Why would a landlord not give a long lease....?

posh_scouse

Although I only signed up today I've been lurking for a while.

My previous post was about including my fianc! on the lease. However as I stated there - we don't want to move for a long time. We've both lived in other countries and don't see renting as a bad thing. We are also good tenants - I have glowing references going back years - including paying for upkeep myself.

Now, I know the landlords situation. She has a child with limited earning capacity in the future so has a BTL bought years ago for cash, did it up and now lets it as a a source of income for her child in the future and hopefully an equity pot. So long as she has a good tenant, she is happy and has no reason to sell.

We pay roughly market rate - maybe a bit lower than other 3 bed terraces but thats due to the strange situation of being built on a hillside so the house is over four floors - and the garage is under the patio. Being childless and not planning to have any (he's had his, I don't want them) its fine for us. A bedroom, an office and a guest bed.

The rent is not an issue, we can more than cover it - what we'd like is some sort of long term lease like you can get in the states and in europe - where so long as we pay on time, we can't be evicted for 2 years but also where we can't give notice.

I've read numerous thread from land lords who will say they won't contemplate this idea... why?

I work in the family business and so my income is limited but my fianc! has effectively a job for life in the railways with one of the last gold plated pensions. We can afford it from his salary alone.

I really don't want to annoy my lovely and very nice landlord by asking or even feel like I'm putting her on the spot. I don't want to ask the question if there are some reasons I can't think of that would make her feel awkward.

EDIT - yes we have had an IVA (him) and BR (me) but in no time have I ever missed a rent payment - I've eaten toast for a month to make sure my rent was paid. The BR was during this tenancy and I was upfront with the landlord and she was fine.

DVardysShadow

Why?

It is UK housing policy. As part of a long term policy to lock people into commitment to the system, we have higher home ownership than many countries. Indeed many people are in home ownership who would never be home owners in other countries. It leads to a rather smaller rental market with a much higher proportion of Social Tenants and people with credit issues dues to delinquent attitudes - and people who live like trash.. Now, I am not classing you as problem tenants - plainly you are not - but overall, I think it leads to a much higher chance of tenants here being problematic than elsewhere.

Additionally, in the past, tenants have been given too much security. Now the pendulum has swung and the AST is too short - which tends to mean that anyone who can will prefer to buy rather than rent for the stability. In turn this decreases the quality of the tenant pool which leads to legislative pressure to protect Landlords with short tenancy periods and very little security for tenants.

Overall, it is damaging to social cohesion and this damage outweighs the benefits of high home ownership IMO.

On the whole, I think LL's should only get tax concessions for keeping a tenant longer than a year [knee jerk policy reaction]. This would keep LL's keen on keeping stable tenants.

Kynthia

Unless there are rent arrears it is unlikely that a landlord can evict a tenant during a fixed term. Therefore landlords are reluctant to tie themselves to a tenant for two years when they could turn out to be a nightmare. Many tenants feel the same and don't want to be tied that long to a landlord and property that may not work out well. However after six months or a year, a landlord will have got to know you and if they are happy with you they could be more open to the possibility of a long fixed term agreement.

Another reason could be the high number of 'accidental landlords'. They haven't usually bought the property as a buy to let and therefore intend to sell at some point but don't know when, or they aren't sure whether letting will be profitable. As a result they don't want to tie themselves to a fixed term that prevents them selling with vacant possession. Finding a committed professional landlord will improve your chances of a longer tenancy agreement.

Zorz_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

It is UK housing policy. As part of a long term policy to lock people into commitment to the system, we have higher home ownership than many countries. Indeed many people are in home ownership who would never be home owners in other countries.

(...)

Overall, it is damaging to social cohesion and this damage outweighs the benefits of high home ownership IMO.

I don't feel that the UK has an above average home ownership rate.

http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=57411
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
http://www.photius.com/rankings/homeownership_rates.html

Germany has a really low percentage (I didn't know that), the UK is about average, southern Europe has a lot higher.

Slinky

I didn't want my tenants having a long lease as I never wanted to be more than 6 months away from getting my home back if I needed it (I'd moved away from the area to be with my OH). As it turned out, circumstances brought us back to the area and we did need my house back to live in.

Brallaqueen

During a lease, the tenant can do pretty much anything as long as they pay their rent, and the LL will be hardpressed to evict them. 2 months arrears in rent is the only MANDATORY ground for possession, and savvy tenants will keep it under the 2 months and be safe. Anti-social behaviour, smearing sh1te up the walls, tearing holes in the floor - only discretionary grounds for possession and LL need armourplated evidence and even then, judges are loath to deprive someone of a roof over their head.

Sod that!

Werdnal

Put yourself in the position of the LL for a moment:

You are a totally unknown quantity to them. You may have a glowing credit report and excellent references, a well paid job, secure relationship and come across as a 100% solid gold tenant. However, everyone's circumstances change - this applies to both you and your prospective LL.

You could lose your job, suffer long term sickness with little income, have a relationship breakdown or bereavement (sorry if a little morbid for this time of the morning, but !!!! happens in life). Anything like this can affect your ability to pay your rent, keep the property in good condition and remain that 100% solid gold tenant.

The LL's own situation may change too - they may want/need to sell and release their own capital due to a similar crisis in their lives. Or they may suddenly need the property back to live in it themselves, or provide a home for a relative.

If you know somewhere that supplies fully functional crystal balls, allowing both you and your landlord to see 2 years or more into the future, and rule out any possible hiccup, misfortune or crisis that may affect your or their ability to continue with the tenancy, they might be convinced to allow you a long fixed term ... but in this uncertain age, I can see why LLs don't want such a long tie-in!

jjlandlord

ASTs are not "too short" as they can be for any length of time.

However, since ASTs allows landlords to grant very little security of tenure to tenants, they tend to use that possibility.
There's also the fact that, as suggested by Werdnal, some landlord may have a short term view of their BTL investments, though with the current property market this may be changing.

But I think many fixed term ASTs are drawn for only 6 of 12 months because "that's what the letting agent does"... Ie. no decisively good reason apart from allowing agents to extract further fees every year.

lazer

I can see why LL's are reluctant to give long leases, but i think the rules need to change

After the first 6 months of a tenancy the landlord should be allowed to evict for the following reasons

1) - They want to sell or move into the house themselves (minimum of 3 months notice required for the tenent)

2) - The tenent is consistently late with rent of in arrears at all, if over 5 days late more than 3 times in any 12 month period that should be grounds for eviction

3) - The property is damaged and in need to renovations (could be used to evict tenents who are wrecking the property if required)

This would mean that long term leases would be more common if the LL's could still evict for reasonable reasons, and it would give good tenents the security of their home.

My parents rented for around 30 years, in the one house, not moving until the landlord wanted to sell. (They also owned a house elsewhere which then rented out, so evicted their tenents to so they could move into the house).
Rent was paid reasonably on time, we paid in cash by hand, so if we were on holidays or something we were maybe a bit late but by this stage the landlord knew us, knew we would pay and wasn't bothered!
We also painted the outside of the house, did the basic maintenance on the house, replaced broken windows, decorated how we wanted to etc and the landlord was generally only called on to fix more serious faults like replacing the sceptic tank.

This is the reason i wanted to buy my own house, because a long term lease means the house feels very much as if it is yours, but it isn't and being asked to leave after 30 years was not easy on any of us. A rented house is never a secure home n matter what!

Zorz_2

Werdnal wrote: »

If you know somewhere that supplies fully functional crystal balls, allowing both you and your landlord to see 2 years or more into the future, and rule out any possible hiccup, misfortune or crisis that may affect your or their ability to continue with the tenancy, they might be convinced to allow you a long fixed term ... but in this uncertain age, I can see why LLs don't want such a long tie-in!

All you said it's true, but isn't a mortgage a significantly longer and more serious engagement?

molit

both my places have longer than average tenancies; but i started off with the standard 6 months, and wanted to make sure that the tenants looked after the house before i offered them this. They were both very keen to sign up to this, but again, only after i had shwon myself as a decent landlord.

As a landlord, i dont want void periods, but i want problem tenants even less....i would suggest most landlords i have come across think like this. yes there are risks as highlighted above, but in providing the longer lease, i took the cost benefit of this into account.