Tenancy start date disagreement with managing agent

iishappy

Hi just curious if I am right or wrong in this situation.

We rented a property in England on an assured tenancy agreement on the 8th November 1996 our rent has always been paid by standing order monthly on the 8th of every month since then.

We have had many managing agents over the years but more recently I have noticed our annual rent increases on our assured periodic tenancy they have put the starting date for the new rent from the 1st instead of the 8th which I have queried as it stated on the notice the earliest they could do it was from the 8th but they said it was ok and didn’t need amending I continued paying on the 8th of every month.

We have just purchased the above rental property and the seller’s solicitors and the managing agent were adamant that the rent was monthly from the 1st of every month and they would only agree to apportionments up until 30th April even though I disputed this as I believe we are paid up until 8th May and sent a copy of the original tenancy. As such we still had to complete under their terms or risk no sale.

This is more about principle and not about a few hundred pounds so now the sale has completed even if I am right is there any claim for a week’s rent to be paid back from the managing agents or should it just be forgotten.

dimbo61

Tell them they are wrong and you will see them in court unless they want to refund the 8 days rent to you.
Hope your happy in your new home 
The sellers solicitor has know idea when you moved in or what your rental contract started 

anselld

You / your solicitor agreed the apportionment at exchange.  It is a bit late to dispute it now.   You did not have to agree to exchange until the dispute was resolved.

iishappy

anselld said:

You / your solicitor agreed the apportionment at exchange.  It is a bit late to dispute it now.   You did not have to agree to exchange until the dispute was resolved.

I do agree and was explained by our solicitor even though we had disputed it with them as incorrect and failed, we still had to complete on their timeline rather than lose the property.

Happy to forget it and was just curious.

saajan_12

I expect its a done deal now.. 
* How was the tenancy ended - there's no inherent right to subdivide or pro rata months unless the LL served notice. More likely you mutually agreed to terminate so its just on the terms agreed, including any apportionment. 
* If you didn't end the tenancy, then technically as purchaser you step into your LL's shoes, ie you are your own landlord, so you'd claim the difference from yourself. 

iishappy

saajan_12 said:

I expect its a done deal now.. 
* How was the tenancy ended - there's no inherent right to subdivide or pro rata months unless the LL served notice. More likely you mutually agreed to terminate so its just on the terms agreed, including any apportionment. 
* If you didn't end the tenancy, then technically as purchaser you step into your LL's shoes, ie you are your own landlord, so you'd claim the difference from yourself. 

There was no mention of tenancy ending so presume it ended on completion and any rent already paid past the completion date to be deducted through apportionments. We were happy to complete knowing the apportionments were wrong.

I think it was the fact that they were adamant they were correct on the rent payment dates that got to me a bit especially after renting for so long.