Property manager said my rent was 1/3rd of the usual for an extra 11 days, now says it&#39;s full amount As many others, I'm in a leasing pickle, and would like to better know my options. I recently rented an apartment in Seattle for a 3-month stay (Jun 1st - Aug 31st), for $1190 monthly. On July 29th, more than 30 days before my original move-out date, I asked if I could extend my lease for an extra 9 days, since that's when my flight home was and it was more comfortable. Of course, I asked the corresponding rent, and the &quot;property manager&quot; (not the owner, whom I've never dealt with) told me it was $357 (*1). That worked for me, so we decided to go forward (all of this via email with the property manager of the place I was at). My contract required only a 20 days notice to move out or make changes, so everything seemed to be alright. I moved out successfully on Sept 10th and left the place in a pristine condition. I had rented furniture which were picked up on the 11th. About 2 days ago, after sending an email asking when my deposit refund would be mailed to me, the manager said this: So I spoke with my manager and she told me, under no circumstances do we prorate for move out. I'm so sorry, I didn't know we didn't do that. It hadn't come up before. Because of this you still have part of your rent due. We can keep your deposit as part of your payment, but your deposit wasnt very high so you will still have rent due. I will get the totals and let you know. Needless to say, I am a pissed. I do not intend to pay this extra rent (which is a significant amount) since we had agreed in writing (*2) about the new rent. I also would very much like my deposit back. My first instinct is to say exactly that, and that I will seek legal help if they do not comply. It is not my issue that the manager didn't know this, or that my manager's manager hadn't communicated it to her. Should I? Is this a lost cause? Will I be in a world of pain to get my money? I am not living in the US anymore, so I couldn't meet in person with either them or a judge/attorney. A few more details: I payed monthly via an ACH recurring debit form, filling one for each month and choosing one-time payments, so I don't think they can just take the extra rent without my consent. I imagine not paying would hurt my credit score. I do not necessarily care about it deeply, as I am not US based (but I might live there again temporarily). The deposit is $298. The email history with the manager is a bit messy, but I could transcribe and post it here. It was basically me asking questions and getting 1-line answers. The most relevant bit on July 29th, almost unedited is: Me: &quot;Say I wanted to move out on Sept 9th, what would be the rent for September in that case? Is it a full month?&quot; Manager: &quot;Yes because I didn't get [20 days] notice. You would have to pay for the whole month.&quot; Me: &quot;But that's around 40 days from now..? In any case, moving out on Aug 31 as the lease says would be fine by me!&quot; Manager: &quot;I am so sorry your right I was thinking August 9th. The rent for September would be. $357.&quot; Adding to my anger is the fact that 1) the apartment was an absolute dump when I got there (filth, food in sink/oven, broken shower, ...) which I had to deal with (and got offered a $100 rent refund for, which I took) and 2) my contract specified a first-month's rent of about 50%, and when I realized I had paid more than that she replied &quot;it appears I got the numbers wrong on your lease [...] that was for another unit&quot;. At the moment I took it as an honest mistake. (*1) We later agreed that I would stay an extra 11 days instead, but she did not update this amount. I guess I should pay the extra two days, I seem to have missed that. (*2) At least I hope emails count as &quot;in writing&quot;.
Unless your lease clearly denies the possibility of prorating, the emails are binding (and yes, emails count as in writing). The landlord ought to honor the conditions outlined in the emails, and it is not your fault that the manager was ignorant about his or her employer's/landlord's policies at the time the manager computed the prorated amount. Additionally, if the lease only speaks in terms of 20-day notice, then it implies that prorating may apply. It is possible that the lease contains language in the sense of when the notice becomes "effective". If so, that would require a more detailed review of the language therein, since even in that scenario you might prevail on the basis of the doctrine of contra proferentem. Here the difficult part seems to be that you are not in the US. Because the amount at issue is not high enough, the grievance/complaint would have to be filed in Small Claims court. And, as far as I know, the parties cannot be represented by a lawyer in Small Claims court. You might have to file your grievance once you are back in the US.
If the landlord has a right to charge a late fee (and that late fee is not a penalty) then that right accrues from the instant that the rent is late i.e. any time after 5:00:00 pm precisely if that is the time stated in the lease. If only a day is stated then it would be midnight. For case law on the penalty doctrine see PACIOCCO &amp; ANOR v AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED [2016] HCA 28 which involved a challenge to a bank charging late payment fees on credit cards.
he is jointly liable for the remaining 3 months, even though he never signed anything. Is this true? That seems unlikely. The lease is between Adam and the landlord. Although the lease might have language making all tenants jointly and severally liable, it would affect Bob only if it can be proved that he was aware of those terms when he moved in. Your description does not elaborate on any agreement(s) between Adam and Bob. But Adam is not allowed to impose on Bob any obligations merely because relations between them broke down. Absent a contract between Adam and Bob, the question of whether Adam is entitled to any recovery from Bob could only be assessed on equitable grounds.
The issue is not enforceability per se, it is the problem of proving what you agreed to. If the landlord adds conditions that are against your interest, he would need to show that you agreed to those conditions: if you add conditions against his interest, you'd have to likewise prove agreement. Since you both have copies of the agreement, it's a matter of comparison to see if the documents are the same. Rather than voiding the earlier agreement and rewriting everything, the change can be initialed. If you were to cross out the rent and insert a lower figure, you would need proof that he agreed to this (hence, his initials on your copy). In your case, the change is apparently in your interest rather than his, so there's no realistic way that this could become an issue (that I can think of: maybe there's a clause that has to do with the move-in date and moving in early actually works against your interest, in which case he would need to prove that you agreed. The fact of moving in early is sufficient proof of agreement).
The tenant wouldn't be involved in this at all. The tenant rents from the landlord, and the landlord gives them an account number where the tenant sends the money every month. How would the tenant be involved with you? Actually, if I was the tenant and I was told to pay the rent to some third party, that would be the reddest of all red flags to me. As a landlord, you buy insurance that covers exactly that situation. It's called &quot;rent guarantee insurance&quot;. It's cheaper, and the insurance company doesn't pay enormous sums up front.
I’m asking if I can sue for lost wages because it’s taking time out of my day No, that would be a frivolous claim. You did not specify how much time and effort the walk takes you on a daily basis, but it is extremely doubtful that you could viably claim lost wages. Suing the landlord for this would put you at high risk of being ordered to pay his attorney fees, which surely will exceed that fictitious loss. The allegation &quot;I'm losing work because I’m an independent contractor&quot; is untenable and makes no sense. By that token, a full-time employee typically is more constrained (for instance, in terms of schedule) than an independent contractor. It is also questionable that the time you spend walking back and forth when leaving your apartment is comparable to the time it takes you to do your job or get more clients. Depending on your location, the landlord would defeat your claim also on grounds that you could --and unjustifiably decline to-- take the bus or seek other arrangements if the issue truly were causing you provable losses. It is also very unlikely that the continued failure to recognize your motorcycle would support a claim of breach of contract, since the terms of a lease hardly ever address that kind of minor details. The only circumstance whereby you would have a viable claim is if you were handicapped, but your description nowhere reflects that that is the case. Even in that scenario, the nature of your claim would be other than &quot;lost wages&quot; and mostly would warrant injunctive relief.
I have read that Assured Shorthold Tenancies of less than 6 months are allowed, but you are not allowed to evict a tenant before 6 months. That applies only to section 21 (&quot;no fault&quot;) evictions. Specifically, according to section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, a notice can't be served in the first 4 months of a tenancy (section 21(4B)), and can't take effect in the first 6 months (section 21(5)). Section 8 evictions, which require one or more of the reasons listed in Schedule 2 of the Act, do not have this restriction - though only some of them can be used during the fixed term part of the tenancy, and they must be listed in the tenancy agreement in order to be used in that way. Will I have to wait until he has actually left before I can arrange an AST with new tenants? Yes, but that's always true. It's very unwise for a new tenancy agreement to be signed until the previous tenants have moved out, because if they don't leave before the new agreement takes effect, the landlord is now committed to finding accommodation for the new tenants. This is why tenancy agreements are often only signed on the first day of the tenancy.
Of course she is living with you. Clothes, toothbrush, cooking and eating, sleeping, I suppose breakfast as well, that's living with you. And it's not illegal, but it is apparently in breach of your leasing contract. I'd study your contract carefully to see what the consequences are if she is living for you for more than 14 days.