Refusing Viewings

franklee

madeupname1 wrote: »

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).

So you give notice to a reliable tenant who wants to stay on a periodic tenancy leaving yourself the job of finding a new tenant who wants the 8 or 10 month contract on offer. Whereas you could have let the periodic tenancy run till the tenant wanted to leave in a few months time and been able to offer 6 or 12 months to the next tenant (whatever they preferred) as either of those lengths end away from Christmas. Also I trust you tell any new tenant that no periodic tenancy will be acceptable before they sign up. Your method is unnecessarily restricting the tenants you can get. No wonder you are so worried about voids.

madeupname1 wrote: »

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.

The landlord has no idea how long a tenant who starts with a six month fixed term is staying either so I can't see it makes much difference. If you were offering two or three year tenancies then I'd take the point but then renewal fees wouldn't come round every 6-12 months. I agreed to pay renewal fees if there were renewals knowing full well a periodic tenancy was a viable option so what terms exactly have I not stuck to?

madeupname1 wrote: »

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.

The tenant can control who enters the property and when as the thread has already shown, therefore to get the most viewings it pays a landlord to be cooperative. Serving notice solely to curtail a periodic tenancy when a good tenant wants another few months isn't the best way to gain a tenant's cooperation.

madeupname1

DVardysShadow wrote: »

As a businessman, you are not very good.

Thats why I have been doing this successfully for 10 years? Thats why my current tenant has been in the property for 4 years? Thats why the last void period I had was less than 2 weeks? Thats why the longest void period I experienced was 4 weeks (and that was over christmas)? I suspect I know a little more about running this business than you do.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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.

I have never had a tenant refuse to sign a new tenancy agreement, and I only run 12 month tenancies. If after an initial period 12 months doesn't suit, I am willing to consider a shorter period, but I don't have too. In your example, you could well move, but you will have to find a new set of EA fees and endure the costs and hassle of moving.

gotnodosh

Not read right to the end but thought I should just say what happenend to me last week.

My tenancy went periodic about 18 months ago as the LA forgot to send me a letter asking about renewal (I always renewed before that). My "contract" would run out in June if they had renewed it but as they haven`t I am now on periodic. They sent me a letter a few weeks back asking me if I wanted to renew my tenancy, which I ignored. The other day I get a call from the LA to say that they have received answer back from the LL that they are happy for me to stay on and can I come in and sign a tenancy agreement with a break clause. So I asked what the break clause is. She told me it was one month notice for me and two month notice from the LL. I said but I got that already, I am on a periodic tenancy. She then tried to tell me that I don't have a tenancy agreement. I suggested to her that she should start reading up about Housing Laws and I am not prepared to pay for something I already have! She ended up putting the phone down on me!!! So I hold my breath and see what their next move is. Luckily I have my LL address and he is in the phone book. So if the worst happens I will give him a ring and speak to him direct. I don't really want to but I feel my LL does not have a clue what his LA is up to.

franklee

Can't figure how your last post squares with your older one quoted below, does it mean you dropped the rent by 200pcm over a two week void? (Also reads like the tenant has been in almost a year but hey-ho). Perhaps if you were less controlling over dates you'd get better rental income when taken overall. Moving home doens't fit into neat one year packages.

If you are doing as well as you claim over finding new tenants they why be so inflexible towards them by not allowing a choice of renewal for different lengths or a periodic tenancy.

madeupname1 wrote: »

Thats why I have been doing this successfully for 10 years? Thats why my current tenant has been in the property for 4 years? Thats why the last void period I had was less than 2 weeks? Thats why the longest void period I experienced was 4 weeks (and that was over christmas)? I suspect I know a little more about running this business than you do.

I have never had a tenant refuse to sign a new tenancy agreement, and I only run 12 month tenancies. If after an initial period 12 months doesn't suit, I am willing to consider a shorter period, but I don't have too. In your example, you could well move, but you will have to find a new set of EA fees and endure the costs and hassle of moving.

madeupname1 wrote: »

I have tenants at the moment. Nice couple, pay rent on time every time so far (although they have done a couple of things which I have found irritating and which have cost me). Their lease is coming to an end in 2 months time. They initially indicated that they only wanted to stay in the property for 12 months. Now there is a possibility they would want to stay longer. Personally I would prefer it if they were to leave. Firstly I believe that the rent there paying is at a conservative estimate £200 per month under value. I agreed to it on a one year basis because they were prepared to move in right away and there would have been no void period meaning that the rent reduction was covered because they were moving in earlier. If I try to put up the rent by £200 a month I think they would be (understandably) upset. However, the reality is that this is the amount I could get if I offered the Property to someone else. Secondly, there is some work that needs to be done in the house. I would rather it was done with them not in situe because I don't want really want to have to manage them and workmen at the same time. For me, it is extremely useful to know that at the end of the tenancy agreement, I don't have to have an excuse to ask them to vacate the property. I don't need to get them to agree the rent increase; I don't need to negotiate a reduction in rent because of disruption caused by work going on; I don't need to prove that I am planning to move back in as per N79's suggestion or anything else. I can just issue the section 21.

Ulfar

franklee wrote: »

Can't figure how your last post squares with your older one quoted below, does it mean you dropped the rent by 200pcm over a two week void? (Also reads like the tenant has been in almost a year but hey-ho). Perhaps if you were less controlling over dates you'd get better rental income when taken overall. Moving home doens't fit into neat one year packages.

I agree madeupname1's two posts don't tally.

Also by treating tenants in this way, does it not lead to a higher turnover of tenants, which increases the risk of getting a bad one who will trash the place, not pay rent.

I have been on both sides of the fence as both a LL and a tenant and in both cases found that the way you treat people is returned in kind.

madeupname1

franklee wrote: »

Can't figure how your last post squares with your older one quoted below, does it mean you dropped the rent by 200pcm over a two week void? (Also reads like the tenant has been in almost a year but hey-ho). Perhaps if you were less controlling over dates you'd get better rental income when taken overall. Moving home doens't fit into neat one year packages.

If you are doing as well as you claim over finding new tenants they why be so inflexible towards them by not allowing a choice of renewal for different lengths or a periodic tenancy.

I am a landlord of more then one rental property sherlock so that's how you square both posts. The nature of forum postings are that they should generally be kept brief as possible so you don't necessarily give all details, but since you ask:

(1) the couple who have been in the property for 10 months originally wanted a 6 month tenancy because they have another place in a different part of town. However, I don't give six month tenancies so we agreed a 12 month tenancy. Given their originally expressed preference for a 6 month contract, I assume that they will definately want to move out after 12 months but I don't know because they are undecided.

(2) You must know that markets and rental values vary over time? Last year rental values in my area were lower than they are now. A similar sized property on the street where I let out my property is currently being advertised for £400 more than my property is currently let out for. I think that the owner of that Property is being wildly optimistic but speaking to the EA and looking at what else is available, achievable monthly rents have gone up by £200 to £250. Therefore when I said that the T is currently paying conservatively £200 under current market value, that is not the same as saying that I let the property out at £200 under then current market values.

(3) The rent I currently charge on the Property was let out at the low end of (possibly slightly under) market value at the time because there would be "no void". Perhaps you would have been happier if I said, "a void of a few days" but for me no void and a void of a few days are essentially the same thing because there will always be a period of time between one set of tenants leaving and one set of tenants moving for two reasons:

(a) cleaning, repairs, maintenance and inventory taking need to be done when the property is empty. Even on the shortest turnaround this will take a few days.

(b) it is extremely unwise to sign up a tenancy agreement with a new tenant whilst the existing tenant is in situe because if the existing tenants don't move out you will be in breach of contract with the new tenants.

Finally since you seem to be paying particular attention to my posts and quoting them back to me, please note the post of 8.24pm where I specifically said "If after an initial period 12 months doesn't suit, I am willing to consider a shorter period, but I don't have too." However, entering into a contract for a short extension is not the same thing as agreeing a periodic tenancy.

What I don't like about this thread is that people are saying that OP's LL is being unreasonable/unfair/led by the EA for refusing to enter into a periodic tenancy because OP doesn't want to pay a renewal fee to a third party which he is only liable to pay because he agreed to it. The LL isn't necessarily being unreasonable - he may be taking a business decision on whats best for him.

franklee

This ...

madeupname1 wrote: »

I believe that the rent there paying is at a conservative estimate £200 per month under value. I agreed to it on a one year basis because they were prepared to move in right away and there would have been no void period meaning that the rent reduction was covered because they were moving in earlier.

does not read to me like you let at the low end of market value at the time. The "it" in "I agreed to it" refers to the last thing you said which is describing the £200 per month under value. If you meant ..

madeupname1 wrote: »

The rent I currently charge on the Property was let out at the low end of (possibly slightly under) market value at the time because there would be "no void".

your initial post as quoted above just doesn't convey that.

But now you claim you've had practically no voids, no significant rent drops below market value at the time of letting and no troubles getting tenants in there is even less reason for you to be so inflexible by insisting on renewals rather than periodic for a tenant who is leaving shortly if they've been a good tenant. Really does it matter to you if the rent for a couple of months comes in from tenant A or easily found tenant B. Yet for tenant A having to move say two months earlier than they'd like can be a huge pain if for example it means moving twice in a short space of time. I trust you let prospective tenants know your line of ...

madeupname1 wrote: »

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.

before they sign up because it wouldn't have occured to me to ask a landlord if he/she would be that awkward.

And where have rents gone up by 200 to 250 pcm in the last ten months? Must be an expensive property or that's a big hike.

(Blue squares with arrows link back to original posts).

mqandy

You are technically correct, although I doubt it's ever been tested in court.

Like you, I hate letting agents with a passion.

However, when it comes to viewings, I'm happy to allow them when I'm around.

The last one had me pointing out every last flaw with the property, with added props such as a bottle of mould killer prominently by the damp patch...