Rent going up

Minnie999

Like anyone else I don't like having my rent increased, but what concerns me the most are the potential terms of the new agreement. I'm pretty sure it's going to make evicting tenants far easier than the previous one.

At the moment, I have been told what the rental increase will be but have not seen the T&Cs yet.

Even if I don't sign the new agreement, I understand that agreeing to the rent increase by itself may be interpreted as agreeing to the new terms. Luckily, I have complete control of the amount that can be taken out of my account.

On the individual representing the landlord, there's nothing to be concerned about (thanks for asking), they live in the block and have their own accommodation, they basically manage the block, do the admin, etc. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Thanks for your kind help.

Guest101

OK, pause.

The law protects you, doesnt matter what your tenancy says, its just a clever way of him trying to fool you. Evicting is never easy, no matter what you have signed. so put that thought away for now.

Agreeing to the rent increase does not mean you agree to the new terms, unless you sign them. Your signature is all that matters, do not sign anything unless you are 100% sure your happy.

Verbal terms mean nothing, if it's not on paper, its not real.

RAS

Thanks

Just wanted to make sure you were not in shared accomodation or in a situation where the LL could try and claim you are a lodger.

Ultimately if the fixed term has ended the LL can give you two months notice of their intention to re-possess. You are NOT required to move out at the end of the two months; that is the earliest date when the LL can start court action.

You have to give them one month's notice.

In both cases the date has to tie in with the rental period. So if your rent is due on the 1st, you have to make sure the LL has written notice before the last day of the previous month.

You could just refuse to pay the increase, or you could pay the increase but refuse to sign a new contract. Or you could sign the new contract if you want to do so.

In no case could the statutory rules about termination of contracts be altered, whatever the LL put in the contract.

jamie11

Do not sign the new agreement, you could write to the landlord explaining that you prefer to stay on your monthly tenancy although you have no problem with an increased rent via the S13 process.

A court would consider it unfair for you to be forced to sign a new contract that tries to take away rights that you had under your old one, as we've already said, in a 'Statutory Periodic Tenancy' the notice periods are laid down by statute.

G_M

Minnie999 wrote: »

- It's an assured shorthold tenancy
- The old agreement is now over 10 years old
- No fixed term was defined in the old agreement (it was left blank)
It is a Contractual Periodic Tenancy
- Under the terms of the old agreement one month's notice can be given by either party
Over-ruled by statute. You must be given two Tenancy Periods notice. If you pay rent monthly, your TPs are a month
- There are a number of references to the 1988 Housing Act

Questions:
1. If there is no fixed term defined, is the existing 'old agreement' still enforce ? Or is it so old now that it's no longer valid ?
It is valid

2. Assuming the notice period in the agreement is legal, does the one month notice period still apply or on the basis of the above discussion describing English Law for tenancy and possibly because of the age of the agreement rendering it no longer applicable, is the notice period now two months (I've noted that, in practice, it would be longer in either case)?


Many, many thanks for your kind help.

See
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?)

Rent increases (how and when can rent be changed

Minnie999

Hello again,

So things went quiet, but then recently I received a couple of documents for signature:

(i) New assured shorthold tenancy fixed term agreement for six months.

(ii) Notice requiring possession section 21 (1) (b) with an expiry date that matches that of the end of the fixed term agreement.

Qn#1: There is a clause within the contract allowing the landlord to provide two months notice to terminate the tenancy within the fixed term period. Assuming I sign up to these docs, is there any way that the court order can be applied for before the fixed term is completed ?

Qn#2: There is the option for me to simply pay the additional rent without recourse to a section 13, which makes life easier for the landlord (and likely for me too). However, from what I have read this provides less protection, for example a section 13 limits an increase to once per year. Is there any protection within a section 13 with respect to preventing or limiting the landlord from asking a tenant to sign a new fixed term agreement ?

Qn#3 I noticed that docs (i) and (ii) above have different companies given for the landlord, both based at the same address. Is there any significance to this?

Qn#4: My guess is that the reason why the above documents have been produced is to make it easier to evict. It's likely that they do not have the original contract to hand (that is many years old), nor any record of me having paid a deposit, both of which make it more difficult for a court order to be carried out - is this assumption valid ?

So as advised previously, I plan to write to the landlord explaining that I have been contacted by the manager asking that the rent is increased, something which I am prepared to consider as a reasonable tenant of some years standing. I will request that this is done through a Section 13 notice to increase the rent.

(I understand from the advice already given, that eviction in ~ 5 months is still possible even if I don't sign the above docs).

Many grateful thanks in advance for any and all advice provided!

BitterAndTwisted

Minnie999 wrote: »

Hello again,

So things went quiet, but then recently I received a couple of documents for signature:

(i) New assured shorthold tenancy fixed term agreement for six months.

(ii) Notice requiring possession section 21 (1) (b) with an expiry date that matches that of the end of the fixed term agreement.

Qn#1: There is a clause within the contract allowing the landlord to provide two months notice to terminate the tenancy within the fixed term period. Assuming I sign up to these docs, is there any way that the court order can be applied for before the fixed term is completed?

No, the landlord will not be able to apply for possession until the fixed-term expires, although they can serve the documents during the fixed-term, That S21 Notice you have received with the new AST is an inducement to sign it.

Qn#2: There is the option for me to simply pay the additional rent without recourse to a section 13, which makes life easier for the landlord (and likely for me too). However, from what I have read this provides less protection, for example a section 13 limits an increase to once per year. Is there any protection within a section 13 with respect to preventing or limiting the landlord from asking a tenant to sign a new fixed term agreement ?

No, there isn't. The two issues are entirely separate.

Qn#3 I noticed that docs (i) and (ii) above have different companies given for the landlord, both based at the same address. Is there any significance to this?

One of them is incorrect. This could benefit you if they decide to exercise that S21. I'd be having a look on the Land Registry site to determine which company actually is your landlord.

Qn#4: My guess is that the reason why the above documents have been produced is to make it easier to evict. It's likely that they do not have the original contract to hand (that is many years old), nor any record of me having paid a deposit, both of which make it more difficult for a court order to be carried out - is this assumption valid?

My suspicion is that you are correct, in that they cannot issue a S21 Notice based on the dates of your original tenancy as they do not have a copy of that to hand. This is a very compelling reason why you should agree to pay the new rent but not sign a new AST.

So as advised previously, I plan to write to the landlord explaining that I have been contacted by the manager asking that the rent is increased, something which I am prepared to consider as a reasonable tenant of some years standing. I will request that this is done through a Section 13 notice to increase the rent.

(I understand from the advice already given, that eviction in ~ 5 months is still possible even if I don't sign the above docs).

Many grateful thanks in advance for any and all advice provided!

If they haven't got a copy of your original AST, and they do issue a Section 21 Notice you will be able to challenge this in court as invalid. Once you challenge them you may risk having to show your hand and disclose to them the precise dates, so they could then go on to issue a correct S21 at a later date.

Still, it goes without saying that a sensible landlord would never want to evict a reliable tenant if they are confident that they are receiving a fair rent. Going through the repossession process and then having to pay the agent a tenant-finding fee of several hundred pounds could wipe out any benefit of letting to new tenants at a similar annual rent.

Minnie999

Many thanks for the advice, I hope it doesn't get serious enough to have to make a challenge in a court, but at least I will know what strategy to adopt if it does.

I found this paragraph interesting:

Still, it goes without saying that a sensible landlord would never want to evict a reliable tenant if they are confident that they are receiving a fair rent. Going through the repossession process and then having to pay the agent a tenant-finding fee of several hundred pounds could wipe out any benefit of letting to new tenants at a similar annual rent.

I would agree with this, on the basis of past experience all the landlord wants to do is to receive a decent level of rent, any other issues that arise are unimportant unless the level of rent is affected in some way.

Unfortunately, the manager's motives are different, I have good reason to think that the manager has eyes on my flat, either for themselves or a friend.

So for this particular case, I just wonder whether the most sensible approach is to write to the landlord, agree to the rent increase (which is reasonable), start paying the new rent and not sign anything. It reduces the landlord's incentive to boot me out, so long as the landlord is not too bothered about not having everyone on an AST. It also puts me in a better light than if I went down the section 13 route. I could always revisit this if the rent increases became too frequent or unreasonable in future.

Many thanks for your kind help.

Yorkie1

Interesting that they have served a s.21 with the proposed new fixed term tenancy.

I'd be grateful for others' comments, but I *think* this sequence of documents would mean that:

a) if you do not sign the new tenancy agreement, the s.21 can be treated as valid but not to expire before the date on it; or

b) if you do sign the new tenancy agreement, the s.21 is not valid because it was served before the new tenancy was signed.

What do others think?

Steer100

Hi Guys,

I'm a letting agent so if I can help please let me know.

In regards to issuing a section 21 along with the AST, this is pretty standard. Basically it means if the landlord wants the property back at the end of the tenancy then he has in effect already given you notice. Usually this would still be re-issued 2 months before anyway.

Signing the section 21 really won't affect anything as any landlord could still issue this (subject to contract/break clauses etc) at any time giving 2 months notice (this is standard- although can be reduced/increased to anything if put as a special condition at the end of the contract).