Section 21 and Sky Contract

Notmyrealname

If you're moving back to your parents, run a couple of cables from the dish to your room, connect up your Sky box and use the rest of the subscription.

FireWyrm

Middy wrote: »

Or you should not signed up something which needed a year's contract when you only were supposed to be at the rented place for 6 months.

Unfortunately, it's not a choice that you can make. If you want anything other than freeview then you're stuck with a contract.

The OP also had a reasonable expectation of being in the house for the full 12 months. Frankly, although the LL is going to stick to his guns and say there's nothing he can do, allowing a 12 month contract and then terminating on the 6 month mark is not very nice. People incure thousands of pounds moving houses when you take into account all the incidental costs as well as LA fees, bonds, rent up front etc. Unfortunately, the OP is stuck with the cost, but the LL was a p**ck to allow the situation in the first place.

I might be inclined to write a nice letter stating the costs incurred by his awful management of the situation...nothing lost and perhaps something to gain.

jjlandlord

FireWyrm wrote: »

Unfortunately, it's not a choice that you can make. If you want anything other than freeview then you're stuck with a contract.

Yes it is a choice to take a risk to be bound for 12 months with a supplier when one has no guarantee to be at the property for more than 6 months.

FireWyrm wrote: »

The OP also had a reasonable expectation of being in the house for the full 12 months.

OP said he has a 6 month fixed term. He cannot have expectations beyond that.

FireWyrm

jjlandlord wrote: »

Yes it is a choice to take a risk to be bound for 12 months with a supplier when one has no guarantee to be at the property for more than 6 months.
...

OP said he has a 6 month fixed term. He cannot have expectations beyond that.

Dont be silly. No one in their right mind takes a let for 12 months and expects to get kicked out after 6, or would bother taking a single 6 month contract except for perhaps an interim let when moving between houses.

It's terrible behaviour on the part of the LL and I would be livid too. Also, you cant live your life in 6 monthly chunks, by your reasoning, no-one who rents dare take a sky contract for fear of being kicked out within 6 months since each 'renewal' resets the clock again.

jjlandlord

FireWyrm wrote: »

Dont be silly. No one in their right mind takes a let for 12 months and expects to get kicked out after 6, or would bother taking a single 6 month contract except for perhaps an interim let when moving between houses.

Who said OP has a 12 months term? he said he has a "6 month tennancy agreement".
Even if he had a 12 month term, if it included a 6 months break clause the fixed term would in effect only be 6 months... What would be 'silly', or at least naive, would be to assume otherwise.

If cost is an issue for OP, imo MacMickster gave a good advice.

jamie11

FireWyrm wrote: »

Dont be silly. No one in their right mind takes a let for 12 months and expects to get kicked out after 6, or would bother taking a single 6 month contract except for perhaps an interim let when moving between houses.

It's terrible behaviour on the part of the LL and I would be livid too. Also, you cant live your life in 6 monthly chunks, by your reasoning, no-one who rents dare take a sky contract for fear of being kicked out within 6 months since each 'renewal' resets the clock again.

The OP could have asked for a 3 year AST when he first took the place, or at least looked for a landlord that wanted a long term let. It's not the fault of the landlord that he has to work within the framework of the legislation.

GDB2222

MacMickster wrote: »

I would try asking the landlord to help you out.

He wants the property back for his father to use, and the Section 21 notice itself does not mean that you have to vacate the property. If you dig your heels in you could extend the time before he could get possession of the property and he would incur additional costs to do so.

It could be worth putting this to the landlord and asking if he would pay the termination fee to avoid this.

I guess you could bamboozle the landlord that way. In practice, the section 21 process through the courts is not particularly expensive, and it is something that the landlord can do easily himself. The tenant would end up being liable for the court fees.

I do not have Sky, so can someone tell me whether it is essential to take out a 12 month contract? Is there a six-month contract, perhaps at slightly greater monthly cost?