Should this tenant pay rent when the Landlord has re-occupied property instead of re-letting after tenant moved out early

Here is a question to the blog clinic from Simon (not his real name) who is a tenant

I vacated a fixed term lease 6 months early as I needed to relocate overseas and there was a clause in the agreement stating if I vacated early I would still have to pay the rent until the earlier of re-letting to a new tenant or end of term.

I am still paying the rent.

Six weeks before I left the landlord agreed to have the letting agents market the property and lots of viewings took place whilst I was still there and subsequently. I know this as I’ve been in regular contact with the agents.

The property has been marketed now for 10 weeks, for more rent than I am paying and I think the market has fallen so this could be a possible reason why it’s not been re-let.

To counter this I offered to make good the shortfall for the next 12m if a new tenant was found quickly. It is a month since I vacated and the landlord has now communicated that he’s not looking for anyone to rent the property for another 6 weeks as he’s doing major works to the property.

This is contrary to an email that said he would re-let it 2 months ago. A key was given to him to allow viewings to take place based upon my understanding but nothing is in writing in relation to this.

I suspected he wasn’t playing fair and I now have direct evidence that he and his family have been sleeping at and using the property.

The property has also been furnished whereas I had removed my possessions leaving the property completely empty and in fantastic condition. The landlord has responded to this saying that he wants to let it furnished. This was not indicated on the agents’ website so I struggle to believe him.

No deed of surrender has been signed and my deposit not returned as the letting agents emailed me to say I am still the tenant and the tenancy continues. The landlord has now changed the locks so I cannot even re-occupy the property.

A paying tenant (albeit a vacated one) without access to a property seems inconceivable. Has the landlord repossessed the property by surrender by operation of law (storing items at the property, using the property, emailing to say he’s doing major works at the property)?

Has his changing of the locks illegally evicted me? I need to decide what to do before the next rent payment is due and also consider how my deposit may be affected.

I am inclined to agree with you that the landlord has gone too far here. If you are paying rent for a property you must be allowed access to it. If the landlord has changed the locks then this indicates that your tenancy has ended.

I don’t think you should pay any more rent. Write to the landlord saying that as he has changed the locks and moved into the property himself, this has ended your tenancy and your liability to pay any rent.

I suspect the landlord will probably want to claim from the deposit. You will just have to challenge this and then if this case goes to adjudication, explain the situation to the adjudicators and hope that they accept your statement.

Any evidence you have to show that the landlords have moved in will be helpful here. For example witness statements from people who have seen the landlord in occupation or perhaps who have tried to use your keys to get in but found that the locks had been changed.

If there are five months to run, then if you stop paying now, even if you lose the deposit, you will save a few months rent.