offering higher rent for tenancy to commence in over 6 weeks?

[Deleted User]

There is a house I am interested in, the rental price is £950 per month and the house is available from March 15th. I'm looking to move and the house meets my requirements exactly but I'm not moving until May at the earliest.

The house is the largest and most expensive available in the area which could indicate it's going to remain available for a while, or it could mean it's going to have many interested parties right away. I'm not sure if the letting agent is expecting it to remain empty for more than a week or two and I don't want to gamble on losing out but it's not really feasible to move before May 1st at the earliest.

Would offering to pay more (say £1100 per month) for the length of the tenancy be a big enough incentive for the letting agent to agree a tenancy with me now that wouldn't start for 6 weeks? or would asking for a tenancy to commence in 6 weeks be good enough to accept on the listed rental price?

I've always moved into properties right away so I'm not sure what the expected wait is or the expected downtime between tenants is for properties.

AlexMac

I've no idea, but are you being too generous?
Offering £900 over the asking rent for a 6-month AST (6 x £150) should get it and as a LL I'd bite your hand off, in the hope you'd stay into a second 6 months (so almost £2k!) or longer (you do the maths).

So unless cash-flow is a problem (ie you need the deposit back on the current place to fund the new one) why not just suggest a May 1st start date, and if they jib at that, say you'll start the tenancy from, say April 17th, so the 'added cost is just 2 weeks' rent or under £450, non recurring? You don't have to move in on day 1 of the tenancy, and it costs nowt to ask?

ValHaller

I agree. It would even be far better to take up the tenancy immediately from 15 March, paying 2 lots of rent in the interim than to commit to a higher rent for the duration of the tenancy. Unless you don't envisage staying there for too long.

Werdnal

If the house is so ideal and too good to miss, take up the tenancy as soon as possible after 15 March and move in when you are ready. Obviously you would be responsible for the property's security, utilities, council tax etc, from the point the tenancy starts, but surely that seems a better financial deal than increasing the rent for the whole duration of the tenancy (unless as above, you are looking at staying no more than 6 months).

You will have to explain to the LL/LA that the property will be empty until you actually move in, as this may affect their insurance on the property, and they may not be willing to accept this anyway, whether you agree to pay more or not.

tim123456789

Werdnal wrote: »

You will have to explain to the LL/LA that the property will be empty until you actually move in, as this may affect their insurance on the property, and they may not be willing to accept this anyway, whether you agree to pay more or not.

I wouldn't bother.

Just move in enough stuff to spend one night a week there.

(assuming that it's close enough not to make the travelleing too costly/time consuming)

tim

tbs624

tim123456789 wrote: »

I wouldn't bother.

Just move in enough stuff to spend one night a week there.

..and render yourself liable for a "second home" council tax bill for the duration of the overlap? (assuming that the property is currently unfurnished)

tbs624

Bear in mind OP that some LLs/LAs initially advertise a property at a slightly inflated figure anyway, so that a potential T feels they have a bargain when 50 quid per month ,or whatever, gets knocked off the rent figure during negotiation

tim123456789

tbs624 wrote: »

..and render yourself liable for a "second home" council tax bill for the duration of the overlap? (assuming that the property is currently unfurnished)

You may not have noticed

but many councils have now withdrawn that discount

[Deleted User]

Thanks for the replies. The letting agent got back to us today.

AlexMac wrote: »

I've no idea, but are you being too generous?
Offering £900 over the asking rent for a 6-month AST (6 x £150) should get it and as a LL I'd bite your hand off, in the hope you'd stay into a second 6 months (so almost £2k!) or longer (you do the maths).

So unless cash-flow is a problem (ie you need the deposit back on the current place to fund the new one) why not just suggest a May 1st start date, and if they jib at that, say you'll start the tenancy from, say April 17th, so the 'added cost is just 2 weeks' rent or under £450, non recurring? You don't have to move in on day 1 of the tenancy, and it costs nowt to ask?

After asking about this the letting agent has said that the landlord is not interested in waiting for a new tenant as he's confident that the property will have a new tenant right away (it's been listed on rightmove for 2 days). The letting agent also said that he won't be interested in a higher rent... I'm not sure if this can be true, like you said, any landlord should surely be biting my hand off to make more money?

I'm thinking there must be more to it.

Werdnal wrote: »

If the house is so ideal and too good to miss, take up the tenancy as soon as possible after 15 March and move in when you are ready.

I could theoretically do this, unfortunately it wouldn't be very financially responsible. My current lease ends on June 12th at a cost of £1500 per month, after council tax and utilities it comes out to be about £1800 per month, adding another rental on top of that at £950 with utilities and council tax would mean I was spending upwards of £3k per month for the next 3 months...

I could do it and I guess if I have to I will but that will be awful. bah, what a pain.

MattSS

Theres always another perfect property.

[Deleted User]

Spoke to the letting agent today, landlord agreed for a rental commencing April 6th at the £950 list price. Not ideal, but it'll do. Problem (expensively) resolved.