Major house problems, im on rolling contract now & LL wants me to sign for 12 months?

Pimlico

tbs624 wrote: »

Nothing to do with "splitting hairs" - the statement was erroneous and its one of those myths that gets recirculated on forums such as this one. If a T wants, say, a three month AST and the LL is happy to offer him/her one then its perfectly legal to do so.

Well now you are making me split hairs because you are criticising my writing as erroneous. IANAL & I am forever discovering new quirks that I didn't know about, nevertheless I like to think that when I write stuff it is right.

I can't give you the link because of this blerdy stupid site, but if you look up the 1988 Housing Act Part 1 Chapter 2 Section 20

it is a fixed term tenancy granted for a term certain of not less than six months,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see amendments to that in the 1996 & 2004 Acts.

I agree that the Landlord can grant the tenant a break clause within the 6 month term, but going back to my original article the Landlord cannot enforce the tenant to leave any sooner than 6 months, whatever is written in the contract. That's the important point, and that's why I say that any other statement is splitting hairs.

N79

Pimlico wrote: »

Well now you are making me split hairs because you are criticising my writing as erroneous. IANAL & I am forever discovering new quirks that I didn't know about, nevertheless I like to think that when I write stuff it is right.

I can't give you the link because of this blerdy stupid site, but if you look up the 1988 Housing Act Part 1 Chapter 2 Section 20



Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see amendments to that in the 1996 & 2004 Acts.

I agree that the Landlord can grant the tenant a break clause within the 6 month term, but going back to my original article the Landlord cannot enforce the tenant to leave any sooner than 6 months, whatever is written in the contract. That's the important point, and that's why I say that any other statement is splitting hairs.

S20 is a catchall section to deal with pre 1996 act tenancies (the entire text you quote is a 1996 amendment!!!!!). It is not relevent to the post 1996 definition of an AST which is in S19. If you quote all of S20 it clearly states this (my bolding).

"(1)Subject to subsection (3) below, an assured tenancy which is not one to which section 19A above applies is an assured shorthold tenancy if—

(a)it is a fixed term tenancy granted for a term certain of not less than six months,

(b)there is no power for the landlord to determine the tenancy at any time earlier than six months from the beginning of the tenancy; and

(c)a notice in respect of it is served as mentioned in subsection (2) below.]"

Since any tenancy being created today will be covered by S19A the S20 definition for pre 1997 tenancies is irrelevant.

Pimlico

And it cannot be ended by the landlord sooner than 6 months whatever the contract says.

N79

Pimlico wrote: »

And it cannot be ended by the landlord sooner than 6 months whatever the contract says.

Correct - S21(5) (also from the 1996 act) and assuming none of the grounds for possession in schedule II apply.

tbs624

....which does not mean that a LL cannot legally grant a shorter term AST.

Pimlico wrote: »

And it cannot be ended by the landlord sooner than 6 months whatever the contract says.

.. this is true but it is, repeat, not the same as saying ""Your landlord cannot legally offer you a tenancy shorter than this" ( ie 6 months) as per your article.

This is a consumer website - Ts are the consumers. It is useful for them to understand why a LL may be reluctant to offer an AST of less than 6 months but if a T has every intention of leaving after the expiry of 3 months it would not be illegal for his LL to agree to that 3 month AST.

The LL simply has to be aware of the potential difficulty if T decides that.. erm ...he would like to stop on, perhaps contrary to the LLs wishes.

The fact that the LL cannot serve a S21 prior to the expiry of an initial 6 months is of little relevance to the T who absolutely only wants that very short term: it does not render a shorter AST term "not legal"