AST ending soon... how to change to periodic?

DVardysShadow

mystra wrote: »

that's what i need to know

I'm really confused by all this now

Probably you are not the only one. By way of explanation from a history perspective, jjlandlord came here some time ago with a number of others form a site called Landlord Zone I believe. There are some things which some of them come out with from time to time which is at complete variance with things which are understood here. Mostly to do with the ending of a tenancy. For example [I don't think jjlandlord expressed and opinion on this], one of them argued that a tenant could not give notice to end a Statutory Periodic Tenancy to finish that tenancy 1 month after the end of an Assured term.

Now the above is not to try and further the argument on your question. It is by way of explanation to you as to why you are getting diverse opinions and the history which brings it about.

mystra

jjlandlord wrote: »

Even in the worst case this should be no problem as we established that the notice included in your tenancy agreement is invalid.
Obviously you don't need to tell them it is invalid...

but i thought the S21 invalidates the part of the contract that says it turns periodic?

N79

jjlandlord wrote: »

Frankly, I do not see a court refusing possession just because the tenant claims that tenancy has been renewed orally. If so all s.21 would fail...
It relies on the balance of probabilities, not the "slightest benefit of the doubt".

Poor wording - not purely verbal, a written offer (or email) plus verbal acceptance (or even email acceptance). Thus there is credible evidence the offer was made - the only verbal issue before the courts is the issue of verbal acceptance.

N79

mystra wrote: »

but i thought the S21 invalidates the part of the contract that says it turns periodic?

Even a valid S21 notice does not do that. S21 merely tells the T that the LL may ask a court for possession.

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

Frankly, I do not see a court refusing possession just because the tenant claims that tenancy has been renewed orally. If so all s.21 would fail...
It relies on the balance of probabilities, not the "slightest benefit of the doubt".

Exactly that scenario, I might agree with you. But a written offer in conjunction with a verbal acceptance and the Landlord not forwarding a new agreement, I see the court possibly considering whether some common law is required to make sense of it.

mystra

N79 wrote: »

Even a valid S21 notice does not do that. S21 merely tells the T that the LL may ask a court for possession.

so i am well within my rights to let the tenancy go from AST to periodic?

To be fair i don't see the reason they would have to 'kick us out' we pay the rent on time and rarely call up with problems. We're pretty good tenants in my eyes, but in London... tenants are easily replaced and flats like this don't stay vacant for long at all, so estate agents will always treat you like dirt!

DVardysShadow

N79 wrote: »

Poor wording - not purely verbal, a written offer (or email) plus verbal acceptance (or even email acceptance). Thus there is credible evidence the offer was made - the only verbal issue before the courts is the issue of verbal acceptance.

Agree. Matter of Fact rather than Matter of Law.

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Exactly that scenario, I might agree with you. But a written offer in conjunction with a verbal acceptance and the Landlord not forwarding a new agreement, I see the court possibly considering whether some common law is required to make sense of it.

Again, there's no common law to be called on here: Either the evidence shown make the court conclude that a new tenancy has in all probability been created or not.

Credible evidence that offer was made is not enough. You'd need credible evidence that it was accepted.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

There are some things which some of them come out with from time to time which is at complete variance with things which are understood here.

I don't think answers to such issues should vary from forum to forum

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

Again, there's no common law to be called on here: Either the evidence shown make the court conclude that a new tenancy has in all probability been created or not.

I mean the court might consider the need to create that common law. This issue is ripe for that because plainly the statute law is not fit for purpose. Plainly, preemptive S21's are an abuse of the intent of a S21.

mystra

Can someone also tell me what the law is regarding how much notice is giving for a rent increase?

I'm reading through the contract, and the wording is confusing me

1.7.8 Rent Increase

1.7.8.1 If for any reason the Tenant remains in possession of the Property, or the lawful Tenant of the Property for more than 12 months, then the rent will increase each year.
1.7.8.2 The first increase will be the Rent Due Date more than 365 days after the commencement date.
1.7.8.3 Subsequent increases will be on the first first Rent Due Date more than 365 days since the last rent increase.
1.7.8.4 In clauses 1.7.8.2 and 1.7.8.3 the Rent will increase by the amount stated for the annual increase in the Index of Retail prices (All Items) as quoted for the month two months prior to the month of increase.
1.7.8.5 Not applying the rent increase at the first Rent Due Date more than 365 days after the commencement date or last rent increase date will not then prevent the Landlord applying an increase on any future Rent Due Date.

So say i DID want to renew... how much notice do they have to give me of the increase in price (as in the figures not just saying it's going up)