Notice period too short - landlord taking advantage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    But I could well be wrong!!

    If that case means rent in advance cannot ever be apportioned then I suppose they could still be liable for the full month!

    Either way it's ridiculous. I suppose tenants would be wise to negotiate on any notice and I think everything should always be conformed in writing

    It seems ludicrous that a tenant bound by law to give valid notice based on AST is then penalised because of their rent date?

    Comment


      Originally posted by Wright76 View Post
      I would think in this situation there is no further rent due after legal and valid notice is given.
      No notice is required to move to at the end of the term. And no one (bar possibly but not necessarily T) knows at the time of the rent becoming due whether the tenancy will actually end at the end of the term. But under the terms of the contract, a month of rent is due at the start of the payment term.

      Anyone know?

      JJ?
      Assume I know nothing.

      Comment


        There most definitely has to be a case where apportionate rules apply when rent is paid in arrears, otherwise what law protects tenants in such an issue

        Is it not the case that instead of blanketing the apportionate act as only being valid when rent is payable in arrears, that it is valid except in the case of a break clause or surrender?

        Comment


          Originally posted by Hooper View Post
          theartfullodger,


          All good points about how two fair minded parties might handle the situation. But I'm wondering specifically how apportionment rules as discussed upthread would apply where a tenant moves out at the end of the term but the end of the term does not coincide with a rent period.

          Under the terms of the contract (assume rent is pcm), rent is due at the beginning of the final payment period. If the end of the term is a week later, and there is no apportionment clause, are they still strictly speaking due to pay the full month?
          I may be being thick here but I'm not sure what you mean by the end of the term. When would the term of the tenancy be different to the rent period? I'm not talking about when the tenant actually pays rent, but isn't the term of the tenancy always the period to which rent is payable?

          Comment


            Originally posted by Hooper View Post
            Under the terms of the contract (assume rent is pcm), rent is due at the beginning of the final payment period. If the end of the term is a week later, and there is no apportionment clause, are they still strictly speaking due to pay the full month
            Unless the agreement covers the apportionment (and I've not seen one that does in real life), the tenant is required to pay rent in line with the agreement, unless there is a separate agreement otherwise.
            It isn't refundable - as there's nothing to make it refundable.

            It normally won't matter so often in practice if a tenanct gives notice, because usually the rent day is the day after the end of the rental period - but people make changes to rent due dates, or don't pay when they're meant to.
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              Originally posted by DPT57 View Post
              I may be being thick here but I'm not sure what you mean by the end of the term. When would the term of the tenancy be different to the rent period? I'm not talking about when the tenant actually pays rent, but isn't the term of the tenancy always the period to which rent is payable?
              No: Entirely possible for tenancy period to be (say) 12th to 11th but rent payable (in contract, by agreement of both parties) on 1st of month, 22nd month, whatever...

              IMHO not a good idea because...

              a) People get confused when giving notice &
              b) On tenancy end there will be arguments!

              Artful's advice on tenancy dates & rent payment dates..
              a) Same tenancy start day-of-month as rent payment day-of-month
              b) So don;t start tenancy 29, 30 or 31st if at all possible - (consider the implications of "Rent: Rent is £875/month payable on 31st of month").
              I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

              Comment


                Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                No: Entirely possible for tenancy period to be (say) 12th to 11th but rent payable (in contract, by agreement of both parties) on 1st of month, 22nd month, whatever...

                IMHO not a good idea because...

                a) People get confused when giving notice &
                b) On tenancy end there will be arguments!

                Artful's advice on tenancy dates & rent payment dates..
                a) Same tenancy start day-of-month as rent payment day-of-month
                b) So don;t start tenancy 29, 30 or 31st if at all possible - (consider the implications of "Rent: Rent is £875/month payable on 31st of month").
                OK thanks. Guess I've just never come across that before

                Comment


                  Some of my contracts have this because whatever the start date of the contract I prefer all rents to be made on the same date for ease of admin. It has not been a problem in practice because I use three year ASTs with a break clause allowing regular termination which much coincide with the rent period (which is how they are invariably ended - being in the young professionals market I've only ever had one tenant stay more than three years). But the apportionment rule would appear to apply if the lease ran its length (exactly).
                  Assume I know nothing.

                  Comment


                    An apportionment would require a specific wording of the lease.

                    If it just states that the rent is payable on a given day every month then the whole rent is payable even if the tenancy naturally ends the very next day, IMHO.

                    Comment


                      I meant the apportionment rule by which there is no apportionment!

                      But it seems nuts to me. Part of the M&S judgement seems to be that you need to consider whether the reasonable reader would consider a term to be so obvious as to go without saying and a reasonable person would not have thought apportionment was implied. I can perhaps see the logic of that in a hard negotiated commercial relationship. But with regard to a residential one I would have thought that a reasonable person would have believed that, whether the term and payment dates matched or not, they would only pay for the time they had had exclusive benefit of the property (and thus apportionment was implied). After all - contracts rarely say £1,000 per month or part of!
                      Assume I know nothing.

                      Comment

                      Latest Activity

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X