Refusing Viewings

franklee

madeupname1 wrote: »

Sorry but this is rubbish. If an EA told me a that a tenant had refused to sign up to a new tenancy agreement but wanted to stay on a month to month basis, I would want them to leave too. Running a rental property needs a certain amount of planning and that means knowing what your future income streams will be. What would you prefer - a tenant that had promised to pay you a certain amount for 6 or 12 months by signing a rental agreement or a tenant that only promises to pay you the next months rent (because they want to leave on just one months notice, sometimes at a hugely convenient time (e.g. around christmas) which pretty much guarantees a month to 6 weeks of a void). Being given notice to leave because you have refused to sign up to a new tenancy agreement is not being given notice for no reason.

It's not always around Christmas, the OP's last thread was a few weeks ago. Yet chucking the OP out in May/June will see the next tenant's six months up at Christmas. So better to leave the OP a bit longer to skip that instead of sicking to some rigid ideas.

Going onto a periodic tenancy doesn't necessarily mean the tenant is leaving, I've been on one for a couple of years. I did it as I didn't want to pay renewal fees.

Besides so what if it does mean a tenant may be leaving as if you serve notice he definitely will so you get any voids either way. If a periodic tenancy means to keep the tenant for another few months then over all that's less changes of tenant. If anything a landlord gets more notice as with a periodic tenancy the tenant has to give one months notice ending at the end of a period so that varies between one and two months. Whereas renew for six months and the tenant could leave at the end of the fixed term without giving any notice at all.

Also as we have seen if the landlord serves notice over something as stupid as this then he isn't going to get as much co-operation with viewings as if he let the tenant stay a bit longer on a periodic tenancy and then serve their own notice.

Seems some landlords just can't think things through after all.

franklee

madeupname1 wrote: »

Yes actually, a LL can have to pay a renewal fee to the estate agent. It depends on the terms of the contract which the LL agreed with the Agent. A tenant does not have a right to rent a property on whatever terms s/he likes. If he and the LL can't agree terms, and the LL is legally entitled to issue notice to terminate, why should the LL have to accept what the T chooses to throw at them?

Such emotive terms, asking for a periodic tenancy isn't throwing things. Once a landlord becomes experienced he realises the value of a good reliable tenant and so getting rid of one for trivial reasons isn't good business sense.

In my experience agents charge both landlord and tenant renewal fees, this can range from tens of pounds to several hundred pounds every six months or year so can be significant sums and worth saving.

madeupname1

Ulfar wrote: »

But requiring a tenant to sign a contract every 6 months is fair enough if you pay the costs for this renewal not the tenant as it is your choice to operate this way. You want the security of six months rent then you pay the cost..

Wrong. If I want a tenant to sign a contract every six months and he refuses to do so, I get rid of him and get someone else who will. This is exactly what OP's LL is doing. I fund my the costs I am legally obliged to plus those which I think are reasonable for the sake of good business. I don't fund costs simply because T doesn't want to. BTW - how has T saved money? He now as to look for somewhere else. Unless he is going privately, he will pay EA costs on new place.

PasturesNew

roses wrote: »

If you don't allow viewings, they can sue you for any empty period after you leave which would have been caused by you not allowing viewings.

Just do the viewings. Is it really worth getting this wound up about?

Utter rubbish.
Until the day you move out and the date you've paid the rent to, foremost it's your home.
Stop talking utter twaddle.

PasturesNew

There's a lot of old bunkum on this thread .... did somebody unleash a clutch of amateur landlords this weekend?

Is it a daytrip, in a short bus?

madeupname1

franklee wrote: »

It's not always around Christmas, the OP's last thread was a few weeks ago. Yet chucking the OP out in May/June will see the next tenant's six months up at Christmas. So better to leave the OP a bit longer to skip that instead of sicking to some rigid ideas.

I never said it would always be around christmas, I gave that as an example of how it might come at an inconvenient time. Whats to say the new T will only sign up for 6 months - could be 12 or 8 or 10. Certainly most landlords who have done this over time would want to make sure that an AST does not end just before christmas (unless they want a quiet period to do work on the property).

franklee wrote: »

Going onto a periodic tenancy doesn't necessarily mean the tenant is leaving, I've been on one for a couple of years. I did it as I didn't want to pay renewal fees.

The point is the LL has no idea how long you are or are not staying. A landlord may accept it, but s/he is perfectly within their rights not to. The only reason a T would be obliged to pay renewal fees to an EA is if they have agreed to it in what ever agreement they entered into with the EA. It begs the question of why agree to such a term if you don't wish to stick to it.

franklee wrote: »

Also as we have seen if the landlord serves notice over something as stupid as this then he isn't going to get as much co-operation with viewings as if he let the tenant stay a bit longer on a periodic tenancy and then serve their own notice.

T is under no obligation to cooperate regarding viewings regardless of whether a LL has been reasonable or not. If the T is refusing to sign up to a new tenancy agreement and then refusing to allow viewings, I can understand why a LL would want to get rid as soon as possible for someone more reasonable.

PasturesNew

madeupname1 wrote: »

Wrong. If I want a tenant to sign a contract every six months and he refuses to do so, I get rid of him and get someone else who will. This is exactly what OP's LL is doing. I fund my the costs I am legally obliged to plus those which I think are reasonable for the sake of good business. I don't fund costs simply because T doesn't to. BTW - how has T saved money? He now as to look for somewhere else. Unless he is going privately, he will pay EA costs on new place.

You are inflexible and unrealistic, especially in these uncertain times. Would you rather that the tenant was on periodic and gave you a month's notice once they'd lost their job. or would you prefer that they stopped paying you at all two months into the AST because they'd lost their job and applied for housing benefit, but as it was a 2-bed and they only 'qualified' for a 1-bed they were going to be £100 short ... and with everything else that was going on they got scared and cancelled the bank payment the day they were laid off?

If you've had six months out of a tenant already, it's only fair that if they want to be on a periodic tenancy that you let them. My last LL let me and I stayed a lot longer than if I'd been forced to decide (and pay £75) every six months as to what the next six months might hold.

madeupname1

PasturesNew wrote: »

You are inflexible and unrealistic, especially in these uncertain times. Would you rather that the tenant was on periodic and gave you a month's notice once they'd lost their job. or would you prefer that they stopped paying you at all two months into the AST because they'd lost their job and applied for housing benefit, but as it was a 2-bed and they only 'qualified' for a 1-bed they were going to be £100 short ... and with everything else that was going on they got scared and cancelled the bank payment the day they were laid off?

If you've had six months out of a tenant already, it's only fair that if they want to be on a periodic tenancy that you let them. My last LL let me and I stayed a lot longer than if I'd been forced to decide (and pay £75) every six months as to what the next six months might hold.

What you are basically saying is that you wanted flexibility with your living arrangements and that is the reason you didn't want to sign up to a new tenancy agreement (that plus the cost). Your LL agreed. However, if your LL chose not to agree, why would that be unfair? Would you consider it unfair if the position were reversed and the LL said - I don't want to give you a new AST, I want to keep you on a periodic tenancy. Would you consider that you were bound to agree, or would you consider that you had the right to look for somewhere else with more security?

I'm not sure your example is a good one. When my T lost their jobs one by one, they were on an AST. We came to an arrange that suited us both. Thats because they were reasonable and I was reasonable.

DVardysShadow

roses wrote: »

If you don't allow viewings, they can sue you for any empty period after you leave which would have been caused by you not allowing viewings.

It is true. And it is also true that someone could sue you for posting what has been accurately described as utter twaddle. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.

But so what. None of these cases are going to get anywhere.

DVardysShadow

madeupname1 wrote: »

Wrong. If I want a tenant to sign a contract every six months and he refuses to do so, I get rid of him and get someone else who will. This is exactly what OP's LL is doing. I fund my the costs I am legally obliged to plus those which I think are reasonable for the sake of good business. I don't fund costs simply because T doesn't want to. BTW - how has T saved money? He now as to look for somewhere else. Unless he is going privately, he will pay EA costs on new place.

As a businessman, you are not very good. If I was renting and for example I knew I was going to buy a house in 15 months and you prevented me going periodic after 6 months, I would give you an immediate void at 6 months rather than at 15 months. All you are doing is proving you are the most inflexible landlord and forcing your tenants to move on, rather than letting them settle. No wonder you hate voids. But you are bringing them down on yourself.