Ending a rental lease early

davo10

realflash1982 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.
To be honest, I see it from both sides but it is the greed that has crept in that is angering me most. Yes I am breaking my lease and causing inconvenience to the landlord, but at the end of the day it all comes down to money, and I feel that greed has got the better of both the landlord and the letting agent now, the letting agent I understand its their job and their assignment. When I spoke with the landlord initially I explained my genuine circumstances, apologised and he said he understood and that we would come to an arrangement to suit us both, all very amicable.
The latest I heard from the landlord is that he wants me to deal with the estate agent directly for the re-letting costs but apparently was unsure of the fee, and as of yet he has never confirmed it to me.  I called the estate agent and they said the costs will be 1000+. The estate agent also tells me he is keen to keep my deposit and recoup other costs (like moving back in some contents which is nothing to do with me) but he has not said that to me so it looks like they are both looking to get a payday, and given that he has already let the property gets an opportunity to bump up his rent 12 months ahead of schedule, then I just feel it is pure greed. They also mentioned a cleaning bill on departure which was laughable as we had to clean it ourselves when we moved in, and we would always leave a property spotless as if it was our own in any case.
As far as I am concerned, I am going to deal with the landlord only. I have no arrangement with the letting agent as the property was managed by the landlord and not a letting agent till now. Worst case he takes my deposit. My fear if I was to pay the letting agent is that he can still take my deposit.

While it's understandable that you feel wronged for having to pay the fees associated with finding a new tenant, you have to accept that those fees were caused by you breaking your lease. The LL can only keep what it costs to find a new tenant.

realflash1982

My behaviour is far from disgusting, I have attempted to be more than fair so far.
I have already stated that I am willing to cover the landlords costs to re-let the place which most would just walk away from. He gets a new tenant who is paying a higher rent and I am allowed out of the lease, that works for us both.
My problem is that the landlord wants me to now deal with a letting agent directly, pay their fee directly and then my deposit is up for grabs too on a property that he has already let a day after I move out for a higher rent.
The initial question has been answered so might as well close the thread.

Claw Hammer

realflash1982 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.
To be honest, I see it from both sides but it is the greed that has crept in that is angering me most. Yes I am breaking my lease and causing inconvenience to the landlord, but at the end of the day it all comes down to money, and I feel that greed has got the better of both the landlord and the letting agent now, the letting agent I understand its their job and their assignment. When I spoke with the landlord initially I explained my genuine circumstances, apologised and he said he understood and that we would come to an arrangement to suit us both, all very amicable.
The latest I heard from the landlord is that he wants me to deal with the estate agent directly for the re-letting costs but apparently was unsure of the fee, and as of yet he has never confirmed it to me.  I called the estate agent and they said the costs will be 1000+. The estate agent also tells me he is keen to keep my deposit and recoup other costs (like moving back in some contents which is nothing to do with me) but he has not said that to me so it looks like they are both looking to get a payday, and given that he has already let the property gets an opportunity to bump up his rent 12 months ahead of schedule, then I just feel it is pure greed. They also mentioned a cleaning bill on departure which was laughable as we had to clean it ourselves when we moved in, and we would always leave a property spotless as if it was our own in any case.
As far as I am concerned, I am going to deal with the landlord only. I have no arrangement with the letting agent as the property was managed by the landlord and not a letting agent till now. Worst case he takes my deposit. My fear if I was to pay the letting agent is that he can still take my deposit.

A landlord is perfectly entitled to appoint an estate agent. It is not a matter for you to decide whom you will deal with. If the place was filthy when you move in, it is clear you were dealing with a gangster landlord. You have the option of signing year lease in walking away, which you didn't take. You would be an idiot to pay the estate agent any fee, particularly as the estate agent's fee will already have been taken from deposit paid by the new tenant. All you can do now is letter deposit be taken and then claim to the RTB for its return.

realflash1982

I am ok with the deposit being taken. Just not happy to pay estate agent fee's, cleaning fee and also lose my deposit.

Thanks

Claw Hammer

realflash1982 wrote: »

I am ok with the deposit being taken. Just not happy to pay estate agent fee's, cleaning fee and also lose my deposit.

Thanks

The situation is not negotiable. All you can do is refuse to pay any charges and claim from the RTB for any monies withheld.

davindub

realflash1982 wrote: »

I am ok with the deposit being taken. Just not happy to pay estate agent fee's, cleaning fee and also lose my deposit.

Thanks

You have the right to offer the landlord re-assignment to another party which he can refuse, but the tenancy is then terminated. This cannot be contracted out of.

As the landlord is now introducing new conditions after accepting notice you are free to withdraw and advertise the property yourself.

Actually contact Threshold, they offer free advice to tenants.

The_Conductor

realflash1982 wrote: »

I am ok with the deposit being taken. Just not happy to pay estate agent fee's, cleaning fee and also lose my deposit.

Thanks

Your deposit is solely for any damage over and above normal wear and tear that occurred in the property, since you took over a lease on the property.

Any fees for moving furniture in or out of the unit- are the landlords.

All estate agent and other fees associated with reletting the property- unfortunately- are yours.

Cleaning- its a reasonable request that the property be returned in a clean and presentable manner. If you don't- its up to the landlord to argue whether or not its reasonable to make a deduction from the deposit towards cleaning- he/she cannot however charge for their own time- if they elect to clean it themselves.

Vis-a-vis loosing your deposit- if the landlord attempts to forfeit your deposit- simply forward a dispute to the RTB- they do not look kindly on this sort of behaviour.

Whether the landlord has employed the most expensive estate agent in the country- or the cheapest- is moot. Unfortunately- that is 100% your bill.

The rent the landlord is charging a future tenant- is not relevant to this whole mess- don't try and make out that you feel hurt over the situation- its not relevant.

If you now decide to assign the lease to another party- which you could do- you still have to pay the estate agent's fees.

davindub

The_Conductor wrote: »

The rent the landlord is charging a future tenant- is not relevant to this whole mess- don't try and make out that you feel hurt over the situation- its not relevant.

If you now decide to assign the lease to another party- which you could do- you still have to pay the estate agent's fees.

The RTB would apply their own logic but generally damages arising from breach of contract would be countered by any gains arising, i.e loss has been mitigated. The landlord actually appears to be benefitting from increased rent which outside of a RPZ he wouldn't have been able to increase for 2 years had the tenant stayed. So it would be relevant to the op.

Agent fees would not be applicable where the LL refuses to allow a lease assignment, if the LL accepts the assignment there are no damages. Again up to RTB to rule, but the tenant specifically asking what charges apply whilst discussing giving notice is likely to be significant.

Fkall

Assuming the landlord refuses the re-assignment, the tenant may terminate the lease by serving a notice of termination (make sure you get your paperwork right - many a landlord has served an incorrect notice by mistake). The termination notice periods are set out in the RTA. The tenant remains responsible for the rent during the notice-period.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

You have the right to offer the landlord re-assignment to another party which he can refuse, but the tenancy is then terminated. This cannot be contracted out of.

As the landlord is now introducing new conditions after accepting notice you are free to withdraw and advertise the property yourself.

Actually contact Threshold, they offer free advice to tenants.

If the property is already pre-let to another tenant, the current tenant can't assign (not re-assign). All the o/p can do is ignore the new conditions.

The_Conductor

davindub wrote: »

The RTB would apply their own logic but generally damages arising from breach of contract would be countered by any gains arising, i.e loss has been mitigated. The landlord actually appears to be benefitting from increased rent which outside of a RPZ he wouldn't have been able to increase for 2 years had the tenant stayed. So it would be relevant to the op.

Agent fees would not be applicable where the LL refuses to allow a lease assignment, if the LL accepts the assignment there are no damages. Again up to RTB to rule, but the tenant specifically asking what charges apply whilst discussing giving notice is likely to be significant.

Dave- with all due respect- the OP gave notice to the landlord.
They did not seek to assign the lease.
The landlord accepted the notice.
Therefore- if there is a change happening- it is the OP withdrawing their notice- and seeking to assign the lease instead- in which case they are still liable for any costs incurred.

The OP posted here- late in the game- after they had given early notice, had it accepted- and was in the process of having it relet.

Had the OP sought to assign the lease- instead of terminating it- it would be a different situation- this is not what happened though.

Any reasonable tenant or landlord would expect a person terminating a lease early- to be liable for fees incurred in reletting the property- and the Act actually addresses this in a sideways manner- where it allows a landlord impose any costs incurred as a result of a tenant not clarifying they intend to stay- and the landlord incurring reletting feees. Obviously that is not the same as what has happened with the OP- however, the principle applies.

The communication between the landlord and the tenant has been erratic- and the landlord should have had the agent clarify actual costs- rather than simply stating that there are additional costs- this is the main failing in my opinion.

Given the circumstances- and the manner in which the 18 month lease is being terminated by the tenant early- if they do decide to try and make out that they shouldn't be liable for the reletting fees- and take a case to the RTB- I would be most surprised if their case was successful.

The fact that the property is being advertised @ a 10% premium to what the OP was paying- does not mean that the landlord will achieve this (given the location). Its an opening gambit. To use an advertised asking price as a defacto price- unless its in a high demand area- would be making a wild assumption.

You seem to be intent on making a case for the OP- where there isn't necessarily a case to be made.

There have been some suggestions to the OP- such as they are liable for the costs of moving furniture in and out etc- which quite simply are complete and utter nonsense- of course the OP is not liable for these- however, trying to suggest they are scott free of any charges- after terminating a fixed term contract early- good luck with that one.

GGTrek

In my opinion the OP cannot just withdraw the termination notice once it has been served and then try to re-assign to avoid paying penalties. It is not a pick and choose the best option after the fact happened. There is nothing in the RTA that allows withdrawal of termination notices unless the other party agrees. It is not a one party decision except for withdrawal of a termination notice provided by landlord in the first 6 months so that part 4 rights can be granted (and in any case if tenant decides to leave landlord cannot seek compensation). You cannot just serve a notice to break a contract and then say: "sorry I was wrong I now want to re-assign" in order to avoid the penalties that come with breaking a contract.

It has been well explained to the OP what penalties he/she can incur, as usual I suggest to the OP to negotiate and avoid taking principled stands or making wild unsubstantiated assumptions about greed.

In general tenants never think about re-letting costs: agents fees, rtb fees, repainting, ... They expect this stuff to come out of the blue.

davindub

GGTrek wrote: »

In my opinion the OP cannot just withdraw the termination notice once it has been served and then try to re-assign to avoid paying penalties. It is not a pick and choose the best option after the fact happened. There is nothing in the RTA that allows withdrawal of termination notices unless the other party agrees. It is not a one party decision except for withdrawal of a termination notice provided by landlord in the first 6 months so that part 4 rights can be granted (and in any case if tenant decides to leave landlord cannot seek compensation). You cannot just serve a notice to break a contract and then say: "sorry I was wrong I now want to re-assign" in order to avoid the penalties that come with breaking a contract.

It has been well explained to the OP what penalties he/she can incur, as usual I suggest to the OP to negotiate and avoid taking principled stands or making wild unsubstantiated assumptions about greed.

In general tenants never think about re-letting costs: agents fees, rtb fees, repainting, ... They expect this stuff to come out of the blue.

I'm glad you mention after the fact. The tenant asked for the charges before handing in notice and was induced to do so by the landlord. Had the tenant been properly informed of the charges he may not have handed in notice. All these charges were informed to the tenant after the fact.

The_Conductor

davindub wrote: »

I'm glad you mention after the fact. The tenant asked for the charges before handing in notice and was induced to do so by the landlord. Had the tenant been properly informed of the charges he may not have handed in notice. All these charges were informed to the tenant after the fact.

Davindub- you're stretching credulity beyond all recognition with this assertion.
The OP wanted to break the lease early- as they had an improbably long roadtrip- because the school they enrolled their child in is so far away from the house they were renting.

There was no induction, inducement or coercion on the part of the landlord- contrary to what you are asserting.

The agreement was the landlord would be no worse off for allowing them end the lease early- which normally means any charges incurred for reletting the property are bourne by the tenant.

The estate agent and/or agent for use- in the circumstances- was at the landlord's discretion. Certainly the tenant did not foresee the landlord using the most expensive estate agent in town- however, they are liable for any vouched expenses- so whatever it costs, it costs.

The fact that the landlord now has the property up for 10% more than the tenant was paying- is neither here nor there- they may or may not get it- depending on availability of property in the locale- and to be honest- it sounds like its definitely not in a constrained area.

You're trying to make a case- that quite simply doesn't exist.

Had the tenant sat down and had a think about this at the outset- before they tendered their notice to the landlord- they could have thought about assigning the lease to another party at that time- however, that opportunity passed, once they tendered their notice.

The biggest inconvenience thus far- appears to be the inability of the landlord to elucidate the amount the fees and charges are going to come to. They should be held to task on this point- and it should be ensured that there are no unfair or unjust charges included in the tally. That's the extent of it though.

davindub

The_Conductor wrote: »

Davindub- you're stretching credulity beyond all recognition with this assertion.
The OP wanted to break the lease early- as they had an improbably long roadtrip- because the school they enrolled their child in is so far away from the house they were renting.

There was no induction, inducement or coercion on the part of the landlord- contrary to what you are asserting.

The agreement was the landlord would be no worse off for allowing them end the lease early- which normally means any charges incurred for reletting the property are bourne by the tenant.

The estate agent and/or agent for use- in the circumstances- was at the landlord's discretion. Certainly the tenant did not foresee the landlord using the most expensive estate agent in town- however, they are liable for any vouched expenses- so whatever it costs, it costs.

The fact that the landlord now has the property up for 10% more than the tenant was paying- is neither here nor there- they may or may not get it- depending on availability of property in the locale- and to be honest- it sounds like its definitely not in a constrained area.

You're trying to make a case- that quite simply doesn't exist.

Had the tenant sat down and had a think about this at the outset- before they tendered their notice to the landlord- they could have thought about assigning the lease to another party at that time- however, that opportunity passed, once they tendered their notice.

The biggest inconvenience thus far- appears to be the inability of the landlord to elucidate the amount the fees and charges are going to come to. They should be held to task on this point- and it should be ensured that there are no unfair or unjust charges included in the tally. That's the extent of it though.

Let me clarify.

Normal circumstance if lease is broken
1. Tenant hands in notice
2. Landlord claims for damages arising from breach of lease, any mitigation factors are relevant.

Current case based on the OP's posts
1. Issues arise for the tenant (irrelevant)
2. Discusses early termination with landlord before terminating

I contacted the landlord, explained the situation and although he was surprised we were moving out, he accepted that the lease was signed in good faith and it was the turn in circumstances that had forced our hand. Our notice of a month had been given.
Obviously we are breaking the lease and I told the landlord I would do what ever is needed to get it rented for him again but we both agreed, a nice house in a nice area in the current market was not going to take long to shift. If that meant some small additional re-letting costs then so be it, I would prefer to leave on good terms and a reference.

Here is a renegotiation of the lease (or call it a new contract aid explanation) specifically regarding termination, subject to conditions the landlord is agreeing to 1 months notice. There is no longer a breach of lease if the tenant and landlord agree new terms.

Unfortunately, the tenant acting on this handed in the notice as required by the RTB act and s.69 of course allows for the reduced notice, so that's the act complied with.


2 possible remedies at common law (not really relevant to RTB)

1. Misrepresentation - rescission remedy if innocent
In regards the lease, the misrepresentation (inducement) here by the landlord is not clarifying the costs involved would be significant. If the landlord did not know the costs involved, fine, innocent misrep, but the action of the tenant was based on this misrepresentation.

2.

I got a call from him today, and he said there are additional costs to be paid, I asked him how much, he said he didn't know. I said to him that he must have been given an indication of some sort of the costs and he said no, and asked me to deal with the letting agent myself which I thought was strange.

Here by the landlords actions, the new terms have not been finalised. The costs have yet to be established (i.e. the landlords terms are not final), tenant can still refuse terms and old contract applies.

These are the common law argument, but the RTB can apply its own judgement so I suppose it will be decided to whether the RTB would look at the above rational or conversely:

1. On renegotiation, the landlord agrees to accept early termination on the basis of fees yet to be decided to be paid.
2. Tenant hands in notice
3. Tenant is now contracted to pay all fees without limit as the parties had not agreed these prior to notice. Landlord also introduces new charges at later stages, tenant must pay these also....

Finally, again the RTB can handle this differently, but in contract, if there had been a breach of lease, the principles of damages applies. The landlord is now charging 10% more than the currency rent which he would not have been able to change for another X months dependant on location. He can't claim my losses are the letting agent fees but ignore the additional gains I am going to receive...