I dont get the last bit? from what I could undesrtand the op rented a place = paid up front - didnt like it and left early - ok - their perrogative. But then when the landlord re let it during the time the op had paid for , the op wanted his share of the money back at the landlord was in effect getting double dibs ?? yes? Not that he should neccesarily be entitled to getting some money as he broke the tenancy . . .but thats a different argument . . .

So why e=would he want to give some of his winnings back to the new tenant?
sorry I may just be being dense!

The OP broke the lease and, in law, is liable to pay the landlord the amount the landlord would have received had the lease been carried to its conclusion. Let's call that $1000. Had the landlord taken no action, this is the amount the OP would be obliged to pay (yes, I know that is simplistic and there is more to it than that but for present purposes...)

Landlord is under a duty to mitigate his loss and so must limit his damages (the $1000) by ensuring that the property is leased. Let's say he managed to lease it for 50% of the time left and was paid $500 by the new tenant. His claim is now $1000 - $500 or $500.

Don't forget, the OP is still liable for the full $1000 - always was and always will be.

Now, if the landlord had not been able to lease, the OP would have paid $1000 to the landlord.

So the OP has benefitted from the landlord's actions and, in the above example, has achieved a benefit of $500 for doing nothing and breaching an agreement. One would think that it the OP wished to adopt the moral high ground, they would split their windfall with the new tenant who, after all, is responsible for them obtaining a windfall - yes or no

At the end of the day, the landlord has received what he was always due to receive, the new tenant has paid rent as s/he agreed. The OP is the one that hasn't lived up to their obligations and has come out "in the money" largely due to the work of the landlord and the new tenant.

If you were this landlord, would you risk leasing your property to a newly arrived immigrant with a British accent in the future? I know I wouldn't but then, if I had double dipped, I would refund the excess to someone. However, looking at the way the OP has acted on this thread, I don't know if I can confidently say who the baddie in this story is.

Yup - can see that

I can also see why the op may say - ok, well if you re let for the bit that we were meant to have rented for could we have a partial refund, but yes, obv the landlord doesnt have to give it to them.

I am still chasing our original landlord down as he never paid us back our deposit - little sh+t!

In Calgary, most landlords treat the security deposit as an extra month of rent. They invariably find something wrong that swallows it and keep it. It happens on such a scale (and unfortunately, the courts don't hammer them enough when there is evidence to show this) that it is almost criminal.

I do a large amount of landlord/tenant work. Acting for both sides of the argument. I regularly tell clients (tenants) that, while they shouldn't do this as it is a breach of the terms of the lease and may get them evicted, if they are concerned about recovering the security deposit from the landlord they may choose to not pay rent for the last month and leave the landlord to take what action they feel is appropriate.

By the time the landlord has served them with a notice to terminate for non payment of rent (14 days notice is required) and has waited the minimum amount of time necessary before getting to a court hearing (min 3 days likely more) and the fact that most judges will give a tenant 14 days to leave, they may be better off taking their chances with the landlord.

Trouble is, if I could trust landlords I would never suggest this as the danger is that the judge agrees with the landlord, makes an order for the payment of rent and, on the assumption that the landlord will do the decent thing, will not allow the tenant to offset this against the security deposit held.

I wandered lonely as a cloud...

Obviously I wasn't in San Diego in July....

Oh our place was spotless - he gave us (well my husband) 3 post dated cheques as he didint have all the money available - uh hello warning bells - all 3 bounced - he has gone to ground!!

His comment would have set off alarm bells. In Alberta, the landlord must pay the security deposit into a separate interest bearing account and my pay that interest to the tenant. The excuse of "no funds available" can't cut it. The funds must be there.

What a bastard

I think the same applies here - but stress of moving day and my hubby being a softie, and me not being there - sneaky git got away with it -!! I have 5 yrs under bc tenancy law to find him and serve notice on him - I found him the other day advertising a van for sale on craigslist!! he may get a visit soon . . . .

Well you should get a big Canadian friend (one built like a brick shithouse) to call him up and then the two of you go and see this van (but you stay in your car until he comes outside) then jump put, he'll recognise you and then your big friend can make him sign over the van as payment

am in the process of arranging such a visit - I have been emailing the donut under a diff email . . .

proper sarf Landan

Givin it large!

A few years ago I lived in a rented house with a group of friends (picture the young ones). Anyway, one day, the landlord brought her bruiser of a boyfriend over to give us our marching orders. We asked about our deposit, and he told us in no uncertain terms that we were having a laugh. Up to this point we had been pretty good tenants, always paying the rent on time etc. But having been threatened we decided to leave that very night. No forwarding address, and we took the fridge and the microwave with us in lieu of our deposit. Always feels good to get one over on a bully.

I agree

I will refrain from replying to this obvious innuendo, by replying.