Question regarding tenant

redskyatnight_2

DRP wrote: »

sounds like you need to do some proper research.

Essentially their tenancy converts to a month by month periodic contract unless you choose to go through the process to evict them.

I would really rather not do that, as I fear it will give a bad/wrong impression to the property agent. Basically, I would be evicting them for nothing. I am in such a quandary: especially as they have been good tenants. The thought of evicting them is horrible. Is it not possible to just say 'I don't wish to renew with these tenants?' And NOT evict them? Like through the courts I mean

Sorry if I sound like a stupid moron, I am just confused. I am a person who bought a house in 2004, and lived there for 2 years, and then had to move away with my job, and I couldn't sell it, so I rent it out.

I'm not some unscrupulous pig who is trying to do one over on my tenants; I just fear losing money and being unable to pay the mortgage. And so, if I do nothing and the tenants say they don't wish to sign a new 12 month tenancy, it just goes to period anyway??? Will I literally have to go through legal proceedings to have them leave in May, and get new tenants?

G_M

Why on earth do you want good tenants to leave in May? Why make an issue out of this?

The post below explains the options. And the rights of each side. And the notice required (on each side).

Probobly most tenancies move to periodic after the original fixed term (though I've never done a scientific survey!). Some continue like that for years.

Ending/Renewing an AST (what happens when the Fixed Term ends?)(What is a Periodic Tenancy?)(How can a LL remove a tenant?)(How can a tenant end a tenancy?)



You might also find these useful:

New Landlords (general information for new or prospective landlords)

Rent increases (how and when can rent be changed)

DRP

redskyatnight wrote: »

I would really rather not do that, as I fear it will give a bad/wrong impression to the property agent. Basically, I would be evicting them for nothing. I am in such a quandary: especially as they have been good tenants. The thought of evicting them is horrible. Is it not possible to just say 'I don't wish to renew with these tenants?' And NOT evict them? Like through the courts I mean

Sorry if I sound like a stupid moron, I am just confused. I am a person who bought a house in 2004, and lived there for 2 years, and then had to move away with my job, and I couldn't sell it, so I rent it out.

I'm not some unscrupulous pig who is trying to do one over on my tenants; I just fear losing money and being unable to pay the mortgage. And so, if I do nothing and the tenants say they don't wish to sign a new 12 month tenancy, it just goes to period anyway??? Will I literally have to go through legal proceedings to have them leave in May, and get new tenants?

you don't necessaerily have to go through the courts, just give them their notice (s21) in the proper way. Only a minority of tenants will fight to stay and make it necessary to go to court.

As others have suggested, I am finding it difficult to follow your logic here though. Whether they leave at your request or leave when they want, you still face the uncertainty of new tenants (if you can find *any*) - you currently have good tenants, keep them as long as possible.

princeofpounds

You really need to think about what you are doing...

If you kick them out now, they can refuse all viewings until the day they leave. You will then be left with NO months before you can get new potential tenants in to view.

If you price appropriately and you aren't in the middle of the countryside, one month's notice is not going to be an issue if you price the place appropriately.

Offer them a 6 month contract, that might help. Or a 12 month contract but with a 2 month break clause. You won't be able to exercise any break clause in the first 6 months of the tenancy, but they can, and that might give you minimum security you need.

Just kicking them out is stupid, frankly, as long as they keep paying. You are inviting a number of risks for your business (non-paying new tenant, void period, spoiled relations with outgoing tenants, agency fees) just to solve one potential risk in the future.

A statutory periodic tenancy is a pretty normal arrangement.

AFK_Matrix

Well when you give them the s21 notice it does depend how clued up they are on tenancy law. As most people when they get a notice for possession assume they have to be out on the date that it states. So you may well be lucky and your tenant voluntarily leave on the eviction date that is on the s21. But if they do have knowledge of what to do or get that information and they want to they can refuse to leave and then yes you would have to go through the courts.

As others have said you are mad to kick them out tbh. And if your house is in a good area etc and the agent is semi good then you should be able to find someone in a month.

Oh and just so you know the last place I rented before buying my house, I stayed on a periodic tenancy for 3 years.

Better_Days

redskyatnight wrote: »

They said, because of personal circumstances, and the fact they may need to leave the area anytime in the next 4 to 8 months, they are reluctant to sign a long lease. They may stay til August or September or October; they're not sure.

Having read a number of posts on here about problem tenants I agree with the other posters that it would be best to hold onto good tenants as long as possible - especially as from your post (my bold) it seems possible that they might not need to move at all. Are they definitely going to move, they just don't know when, or is the move only a possibility?

Ask your letting agent, and find out how far ahead tenants usually start looking for a property. I doubt it will usually be 2 months.

Also I think it will enhance your chances of re-letting the property if you keep your current tenants on side so that they allow viewings and tell prospective tenants what a good LL you are

Your tenants have paid on time and improved the property, I think they don't deserve a S21 because they may move 6 months in the future. Bird in the hand and all that, looks like at the least you will get another 6 months rent.

ValHaller

redskyatnight wrote: »

Well I'm not mad, I would just rather have a tenant that has signed a 12 month contract. I am just worried about them only having to give a month's notice. And I wondered if it was true that they are quite within their rights to stay if they want, and leave when they're ready, without signing another lease in May?

While I can see where you are coming from, if you hold them over a barrel, they can hold you over a worse one.

In this modern world of wageslaves who will never own a house, the wage slave needs flexibility to be able to follow the work. A 12 month contract makes the wageslave tenant less mobile than someone who owns their own home - who could probably move themselves out in under 6 months from any given starting point.

So having got the emotive stuff said, look at what your tenant could do to you. Your tenant could decide that if you are not prepared to offer a periodic tenancy, they will take a 6 month AST somewhere else and go periodic, having the flexibility they need. As things stand, they have a window of opportunity in May, just to hand the keys back on the termination of the current agreement - with no notice whatsoever.

Voids are part of the business of being a Landlord. The flexibility of a periodic tenancy is one of the benefits you can offer a tenant over buying their own place. By trying to coerce your tenants into a 12 month commitment, you are making the proposition of renting your property unattractive. You cannot avoid the void - you might think that you can postpone it, but you are more likely to bring it on sooner. And of course if the tenant does not want to allow viewings after they give notice, they don't have to. So in that respect, 3 months notice from the tenant puts you no further forward than 1 month's notice.

Another factor to consider is that if you give them notice to quit now, they may just decide to bring their plans forward and move later in the year - but after the notice expires. They would be within their rights to stay up til you get a possession order - your notice to quit to them is not itself an order - it just sets a date after which you can take them to court to gain possession. Once a tenant outstays his S21, of course, you have no control over when they leave and they could again leave you with no notice.

The periodic tenancy is about the most controlled option for sorting out the end of a tenancy amicably and you would be well advised to let the tenancy go periodic.

Werdnal

If you "force" them to sign a new fixed term which they obviously don't want to do, they will probably look elsewhere anyway. They haven't told you they will definately leave soon, but they obviously want to keep their options open should their circumstances dictate they need to move.

I think you are being a little paranoid over this. I have let property since 2000, and only ever issue an initial 6 month fixed term, allowing it to become periodic after this ends. I had one tenant stay for 6 years, never having signed a new agreement.

Are you so tight on cash that you cannot afford a short void if tenants give a month's notice and you cannot secure new ones to avoid a few weeks without any? If you agents are good ones, and pro-active on their advertising, you should easily be able to find replacement tenants within 6 weeks or so of getting notice from the existing ones.

You risk driving these tenants away if you force them to sign a new fixed term and cutting your nose of to spite your face if you choose to give them notice. I too, cannot get my head around your logic!

Naf

If you (and they) do nothing, then the tenancy will default to periodic, automatically. The only way to prevent it is to sign a new minimum term (this could be 6 months instead of 12 if the tenants are happy with that); or to issue a S21 to request that they leave as soon as the tenancy is up.

I agree with everyone above; you're pretty mad to want rid of a good tenant early. Whether now, or when they leave, you'll need to find someone new; you'll be risking a period of un-occupancy until you find someone, and risking what the new tenant is actually like (which no amount of checks will tell you). Might as well keep the good tenant in for as long as possible before having to take the risks. You now have plenty of notice to be able to budge and plan for when they do give their notice, though.

tim123456789

redskyatnight wrote: »

Thank you Martin, but can I evict them for basically 'nothing?' Just because I want someone to sign a full 12 month tenancy...?

I have been told - by a work colleague - that I am treading on dangerous ground, and could be in danger of unfair treatment towards them? is this right? or can I just literally say 'I want them out' with no recourse, as the tenancy ends anyway on 15th May?

If I evict them? What grounds do I have to evict?

you can

It would be an insane thing to do

tim