Updating post from Reddit.
So as the title suggests, I'm in a bit of a predicament and feel that i'm being taken advantage of a little based on my current situation.
I've been offered a temporary job contract in another City outside the UK. Because of this, I wanted to serve notice on my current contract, that has no break clause. It is a two year contract and I am currently into the 16 month of said contract. I reached out to the landlord about my job offer and at first they were receptive and said we could source another tenant if the opportunity goes ahead (this was over the phone).
Over email she informed me she was planning on putting the property on the market for two months and said I could find suitable tenants after this period. She also asked what was the date I was working towards and I said June 1st, which was 2 months notice. When I asked if this was okay, she said "it is what it is", so based on goodwill and since we had a good relationship, I took this as the green light.
However when I asked if I could commence the search for new tenants, she then started being difficult. She said two months was not enough time to source new tenants (this is in London) and that she wanted the property on the market first. This didn't click for me at first, but basically she is saying that she would not want me leaving by August 1st, two months to attempt to sell, two months for us to find new tenants. This basically cancels my new job plans as I cannot afford two rents. I'm a bit annoyed as while saying "it is what it is", I assumed this meant she was in agreement. She is trying to get the best possible situation for herself, which is keep me as a tenant for as long as possible until she gets an offer on the apartment.
What doesn't make any sense from this is that if I cannot take this job, she cannot sell the apartment, as it conflicts with my contract. So what I want to understand is, do I have any rights to leave this contract 6 months early? The contract is pretty bulletproof, I've read through it. But I feel based on her actions, she has implied some sort of consent for us to vacant.
Overall I'm pretty upset as I feel she is being unreasonable. When I first moved in, she sold this as a relationship of her being a friend and wanted someone to look after the place. During the tenancy, I've pretty much dealt with the most of the issues myself (DIY, gas bill issues from old tenants, removing old furniture and replacing it with my own at no cost to her). But as soon as its inconvenient to her, suddenly its all about sticking to the contract. I'm also a landlord myself and have let tenants leave before notice if they find new tenants. Why would I want to keep tenants there who do not want to be there.
I need your help here Reddit am I stuck?
You want to break the contract early, landlord doesn’t need to accept this but as you say if they want to sell you can make it very hard.
Remember no viewings can take place unless you agree. This right to say no supersedes anything in the contract.
Refuse all viewings. And Negotiate with landlord to something that works with both sides.
Also, is the flat advertised for sale with sitting tenants? If not your leverage could be something around refusing to leave. I'd also phone Shelter and consider joining a tenants union such as Accorn.
Refuse the viewings and you lose the job anyway. You're in a contract that you signed with the landlord unfortunately.
Being difficult when you're asking for a favour is not a great idea.
That works both ways.
Realistically it will be impossible for landlord to complete without vacant possession.
Landlord can’t sell without tenants assistance. A compromise to let the tenant go is the best solution for an easy sale.
No. You do not have any rights to leave the contract 6 months early.
You signed a two year contract with no break clause. Ending the contract earlier will have to be by agreement with both parties, the terms of which would typically be set out on a deed of agreement and signed by both parties.
The landlord saying they "could" get a new tenant if it came to it, or saying "it is what it is" does not constitute an agreement.
Unfortunately, having to potentially pay two sets of rent was a risk you accepted by accepting a job offer that would require you to move before your contract ended.
What I would recommend is to ask the landlord that, subject to them starting to market the property now to relet, you agree to pay all rent and utilities until the new tenant moves OR until the tenancy ends, whichever is earlier.
The landlord may also ask that you cover costs directly related to finding replacement tenants. If this happens, I recommend only agreeing to this on the condition that these costs will only be payable if the replacement tenancy starts at least 2 months before your original tenancy ends date. This is because the landlord would incur those costs anyway by that stage, if you were leaving on the original tenancy end date (assuming the landlord wants to re-let).
"She is trying to get the best possible situation for herself" ... can't blame her for that.
"What doesn't make any sense from this is that if I cannot take this job, she cannot sell the apartment" ... she CAN. Because you will be out in 8 months anyway. Until then, she is keeping you to the contract to maximise her income.
She will offer to let you out as soon as she has sold. Take it or leave it.
She is NOT doing anything wrong, can't fault her for holding you to your contract.
Did she directly tell you not to find tenants? Because it sounds like she didn’t
What will potentially happen is that she will serve you a section 21 as soon as she has a buyer to coincide with the end of the 2 year contract - right now it's a buyer's market, it's not unlikely she'll sell to someone looking to move in instead of a b2l. The timing of both things is a bit suspect.
You can force her hand to let you go early by denying access to the property for viewings, but that would be a dick move on your part. You signed a contract. She is not being unreasonable by requiring you to stick to what was agreed.
Just asking but why would that be a dick move. Landlady not accomadating, why should the tenant be. He has lost a potential job.
You want it both ways. Most comments here say the Landlady could find someone relatively quickly
Because you signed a contract agreeing to 2 years. She doesn't have to accommodate you outside of the terms of the agreement.
And he doesnt have to accomodate the landlord outside of the law 🤔
That's correct.
But I'm that case, you won't be able to take the job either. The landlord gets their rent, OP didn't get the job.
A contract is a contract.
Asking why you said restricting views was a dick move not about breaking tenenancy, that's quite clear
Ah, you misunderstand me. Trying to force her to let you early by withholding access is what I meant.
Yeah misunderstood that. Thanks
I'm a landlord and in a similar position to your landlord, in that my tenants want to leave early half way through the contract.
I've said no, because I am selling too after the tenancy ends. There are all sorts of risks with finding new tenants, including getting bad ones that could screw up my sale and the process of finding tenants, handover of property and making sure costs charged to current tenants are within the law. Not something I want to deal with!
So I have told them that I am wanting to sell, and they can leave once an offer has been confirmed and it is close to exchange. In thi smarket it will be difficult to sell but at the end of the day I have ot do whats best for me and I have comprimised by selling earlier than planned.
My tenants have agreed.
> but now she’s prioritizing keeping you as a tenant until she find anouther tenant.
That is what happens, you are liable for rent in the agreement you signed until a replacement tenant is found.
No, we would never let a tenant "find a replacement". Their interest is anybody in ASAP to end their liability, our priority is the best tenant that will be their for long time and has a good background.
Your role is to be as accomodating as possible.
You’re right about the contract but completely wrong about the tenant’s role. They have no obligations to be accommodating at all! Up to them.
Myself, I’d do as others have suggested. Look to negotiate something that suits both parties, and if LL says no then refuse access. At the moment LL is having cake and eating it.
It is up to them, but not being accommodating just keeps you liable for paying the rent. It's foolish not to be as accommodating as possible; refusing access, as you suggest, puts the tenant in a worse position.
The Landlord is enforcing the contract.
Landlords: just shut up and give me my money.
Aka, being “accommodating”
Op dont be accomodating, refuse all access to property until she caves
You're off to a new country, simply change bank accounts and leave. Your landlord won't be able to do a thing without spending a few thousand on legal fees.
He'll go to small claim court and recoup everything
Pointless if you're not in the country
No if he still have assets in country. Send it to bailiff and landlord will get back everything
True but I'm assuming a renter moving abroad will have limited assets or liquidate them and move the money. It's always the good guys who get stitched up by landlords while those with no means or malicious intent get away with it.
Also if the landlord is selling it's in their interest to end the tenancy. In all likelihood many a landlord will issue nothing but threats.
>What doesn't make any sense from this is that if I cannot take this job, she cannot sell the apartment, as it conflicts with my contract.
No it doesn't, you simply start paying your rent to the new owner. She would have better luck selling with vacant posession, but it isn't a requirement.
Ultimately you're inside your contract window and she's stalling because she doesn't have the nuts to actually tell you she wants to hold you to it, but that's the reality. There is no legal basis to break the contract early, it's a harsh lesson but you shouldn't be applying for jobs that require you to move while you're responsible for a tenancy, and you shouldn't be making such fundamental decisions on the assumption that "it is what it is" is somehow a legally binding verbal contract.
It takes time to sell a property and new tenants would have their tenancy protected so she’d have to evict them (which takes time and money).
She’s a fool to herself.
Bargain. She will get a faster and better sale with vacant possession. She also has no right to set foot in the place to take photos or do viewings when you refuse permission. Which you do. Moreover, you don’t have to leave when the tenancy expires - she would have to evict you, which would take months. If you really wanted to do her a mischief you could make her evict you and then hang around while she applied for bailiffs.
Spell this out to her: you leave the flat spotless, empty, and in good repair, and she gets an easy vacant possession so she can sell it untenanted (which adds at least 10K to the selling price). Or you can drag out your tenancy for an indefinite period. If she wants to catch the summer wave she’ll see sense.
It should not take two months to find new tenants in London. Two weeks would be more like it, though perhaps another few days to check references etc. Although your landlord is within her rights to insist on the letter of the agreement it’s this kind of cuntish behaviour that gets landlords a bad name - I would always let a tenant go early if they wanted to, opportunity to get in and do any necessary work, get a new tenant probably at higher rent, very little, if any, loss to me.
It is weird to hear landlords agreeing with me and tenants not (on another thread). I've offered to find and pay for the new tenant costs as well. Really, I'm not being taken advantage of, but I feel that my current situation is, if that makes sense.
You signed the contract 🤷♂️
I would never also never let a tenant find a replacement.
If the listing is online please share it over, I might be able to help