Here is a blog clinic question from Nadine (not her real name) who is a tenant:
Hi, I’m hoping you can help. My landlord increased my rent by almost £200 after my tenanacy agreement came to an end in February but he did this in April (2 month safter my Tenancy came to an end).
He gave me a choice of either paying the increase or to vacate the property by 1st of July. As a single mother, I told him that I would not be able to afford the increase and that I would start looking for a place immediately.
Yesterday I found a place which was well suited for me and my son and as these properties are hard to come by I paid the deposit and told my landlord my intention of leaving over the weekend.
He has come back to me now and said that he will not pay my depsoit as I have not given him enough notice and as his rent is due over the same weekend as I am leaving he has said that I will not get my deposit back. Can he do this?
The first point I want to make is that landlords can only increase rent in the proper way. If your landlord just told you that he was increasing it, then this is not valid unless you agree to it.
Of course the landlord can put you under quite a lot of pressure as he has the right to evict you under section 21 if you do not agree, but this does not alter your right to refuse to accept the rent increase, and stay in the property paying the original rent.
You can also refuse to vacate the property until the landlord has a court order for possession – you do not HAVE to leave by a certain date just because he says so. Generally it takes about 4-5 months for a landlord to obtain an order for possession.
So far as your date to leave is concerned and your obligation to pay rent, this rather depends on what was actually agreed between you and the landlord.
If you pay rent monthly, then after the fixed term of your tenancy ended you would have a monthly periodic tenancy. Therefore under normal circumstances, if you want to end the tenancy and leave, you need to give not less than one months notice to the landlord, your notice period ending at the end of a period of the tenancy.
If you leave before that date you would be liable to pay rent in lieu of notice.
It is possible however that in your particlar circumstances the landlord may be deemed to have agreed to allow you to leave early. It really depends on what was said, and perhaps more importantly what was written down in any letters or notices he sent. I suggest you get these out and read them really carefully.
However I suspect you may be liable for rent in lieu of notice (in which case the landlord can probably deduct it from the deposit), although I agree that in the circumstances it is rather unfair.
One possible way around this for tenants ask landlords to agree to allow them to vacate with short notice in these circumstances, pointing out that otherwise they have the right to just stay in the property paying the old rent until they are evicted through the courts. If presented with this choice a landlord may agree to the short notice period.
I’d be inclined to ask if the deposit was secured. If it wasn’t the discussion is over. The deposit would have to be returned in full.
Sorry don’t follow the above comment and also Tessa you did not comment on the queries on the deposit.
If the deposit is not protected then the only way to get the deposit is to sue the landlord.
However if the deposit is protected then all you have to do is object to any proposed deduction to halt the landlord in his tracks.
My guess is the tenancy agreement will be deficient and not allow with correct wording for the deposit to be used for that purpose.
And even if it does I’d have another bet that the PI was not issued correctly so you could threaten to counterclaim for a lot more.
Tessa is right though – if the rent increase has not been handled correctly – and I’d have a third bet it has not – then the increase cannot apply anyway.
@Industry Observer and @Sandra – yes absolutely, if the deposit has not been protected then the tenant can claim the deposit back plus the penalty and the landlord will have no defence to this.
Thanks Tessa
Sorry what I meant was if the deposit was not protected and did not need to be.
Odds are of course is it should be protected so the tenant is in a strong position either way. Dispute if protected and sue if not protected but should have been