Is the tenant liable for the last months rent?

Romain,

Do you think it is contrary to what I said or what Mark said?

Reply to the comment left by "Ian Ringrose" at "08/12/2014 - 18:20":

Sorry, I meant that I think it should be the opposite of "there have been cases when the court decide that the landlord does not have to seek a new tenant".
As the legal position (as I understand it) is that the landlord does NOT have to seek a new tenant (since he does not have to accept an offer to surrender), that should be the default ruling IMHO.

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "08/12/2014 - 18:33":

hi romain,
you are clearly an expert and i can see the logic in what you are saying. however i always though that there is a general obligation that parties must mitigate their loss? if so does that not apply where there has been a clear cut breach of contract?

Reply to the comment left by "Joe Bloggs" at "09/12/2014 - 00:53":

Hi Joe,

I can't say that I am an expert, however this is an issue that is rather common and well described in many reliable sources, including case law, as far as I can tell.

My understanding is:

If there is just a contract, e.g. before move in day, and the prospective tenant decides not to move in then there is a breach of contract and the landlord must mitigate his loss.

However, when a tenancy exists the legal position is clear as to the possible ways to end it.
In a fixed term tenancy there is no notice to quit and the tenant may only offer to surrender the tenancy (leaving aside break clauses). I think that the position on this issue is established: The landlord is free to accept or refuse the offer.
If he refuses the offer then the tenancy continues, which means that the rent continues to accrue as per the terms of the tenancy.
Once the rent becomes due, it is a debt (not a loss), which the landlord has no obligation to mitigate.

What happens with the landlords insurance, as the property could be empty for many months? (All insurance I have seen at least require regular inspections of an empty property, but the tenant could refuse these even if they are not living there anymore.)

The same should happen if a tenant is away for more then 30 days at a time on work.

Rex - Yes the tenant is liable. It is a fixed term and neither can end it without the other's permission or agreement. See http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/private_renting/ending_a_tenancy/ending_a_fixed_term_agreement

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "09/12/2014 - 08:23":

thanks romain,

thanks...you are too knowledgeable to be a solicitor (well the ones i know anyway)!

i wonder if the distinction between this and the general presumption is because as you say the rent is a debt rather than a loss (the rule being to mitigate losses rather than to mitigate debts)?

Hi

I would just get on with finding a new tenant glad in the knowledge that the property was not damaged. Never nice but what cant you do.

You could have had a tenant that just left or never paid the rent leaving months out of pocket.

Is it worth the hassle and time.