New tenants moving in before old fixed term ends

MaryNB

The landlady has made of mess of that!

How did he phrase "I'm leaving on the 25th"? If there's a clear agreement that he tenancy ends on the 25th then he leaves then and pays no rent beyond that. If it's clear that she won't allow early surrender, well he's still a tenant until the 30th. Am I right to presume the communication was along the lines of "The tenancy ends on the 30th but I'm vacating the property on the 25th". Well he can physically leave the property and remove his belongings but retain the keys until the 30th and remain a tenant until the 30th. I think the concern is how this "courtesy" and his landlady's response was worded, does it override the original refusal to end the tenancy on the 25th?

If they've subsequently agreed the tenancy ends on the 25th and he stays until the 30th she could try and charge double rent for this period because he stayed beyond his notice.

If they've  subsequently agreed the tenancy ends on the 25th and he surrenders the keys on this date she cannot charge him rent. Two reasons - they've agreed early surrender which involves him returning the keys and relinquishing his rights to it, also she cannot charge two people for the same property when only one can use it. 

If he gave notice to leave on the 30th and there was no subsequent agreement to end the tenancy early she cannot force him out before this. It would be an illegal eviction which is a criminal offence. 

boundy

Landlady specifically refused to end the tenancy on the 25th, stating that he was liable for rent for the full rental period that finishes on the 30th.  This was the earliest date the tenancy could be ended with the break clause. Out of courtesy my brother informed the landlady he was moving into he's new property on the 25th, to allow the landlady to come and perform the check out.

He then saw his property advertised on open rent as being available from the 26th, so he approached the landlady to ask for the 5 days of rent back, he said if she wants to re-let properly before his tenancy ends he shouldn't have to pay the rent. She refused, stating he is contractually obliged to pay rent until the 30th.

He has now emailed her back, stating if he won't get the rent back for that 5 day period, he will therefore remain in the property until the 30th. She has emailed back, saying he can't as she is moving new tenants in on the 26th.

So in summary, landlady wants the property back on the 25th but wants my brother to still pay for it until the 30th.

Herbalus

I suggest emailing the landlady back and asking exactly how she intends to move new tenants in on the 26th when the property will still be occupied until 30th.

MaryNB

Sounds pretty clear cut. You brother stays until the 30th. If he contractually obliged to pay rent, she's contractually obliged to let him live in the property. Maybe he should give her a gentle reminder that forcing him to leave before the 30th would constitute an illegal eviction in case she turns up to the property on the 26th. The landlady can sort her own mess out!

moneysavinghero

Dear Landlady,

I understand that you have agreed with another party to let out the property that i have a valid tenancy on until 30th and that your would be tenant wishes to move in on the 26th.

I am willing to vacate the property early to accommodate this. For this i would require payment of (insert 5 days rent here) to cover the inconvenience to myself. 

Alternatively i could remain in the property until the end of my tenancy.

Please let me known what you decide.

Kind Regards
Boundy

MaryNB

moneysavinghero said:

Dear Landlady,

I understand that you have agreed with another party to let out the property that i have a valid tenancy on until 30th and that your would be tenant wishes to move in on the 26th.

I am willing to vacate the property early to accommodate this. For this i would require payment of (insert 5 days rent here) to cover the inconvenience to myself. 

Alternatively i could remain in the property until the end of my tenancy.

Please let me known what you decide.

Kind Regards
Boundy

I'd ask for more than that if that's the route he wishes to take. Finding accommodation (and presumably storage) for 5 days at short notice will cost more than 5 days of rent. 

[Deleted User]

boundy said:

Landlady specifically refused to end the tenancy on the 25th, stating that he was liable for rent for the full rental period that finishes on the 30th.  This was the earliest date the tenancy could be ended with the break clause. Out of courtesy my brother informed the landlady he was moving into he's new property on the 25th, to allow the landlady to come and perform the check out.

He then saw his property advertised on open rent as being available from the 26th, so he approached the landlady to ask for the 5 days of rent back, he said if she wants to re-let properly before his tenancy ends he shouldn't have to pay the rent. She refused, stating he is contractually obliged to pay rent until the 30th.

He has now emailed her back, stating if he won't get the rent back for that 5 day period, he will therefore remain in the property until the 30th. She has emailed back, saying he can't as she is moving new tenants in on the 26th.

So in summary, landlady wants the property back on the 25th but wants my brother to still pay for it until the 30th.

The landlady was legally right, to a point. It was right to let your brother exercise the break clause, right to accept his decision to give up the tenancy at the earlier date of his convenience, and right that she would not refund pro-rata.

I think most on here would be advocates for a landlord adhering to the legal terms of a contract, but I note the desire to cherry pick when the clause doesn't suit the agenda of your brother here.

Your bother isn't a man of his word, but having gone back on it, it looks like the landady must accept that he will be staying until the 30th.

boundy

[Deleted User] said:

boundy said:

Landlady specifically refused to end the tenancy on the 25th, stating that he was liable for rent for the full rental period that finishes on the 30th.  This was the earliest date the tenancy could be ended with the break clause. Out of courtesy my brother informed the landlady he was moving into he's new property on the 25th, to allow the landlady to come and perform the check out.

He then saw his property advertised on open rent as being available from the 26th, so he approached the landlady to ask for the 5 days of rent back, he said if she wants to re-let properly before his tenancy ends he shouldn't have to pay the rent. She refused, stating he is contractually obliged to pay rent until the 30th.

He has now emailed her back, stating if he won't get the rent back for that 5 day period, he will therefore remain in the property until the 30th. She has emailed back, saying he can't as she is moving new tenants in on the 26th.

So in summary, landlady wants the property back on the 25th but wants my brother to still pay for it until the 30th.

The landlady was legally right, to a point. It was right to let your brother exercise the break clause, right to accept his decision to give up the tenancy at the earlier date of his convenience, and right that she would not refund pro-rata.

I think most on here would be advocates for a landlord adhering to the legal terms of a contract, but I note the desire to cherry pick when the clause doesn't suit the agenda of your brother here.

Your bother isn't a man of his word, but having gone back on it, it looks like the landady must accept that he will be staying until the 30th.

I'm a little confused by your response, are you saying the landlady has the right to charge rent to my brother until 30th and also charge rent to a new tenant from the 25th?

Is this your opinion or is it backed by legislation? 

MaryNB

boundy said:

[Deleted User] said:

boundy said:

Landlady specifically refused to end the tenancy on the 25th, stating that he was liable for rent for the full rental period that finishes on the 30th.  This was the earliest date the tenancy could be ended with the break clause. Out of courtesy my brother informed the landlady he was moving into he's new property on the 25th, to allow the landlady to come and perform the check out.

He then saw his property advertised on open rent as being available from the 26th, so he approached the landlady to ask for the 5 days of rent back, he said if she wants to re-let properly before his tenancy ends he shouldn't have to pay the rent. She refused, stating he is contractually obliged to pay rent until the 30th.

He has now emailed her back, stating if he won't get the rent back for that 5 day period, he will therefore remain in the property until the 30th. She has emailed back, saying he can't as she is moving new tenants in on the 26th.

So in summary, landlady wants the property back on the 25th but wants my brother to still pay for it until the 30th.

The landlady was legally right, to a point. It was right to let your brother exercise the break clause, right to accept his decision to give up the tenancy at the earlier date of his convenience, and right that she would not refund pro-rata.

I think most on here would be advocates for a landlord adhering to the legal terms of a contract, but I note the desire to cherry pick when the clause doesn't suit the agenda of your brother here.

Your bother isn't a man of his word, but having gone back on it, it looks like the landady must accept that he will be staying until the 30th.

I'm a little confused by your response, are you saying the landlady has the right to charge rent to my brother until 30th and also charge rent to a new tenant from the 25th?

Is this your opinion or is it backed by legislation? 

If the landlord agreed to surrender the tenancy on the grounds that your brother pay her the equivalent of 5 day's rent and he agreed to this, fair enough (I'll admit I missed some nuance in my early posts). However from your posts it's pretty clear she refused to allow the surrender of the tenancy and the tenancy will end based on the break clause which comes into play on the 30th. 

Therefore there is an overlap in tenancies of 5 days and she cannot charge both for rent because he and the new tenants cannot live there at the same time. She is saying he is contractually obliged to pay rent until the 30th - yeah and she's contractually obliged to provide him with a place to live until the 30th. If the new tenants have already signed an agreement she's also contractually obliged to provide them with a place to live form the 26th.

[Deleted User]

boundy said:

[Deleted User] said:

boundy said:

Landlady specifically refused to end the tenancy on the 25th, stating that he was liable for rent for the full rental period that finishes on the 30th.  This was the earliest date the tenancy could be ended with the break clause. Out of courtesy my brother informed the landlady he was moving into he's new property on the 25th, to allow the landlady to come and perform the check out.

He then saw his property advertised on open rent as being available from the 26th, so he approached the landlady to ask for the 5 days of rent back, he said if she wants to re-let properly before his tenancy ends he shouldn't have to pay the rent. She refused, stating he is contractually obliged to pay rent until the 30th.

He has now emailed her back, stating if he won't get the rent back for that 5 day period, he will therefore remain in the property until the 30th. She has emailed back, saying he can't as she is moving new tenants in on the 26th.

So in summary, landlady wants the property back on the 25th but wants my brother to still pay for it until the 30th.

The landlady was legally right, to a point. It was right to let your brother exercise the break clause, right to accept his decision to give up the tenancy at the earlier date of his convenience, and right that she would not refund pro-rata.

I think most on here would be advocates for a landlord adhering to the legal terms of a contract, but I note the desire to cherry pick when the clause doesn't suit the agenda of your brother here.

Your bother isn't a man of his word, but having gone back on it, it looks like the landady must accept that he will be staying until the 30th.

I'm a little confused by your response, are you saying the landlady has the right to charge rent to my brother until 30th and also charge rent to a new tenant from the 25th?

Is this your opinion or is it backed by legislation? 

Id say that is a confused summary of what  i said. 

I am merely pointing out in the first paragraph that if your brother ended he tenancy on 25th as planned, he was entitled to no pro rata refund, and the landlady was entitled to move someone in on 26th. 

Your brother wanted money to which he was not legally or morally entitled.

Now he has changed his mind and the landlady should adapt and accept  this, despite being somewhat  misled.