Tenant checkout early before break clause time

Tenant moved in for less than three month. As the agreement has four months breaking clause plus two months notice period, if the tenant checked out just at three months now, does that mean the tenancy agreement will be terminated once checkout is done or it has to be until six months tenancy is due? and once checkout before six month, can other tenancy be started if another tenant is found?

Open rent can advise best on this one but as far I am concerned once a proper checkout has been done they have at that point relinquished any rights to the property. Just make sure its dated and signed.

Thanks Christine2. That is what I understand. But does that means the tenant will not be liable for any utilities as well before any new tenant take over? The agreement is technically still valid before 6 months due. So I am not sure about this.

@Sam, any advice from Openrent? Thanks.

Hi Kai, in my experience once the tenant has moved out then they are unlikely to pay for any more bills. I personally would not chase tenants once they have moved out. Just put it down to experience and an expense on your business. Make sure that they sign a document to say that they have given up the tenancy and then find a new tenant.

1 Like

Legally I believe the agreement is still in place and the tenant is still responsbile for the rent till the end of the tenancy or until you find new tenants, but you’ll probably never see it - the best you can do is keep the deposit once you have found new tenants and know how much rent they are liable for.

Thanks. Yes I agree with Fraser1 and this is what I understand. As I have not experience this issue before, I wonder if I claim the deposit to cover the unpaid rent from the deposit scheme, does it need to the agreement from the tenant? And if so, they may not agree since they will be living in another country by then. Or if not, what evidence that I need to claim the deposit back?

I have been to court with this one.
The tenant is liable for rent up to the 6 months but no longer liable for council tax or utilities after moving out.
You can claim this from the deposit protection service.
However you are expected to mitigate your losses by getting another tenant as soon as possible, then you can’t charge for the time from when the new tenants move in.

There is no requirement to mitigate losses in the case of a tenancy. A tenant may remain liable for the duration of the contract.

Responsibility for Council Tax is governed by a strict hierarchy. Where a tenant is in a fixed term tenancy of at least 6 months, they remain liable for the CT even if they move out. Likewise if they are in a Contractual Periodic Tenancy, such, (I am told) as the current Openrent model agreement.

I agree with you. David Smith has spoken regarding this.
The tenant is liable for council tax for the period of the AST and a contractual periodic.
The grey area is if the contract falls into the first six months of a statutory periodic. That is classed as a new contract and if the tenant departs in that period then the landlord defaults to become liable. It is easier for the LA to chase the landlord.
Broadley vs Leeds council is an excellent case in point

Yes, but my case went to court and the judge expected me to mitigate the damages under the being fair and reasonable expectation of a landlord to his/her tenant.
I also sought legal advice and they said that too.

1 Like

Surely that can be appealed…
Broadley vs Leeds council
I would discuss that with the NRLA

So, you mentioned earlier that the tenants were moving abroad. Did that throw a spanner in the works? As far as I am aware you’re required to sue an individual in his residence country. If you’ve been given their address/known to you…?
*Edit: within the EU, which we were a part of at that time

Also, if you have tenants move out early I’d say it’s fairly normal to find a new tenant as quickly as possible rather than wait out the period - as in any contract there should be mitigation of losses when breached.

I found this via google. You may have been given the wrong advice. Judges often make mistakes in court.
Mitigation | Painsmith Solicitors.

Exactly. They did not pay in the end after they left and I did not have their out of country address. So in that case, if i asked the unpaid rents up to the break clause time before they checked out, is that reasonable or legal? or if i did not accept the checkout early, that would be better option? Which option would be better? I am having another similar case again unfortunately! i am thinking either I do not accept the check out until the months after giving notice, or i asked them to pay up the rents and accepted the checkout. Is checkout technically means the termination of the tenancy?

It is possible to refuse to accept a surrender of the tenancy from the tenant and tell them that they must pay until the end of the fixed term or any break clause. The problem is that they may ignore you and move out anyway. For any period you are claiming rent from the tenant, you have to leave the property exactly as it is. You can’t enter and take possession and you certainly can’t re-let. If you don’t have an forwarding address for the tenant, it can be difficult to recover the funds. Therefore its a big risk for a landlord to leave their property empty for months and try to claim that money from the tenant as in the end even if you successfully sue them in court, a judge may grant you £5 a week until the debt is paid, (years later). For this reason, many landlords offer a compromise of a lump sum amount from the tenant as compensation for loss of rent and re-letting costs, (usually a month or at most two). The tenancy would then end immediately via a deed of surrender. The amount shouldn’t be challengeable under the Tenant Fees Act as its covering losses, although there’s no guarantee of that. Certainly if you manage to re-let the property earlier than you expect, you would have to refund any money to the old tenant for the period covered by the new tenant.

Many thanks David for this! It cleared my puzzle. Although the tenants assured me that they will pay up to the break point even moving out (this is what we made clear in the contract that tenant will still cover the rent up until the break clause point) , i still feel the practical risk of being ignored when they moved out just like they assured me of staying for longer term from the beginning. After all, I have no control for this. And I was also concerned about the point that you raised that even the compensation is not challengeable, we never know. So I think the most clear-cut option would be not accepting the checkout until the end of break clause point which I don’t think it is unreasonable to do so, is it?