I am seeking advice as a tenant, in this case. A tenant friend has sought my advice.
Landlord has served section 21 on the tenant 3 months to end of AST requiring the tenant leave at expiration of AST.
Tenant gets a new accommodation a month to end of AST and request a release from AST in order to move. This is declined.
I advise tenant to pay the last month rent, if he could, and move to the new accommodation. He is willing to.
Here is the problem…
4. Landlord’s agent insists tenant remains liable for the property till the end of the AST, even if he pays the rent, hands over keys and moves.
Tell him to negotiate. He should start by making clear that he does not want to pay rent on two places at the same time and that if as a result of the refusal to release him, he loses the other place, then it may take him many more weeks to find another suitable property so he will not be able to vacate at the end of the notice. This may or may not work.
Thank you David. I guess because they have his deposit, they’re not agreeable to that option. They’ve actually offered the option of setting off his final rent from the deposit, if he’s unable to pay the last. My fear is that it may affect his credit rating hence my advice for him to pay the rent. I’m his guarantor, by the way.
There may be some overthinking here. Until the end of the AST, the T is responsible for the rent, utilities, Council tax (possibly) .But as the rent is covered by the deposit, the amount of liability is small - unless I am missing something.
As regards Credit Rating, CR is some marketing nonsense dreamed up by those wishing to sell ratings. Unless there is a CCJ which is doubtful as the deposit covers it, then there is no effect on something that is worthless anyway.
Is there something more to this than meets the eye
Thank you Eman. He’s moving out and has asked the agent to set off the final rent from the deposit. They have also scheduled Check out report after the AST elapses, in a months time. To think I felt the landlord should be happy to get his property early upon serving s21. …we’re not all the same.
I think the problem may be that if the landlord does not have a future tenant able to move in for whatever reason on the date the current tenant moves out, the LL will have to pay the Council Tax and the standing charges for water electricity and gas for that month. Plus all the hassle of changing the names with the utility companies and council and then changing them back again. Plus the hassle of the insurance company who will kick up at having the property empty. Plus the worry of having the property empty especially in the colder months. Having just done this I do understand why the LL is not thrilled that the tenant is willing to move one month early. Although I do have sympathy with the tenant too. I hope it can be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.
Just now, T gave us two weeks to move out. Illegal, yes. And we accepted it. As a result, we have sparkling clean flat with carpet as clean as new. We parted on good terms, and T even recommended us to his friend.
Sticklers to the law/rules are not the best LL, neither do they benefit from it.
We have this hassle virtually after every single end of tenancy and take it as part of landlording. Bills, standing charges are put against tax as part of the expenses.
Err…You can flex/negotiate on contractual terms but flexing / ignoring statutory terms comes with risk.
Know lots of LL that flirt with compliance to statutory rules but regrettably enforcement is so underfunded that only the worst get pulled up. And even then they just plough on.
Nearly Legal has a good selection in their rogues gallery. Makes eye-watering readling. The FTT has a good selection too.
(Some of the LL reported here are angels compared to NL/FTT)
I gave an example. My statement relates to my example. You accommodate TT and don’t expect them to follow the law to the letter. Often you can’t enforce it anyway or it’s not worth it.
But the tenant wouldn’t have needed to move if the LL didn’t serve s21. Or is it LL expected a long drawn out repossession as very few tenants will have a house waiting for them on the day of expiration of AST.
Thanks Jennifer. I figure the issue is somewhat resolved. The TT has moved and agreed that his final month rent be set off from his deposit. Though LL says he won’t collect keys/property till expiration of AST
Your first post sounded all very reasonable, and as David said try to negotiate.
However, I totally disagree with you / your friend offsetting the rent against the deposit, that is dishonest and devious. The deposit is there for the purpose of covering any remedial work necessary as a result of that tenancy. Your landlord has been more than accommodating by giving 3-months notice where only 2 is required by law.
By law the tenant is responsible for the rent, utilities, council tax and security (insurers terms of occupation) for the term of the contract, and for the return of the property in the same condition he found it.
If he was willing to pay in the first place, why change now?
Hi Chris35, it’s indeed unfortunate that you’ll come to a public forum and suggest that someone is dishonest and devious without reading or comprehending the post. I clearly stated that the Landlord/agent offered to set off the final rent from the deposit. I also expressed my reservation with that offer as I felt it might have adverse implications for his credit history. Of course, you conveniently did not see that part. Anyways, people have different levels and rate of understanding and comprehension.
As to your other questions, the property is the LL’s and he has every right to serve s21, for his own reasons. According to the LL/agent my friend was a model tenant; never owed a penny for a day, in rent, and left the property in impeccable condition.
Thanks for your comments, though, and peace be with you.
Actually, that wasn’t what I intended. My thought was that the landlord may not want to be forced to go to court to have his s21 notice tested or may have plans, (eg to sell the property) that mean he needs the tenant out at the end of the fixed term. The tenant could simply stay on under a periodic tenancy and frustrate the landlords plans and the implied threat of this may have been enough to make the landlord reconsider. Of course, if that doesn’t work then there’s not much the tenant can do other than suck it up.
In your particular situation I must apologies, you are quite correct I did in fact mix up the sequence of the posts, and the landlord / agents agreement preceded the quoted reference I criticised.