Can private LL use Assured tenancy agreement ?

hotpot1000

I can only find reference about the private rental sector using AST's.
As a private LL I cannot find any info that prohibits me offering an Assured Tenancy, as I am offering the property on a long term let if needed.

I would have full control over the deposit, and not some scheme which takes weeks to hand back the money to the tenant who needs it for the next property when I could have handed it back on the day they leave if all in order.

Anyone know any different please?

speedtwin

There is nothing to stop you using one it is your choice but you wont ever be able to use a section 21.

PasturesNew

You should use an AST. After the initial 6 month (or 12 month) AST, if your tenant wants to stay on, you can either get them to keep signing a new one every so often, or (best probably) just get them to sign nothing more and they automatically move onto a Rolling Agreement where the same terms/conditions apply and they have to give you one month's notice (from a rent day) and you have to give them TWO month's notice (from a rent day) [in writing].

Without an AST you will have the devil's problem getting them out if there's a problem. So use an AST.

You cannot have control of their deposit. It is a legal requirement that you put the deposit into one of the schemes. The schemes were put in place to protect tenants from landlords theiving the deposits (especially these days with repossessions). It is not a choice, it MUST be in a scheme. It doesn't take weeks to get the deposit back from a scheme, it just needs your signature.

Do it properly, or don't do it at all. But you must use an AST and you must put the money into a scheme.

Do you know how to evict a tenant who doesn't pay? Do you know all your rights and obligations? Do you know what to do if a tenant trashes the place? What if they move their partner in, their partner gets pregnant, then the original tenant leaves? Never underestimate the ability of 1% of tenants to do something you totally didn't expect!

Good luck.

speedtwin

If the L/L uses a sat and not a ast he does not need to put the deposit in a scheme but as said earlier he loses the right to use a s21.

N79

PasturesNew wrote: »

You should use an AST.

...

But you must use an AST and you must put the money into a scheme.

Just to muddy the waters a bit there is no requirement to use an AST. For some tenancies you can not use an AST (eg Rent over 25000 a year, can only have 4 Ts on an AST etc). A fair few of my Ts are not on ASTs.

However, not using an AST because you do not want to use the DPS for a Ts deposit is stupidity. If you hate the DPS so much just don't take a deposit - take out insurance instead.

silvercar

If you intend mortgaging the property, the lender will not be happy for you to use a AT rather than AST.

nobblyned

Sounds like a good way forward if your intent is to seriously devalue your property!

hotpot1000

Thanks very much for all your posts, I do not have a mortgage on the property and there are grounds for possession on AT under sched 2 of the housing act 1988.

Even with an AST and tenants who wanted to leave a colleague's let property,(with proper notice served by the LL) the local council told the LL that the tenants would have to stay put if they had nowhere else to go, therefore the notice was worthless.

I have never had to use s21, and my house hasn't been devalued or trashed.
I trust my own judgement.
best wishes to you all