# Landlord selling house, tenant moves out before lease is up



## Northie (19 Feb 2014)

Hoping someone could give some guidance, a friend has been renting out a house he owns for the last couple of years.

He had new tenants move in last March who signed a one year lease which is due to expire on 11th March this year. He decided over Christmas to sell the house and notified his tenants that come the 11th March he wouldn't be renewing the lease as he is putting the house on the market. He told them there would be no problem with them staying to complete the lease. 

The tenants came back and said they would be moving out by the 14th of February, roll on last Friday when he gets an email to say they have moved out bar one or two things and will be back this week to finish. It was yesterday the 18th before they were finally done.

Now the tricky part, the last rent they paid was for Jan (ie 11th Jan to 10th Feb) they haven't paid anything for Feb to March which my friend feels they should by right pay as they are leaving the lease early. On top of that they have contacted him looking for their deposit back. He is still verifying that all bills and such are settled in full.

His feeling is that they owe a months rent and once all bills are squared away he will return any deposit remaining. He would also settle for accepting holding on to the deposit in lieu of the last months rent again once confirming all bills are settled.

He's wondering is he right with this course of action and how to phrase this when he writes to them.

There have been no issues on either side during the tenancy.

Thanks


----------



## aristotle (19 Feb 2014)

If all bills paid, no damage, and the tenants were "good tenants" during the last 11 months I would certainly just leave it and let them leave without hassling about the last months rent.

 The tenants had to find somewhere else to stay as the lease was not being renewed so its a bit of "give and take" in this kind of situation particularly if they were good tenants.


----------



## Bronte (19 Feb 2014)

They owe rent until the 18th Feb, that is clear, I think it would be fair to deduct that, I suspect he is entitled to rent till the end of the lease, 11th March, but as the landlord has effectively put the tenant on notice that he will have to move, then in the interests of fairness he should accept that the tenant have to move out early and not expect the rent between 18th Feb and 11th Mar. This is especially so if they were good tenants.


----------



## Northie (19 Feb 2014)

This was pretty much his take on it, that he would happily settle for rent for the days on Feb they were there and give them back the remaining deposit, I think its the four emails with requests for the deposit to be transferred to their bank account that had him concerned.

I think he is thinking of wording it along the lines of:

I will return your deposit of x which amounts to deposit less y to cover the 8 days of February for which there is rent owing.

Many thanks for the responses


----------



## Bronte (19 Feb 2014)

They are probably in desparate need of the deposit, hence the 4 emails.  Landlord really should be very quick to return the deposits.  But poor tenant's once the new rules come in, I'm betting it will be slow and cumbersome and less deposits will be given back.  Now you have landlords like me giving deposits back once the place is in any kind of decent state, and even if they leave early, all that will be gone soon.


----------



## Northie (19 Feb 2014)

I know where you're coming from Bronte, but to be fair to him he has never delayed giving back a deposit to any of his tenants and he isn't planning on delaying here either, officially they moved out yesterday, they started asking for the deposit back last week.

He is over today to take meter readings so they should have their deposit in their bank account by Friday.

Just on a slight side note and more for my own curiosity, why should he forgo the last month rent for the sake of fairness. He gave them more then 8 weeks notice that the lease wouldn't be renewed, he didn't ask them to move out earlier, they chose to. They were only contracted to be there till 11 March, there is no guarantee a lease will be renewed. I know its probably splitting hairs as I think he's happy to forgo the rent but he is down money to cover a mortgage repayment. He thought he was being fair giving them plenty of notice and letting them know if they stayed till the end of the lease there would be no disturbance to them in terms of organizing viewings, he would do it after they left.

How do you ensure all bills are paid if you give back a deposit the day someone moves out?


----------



## terrysgirl33 (20 Feb 2014)

All the bills should be in the tenants name, so if they aren't paid it's the tenants problem, not the landlords.


----------



## Setanta12 (20 Feb 2014)

Northie said:


> I know its probably splitting hairs as I think he's happy to forgo the rent but he is down money to cover a mortgage repayment.


 


Northie said:


> there would be no disturbance to them in terms of organizing viewings, he would do it after they left.


 
If he did it after they left - he would be down a mortgage repayment while waiting to sell. Some might say they've allowed him sell faster !


----------



## Bronte (20 Feb 2014)

Northie said:


> Just on a slight side note and more for my own curiosity, why should he forgo the last month rent for the sake of fairness.
> 
> , he didn't ask them to move out earlier, they chose to.


 
I'll try and answer your points about fairness etc.

If they officially moved out yesterday than Friday is fine to give the deposit back, he's an amateur if the meter readings delay the deposit handover as all bills should be in tenants names, that's an absolute no no. 

_he didn't ask them to move out earlier, they chose to._ The tenant is not going to think of it like this, he's thinking he's happy where he is, and wants to continue and now I've got to go an find a new place and I've only 3 months to try and save a new deposit, and I wonder will I get my deposit back and I've been a good tenant and I've paid right up until I'm leaving and I didn't pull any dirty tricks on the landlord by not paying since I get notice because you know what despite being upset about getting notice I'm a decent sort and so is the landlord and I'll trust the landlord to quickly get my deposit back, as I've borrwed from x, y and z and the want it back yesterday.....

In relation to the being down a month's mortgage payment.  This is nothing to do with the tenant.  This is the landlord's own private business.   Totally irrelevant.  Landlords must be ready to have voids and gaps when they won't have the income to pay the mortgage.  And this should have been factored in when notice was given.  It's *inevitable *that some tenants will leave early in those circumstances.  And I think they should have the right to do so, but that they must be given decent notice.  Not sure though myself on the rules on notice as I never give nor receive it.  Sometimes I'm told it will be next week, sometimes it might be mentioned months in advance.  Whatever, I've better things to be doing than looking for proper notice that conforms to PRTB guidelines and so do my tenants.  The nearest I ever came to any of this was when one tenant once asked for a lease.  I don't do those either.  And you know what, even last week my agent got a call from someone who wanted to rent from us.  This happens periodically.


----------



## AlbacoreA (20 Feb 2014)

I think you are over reacting to the point of the mortgage. The point was that was that its not a trivial amount to the LL. Not that the tenant has any obligations to the LL mortgage. 

Fairness doesn't come into it.  Are they not obliged to pay up to the end of the lease?  Isn't letting them off that, really a goodwill gesture, so the amount could be anything no? a full month, half of it, none of it. No?


----------



## mandelbrot (20 Feb 2014)

Kildavin said:


> If he did it after they left - he would be down a mortgage repayment while waiting to sell. Some might say they've allowed him sell faster !


 
+1 million - OP makes no sense whatsoever on this issue!


----------



## cremeegg (24 Feb 2014)

I must say I find this a weird thread.

I agree with the concept of parting on good terms with a tenant, especially if you have had a good relationship during the tenancy, while spoil that over minor items at the end.

However the landlord in this case is losing one twelfth of the turnover in his business for the year. His costs are not reduced. No business could or should accept a loss of 8.5% in turnover in the interest of fairness.

Being a landlord is not like being parent. If the tenant signed a lease to pay rent to March 11th, then that is what they should do.

Bronte, you don't do leases. Who would have guessed. I think I admire you for that.  I used to work on a handshake, but with the advent of the PRTB and some comments I have seen here I decided to stop being a maverick and now I do leases.

Having the utilities in the tenants name is a good idea, but not foolproof.  I have had a tenant leave without having paid the electricity bill and the supplier demanded money or the supply would be cut off ?

The law provides no protection to the landlord in this situation where the tenant walks off with rent outstanding.


----------



## AlbacoreA (24 Feb 2014)

If it was a hire purchase on a car, or a bank would they you "off" a month.


----------



## Bronte (25 Feb 2014)

cremeegg said:


> . I have had a tenant leave without having paid the electricity bill and the supplier demanded money or the supply would be cut off ?
> 
> .


 

How does that work - from concerned landlord.

You seem surprised that I don't do leases, they are not worth the paper they are not written on.  What am I going to do with a tenant who doesn't pay, sue him, go to the PRTB, no I just turn the other cheek and move on.  Totally pointless system.  The PRTB is a joke for landlords.  Show me a table that proves that landlords who took cases to the PRTB actually got paid for rent arrears and costs of damage etc, and I don't mean by paid, being deducted from deposits.


----------



## Northie (25 Feb 2014)

Interesting to see where this thread has gone.

Apologies to any who found my original post confusing and yes I agree the LL's mortgage payments are nothing to do with the tenants.

In the end my friend agreed to return the deposit minus 9 days rent for the portion of this month the tenants were in the house and also minus waste charges that were outstanding (including an extra lift that hasn't been collected yet) All other utilities were up to date.

Interestingly the waste charges bill was still in a previous tenants name (about 3 tenants back) even though the LL had made an effort on numerous occasions to have this changed. Greyhound in sorting this out last week claimed only the named person on the bill could close/change the account even though they had never mentioned this in previous dealings (something to watch out for). Thankfully at each change of tenant my friend was lucky that each departing tenant had settled any outstanding charges.

I can see the point that the strict letter of the law would have them paying rent till the end of the lease, but similar to what you mentioned Bronte, my friend wasn't interested in a prolonged scenario of threatening emails and the possibility of the tenant's dragging him in front of Threshold or the PRTB (even though he got advice from one of the landlord groups that they wouldn't have a case). He just wants the house sold 

Thanks for the opinions.


----------



## cremeegg (25 Feb 2014)

Bronte said:


> How does that work - from concerned landlord.


 
As I remember, it was about 2 years ago. Tenants moved out, new tenants moved in. The new tenants contacted a different electricity supplier to set up an account. They were told this wasn't possible because there were unpaid arrears of more than 60 days with another supplier.

I contacted the original supplier and was told that there was an amount due on an old bill and they could and would block the transfer to a new supplier until they were paid.

I did not have legal liability for this but it was my problem.




Bronte said:


> You seem surprised that I don't do leases, they are not worth the paper they are not written on.  What am I going to do with a tenant who doesn't pay, sue him, go to the PRTB, no I just turn the other cheek and move on.  Totally pointless system.  The PRTB is a joke for landlords.  Show me a table that proves that landlords who took cases to the PRTB actually got paid for rent arrears and costs of damage etc, and I don't mean by paid, being deducted from deposits.



Broadly speaking I agree with you. However it is possible to exert psychological pressure on a tenant to meet their obligations if you can say, "you signed the lease"

Also if you were ever before the PRTB be sure the other side would be saying, "she is a bad landlord with a careless attitude to her tenants. She doesn't even give them a lease" I suspect that the PRTB would see that as a mark against you.


----------



## Bronte (25 Feb 2014)

cremeegg said:


> Also if you were ever before the PRTB be sure the other side would be saying, "she is a bad landlord with a careless attitude to her tenants. She doesn't even give them a lease" I suspect that the PRTB would see that as a mark against you.


 
You can be sure I'd pay the tenant off long before it got to the PRTB, if necessary, I have no time for any of that nonsense.  So far I've been registerd with the PRTB since 2004 I think and never has a tenant suggested going to the PRTB.  

That's a riduculous situation with the electricity that you outlined.


----------



## AlbacoreA (26 Feb 2014)

Northie said:


> ... my friend wasn't interested in a prolonged scenario of threatening emails and the possibility of the tenant's dragging him in front of Threshold or the PRTB (even though he got advice from one of the landlord groups that they wouldn't have a case). He just wants the house sold
> 
> Thanks for the opinions.



Someone with common sense. 

Though I think PRTB are pretty fair about judgements and the letter of the law generally. But they are toothless for Landlords.


----------



## amethyst (28 Mar 2014)

Legally speaking, there was not enough information in the question for us to give a correct legal answer.

Big questions: 

Q1.  when were the tenants notified that they had to move out? (Was it 'over the Christmas?)
Q2.  when did the tenants respond saying that they were quitting early?

I think I have the law right in what I say here, but someone correct me if I am wrong.

The legal question revolves around notice periods.

Once the tenants are there for over 6 months (and they were) it becomes a part 4 tenancy. Note that it still becomes a part 4 tenancy even if there is a fixed-term lease.  Many landlords find that surprising, but that is the law as I understand it. 

The part 4 tenant is entitled to stay on,  the tenancy can only be terminated for specific reasons, (selling the house is one of them) and notice periods apply.

I am unsure what the notice period is for a landlord notifying the tenant that they must quit due to selling the house. I presume 3 months is enough.

Here's the interesting bit -- in a part 4 tenancy, the tenants are entitled to quit provided they give one months notice.  Note that this means that a year-long lease does NOT bind the tenant for one year; it actually only binds them for seven months at most. (They acquire part 4 status after six months, and then can quit at one months notice.)

If the tenants gave less than one months notice, you are entitled to the rent up to the end of that month, as I understand it.

HOWEVER,  landlords shouldn't always enforce the law to the letter, and the decision not to take any more money for the un-given notice may be a sound one.


----------

