how is rent calculated if tenant leaves before end of periodic tenancy

[Mark1564]

Hi All,

I have just successfully served a possession order on my tenant who is now finally leaving on the 12th of July. The 6 month AST ran out on the 31st May and has been periodic ever since. Rent was due on the 1st of each month. Now that she is going on the 12th do I charge her for 12 days, or the whole month. If its for 12 days do I work it out by dividing the months rent by 30 or 31.

Thanks

Mark

[quarterday]

what to charge tenant soon - hopefully - departing

Hi All,

I have just successfully served a possession order on my tenant who is now finally leaving on the 12th of July. The 6 month AST ran out on the 31st May and has been periodic ever since. Rent was due on the 1st of each month. Now that she is going on the 12th do I charge her for 12 days, or the whole month. If its for 12 days do I work it out by dividing the months rent by 30 or 31.

Thanks

Mark

Arguably if she leaves on the 12th day you are due 11 days rent. If you get it, and possession, be happy!

[Smiler]

Yes, charge 12 days. Divide monthly rent by number of days in that month then * 12

[Mrs Mug]

Divide monthly rent by number of days in that month then * 12

No, the correct way is to divide the annual rent by 365 and then multiply by 12 days.

[GillsMan]

Yes, =((Monthly Rent * 12)/365)*12) is the correct formula.

[mind the gap]

Yes, =((Monthly Rent * 12)/365)*12) is the correct formula.

I cannot see how this 'formula', as set out above, adds anything at all to Mrs Mug's correct and very clear explanation.(In fact, what you have written risks confusing the issue). Please explain! What do the asterisks signify, for example? And why are there two sets of brackets?

Do you mean that in this case, P = M x 12 /365 x D [where P is the appportioned amount of rent, M is the monthly rent and D is the number of days in the portion?]

Then P = M x 12/365 x 12 in this case, but Mrs Mugs' version (using words) is surely much easier to follow.

[theartfullodger]

Yes, =((Monthly Rent * 12)/365)*12) is the correct formula.

Except in leap year??

Cheers!

Lodger

[GillsMan]

I cannot see how this 'formula', as set out above, adds anything at all to Mrs Mug's correct and very clear explanation.(In fact, what you have written risks confusing the issue). Please explain! What do the asterisks signify, for example? And why are there two sets of brackets?

Do you mean that in this case, P = M x 12 /365 x D [where P is the appportioned amount of rent, M is the monthly rent and D is the number of days in the portion?]

Then P = M x 12/365 x 12 in this case, but Mrs Mugs' version (using words) is surely much easier to follow.

Stop trolling me MTG, it's massively tedious.

Asterisks signify multiplication, and are used in software such as Excel. It's fairly ubiquitous tbh, and I'm mildly shocked this is the first time you've come across this in, what is it now, 2010? It was just another way of confirming Mrs Mug's explanation. I was trying to be helpful ffs, just because you didn't understand my fairly basic formula, doesn't mean other people won't. Please, stop trolling me...be gone.

[theartfullodger]

Blimey, if tedious posts were banned what would so many denizens of these fora & other sites do all day???

I liked MTG's post, as I usually like MTGs' posts..

Asterisks signify multiplication, and is used in software such as Excel

surely not "is" but "are" or "can be" ?? Not to mention "Asterisks can signify multiplication amongst other things (e.g. wild cards...)

(Yup, I know, they'll be hostages2fortune of similar errors in so many of my posts....)


Cheers!


Lodger

[GillsMan]

Given that MTG was unable to work out that the asterisk signified a multiplication, I highly doubt she's aware of what a wild card is (so for example in SQL it usually denotes "anything", should I have covered that base as well?).

What did MTG's post add? Apart from pointless post-boosting of course. And now, thanks to her snidey little comment, we're off topic yet again. Admitedly I could have just ignored so I suppose I'm to blame as well.

[jeffrey]

OK, a bit of a clash of symbols!
The inescapable legal point is that the only valid way to apportion anything is on a yearly basis (however you depict this in symbols).
Use 365 days as the fraction's denominator, unless it's a leap year.

[mind the gap]

Given that MTG was unable to work out that the asterisk signified a multiplication, I highly doubt she's aware of what a wild card is (so for example in SQL it usually denotes "anything", should I have covered that base as well?).

What did MTG's post add? Apart from pointless post-boosting of course. And now, thanks to her snidey little comment, we're off topic yet again. Admitedly I could have just ignored so I suppose I'm to blame as well.

There was no intention on my part to do anything other than highlight the confusing nature of your post. If you dislike being 'trolled' as you call it, (although most would just call it being challenged on a point of clarity!), then please stop wasting my time telling me by private message how much you object to my contributions to this forum! There is, as you admit, no obligation to read them. Given their apparent effect on your blood pressure, perhaps you should just ignore what I contribute.

Perhaps that can be an end to it.

[GillsMan]

There was no intention on my part to do anything other than highlight the confusing nature of your post. If you dislike being 'trolled' as you call it, (although most would just call it being challenged on a point of clarity!), then please stop wasting my time telling me by private message how much you object to my contributions to this forum! There is, of course, no obligation to read them. Given their apparent effect on your blood pressure, perhaps you should just ignore what I put.

Perhaps that can be an end to it.

Wait a second - that PM was like last week for a start. And I sent it in private for a reason. But seeing as you're insinuating that I did the cowardly act of sending you an abusive PM, then, for the benefit of other people who didn't read it, what i actually did was refute your accusation that I was gratuitously rude; say that I found you very helpful on the forums, but also condescending and rude; and called you a valuable resource. I said that I would apologise if I was "gratuitously rude", but that I genuinely didn't think I was.

So get your facts straight before you refer to a PRIVATE message.

Nothing confusing about my original post. It simply added to something someone else said.

(PS - was it your intention to admit that you're trolling me because I sent you a PM?)

[mind the gap]

Wait a second - that PM was like last week for a start. And I sent it in private for a reason. But seeing as you're insinuating that I did the cowardly act of sending you an abusive PM, what i actually did was refute your accusation that I was gratuitously rude; say that I found you very helpful on the forums, but also condescending and rude; and called you a valuable resource. I said that I would apologise if I was "gratuitously rude", but that I genuinely didn't think I was.

So get your facts straight before you refer to a PRIVATE message.

Nothing confusing about my original post. It simply added to something someone else said.

You seem very mixed up, as well as rude (your use of 'for ****'s sake' on the forum as well as in your pm is hardly appropriate, now is it?) However, as I said in my response, you are welcome to your opinions about me; because I have no sense of who you are, I am not affected by what you think. I would though prefer you not to tell me them by private message. For a number of reasons, it achieves nothing, really. I think we must simply agree to differ.

[GillsMan]

You seem very mixed up, as well as rude (your use of 'for ****'s sake' on the forum as well as in your pm is hardly appropriate, now is it?) However, as I said in my response, you are welcome to your opinions about me; because I have no sense of who you are, I am not affected by what you think. I would though prefer you not to tell me them by private message. For a number of reasons, it achieves nothing, really. I think we must simply agree to differ.

It wasn't like I was being abusive in the PM though (despite your best efforts to make it appear as though I was). Meh, you're a piece of work tbh. Don't worry, you'll not be getting any further PM's (though you could have communicated this wish in PRIVATE (maybe you should look it up as you obviously don't understand the definition of this word). Now, haven't you got another thread to ruin with a pointless comment about grammar, someone getting a saying slightly wrong, or your not being able to understand fairly basic concepts which everyone else seems to understand?

Sigh, if only you cut that nonsense out and stick to the helpful comments which everyone can see you have in you. Oh well, if only there was world peace! Sadly, there'll always be keyboard warriors on message forums.