Early surrender options (landlord won’t reduce marketed price)

Sensory

numbercruncher8 said:

They could simply have the property on the market at an inflated rent, so if someone is mad enough to take it they get a bonus, but if not, just reduce the rent to a normal level when the previous tenancy only has a few months to run. Which is exactly what I think will happen here.

Apparently, according to the agent, the landlord cannot benefit from increased rent; I would be reimbursed the difference in such an unlikely case.

wesleyad

I feel for you. Really you need to try and get some pressure on the LA to suggest to the LL to reduce the rent.
It's not going to be easy, as the LL is still getting rent from you.

Realistically the only way I could see this working is if you tell LA, that you are only going to be able to pay for the next 2-3 months before you are financially unable to keep up. At this point they will get no rent. Yes the LL will be able to try an reclaim this through courts, but that's a big hassle and if you cannot pay anyway they will get nothing except a CCJ against you. So maybe reducing the advertised rent to a more achievable number will be in their best interests.

Now I'm not suggesting you actually need to do this, just try and bluff them. It might be worth a try.

AdrianC

Sensory said:

I just happen to be on the short end because I was too stupid to include a break clause and ignorant of statutory periodic tenancies.

I’m asking what options I have available because I do not want to face the actual prospect of paying full rent for another 12 months, because I’m feeling exploited. Just because you can legally take advantage and profit from another human being’s unfortunate circumstances, doesn’t mean you should, but I guess not every landlord is reasonable.

Sensory said:

That a foreign investor can seek to maximise their profits by plundering the entirety of my emergency savings during a pandemic, just because they can, is... quite damaging to my mental health.

Woah, hold on... All that's going on here is that you are trying to break a contract that you willingly signed. The other party to that contract is under no obligation to allow it. All they are asking for in return is their reasonable losses reimbursed.

It's rather bleak when being reasonable (i.e. me reimbursing all losses including rental shortfall) is too much of an ask, because for the 'landlord' who cares not one iota about actually being a landlord, it's just about the numbers and return of investment.

Well, yes. It's a business. Businesses are run on contracts. You wouldn't want the contract to be easy to breach from the other direction, would you?

So we're all in agreement that the landlord should be able to have his reasonable losses reimbursed. Right? The difference is only that you and they don't agree on what those reasonable losses are. And, in the absence of agreement on the terms in which the contract can be broken, the contract stays unbroken.

Wkmg

Sensory said:

numbercruncher8 said:

That's the way it goes with property though, an oversight can be expensive.

[Deleted User] said:

I do think that the offer of 4-6 months rent up front could be quite attractive to the landlord as he could then rent the property out to someone else for the full rent maximising and for some months doubling profits.

That a foreign investor can seek to maximise their profits by plundering the entirety of my emergency savings during a pandemic, just because they can, is... quite damaging to my mental health. It's rather bleak when being reasonable (i.e. me reimbursing all losses including rental shortfall) is too much of an ask, because for the 'landlord' who cares not one iota about actually being a landlord, it's just about the numbers and return of investment.

Would it be better if they weren’t foreign?

greatcrested

Wkmg said:

Sensory said:

numbercruncher8 said:

That's the way it goes with property though, an oversight can be expensive.

[Deleted User] said:

I do think that the offer of 4-6 months rent up front could be quite attractive to the landlord as he could then rent the property out to someone else for the full rent maximising and for some months doubling profits.

That a foreign investor can seek to maximise their profits by plundering the entirety of my emergency savings during a pandemic, just because they can, is... quite damaging to my mental health. It's rather bleak when being reasonable (i.e. me reimbursing all losses including rental shortfall) is too much of an ask, because for the 'landlord' who cares not one iota about actually being a landlord, it's just about the numbers and return of investment.

Would it be better if they weren’t foreign?

Depends on your definition of foreign. "Foreigners begin at Calais" was a traditional belief, though of course you have the Scots sneaking in from the other direction......

Sensory

Wkmg said:

Sensory said:

numbercruncher8 said:

That's the way it goes with property though, an oversight can be expensive.

[Deleted User] said:

I do think that the offer of 4-6 months rent up front could be quite attractive to the landlord as he could then rent the property out to someone else for the full rent maximising and for some months doubling profits.

That a foreign investor can seek to maximise their profits by plundering the entirety of my emergency savings during a pandemic, just because they can, is... quite damaging to my mental health. It's rather bleak when being reasonable (i.e. me reimbursing all losses including rental shortfall) is too much of an ask, because for the 'landlord' who cares not one iota about actually being a landlord, it's just about the numbers and return of investment.

Would it be better if they weren’t foreign?

I don't care whether they're foreign, as long as they are attentive. This landlord has a Chinese name and resides in China.

Sensory

AdrianC said:

Woah, hold on... All that's going on here is that you are trying to break a contract that you willingly signed. The other party to that contract is under no obligation to allow it. All they are asking for in return is their reasonable losses reimbursed.

Is refusing to lower the marketed price reasonable, considering I am reimbursing all losses including any shortfall in rent?

AdrianC said:

Well, yes. It's a business. Businesses are run on contracts. You wouldn't want the contract to be easy to breach from the other direction, would you?

So we're all in agreement that the landlord should be able to have his reasonable losses reimbursed. Right? The difference is only that you and they don't agree on what those reasonable losses are. And, in the absence of agreement on the terms in which the contract can be broken, the contract stays unbroken.

I'm already reimbursing losses as a result of breaching the contract, so what point are you trying to make? Are you simply playing devil's advocate, arguing in favour of the landlord that maintaining an unrealistic marketing price (£100pm above comparable properties) to avoid wear and tear is reasonable? That not responding for weeks to any sort of call for attention, is reasonable behaviour? That just because something is lawful, ethics can be completely disregarded? That I'm not allowed to feel exploited, just because it's legal? That seemingly, with my only option being offering a substantial one-off payment so the landlord can make a profit from my circumstances (as opposed to merely having losses reimbursed), is still reasonable?

I am already being punished by reimbursing losses, and that is FAIR; the landlord deliberating dragging this out to maximise profits is NOT reasonable.

saajan_12

Sensory said:

..

I am already being punished by reimbursing losses, and that is FAIR; the landlord deliberating dragging this out to maximise profits is NOT reasonable.

You're not being punished, you're paying for your choices. The wear & tear saved on the furnishings for a few months is negligible, no one's maximising profits like that. They're likely paying more in insurance on an uninhabited property and have a higher risk of break ins / expensive damage with no one there to notice it until it gets worse. 

As for the higher rent, again you said you'd get the difference back for the remaining period of your tenancy, so the LL only nets the amount they're entitled to from your tenancy, ie no unreasonable profix maximising. Beyond that date, if the market really is higher, then they'd be stuck with that rent for the rest of the fixed term and even if it became periodic, its harder to increase on an existing tenant once its already set low. So its only reasonable they set the rent where they believe the market is. 

If you're looking for a social landlord, raise that to your council / MP. A private landlord is just running a business - accommodation in return for rent. They have the right to enforce the full rent for the full period, so Anything more than that is a favour to you. 

Sensory

saajan_12 said:

You're not being punished, you're paying for your choices.

Semantics. I'm breaching the contract, so I need to pay up.

saajan_12 said:

The wear & tear saved on the furnishings for a few months is negligible, no one's maximising profits like that. They're likely paying more in insurance on an uninhabited property and have a higher risk of break ins / expensive damage with no one there to notice it until it gets worse.

Who knows. I still visit the property every two weeks.

saajan_12 said:

As for the higher rent, again you said you'd get the difference back for the remaining period of your tenancy, so the LL only nets the amount they're entitled to from your tenancy, ie no unreasonable profix maximising.

They're not marketing an unrealistically high price because they actually want a replacement tenant.

saajan_12 said:

Beyond that date, if the market really is higher, then they'd be stuck with that rent for the rest of the fixed term and even if it became periodic, its harder to increase on an existing tenant once its already set low. So its only reasonable they set the rent where they believe the market is.

So why is the landlord marketing £100pm more than comparable properties in the same area? If a replacement tenant signs a new AST for a fixed term of one year (coinciding with the end of my commitment period), then should the market improve next year, the landlord can increase the rent once the agent inevitably pushes for a renewal (like what to happened to me, my rent has only ever increased over the past 5 years in this property).

saajan_12 said:

They have the right to enforce the full rent for the full period, so Anything more than that is a favour to you.

A one-off payment benefiting the landlord's profits (above the agreement) is not a favour to me, but seemingly a necessary evil.

greatcrested

Sensory said:

AdrianC said:

Woah, hold on... All that's going on here is that you are trying to break a contract that you willingly signed. The other party to that contract is under no obligation to allow it. All they are asking for in return is their reasonable losses reimbursed.

Is refusing to lower the marketed price reasonable, considering I am reimbursing all losses including any shortfall in rent?

AdrianC said:

Well, yes. It's a business. Businesses are run on contracts. You wouldn't want the contract to be easy to breach from the other direction, would you?

So we're all in agreement that the landlord should be able to have his reasonable losses reimbursed. Right? The difference is only that you and they don't agree on what those reasonable losses are. And, in the absence of agreement on the terms in which the contract can be broken, the contract stays unbroken.

I'm already reimbursing losses as a result of breaching the contract, so what point are you trying to make? Are you simply playing devil's advocate, arguing in favour of the landlord that maintaining an unrealistic marketing price (£100pm above comparable properties) to avoid wear and tear is reasonable? That not responding for weeks to any sort of call for attention, is reasonable behaviour? That just because something is lawful, ethics can be completely disregarded? That I'm not allowed to feel exploited, just because it's legal? That seemingly, with my only option being offering a substantial one-off payment so the landlord can make a profit from my circumstances (as opposed to merely having losses reimbursed), is still reasonable?

I am already being punished by reimbursing losses, and that is FAIR; the landlord deliberating dragging this out to maximise profits is NOT reasonable.

Yes. So you've already said, several times.

There are two issues:

1) your and your landlord's legal rights, which have been explained several times

2) the issue of 'morality' or 'fair play'. Again, you've explained why you feel hard-done-by, and you've received replies variously sympathising and/or putting the LL's point of view. You've also been advised to discuss this with your LL rather than his agent to see if you can reach an amicable compromise that satisfies both your interpretations of what is 'fair'.

Failing 2) above, you have no option but to accept 1).