Letting Agent Negligence?

[Lawcruncher]

This seems to happen a lot. The question you pose is: If I was not released what were you doing offering a tenancy to someone else?

What do we have here?

·The release was agreed.

·You moved out.

·The check out was completed.

·It was agreed your deposit would be returned.

·A new tenant was set up.

Reads like a surrender by operation of law to me.

[Snorkerz]

This seems to happen a lot. The question you pose is: If I was not released what were you doing offering a tenancy to someone else?

I offered it to someone else because you had offered your surrender. I was allowed to take actions in an attempt to save you money. A new tenant was not found, so your tenancy continues until we find a new tenant or your fixed term ends.

Of course, if OP has something that indicates the LL accepted his offer of surrender irrespective of the new tenant moving in, that's a different matter.

Any further act of the landlord referable to the landlord’s seeking to re-let the premises will not necessarily give rise to a surrender by operation of law, as it is no more than what the landlord might reasonably be expected to do in the circumstance for the potential benefit of all parties: Oastler v Henderson (above). The landlord must be entitled to seek to mitigate the damage caused in reality (even if not yet technically in law so long as the lease remains extant) by the tenant’s abandoning the lease, by seeking to obtain another tenant, without thereby losing his rights against the original tenant if he is unable to do so.

[westminster]

Does the LL have any justification to seek compensation from the letting agent over their negligence to not cover themselves against the cancelation of new tenants moving in or was this the risk assumed to be taken by the landlord?

It is irrelevant in terms of your liability to the LL whether the LL has a claim against the agent or not.

[Lawcruncher]

But the tenant here has not abandoned the property. The landlord said he would release him. Relying on that assurance, the tenant moved out. A check out was done which is consistent with the tenancy having come to an end as is agreeing to release the deposit.

All these cases are tricky. The question which needs to be asked is whether in all the circumstances it is reasonable for one party to insist there has been no surrender.

Confusion arises because the terms are not set out clearly.

[Bungleboy]

It is irrelevant in terms of your liability to the LL whether the LL has a claim against the agent or not.

Our liability to the LL is what is bothering me as I am now in doubt of where we stand. I have started a new thread and your contribution to the discussion would be very much appreciated: here Thanks

[Bungleboy]

Thanks for your responses.

The evidence we have for the LL releasing us from our contract is a telephone call from the letting agent (recoreded by the letting agent) saying that the LL agrees to release us. A seperate email from the LL confirming our departure and wishing us well and thanking us for being good tenants. We also have emails from the letting agent stipulating how much we need to pay them and to the landlord i.e paying rent up until the 19th April when the new tenants were to move in. There was also a phone call from the estate agent(recorded by the estate agent - and we have this in writing that all pone calls are recorded by them), confirming when the checkout company would come to do the checkout.

There were no terms and conditions set out based upon this early release and certainly no mention of what are liability would be if the new tenants would cancel.

Also, the letting agent has kept the holding deposit from the new tenants that have cancelled - Does this not imply that they have taken a sum of rent from these tenants and therefore, is further evidence of our release from the contract as the LL cannot accept rent from two parties for the same property? Surely the LL or letting Agent is not entitled to keep this money if it is we who are still liable to be paying rent - the fact that they have kept it is an admittance that we are no longer liable to the LL?

[Lawcruncher]

The evidence we have etc

What you have added confirms my opinion that there has been a surrender by operation of law.

[Snorkerz]

What you have added confirms my opinion that there has been a surrender by operation of law.

Despite my initial concerns, I agree.

[mariner]

LA holding dep from prospective Ts does not mean rent for Tenancy. If prospects withdrew, it is their penalty for doing so and may yet have to be returned. Now proof of an AST, signed by prospects, would def indicate LLs acceptance of OPs surrender IMO

[Bungleboy]

LA holding dep from prospective Ts does not mean rent for Tenancy. If prospects withdrew, it is their penalty for doing so and may yet have to be returned. Now proof of an AST, signed by prospects, would def indicate LLs acceptance of OPs surrender IMO

But not before they would have signed an AST? Surely, accepting a deposit from the prospective tenants is further evidence that they accept our surrender of the lease?