Here is a quesiton to the blog clinic from Rex, who is a tenant:
I rented a flat on an AST basis and this rolled forwards from six to nearly 24 months. The landlord agreed I could give notice at any time (as is my right) and I gave a month’s notice, paying for the month in full.
The landlord agreed orally that if he relet the flat I would be reimbursed for the relet period (ie he would not profit from two rental payments for the same period). Nothing in writing. Deposit has been returned to me in full. The landlord advised that he has in fact relet and that he will repay my “overpayment” but has failed to do so. Can I pursue this in the small claims court?
Speaking off the top of my head I am not sure but suspect you can. The re-let will end the tenancy to you, and therefore I would have thought the rent paid for that period is refundable. Also you would be able to give oral evidence to say that the landlord agreed to refund the rent if the flat was re-let but has failed to do so.
Oral evidence is not as good as documentary evidence but a Judge may accept it.
I would suggest in any case that you send a formal letter before action as the landlord may well pay up to prevent you going to court.
In my experience, small claims decisions are usually based on fairness/reasonableness. I reckon you’d have a good chance if the landlord had overlapping rent for the same period and you have the verbal evidence.
It’s worth sending an initial letter and then a final letter before action but you have to ask yourself if the amount – which possibly isn’t much if it’s only part of one month’s rent – is really worth going to court for.
Min court fees £75.
Will you need time off work to attend court?
Will you need a future reference from the Landlord?
Tessa, what if the landlord hadn’t made any promises at all? Would you still be of the view that the tenant could have some of the notice period rent back? OK a promise might have been made but would it not need some form of consideration on the part of the tenant to be turned into a contractual obligation on the part of the landlord?
The tenant could, of course, plead his claim on the basis of unjust enrichment rather than contract – in which case the landlord’s promise to return the money might be seen as an acknowledgement that he would be unjustly enriched if he were to be permitted to be paid twice over for the same period of time.
I think he probably can as my understanding has always been that a landlord cannot get paid rent twice for the same property. The basis for this is that the second tenancy automatically ends the previous one.
However I think your previous post is very relevant and often it will simply not be worth the effort of going to court for what is likely to be a modest sum.