New tenants moving in before old fixed term ends

diggingdude

[Deleted User] said:

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.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Brother asked to end tenancy on 25th but was told no. Landlady saw the chance to get a bonus and has been caught out. She had no right to let property until the 1st

wannabe_a_saver

Will he need to leave the house on the days before the 30th?  I'd be concerned he'd come home to changed locks and his stuff on the lawn! 

Might be worth a call to 101 to report a threat of illegal eviction and then let the landlady know that he's done that.  

[Deleted User]

diggingdude said:

[Deleted User] said:

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.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Brother asked to end tenancy on 25th but was told no. Landlady saw the chance to get a bonus and has been caught out. She had no right to let property until the 1st

Original post states that brother asked to move out on 25 but was told no pro rata rent refund. I see that in a more recent post OP described this as a refusal to end a tenancy. Ok then.

Landlady is indeed an odd one to plan having two active tenancies at once.