Renewing Tenancy Agreement £70

prudryden

Oh right!! I read it that there is no need for a new contract if it rolls over into a periotic tenancy. Also, there isn't a need for a new contract with the same tenants on a fixed term basis unless you have a new 6 month break clause, which would be a bit unfair to the tenants. Therefore, the letting agent, at the least, should reduce the fees for finding the tenants for the second year. Anyway, that is how I understood it.

rosysparkle

There isn't a need for a renewal of the AST if it rolls over onto a periodic. The lettings agent for which I work doesn't charge fees (to landlords or tenants) to renew an AST, so I'm certainly not going to defend those that do!

I am still a bit concerned that the poster whom I quoted above implied that a fixed term renewal of an AST doesn't give rise to a fixed term, and that a tenancy will always be a periodic after the exiry of the initial fixed term. I'd like some clarification of that from him.

prudryden

rosysparkle wrote:

There isn't a need for a renewal of the AST if it rolls over onto a periodic. The lettings agent for which I work doesn't charge fees (to landlords or tenants) to renew an AST, so I'm certainly not going to defend those that do!

I am still a bit concerned that the poster whom I quoted above implied that a fixed term renewal of an AST doesn't give rise to a fixed term, and that a tenancy will always be a periodic after the exiry of the initial fixed term. I'd like some clarification of that from him.

Would you mind listing a couple of agents that don't charge renewal fees to the landlord for changing to a periodic tenancy after the end of the AST? I may need it, not sure yet.
Many thanks

rosysparkle

I only know what we charge (or in this case, don't charge!) Unless you happen to be in Sheffield or the surrounding area, we can't be of much use to you.

No agent should charge a fee for allowing a tenancy to become a periodic, because they don't have to do anything at all. If they use Winman software they have to place one tick in one box on the tenant's information screen.

If an agent tries to charge a landlord for allowing a tenancy to become periodic, I would advise that landlord to complain and move agencies. Most charges that agents make are justified, and I would defend all the charges that we make, but some aren't.

prudryden

Many thanks for your time and suggestions.

Gold_Shogun

prudryden wrote:

Scenario: Original contract calls for 2 months notice by either party. Rent is paid monthly. During the periodic period - which would prevail? The original 2 months notice by the tenant or 1 month notice, as the tenant pays monthly. Many thanks for your post. Greatly appreciated.

The over-riding/prevailing 'notice period' for a periodic tenancy would be whatever was written into the ORIGINAL AST / SAT agreement ...
... IF no 'notice period' was specified in that agreement, the notice period reverts to the standard Statutory minimum Requirements (2month=LL / 1month=Tenant)

So using your quoted example, the appropriate notice period would be TWO months for BOTH parties.

The fact that rent may be paid monthly/quarterly/whatever is totally irrelevant in this respect.

Cheers
Bob

Gold_Shogun

rosysparkle wrote:

There isn't a need for a renewal of the AST if it rolls over onto a periodic.

I am still a bit concerned that the poster whom I quoted above implied that a fixed term renewal of an AST doesn't give rise to a fixed term, and that a tenancy will always be a periodic after the exiry of the initial fixed term. I'd like some clarification of that from him.

It all depends on the wording on the Renewal Agreement {RA} (OR the Original Agreement {OA} in the absence of any Renewal Agreement).

Let's look at some alternate scenarios for examples ...

STARTING BASIS = The {OA} expires at the end of the Fixed Term ...

Example 1 ... But NO {RA} is issued
----> The {OA} continues as a 'Periodic AST / SAT' on the same terms as the {OA}

Example 2 ... A {RA} IS issued WITH a "New Fixed Minimum Period", BUT the Tenant Fails/Refuses to sign it (as there is NO legal obligation to sign/accept it)
----> The {OA} continues as a 'Periodic AST / SAT' on the same terms as the {OA} ...
... The {RA} "falls away" and has NO legal effect.

Example 3 ... A {RA} IS issued WITH a "New Fixed Minimum Period" AND the Tenant signs it.
----> The {OA} "drops away" and there is NO 'Periodic AST / SAT' arising therefrom ...
... The {RA} "takes effect" and becomes the "new basis" for the future (UNLESS it seeks to change the AST / SAT into any form of 'unsecured tenancy' as that is prohibited).

As you can probably see, examples 2 & 3 are both 'double-edged swords", as they can work equally well For OR Against the Tenant AND Landlord depending on the circumstances.

Let's assume that the tenant (you) is at the "Agreement Renewal" Point ...
A) ... IF you REFUSE to sign the {RA}, then this could be BETTER for you IF you plan on leaving before the end of the 'fixed term' and don't wan't to be bound by it ... However, the 'other side' of that blade is that the LL is free to give you the two months statutory notice at any time.

Alternatively

... By signing the {RA} (assuming ALL the other terms are identical to the {OA}), then you gain a guaranteed further period of "Security of Tenure", and the LL cannot make you vacate before the end of the 'new Minimum term' ... This COULD be better for you IF you believe that the LL might want you out sooner (perhaps because he's got the house up for sale, etc) ...
However, the other side of this blade is that if YOUR circumstances change and you want to leave early, then you are obligated to pay the rent due for the balance of the Minimum Term (minus any period where the LL re-lets it).

**************

As a general rule, I would advise tenants to CLOSELY compare any {RA} with the terms of the {OA}, and to be VERY wary of signing any {RA} containing "Substantially Different" Terms ...
... If you are NOT happy with any new (or changed) Terms, then do NOT sign the {RA} (as this keeps the {OA} Terms in play)

Cheers
Bob

prudryden

Bob -

Just brilliant!!! That's definitely definitive. Many thanks.
Not old Ben,who is one of the greatest, but appropriate in this case. "Research and Data are the means to an Answer - the beginning of a Solution"

Hubert_Dalrymple

I've been panicking a bit, thinking I had misunderstood the law on this point following my previous posts. However, further to Bob's post above and my previous posts, I have been closely reading s. 21 Housing Act 1988. Subsections 5, 6 and 7 relate to the kinds of Order that the Court can make for possession and when.

These sections make it clear that the only tenancy that the Judge needs to take into account when making the Possession Order is the original tenancy. In other words, if he is satisfied that the original tenancy has come to an end then s/he shall order possession as long as the requisite notice has been given.

Sparky67

Just picked up on this thread -

There is a common misconception that a tenancy must be in writing - it doesn't have to be (unless over 3 years, but that's not normally the case with assured shortholds on residential properties which are normally 6 month or 12 months).

At the end of the written agreement, if no subsequent agreement is signed, THERE IS STILL A TENANCY AGREEMENT. I see many people who say that they haven't got a tenancy agreement - they normally do have one - it just might not be evidenced in writing. Having any contract in writing makes it easier for both parties to know where they stand, especially where there is a dispute.

When an ASH comes to an end and you don't re-sign, there is an automatic change to a period tenancy, and this will be on the same terms as the written one, and with the tenancy being monthly (assuming you pay your rent monthly). You don't have to ask for it, it just happens.

Any Court would wish to see the original tenancy agreement in possession proceedings, plus the Notice served by the Landlord. There are very strict laws on the Notice served by the Landlord, and it varies if there is a current written ash or if it is outside that agreement and is now on a periodic. IMHO Letting Agents don't always get this right!

So, back to the OP - if you don't want to sign it and pay them then dont. You will still have security of tenure in that your landlord must still give you 2 month's notice. As to the Notice you have to give, I'm not 100% but I believe the terms of your periodic tenancy will be the same as your original agreement, unless you have agreed to vary these with your landlord.

HTH