Just received a utility bill for our old place that we moved out of in mid September from the landlord, whom we returned the keys to on that date. He is maintaining that we are responsible for the all utility bills until our lease officially ends in March 2011 (assuming he does not find another tenant).

Is is talking out of his ahole? Note we did find another tenant, he messed them around and they went elsewhere. We found another, and another... eventually he agreed we could leave, only now it seems he is trying to move the goal posts...

Are you still paying the rent there? If not, I'd count myself extremely fortunate to get away with having to pay only for the utilities (which, for an unoccupied dwelling, can't be much, especially if you turned the heating off before you left).

Unfortunately, the landlord has total discretion with regard to accepting new tenants when a lease is broken.

No, the landlord agreed we did not need to pay the rent beyond September 2010.

In writing?

Yes and No. We have some formal papers relating the the handing back of the property. Nothing that says he releases us from our obligation to pay the rent, simply his word... (given to a third party, who told us).

Ugghhh.

Tough situation. As I said, assuming you have a formal lease to 31 March 2011, or your first available termination date is 31 March 2011, then legally you are obliged to pay all costs (rent + "nebenkosten" (utilities etc)) until that date or until a new lease is signed with the next tenant, whichever occurs first.

If the landlord has not been pressing you to pay rent since you moved out, and if everyone is clear that you're not expected to pay rent, then great -- and I would pay his utilities bills until March 2011, thanking my lucky stars etc. But there's the chance that if you do pay the utilities bills and the landlord then decides to go after you for the unpaid rent, as well, then you haven't got a leg to stand on.

But then again, if you don't agree to pay for the utilities, the landlord might decide to renege on the verbal agreement anyway.

On balance, I would cough up for the utilities and hope the buck (or franc) stops there.

Good luck!

Wait a minute to clear about this. We presented him with another tenant, completing the formal paperwork to do so, which was the basis on which he released us from paying the rent.

At least one of those tenants agreed to take the place from the 1st October 2010.

I think I would get in touch with the Mieterverband. The Utilities could add up to quite a sum, irrespective of whether you are actually using the 'services' or not.

But the landlord didn't accept that tenant, right? It's his prerogative to refuse any and all succeeding tenants, if he so wishes. It's odd, though, that he released you from your rental payment obligations without signing a new tenant -- or have I misunderstood something?

No it isn't his right to refuse any and all succeeding tenants. He must have justification for doing so.

How do you sublet???

In that case, IF the landlord turned down a suitable tenant offered by the OP without reasonable grounds for doing so, I'd say the OP is off the hook for the rent, utilities and any other costs.

Right, Snoopy?

It may be wise though, markalex, to get the landlord to confirm that there were no resonable grounds for refusing the tenants you presented to him. And there you may encounter difficulties, but I hope not.

As long as the landlord agreed and there's handover papers, you're clear....he have no right to charge for utilities that you didn't use unless he have a paper from you saying so, you pay for what you get and you're getting nothing from him so you don't pay to him.

With hindsight everything is easier. I think the main sticking point here is that there is no paper saying that markalex is off the hook (And a note to anyone else: ALWAYS get that in writing).

It's not been that long that Markalex moved out, so the landlord could say that he was being patient in going after him for the outstanding rent.

But, I would write him a letter and say that as he had informed you that you are no longer liable for the rent, you are no longer liable for the utilities. If he gets stroppy threaten him with a hearing at the mediation board (Schlichtungsbehörde). This might get him to focus and he may decide it is not worth his while. If he calls your bluff (which it isn't), then go to the mediation board. You would really have nothing to lose.

The real sticky patch really is the fact that you have nothing in writing to say that you are no longer liable and that it wasn't actually him that told you but a third party. That leaves him a hell of a lot of wriggle room to say that it was all a misunderstanding, that the potential tenant you proposed pull out (he wasn't rejected) and that you are indeed still liable for the rent. It's all a lot of "I said - he said" but with nothing in writing it could go either way.

One idea may be to get him to confirm in writing that you are no longer liable for the rent, without even mentioning the utilities, i.e.please confirm in writing the message given to me by X that I am no longer liable for the rent". If he does then you are home free. If he doesn't and he decides he wants the rent too, then the mediation may be the only way to go.

Not that simple from my perspective.

What Longbyte said. Best 60 odd CHF you'll ever spend.

Incorrect. If the tenants present the landord with at least one suitable "nachmieter" - replacement tenant - to allow the current tenant to lave before the end of the lease, even if the landlord rejects the proposed tenant(s) the existing tenant is entitled to terminate the lease early.,

To the OP: please search the EF as I posted about this once before with a link to the mieterverband website - or look up "nachmieter" on the mieterverband website. Also, seek proper advice fom your local mieterverband instead of the armchair lawyers on here.

Cheers,
Nick