignore that but there is a break in they have left a house unoccupied and vulnerable in breach of their contract

The landlord could argue damage is likely to have been minimised if someone was living there and it is furnished etc. The property is naturally less of a risk when lived in.