Can I get reimbursement of costs incurred as result of tenant not moving out?

Dear Laura

From what you say it sounds like the Agreements were completed, in which case there is a contract in place. If the landlord cannot provide entry into the property on the appointed date that is a breach of contract. To that end you are entitled to compensation for losses arising from the breach. I suggest you put it in those terms to both the landlord and the agent to make sure they know you are seeking damages.

If the Agreements have not actually completed then your case will be weaker, although you have the moral case and the fact that money has been paid over (which should be returned without any delay).

Graham

I see you posted the property address.

I now know your landlord's and his wife's full names, occupations, place of work, home address, dates of birth, various family members names, the price they paid for both the property you were to move in to and that of his own home (as well as the lender on each). I have a photograph of him and his wife, the school he attended, his previous employment, his main hobby, limited company name, number and his company position. I know his home telephone number, alma mater and degree information and I also know he went to see the Olympics in Rio last year, the date he got married, his place of birth, parents names and a copy of his latest accounts filed with HMRC.

It took me less than three minutes to find all that from a partial address. I am not a spy. I am not a detective. I am not particularly computer literate.

Be careful what you post.

Having said all that I believe you should not be out-of-pocket.

I am no solicitor but think i'm right in suggesting that a defence to a contract being unfulfilled is that it would be impossible without being unlawfull. (Clearly it would be unlawfull to turf the original tenant out to allow mew one in).

My Agreements start with the following clause:

IMPORTANT: This tenancy agreement is a binding document. However, if there is an existing tenant in the property at the time this agreement is signed (i.e. if there will be a change of tenant at the start of The Term as defined in 1.1.4), then this agreement is subject to vacant possession being provided by that tenant (or tenants if there is more than one). If the tenant refuses to move out, then this agreement will not take effect.

Laura, what is your name, address, place of work, birth date and what exactly do you look like?

Sounds inappropriate, almost discomforting doesn't it?

What is your real motivation for concocting a story to enable you to make such information available whilst hiding the same information about yourself?

I would assume that you have also saved money by not having to pay for a place you are not living in whilst you are still in Dubai, so you may not be out of pocket, but the reverse.

Also, you know that it is not the landlord's fault, but the tenant's who won't move out. Personally, I would not try not to sue someone for something that isn't their fault and is out of their control (there may be exceptions to this, but I wouldn't break this rule for hundreds of pounds).

Reply to the comment left by "Ian Cognito" at "26/05/2017 - 15:15":

This has to be an unfair term, and in contradiction to the main term of the contract, IMO.

I don't think that you can on the one hand have a contract to let a property starting on a given date, and on the other hand in effect state that you are not obliged to deliver possession on that date.

Hi Laura, before you communicate further to your landlord or his agent may I suggest you discuss this with a solicitor who is conversant with letting properties under an AST. It not unusual to have a tenant contracted to move in asap at the end of a current tenancy and I cannot believe this situation is unusual, it is very easy for an existing tenant to change their plans at no fault of the landlord or agent. Having said that I have not experienced such a problem myself but am very interested in how your situation is resolved. Thanks.

The general advice is that Laura needs to pursue the letting agent/landlord for breach of contract, with a refund of monies paid over and compensation for losses incurred, perhaps seeking legal advice quickly.

Picking up on other people's comments, I think that the clause about not being able to deliver the tenancy contract would be an unfair contract term and unenforceable. It begs the question as to why any tenant would sign up to such a clause; surely they are committing to take a property and in many cases will be incurring significant costs (and I must mention the expectation of moving house, education, employment, etc.).

In our firm we take great care not to complete any agreement where we have a tenant still in residence. Even with the best tenants we have, they may be let down at the last minute and unable to move (perhaps their ongoing tenancy has failed!). Whilst we would expect them to honour the agreed vacation date we cannot quickly enforce it.

Where we are letting a house which already has tenants in situ we would make the incoming tenants aware of the situation and, as I say, would not complete with them. Where tenants are moving perhaps from abroad or a long distance it may be that they look elsewhere - but that's a discussion we have to have with all concerned. It would be unwise for a landlord (or their agent) to contract for a tenancy that they cannot guarantee to deliver. The landlord may have to accept an empty property for a while, but at least it avoids problems like this.

There is no magic answer.

Graham

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "28/05/2017 - 08:47":

"Also, you know that it is not the landlord’s fault, but the tenant’s who won’t move out. Personally, I would not try not to sue someone for something that isn’t their fault and is out of their control (there may be exceptions to this, but I wouldn’t break this rule for hundreds of pounds)."

It is entirely the landlord's fault for agreeing to something he was unable to deliver.

Any landlord that lets a property before he has possession is (in my opinion) an idiot.
Prospective tenant should not be out of pocket because of landlord's stupidity.