Am I liable to pay rent even though I have turned in the keys and ended my tenancy?

secla

If this condition wasnt in the agreement for early surrender then tell them if your paying the rent until the 9th you will require access to the property until the 9th

Danien

£500 for a cleaner is excessive isn't it? Or am I behind the times in terms of cost of a cleaner. I used a cleaner on moving out of previous 1 bed flat in a city and it was £120 5 years ago. Are you sure this cleaner doesn't have some relation to the landlord?

They really can't force you to use a cleaner they specify. The tenancy agreement will normally specify the condition you have to leave the property in, not the cleaner you have to use and pay for. Once had an agent tell us which gardener yo use. We wanted a gardener so thought maybe this was someone they had found reliable. Turned out it was the brother of the agent, was lazy and useless (we were paying for two hours and when they left after an hour and a half, we challenged them and they said ' we could stay for two hours but we would just work slower and do the same work'). After firing the gardener and complaining to the agent he said we HAD to use this gardener, which was rubbish, so we got our own gardener who was brilliant and did three times the work in two hours than the previous gardener did.

It's too late now but worth remembering for future tenancies.

theartfullodger

Bookworm105 said:

in English law the rental period is indivisible, ie the rent cannot be charged by the day if the tenancy period is, for example, "monthly"

...............

Not so: See, for example regarding landlord serving section 21 notice and calculation of rent owed. ...
https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/possession_and_eviction/notices_in_possession_proceedings/section_21_notices_for_assured_shorthold_tenancies

""""

Repayment of rent in advance

Where a tenancy ends as a result of the service of a section 21 notice before the end of a rental period and the tenant paid rent in advance for that period, the tenant is entitled to a repayment of rent for the period they were not in occupation.[23] This applies to assured shorthold tenancies granted on or after 1 October 2015.

This includes when the tenant leaves on the day specified in the section 21 notice. """"

Yes I know these circumstances are different, but it is untrue that """in English law the rental period is indivisible   """" - see the legislation in...

s.21C Housing Act 1988, as inserted by s.40 Deregulation Act 2015

(English Law last time I looked..)

propertyrental

Bookworm105 is correct so far as English Common Law is concerned, and there is a long history of precedents in courts regarding divisibility of rental periods.

Artful is also correct, in the very particular circumstances following service of a S21, as Parliament has passed a law (Parliamentary statutes over-rule Common Law) to cover this particular scenario (but not other circumstances).

BonaDea

When I was a landlord, I had a situation a bit like this.  The tenants had a one-year contract ending in September.  In early June they emailed me to say they had moved out and had posted me back the keys, said they'd cancelled their standing orders for the monthly rent payment, and asked for their deposit back.

I replied that whether or not they were living in the flat, and whether or not they had sent me back the keys, they were bound by their contract to pay the rent until their tenancy expired in September.  If they didn't pay it I'd seek to recover it from the deposit, and if that didn't cover the total amount of unpaid rent that was due I would investigate what legal action I'd need to take to secure their compliance with the contract they'd signed.

However, because I like to think I'm a reasonable and pleasant person, I kindly offered to put myself out over the summer to recruit new tenants for the flat (although I had other commitments and activities planned, so really didn't want to have to deal with this), and if I managed to get them in before the date in September when the now-absent tenants' agreement ended, then they need only pay rent up to the day before the new tenants moved in.

I think you should count yourself lucky that the landlord isn't holding you to the original tenancy term but is allowing you to exit early.  Whether you left the property on 31st May is immaterial. Why insist the landlord loses out on 9 days' rent because they've done you a favour?

pretamang

BonaDea said:

When I was a landlord, I had a situation a bit like this.  The tenants had a one-year contract ending in September.  In early June they emailed me to say they had moved out and had posted me back the keys, said they'd cancelled their standing orders for the monthly rent payment, and asked for their deposit back.

I replied that whether or not they were living in the flat, and whether or not they had sent me back the keys, they were bound by their contract to pay the rent until their tenancy expired in September.  If they didn't pay it I'd seek to recover it from the deposit, and if that didn't cover the total amount of unpaid rent that was due I would investigate what legal action I'd need to take to secure their compliance with the contract they'd signed.

However, because I like to think I'm a reasonable and pleasant person, I kindly offered to put myself out over the summer to recruit new tenants for the flat (although I had other commitments and activities planned, so really didn't want to have to deal with this), and if I managed to get them in before the date in September when the now-absent tenants' agreement ended, then they need only pay rent up to the day before the new tenants moved in.

I think you should count yourself lucky that the landlord isn't holding you to the original tenancy term but is allowing you to exit early.  Whether you left the property on 31st May is immaterial. Why insist the landlord loses out on 9 days' rent because they've done you a favour?

that is very reasonable - but the difference here is that it 31 May had been agreed as the amended tenancy end date. The landlord has only lost out because they agreed to a new tenant starting 9 days later instead of 1 June, why should the previous tenant pay anything towards this?

BonaDea

replying to above:  "that is very reasonable - but the difference here is that it 31 May had been agreed as the amended tenancy end date. The landlord has only lost out because they agreed to a new tenant starting 9 days later instead of 1 June, why should the previous tenant pay anything towards this?"

Well, yes, if indeed the landlord did agree in writing that 31 May would be the date the tenancy ended, as distinct from agreeing that 31 May would be when the tenant vacated the property and handed keys back.  The question is what precisely had been agreed, as the OP seemed to be conflating vacating the property and contract termination.