Renewing Tenancy Agreement £70

thescouselander

pbradley936 wrote:

I think the two months is a legal requirement. You can move out before then of course but you would have to pay two months rent.

Never heard of that. In every place I have rented, after the initial 6 months only one months notice is required from the tennant to move out.

robby-01

I can recomend a brilliant book to help you all out.
THE WHICH? Guide to
Renting and Letting.
It covers everything and helps Landlords or tenants.It really could save anyone who rents or lets property from a world of pain.
I got a copy from the library but it is that good I am going to buy a copy for reference it is only £11.99.
If you rent property read it

prudryden

littlemissmoney wrote:

Thanks Julesgr, that was quick!

I also have something else I'd like to check...

Each year I sign a 12 month contract with a 6 month breakclause. I have to give 2 months notice, that can't be given until after 6 month. So I can only move out after 8 months.

This is fair enough the first year, but it is normal to have to re-sign the same contract every year? I can only move out 4 months out of every 12. Surely after the first 6 months I should just be able to give 2 months notice (and the same with LL) without repeating the 6 month period?

Is this normal? Or is this just a away on making me pay up £70 a year? Could I have a contract like the one discribed above?

Are you sure that your two months notice can't be given until the sixth month? My tenants can give me two months notice after the fourth month, which means they move out on the sixth month which is the term of the break clause.
The letting agent will generally ask the landlord whether he wants another full contract with the tenant or wants a rolling tenancy (therefore, no contract needed unless anything needs amending such as amount of rent) I opt for the rolling tenancy, whereby either party can give two months notice.
Generally, a tenant only has to give one months notice, but I always meet with the tenants and we mutually agree that two months for both parties is fairer.
Have you ever met with the landlord? It is always a good idea and makes it much easier to negotiate if you or the landlord have a problem.
I'm not happy that the agents charged you for the contract. They certainly make enough fees off the landlord, which should include the cost of the contract. Sounds like double dipping to me. I hope that I don't hear my agents doing that. Hope this helps! I haven't read the entire thread so this may already have been touched on.

prudryden

pbradley936 wrote:

I think the two months is a legal requirement. You can move out before then of course but you would have to pay two months rent.

Half right. Two months is a legal requirement on the landlord. One month for the tenant. However, the landlord may request two months. If the tenant agrees, he gets the flat. If he doesn't ---he may not get. Two months, for me, is fair for both parties for various reasons. Sorry, for adding my two cents:)

BobProperty

prudryden wrote:

Half right. Two months is a legal requirement on the landlord. One month for the tenant. However, the landlord may request two months. If the tenant agrees, he gets the flat. If he doesn't ---he may not get. Two months, for me, is fair for both parties for various reasons. Sorry, for adding my two cents:)

It might seem fair but IIRC it was held in a court case that it's 2 months by the landlord and 1 month by the tenant, again IIRC once it goes periodic.

Going back to the original question, this is just the Letting Agent (LA) trying to make some more money, there is no need for this, they are just being greedy/stupid. What is the LA going to do if the tenant doesn't agree to a new agreement because it doesn't suit the tenant?
And to whoever said they use a LA because they know what they are doing, I stopped using LA's because they didn't know what they were doing. Go on some landlord courses and join a landlord association, you'll be amazed at what some so called "professionals" get wrong.

prudryden

BobProperty wrote:

It might seem fair but IIRC it was held in a court case that it's 2 months by the landlord and 1 month by the tenant, again IIRC once it goes periodic.

Going back to the original question, this is just the Letting Agent (LA) trying to make some more money, there is no need for this, they are just being greedy/stupid. What is the LA going to do if the tenant doesn't agree to a new agreement because it doesn't suit the tenant?
And to whoever said they use a LA because they know what they are doing, I stopped using LA's because they didn't know what they were doing. Go on some landlord courses and join a landlord association, you'll be amazed at what some so called "professionals" get wrong.

Sorry - OFF TOPIC
BOB - Many thanks. I need to check on that. Would be possible to add a codicil to the original contract stating the two months would continue during any rolling tenancy? Is that bably worded?

littlemissmoney

My fixed term agreement said I needed to give 2 months notice. If it now becomes a periodic agreement (as I have requested thanks to you lot!) do I have to give one or two months notice?

I'm confused because on the net it says "previous fixed term conditions continue" so that would mean 2 months, but by law it's only one. So which one holds?

BobProperty

Prudryden:
You can but I think it doesn't matter, the case law overrules your clause.
LMM: the law of course.

littlemissmoney

Thanks Bob. Is that also true during my fixed term?

prudryden

BobProperty wrote:

Prudryden:
You can but I think it doesn't matter, the case law overrules your clause.
LMM: the law of course.

Bob - Can you provide me with the name of the case? e.g. name vs. name Any links to any reports? Greatly appreciated!!