Periodic Tenancy Question

noyk

I rent a flat in Berks and have a dodgy managing agent who's trying to charge both myself (over £100) and landlord (not sure how much) for renewal fees as my fixed term Assured shorthold tenancy (AST) comes to an end. I'm trying to re-assure my landlord that another fixed term is not neccessary (thus negating charges, which on a tangent are probably legally questionable in themselves) and a periodic tenancy will do, but it's been difficult finding exact legal information regarding AST to periodic tenancy transition information.

So i have a bit of a legal question about AST's. I hope someone can help me out, what i'm trying to understand is what takes precedence when an Assured shorthold tenancy becomes a periodic tenancy. If the AST contract states that the notice period is longer than the rent payment term is it the former which applies to the periodic tenancy notice period (for both landlord and tenanct) or the later? It seems the only defining characteristic of a periodic tenancy is the notice period/rent payment length... or have i missed something?

Thanks very much for your help

I quote from http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/residential_tenancies.htm

Tenancies usually start with an agreed fixed-term, (for example 6 or 12 months) during which time both parties are contractually bound - the tenant to pay rent for the full term, and the landlord to allow her exclusive possession and quiet enjoyment.

Once the fixed-term of a tenancy has expired, however, unless a new fixed-term is agreed to, all tenancies automatically become periodic tenancies. These are based on the rent payment period - weekly or monthly etc. The periodic tenancy can then continue on until one side, landlord or tenant, gives notice.

At the end of the fixed-term, therefore, there is no legal requirement for either party to do anything - the tenancy can continue on indefinitely on a periodic basis and on exactly the same terms as the original agreement, which still fully applies.

clutton_2

it is my understanding that once it is in periodic, then the landlord has to give 2 months notice, and the tenant has to give one months notice - strictly speaking these notices should coincide with rent payment days.

a landlord cannot include a clause which overrules the tenants legal rights - even if the agreement says the tenant has to give 2 months, legislation says that tenants ONLY have to give one month's notice, and that landlords have to give 2 months.

noyk

Thanks clutton, to expand a little - I pay my rent monthly so according to you i would be obliged to give a minimum of one months notice (and landlord 2 months), however the confusing thing here is that i have seen many sources, and quoted one above that specifically state that

the tenancy can continue on indefinitely on a periodic basis and on exactly the same terms as the original agreement, which still fully applies.

in those contract terms i agreed to 2 months, which i am comfortable with and thus happy to continue on a periodic basis, but at the same time they also state

[Period tenancies] are based on the rent payment period - weekly or monthly etc. The periodic tenancy can then continue on until one side, landlord or tenant, gives notice.

I hope you see where my confusion arises! The agencies must love this confusing legislation as it gives them a license to "renew" (print money). That is what i really don't like, in addition to all the other things i find dispicable about this particular agencies practices.

clutton_2

this is complex - you are right. if you have signed a 6 month AST and it ends and you are still in residence, it automatically become a periodic tenancy with Exactly the same terms and conditions as the original AST. if the original AST said 2 months, it stays at 2 months. (my point above was that this is not legal - legally a tenant has to give one month, irrespective of what it says in the AST - but if you are happy with the 2 months fine. )

if you are on periodic, you, as tenant, have less long term security as the landlord can give you 2 months notice. if you sign a new 6 month notice, the landlord cannot get you out easily until the end of the 6 month period - and even then he has to get a court order to get you out.

Re £100 fee for re-let, was this explained to you when you first moved in ?

if so, you might try claiming that it is an "unfair term" under the unfair terms of contract legislation - try talking to your local authority private lettings representative. £100 does seem excessive.


https://www.landlordzone.co.uk and https://www.landlord.org (website of national landlords association) are good sites to look on.

chugalug

Even under a periodic tenancy the landlord would have to go through the court process to evict. Obviously that's only if you don't leave when your notice is up.

This is something that really bugs me about agencies. They don't have to do a new tenancy every 6 months but of course it makes money for them.

Tassotti

The fact that it states in your original AST that you must give 2 months notice is void in itself.

Legally, you don't have to give any notice under a fixed period.

Clutton is correct. 2 months notice by landlord, 1 month by yourself, when in a periodic tenancy.

Letting agents have a licence to print money. They charge you £100 for renewal, and, also the Landlord gets charged.

Tass

pigeonpie

Shelter (see their website sorry think it is .org)can be very helpful with problems with landlords and their agents and if your q is not on their site, you can email them to ask.
good luck.