Tenancy Renewal

Incisor

Notlob wrote: »

But it is not the only reasons why agents want to extend. It is also in the landlord's best interest.

Why? It just puts the uncertainty of a tenancy void to a specific point, 6 months in advance without eliminating it. It puts tenants under pressure to commit for 6 months which they don't want.

I have been renting for 16 months - ie into a 3rd AST - except I am still on the first AST and have gone periodic. Land lord has actually avoided forcing me into rethinking the tenancy at 2 6 month intervals. I get the flexibility of going with 1 month, but what does the Landlord lose? He has gained a tenant who is laid back about staying on and he has gained continuity.

Notlob

One can agree longer term tenancies and they could include a break clause, so the idea of forcing tenants to rethink their tenancy is not a big issue.

I get the flexibility of going with 1 month, but what does the Landlord lose

A greater chance of a void period for a start. If agreement states tenants are required to give two months notice then LL has more time to market the property, thereby either potentially reducing the void period and/or a greater chance of achieving a higher rent as they are under less pressure. Also, LL notice requirement is such that notice to tenant can a day shy of 3 months. Seems unfair that tenant can only give 1 months notice. Also, LL lose control as tenants can just leave at the end of the initial fixed term without warning, again impacting on void period. Procedures for renewing the tenancy can avoid this pitfall.

Notlob

Incisor

Notlob wrote: »

One can agree longer term tenancies and they could include a break clause, so the idea of forcing tenants to rethink their tenancy is not a big issue.

Agree. Except this thread arises from an OP who says "I got my tenancy renewal today and its exactly the same as it was when we first moved in, no changes or anything. A scandolous charge of £58 for paper work to be drawn up etc." The OP is not complaining about agreements along the lines you suggest - it is about a charge of £58 for a renewal agreement which adds no value for Landlord or Tenant, just restricting the freedoms of both parties to terminate but lining the Agents pockets. In fact you could argue that by doing a new AST, it increases the options for the tenant to walk away at the end of the AST with no notice.

A greater chance of a void period for a start. If agreement states tenants are required to give two months notice then LL has more time to market the property, thereby either potentially reducing the void period and/or a greater chance of achieving a higher rent as they are under less pressure. Also, LL notice requirement is such that notice to tenant can a day shy of 3 months. Seems unfair that tenant can only give 1 months notice. Also, LL lose control as tenants can just leave at the end of the initial fixed term without warning, again impacting on void period. Procedures for renewing the tenancy can avoid this pitfall.

The problem you describe is shortcomings with ASTs. Making a tenant take out a new AST and pay £58 does not help.

poppysarah

Notlob wrote: »

A greater chance of a void period for a start. If agreement states tenants are required to give two months notice /quote]

If you can't market a property in two months then either the rent is too high or there's no one wanting to rent.

Notlob

poppysarah wrote: »

If you can't market a property in two months then either the rent is too high or there's no one wanting to rent.

I am confident that the sausages I have just eaten weren't infected with BSE, so there must be another reason why I do not understand this comment?

Noblot

Notlob

Incisor wrote: »

Agree. Except this thread arises from an OP who says "I got my tenancy renewal today and its exactly the same as it was when we first moved in, no changes or anything. A scandolous charge of £58 for paper work to be drawn up etc." The OP is not complaining about agreements along the lines you suggest - it is about a charge of £58 for a renewal agreement which adds no value for Landlord or Tenant, just restricting the freedoms of both parties to terminate but lining the Agents pockets. In fact you could argue that by doing a new AST, it increases the options for the tenant to walk away at the end of the AST with no notice.

I can only refer back to previous comments where I believe value does exist, primarily to the LL but also to the tenant. OP might like the idea of another fixed term provided security for however long the term is for.

In fact the OP made an observation about the charge, but the question really related to how to negotiate the rent and what impact it would have. Do you think we helped answer that for her?

Incisor wrote: »

The problem you describe is shortcomings with ASTs. Making a tenant take out a new AST and pay £58 does not help.

I accept charges can be an issue, but in the scheme of things it is not a large amount and are a lot less than moving. So I find tenants do not move due to these charges.

Just a thought, I would question the validity of the charge if there was no warning of such charges prior to commencing the tenancy.

neverdespairgirl

Notlob wrote: »

But it is not the only reasons why agents want to extend. It is also in the landlord's best interest.

Then there is no particular reason why the tenant should be paying!

Notlob

Neverdespairgirl,

I can't argue with you, most of my "Thanks" are from you.

Notlob

ElectricSoup

Hi, we're also have the same problem with a tenancy renewal. Except the letting agents admin charge is £250+ VAT!!! Its in the small print of our AST (okay, so we didn't check it well enough, obviously) that we've signed.

I'm aware that we could get agreement to go onto a periodic tenancy but we were also served with a notice from the landlord (signed by LA on LL behalf) for him to take repossesion the day after the AST expired. The AST expired last week - can anyone shed any light on where we stand legally? Also, is there anything that says that administration charges must be reasonable??!

Any and all advice appreciated.

Thanks!

Incisor

ElectricSoup wrote: »

Hi, we're also have the same problem with a tenancy renewal. Except the letting agents admin charge is £250+ VAT!!! Its in the small print of our AST (okay, so we didn't check it well enough, obviously) that we've signed.

I'm aware that we could get agreement to go onto a periodic tenancy but we were also served with a notice from the landlord (signed by LA on LL behalf) for him to take repossesion the day after the AST expired. The AST expired last week - can anyone shed any light on where we stand legally? Also, is there anything that says that administration charges must be reasonable??!

Any and all advice appreciated.

Thanks!

Admin charges don't have to be reasonable, just let the market decide.

Give LL option of letting tenancy go periodic, or moving on. You may be able to move out just before Christmas, which may give them the headache of a longish void as the reward for a greedy admin fee. I know that this will cost you, but it will recur in this tenancy every 6 months - an extra £40/ month, so you might as well grasp the nettle.