What Happens after a year - 'Rental'

Sybarite

silvercar wrote:

Oops should have explained that the charge is to the landlord not the tenant!

I take it this is in addition to the 5-10% of rent they charge. Still seems like old rope = money to me.

silvercar

10% of annual rent for finding a tenant, credit checking etc and the AST. extra 5% if you want the letting agent to manage the property. After one year, renewal of exising AST is 5% unmanaged and 10% managed.

Sybarite

Have you considered foregoing the LA and managing directly or is this impractical?

Separate Q but to your knowledge does your LA actually do much for their money, ie do you get feedback from tenants about the LA's behaviour?

silvercar

Sybarite wrote:

Have you considered foregoing the LA and managing directly or is this impractical?

Separate Q but to your knowledge do your LA actually do much for their money, ie do you get feedback from tenants about the LA's behaviour?

I do manage myself. I must say that the agent found a tenant and did all the necessary checks very speedily. I was away for the week so they sorted out the CORGI inspection and a couple of minor problems without extra charge.

The rates I quoted are the norm round here.

franklee

clutton wrote:

yes, i always give tenants the AST a few days ahead of time, gives them time to read and go to CAB or whatever.

Very wise.

clutton wrote:

The date the agreement is signed, does not have to be the same as "the start" date.

Agreed.

clutton wrote:

Up to now, my signing date/start date/hand over keys have been the same time.

OK except for the S21 that you said forms part of your AST. As a tenant I would argue that the S21 was served on me when you gave me the AST - a few days ahead of time. I would therefore argue the S21 isn't valid as it was served before the tenancy started.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

rosysparkle

franklee wrote:

OK except for the S21 that you said forms part of your AST. As a tenant I would argue that the S21 was served on me when you gave me the AST - a few days ahead of time. I would therefore argue the S21 isn't valid as it was served before the tenancy started.

This was my worry, that's why I queried it earlier. To my mind, including it with or in the AST is leaving yourself open to a claim that it hasn't been validly (is that even a word? ) served.

prudryden

franklee wrote:

Very wise.



Agreed.



OK except for the S21 that you said forms part of your AST. As a tenant I would argue that the S21 was served on me when you gave me the AST - a few days ahead of time. I would therefore argue the S21 isn't valid as it was served before the tenancy started.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Having just read the regulation, it seems that the way around this is to show them a template of the AST (NOT to be signed) for their perusal before the fixed term begins, and then on the day the fixed term begins - have them sign a proper AST contract.

BobProperty

franklee wrote:

......OK except for the S21 that you said forms part of your AST. As a tenant I would argue that the S21 was served on me when you gave me the AST - a few days ahead of time. I would therefore argue the S21 isn't valid as it was served before the tenancy started.
Would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

I may be out of date with my information but I think the S21 has to be served during the tenancy. Therefore it can be done on the same day as the start of the tenancy, at the same time, or sent anytime after. It was recommended to me as a landlord that both documents were signed at the start of the tenancy (AST and S21 notice) as an acknowledgement of receipt of the S21 would be written in to the agreement(s) somewhere. Therefore, in this case, the S21 is invalid as notice has been served before a tenancy has been created. In law I can't see this holding up, notice has been served on a agreement which was not in existence at the time of the notice.
Just re-read this. If the S21 wasn't signed and dated until the AST was also signed and dated then IMHO you've got less of a case. I think this would have to go to legal argument and a court case for a decision.

franklee

prudryden wrote:

Having just read the regulation, it seems that the way around this is to show them a template of the AST (NOT to be signed) for their perusal before the fixed term begins, and then on the day the fixed term begins - have them sign a proper AST contract.

Hmmmm, would that leave the tenant wondering why his copy isn't OK to use and thinking the agreement may have been sneakily changed? Templates are OK for a perspective tenant but once you get near signing then I think they really need the real thing, I seem to recall the OFT have something to say about this, the tenant needs time to read and go to CAB or whatever as clutton mentioned.

But that's an aside, for this issue I don't see how it helps as things are still being done in the "wrong" order even if they are now all on the same day. Which bit of regulation did you read to indicate it would work?

BobProperty wrote:

Just re-read this. If the S21 wasn't signed and dated until the AST was also signed and dated then IMHO you've got less of a case. I think this would have to go to legal argument and a court case for a decision.

I think we agree...

If the S21 is part of the AST you would still be giving the tenant the S21 (and AST) before the AST was signed and before key handover, even if only a few minuted before, so it's not clear cut the S21 would be valid. I've known of tenants putting the time of signing as well as the date to make the point which was signed first.

It seems to me a separate document for the S21 as Rosie indicated is the way to go so why would the landlord risk putting the S21 (as clutton is doing) in the AST and risk having it challenged?

clutton_2

i think it all depends which judge you get in court as to what they allow and what they disallow. luckily i have never had to take a tenant to court. Most of my tenants do not ask me about the AST clauses - even tho i make sure they have it for a few days before signing it - but i explain Section 21 as a "legal requirement" and as long as they continue to pay me rent on time it will not be implemented - seems to have worked up to now .....