Moving out mid month - does landlord work out a daily rate or its strictly by month?

uberalles

We moved in on 15th and SO is the 15th of every month.

If we serve proper notice and move out on the 3rd of a month what happens?

Is a Daily rate worked out?
Do we loose out on 12 days rent money?

Doop

uberalles wrote: »

We moved in on 15th and SO is the 15th of every month.

If we serve proper notice and move out on the 3rd of a month what happens?

Is a Daily rate worked out?
Do we loose out on 12 days rent money?

A per day rate would be the norm, however I cant speak for your own landlord. If I was in your position I would work out the rate multiply it out. Speak to the landlord, serve your notice, and advise that you worked out the rent owing as figure X sayin how you worked it out, see if they are happy and off you go!

djimi

You would expect to get 12 days worth of rent back. Not too hard to work out; 15th Nov to 15th Dec is 30 days so 12/30 means you would get 40% of the months rent back.

djimi

Doop wrote: »

A per day rate would be the norm, however I cant speak for your own landlord. If I was in your position I would work out the rate multiply it out. Speak to the landlord, serve your notice, and advise that you worked out the rent owing as figure X sayin how you worked it out, see if they are happy and off you go!

Why wouldnt they be happy? Provided sufficient notice has been served then they are not entitled to keep any more of the rent. If the tenant will only be staying for 18 of the 30 days that month then they are entitled to expect 12 days rent returned to them.

Ocean Blue

djimi wrote: »

Why wouldnt they be happy? Provided sufficient notice has been served then they are not entitled to keep any more of the rent. If the tenant will only be staying for 18 of the 30 days that month then they are entitled to expect 12 days rent returned to them.

It depends if you have signed a fixed-term lease and whether that has expired or not. If you are mid lease you are liable for the full rent for the duration of the lease.

uberalles

Ocean Blue wrote: »

It depends if you have signed a fixed-term lease and whether that has expired or not. If you are mid lease you are liable for the full rent for the duration of the lease.

We are part 4. So how are we fixed then?

Valentine1

djimi wrote: »

You would expect to get 12 days worth of rent back. Not too hard to work out; 15th Nov to 15th Dec is 30 days so 12/30 means you would get 40% of the months rent back.

Splitting hairs here really but the correct way to work out a daily or weekly rate when paying per calender month is to multiply the monthly rent by 12 and then divide by 365 or 52.

djimi

Ocean Blue wrote: »

It depends if you have signed a fixed-term lease and whether that has expired or not. If you are mid lease you are liable for the full rent for the duration of the lease.

Im taking it as a given that a fixed term lease is not in effect. Obviously if it is then that changes things and notice period doesnt mean a jot.

You are also not liable for the full rent of the duration of the lease; if you break a fixed term lease early then you are liable for the shortfall in rent until the property has been re-let, which legally is something that a landlord must seek to do in a timely fashion.

Ray Palmer

It is actually completely up to the LL. He can simply say he doesn't rent by the day and it is always by month. It is the tenants notice that determines if it is a partial month they are leaving on. The minimum notice doesn't mean you have to leave on the precise minimum notice. It is just the minimum time you must inform the LL by.

When handing in your notice you should agree with the LL. If you don't agree they can insist on a full month payment for a partial month stay.

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is actually completely up to the LL. He can simply say he doesn't rent by the day and it is always by month. It is the tenants notice that determines if it is a partial month they are leaving on. The minimum notice doesn't mean you have to leave on the precise minimum notice. It is just the minimum time you must inform the LL by.

When handing in your notice you should agree with the LL. If you don't agree they can insist on a full month payment for a partial month stay.

Can you back any of this up Ray? Im not aware of anything in tenancy law that allows for a landlord to keep more rent than they are owed, but Im happy to be proven wrong.

Ray Palmer

djimi wrote: »

Can you back any of this up Ray? Im not aware of anything in tenancy law that allows for a landlord to keep more rent than they are owed, but Im happy to be proven wrong.

It isn't in law it is the term you deal with your LL. If rent is issued in monthly terms rent is by the month not the day. You just have to say I rent by the month not the day.

It is the tenant that is choosing the leaving day. If you want a daily charge the LL has to agree. If the LL doesn't agree the original agreement of month rent remains.

djimi

Again can you back this up?

Rent may be paid by the month, but if the landlord agrees to a termination date (ie the tenant notifies them in writing, giving the appropriate notice, and no issue is raised) then I dont believe that they can turn around and expect to keep rent for a period in which the tenancy is no longer active.

GerardKeating

djimi wrote: »

Why wouldnt they be happy? Provided sufficient notice has been served then they are not entitled to keep any more of the rent. If the tenant will only be staying for 18 of the 30 days that month then they are entitled to expect 12 days rent returned to them.

Some Leases/Rental agreement specific that the notice must be given to coincide with the rental period. It avoid issues like the OP's one.

Not sure if this is actually legally enforceable.

djimi

This is why Im trying to find out if it is legally enforceable. Essentially what is boils down is whether or not the landlord is entitled to keep money for a period of time when the tenancy is no longer active (and the tenant has not acted illegally in ending the tenancy). I find it very hard to believe that they can, regardless of what they might try and write into a lease.

Ray Palmer

djimi wrote: »

This is why Im trying to find out if it is legally enforceable. Essentially what is boils down is whether or not the landlord is entitled to keep money for a period of time when the tenancy is no longer active (and the tenant has not acted illegally in ending the tenancy). I find it very hard to believe that they can, regardless of what they might try and write into a lease.

But you can't provide any proof to this assertion.

You are asking me from proof for what is part of the original agreement e.g. you rent on a monthly basis. You pay by month use not day, could somebody then not argue I left at 12:00 so shouldn't have to pay a full day. The unit of purchase in this case is a month no smaller split mentioned in a contract then that is the split. The unit of rental is a month. Unless you have something stating otherwise that remains.

Don't confuse a LL not being fussed or easy going as meaning others must comply. If the tenant didn't discuss this the LL is in the right to remain with his unit of sale.

Thomas D

You only have to comply with notice periods. You are not renting per day as the notice period is usually a multiple of a month.

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

But you can't provide any proof to this assertion.

You are asking me from proof for what is part of the original agreement e.g. you rent on a monthly basis. You pay by month use not day, could somebody then not argue I left at 12:00 so shouldn't have to pay a full day. The unit of purchase in this case is a month no smaller split mentioned in a contract then that is the split. The unit of rental is a month. Unless you have something stating otherwise that remains.

Don't confuse a LL not being fussed or easy going as meaning others must comply. If the tenant didn't discuss this the LL is in the right to remain with his unit of sale.

By accepting the notice of termination, the landlord has agreed that the date of moving out will fall mid month. I dont see any legal reason why they should be able to expect to keep money for a time when the tenancy is no longer in effect. I am asking you for any evidence to the contrary, to show why they should be able to keep money that is, in effect, not owed to them. Can you point to something in law which states that notice periods must coincide with payment periods unless otherwise specified?

Thomas D

PRTB judgements often calculate per diem costs for overstays and rents owed.

the world wonders

Ray Palmer wrote: »

But you can't provide any proof to this assertion.

The proof is the Residential Tenancies Act that sets out in detail the procedure for terminating a tenancy and does not include any restrictions that the tenancy must terminate on a day coinciding with the rent payment period. A tenant can terminate their tenancy mid-month; to suggest that the tenant then has to pay another two weeks rent for a tenancy that has terminated is absurd and would see you laughed out of the PRTB.

could somebody then not argue I left at 12:00 so shouldn't have to pay a full day.

No they couldn't because the RTA defines the tenancy as ending at midnight at the end of the day specified in the notice of termination.

UDP

Op, for the last month's payment work out what fraction the number of days you will be there vs how many days you would have been for that payment month. That's how much you pay in you last payment. Work it out then say to the landlord that's how much your last payment will be to avoid an argument afterwards and just in case you made a mathematical mistake. Did it that way in my last place and there were no issues since its the only fair way.

Thomas D

Remember, a month has 30.4375 days in it.