Renewing tenancy with no break clause?

newshooz

Hello Everyone!

I've been renting for almost a year and the agents have told me the landlord wants a "straight 12 month" contract for the next year. I thought renewals had to include break clauses? Or is this considered a brand new tenancy under fixed terms in this case.

Are they allowed to do this?

Many thanks for any advice you can offer.

princeofpounds

Renewals do not have to include break clauses.

This would be a brand new tenancy. Your other option is to roll onto a statutory periodic contract (google it).

*miaomiao*

You are not legally bound to renew a tenancy unless you want security of the tenancy continuing for at least another 12 months. I'd advise not to renew and allow it to become a rolling (aka periodic) tenancy. Then if you decide to leave you must give 1 months notice (before a rent day) and the landlord has to give you 2 months notice to leave if he/she wants the property back.

BTW, are you in England or Wales? Is your tenancy deposit protected and have you received information about this?

newshooz

Thanks Prince. The LA say a rollover contract isn't possible. I'm just curious if this is the landlords way to up the rent and the LA to get more fees, and I can't give notice within the year. Does that sound plausible?

Thanks

newshooz

Thanks Miao

Yes, my deposit is protected and I'm in England.

The LA absolutely refuse to let a renewal take place and want a new agreement, but can I simply let it rollover or can they insist?

*miaomiao*

The LA and the LL cannot force you to end the contract unless you signed a Section 21 notice when you accepted the contract. If you did, you should have references to it within your contract. The right to a periodic (rolling) contract comes under the Housing Act 2004 and is practice for when the initial term ends. The LA probably wants more fees for you signing a new agreement.

Please let us know what happened regarding your tenancy deposit.

Also, have you searched the forum here for renewing tenancy threads? It is a pretty common one and the advice there could help you.

Eton_Rifle

I only let properties for fixed yearly terms (and make this clear at the outset) because I want the security of knowing they are locked in, that's my only reason, not rent increases.

Everyone has accepted this so far and either left on the last day or renewed - if they didn't leave I would just give them their two months notice immediately. Luckily, I haven't had to do this yet as I would feel a bit mean but I would do it anyway.

If you want to take the risk and call his bluff, you need to consider how much in demand you think the property is (how easily will he find new tenants and will he want the bother) and how easily it would be for you to find another similar rental (and how much effort and cost would that be.)
It might well be worth the risk although I guess there's a sight chance it might affect your reference.

newshooz

The LA have just told me there are no additional fees from them, but the landlord does want to increase the rent.

It's not that I want to move out, it's just if I lose the option of 2 months notice should I wish to before another year is up.

The flat is also in need of some repairs - I've painted over the mould but don't think magnolia emulsion will put up much of a fight!! The LL has does not replace anything generally, but should this be addressed?

Thanks for pointing me to the renewing tenancy threads, I'll have a look there also.

Thanks Guys/Girls - you're awesome :T

princeofpounds

If the landlord's rent demands are reasonable and he does not want the income security of having you for another year then you could ask him to issue a section 13 notice instead to raise the rent after rolling onto an SPT contract.

It's good the LAs are not charging fees. Most do, for little work.

If he wants the security and you do not then you can always refuse to rent increase and the new contract. Many landlords will not throw out a reliable tenant as the void period would cost more than a new tenant could raise in higher rent (especially if he has to pay a tenant find fee).

Repairs have to be done, but improvements and cosmetic things are a matter for negotiation. It is quite normal to trade a rent increase for some improvement work.

newshooz

So, my current fixed term contract says:
"If on the coming to the end of the fixed term agreed above (ie next month), the Landlord does not seek possession and the Tenant remains in the property, they will be considered, by virtue of section 5 of the Housing Act 1988, to have a statutory periodic tenancy. This will continue till ended by either party."

If this is the case, why would the LA insist on a new fixed term, when the LL has stipulated this? Sorry if this is a stupid question, but the LA have proved to be less than reputable in the past.

The LA will not give me the LL's details either, and before I go signing for another year, which I will if it's enforceable, it just seems I'm being given conflicting messages by the agents!!

I've had a look in the forum and general consensus is to not acknowlege a new contract based on the periodic tenancy clause and instead let the LA know that I have no wish to move out at the end of this agreement, I agree to rent increase and leave it at that.

Just have to add, this is the first time I've posted on mse,and I'm amazed at everyones fab feedback

DVardysShadow

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

I only let properties for fixed yearly terms (and make this clear at the outset) because I want the security of knowing they are locked in, that's my only reason, not rent increases.

Everyone has accepted this so far and either left on the last day or renewed - if they didn't leave I would just give them their two months notice immediately. Luckily, I haven't had to do this yet as I would feel a bit mean but I would do it anyway.

If you want to take the risk and call his bluff, you need to consider how much in demand you think the property is (how easily will he find new tenants and will he want the bother) and how easily it would be for you to find another similar rental (and how much effort and cost would that be.)
It might well be worth the risk although I guess there's a sight chance it might affect your reference.

I don't see that you actually derive a jot of genuine benefit from this but you must either inconvenience or exclude many a tenant who is good in absolutely every other respect. For a start, if you had potential tenants who moved into the area and wanted to rent for a period while settling in to a new job and looking for a house to buy, your contract terms would rule you out. You seem to be restricting yourself to tenants who would only ever rent - in your model of renting, there is no realistic prospect of changing to other forms of accommodation..