Changes to our Tenancy Agreement

Shawz wrote: »

We have been served a section 21 notice as normal to end the current tenancy agreement but, they are now asking if we would like to allow the agreement to continue on a month by month basis which is known as a Statutory Periodic Tenancy.

Can anyone explain how this is better or worse then the way we did it previously. Would it affect the notice period they could give us to leave or could they suddenly say they would be putting the rent up next month.

Staying on a periodic tenancy with the S21 in place is a really bad idea. The S21 was your notice and it remains in force once you go onto a periodic tenancy.

Therefore unless the S21 is invalidated or withdrawn the landlord/agent can just ask you to leave at any time without giving you any further notice as the S21 was your notice. Likewise you can leave at any time without giving notice.

In order to preserve your rights to notice you really need the S21 withdrawn in writing so you have proof you were given permission to stay.

Was their asking if you would like to stay on a periodic tenancy done in writing? If so this should invalidate the notice so keep it as proof. But to avoid any disagreements later it really is best if the agent withdraws the S21 notice in writing.

If the S21 is withdrawn then when the landlord wants you to leave he needs to serve two months notice ending at the end of a period. You need to serve one months notice ending at the end of a period.

clutton wrote: »

if you are in periodic - the landlord can give you two months notice at any time. if you are on a new AST he can only give you two months notice to end at the end of the period in the AST - normally 6 months. He may not want to issue you with a new AST as he will then have to put your deposit in the new tenancy deposit scheme - if you go onto periodic - he does not.

I suspect you are right that the landlord wants to avoid putting the deposit in the deposit protection scheme. But you are forgetting that the S21 notice has already been issued so Shawz now needs written proof he's been given permission to stay. Otherwise he's lost his right to notice and can just be asked to leave, the so called Sword of Damocles, (as you know). See my sig more more.

clutton wrote: »

yes, i do issue section 21s as part of my tenancy agreement, and i know you dont like that idea. All my tenants have been with me for a long time, and they know that they have a home for life as long as they dont mess me about - i'm in this business for the long haul.

But, on the rare occasion when you do need to get a "tenant-gone-bad" out - it does make it easier to have served a Section 21. One of my landlord's tenants, who started to act very unsociably, soon stopped when i explained the full implications of the Section 21 - she did not realise how quickly i could have had her out had i chosen to do so.

The only tenant i ever had to verbally persuade to leave (rather than me take her to court) was causing so much mayhem and noise in the street, that the local community would have been outraged had i had to wait another two months before issuing proceedings.

i think you have to take each situation individually.

Yes, but in this case Shawz has specifically asked if it affects the notice period they could give him to leave so deserved the full explanation.

As a landlord you know how you will make use of this but we don't know how Shawz's landlord will, and neither does Shawz. We do know that his landlord wants to change from issuing renewals to a periodic tenancy. That could be for any reason, the landlord may be thinking of selling given the recent interest rate rises. He could be wanting to avoid the tenancy deposit scheme which doesn't bode well. It could be both!

Shawz must be a good tenant to have been there for the past four years and so I would expect the landlord should restore his right to notice by withdrawing the S21. If he does not then I'd be very concerned about staying on. At the very least given Shawz may have to live without notice I think we should let him know that.

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

The only valid reasons for your LL to be doing this are that he either wants to avoid the TDS (maybe he is a tax cheat), or he is thinking that he might want the house back within less than 6 months.

I make it a rule to treat people how I would like to be treated. I would never serve an S21 unless I wanted to end the tenancy. That is, after all, how the S21 was intended to be used. I rarely like loopholes.

I suggest you ask for a 12 month AST as normal but if refused, accept the current offer and look for somewhere new, giving the LL a month's notice as required.



GG

Gorgeous George,

It's good there are landlords like you out there. I agree with all you say except the very last bit.

Once the landlord has served an S21 and the fixed term has ended the tenant does not have to give notice. In Shawz's case it sounds like the S21 notice expired at the end if the fixed term. Unless anything is done to withdraw (or invalidate) the S21 then:

1. The landlord can start proceedings for possession at any time.

2. The tenant can leave at any time. (Making sure the keys are property handed back so the LL knows the tenant has gone).

This state of affairs carries on indefinitely. There is no time limit by which the S21 has to be actioned.

Therefore a month's notice is NOT required from the tenant.

PS I hope you like my sig, I nicked some of it from one of your posts

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I think that as soon as the tenant stays 1 day into a new month and assuming the landlord takes no action to evict, the S21 is void. If the LL accepts a rent payment, then the tenant is on a periodic tenancy and is required to give a month's notice. Equally, the LL must serve a new S21 and give two months' notice.

There is no time limit in how long the landlord has to take action to evict. The S21 notice remains valid indefinitely and indeed has been successfully used even after a couple of years.

The landlord can go on accepting rent, it makes no difference. If he is worried he can just call the payments mesne profits but that isn't necessary.

Think of it like this, if the tenant doesn't leave when the S21 notice expires then the landlord can start court proceedings for possession. Now with your suggestion he would have no time to do that, the S21 would expire one day and be useless the next as that's when the standing order delivers the money into his account. When does he apply for possession? Clearly the landlord needs some time to do that. It so happens there is no limit to how long he has, the landlord can apply to court for possession at any time, weeks, months or years later.

The tenant can leave as he is complying with the landlord's request for him to do so. If the tenant doesn't leave and it goes to court then the courts won't give the tenant a months notice or wait for a rent day for possession. Should bailiffs be needed they won't either. Everyone just wants the tenant to leave, so in leaving the tenant is doing the right thing.

The abuse comes in landlords issuing notice when they don't actually want the property back, the Sword of Damocles. That way the tenant doesn't know if the notice is meant or not and so doesn't know if they should use the notice period to arrange moving.

Just think how it works when the landlord wants the tenant to leave. The fact that with the Sword of Damocles the landlord doesn't want the tenant to leave makes no difference whatsoever as this is NOT reflected in the paperwork. The paperwork looks the same and works the same regardless. The only difference is that with the Sword of Damocles the landlord may not action the S21 for a while, the tenant has no idea when it will be actioned, but that doesn't change the fact that the tenant can and should leave although it may take a while too

In issuing the S21 and yet saying the tenant can stay it's misleading the tenant as to what the S21 actually means. Many tenants don't realise the notice remains in force after the fixed terms ends and that they are now living with no rights to notice. Clutton explains more about this above, the tenant did not not realise how quickly Clottie could have had her out. But really the S21 should be invalid as soon as the landlord says the tenant can (even conditionally) stay but as it isn't written down the tenant has no proof of that.

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

That is how I interpret the rules but I accept that I could be wrong. If I am (wrong), I shouldn't be and the law is an a s s.

You are wrong

The law is an a s s. But the powers that be have noticed the Sword of Damocles and are thinking of putting a time limit on the lanlord's actioning the S21. They say the landlord should use it or lose it. Course that won't be any time soon, if ever.