Renewal/Extension of AST. New Inventory Needed?

OneAimMan

Hi All,

This is the first time I am renewing/extending an AST agreement with my current tenants. Previously, with other tenants, I've let them run over to periodic tenancy on rolling month.

The agent is currently drawing up new tenancy agreement, in effect the same agreement in place, with only the dates altered.

I understand the prescribed information will be issued again, and I believe the deposit re-protected. However, do I need to check-out the tenants and carry out another check-in inventory to fully protect myself when they actually come to vacating the property?

I asked the estate agent, and they assure me it is not required as the current one will be valid for the new tenancy and re-protection of the deposit but I want to have some certainty and get some input from others.

Any thoughts welcome.

Thanks :money:

G_M

Have to ask - why not do as before and let it go Periodic? Cheaper for you and (probobly) the tenant?

However, I do not believe you need re-do the inventory.

Doing so would, of course, do no harm, and would ensure you've crossed all the t's /dotted the i's twice!

It would also ensure a thorough inspection takes place enabling you to identify any repairs that are needed.

On the other hand, if your agent does this, that will be another cost!

Do (really - DO) check that your agent re-issues the Prescribed Information.

Re-issuing PI (when renewing a tenancy - Superstrike Vs Rodrigues - legal guidance)

This applies whether the tenancy is renewed OR goes Periodic.

OneAimMan

Thanks for your reply G_M

I have decided not to go periodic as I wanted to secure the tenants for another fixed term, as were they to benefit from keeping the rent fixed.

I of-course would prefer to avoid having to re-do the inventory if it is not necessary but I appreciate, with most housing matters, there is room for your own judgement. It would be at cost to me, hassle to the current tenants and it's much more difficult to carry out a full report when the tenants have their possessions in the house.

My only concern is if at the end of the tenancy there is a dispute over damages, would the adjudicator dismiss my claims stating that they should of been filed under the previous tenancy agreement?

Thanks for the reminder; I will be making sure that all documents are re-issued. If I am correct, it will be the tenancy agreement, EPC and deposit certificate.

G_M

Good point about EPC. I doubt many LLs re-issue despite the EPC (Energy Performance Certificate rules).

Energy performance certificates on sale and rent

5. (1) Subject to regulation 7, this regulation applies where a building is to be sold or rented out.

(2) The relevant person shall make available free of charge a valid energy performance certificate to any prospective buyer or tenant—

(a)at the earliest opportunity; and

(b)in any event before entering into a contract to sell or rent out the building or, if sooner, no later than whichever is the earlier of—

(i)in the case of a person who requests information about the building, the time at which the relevant person first makes available any information in writing about the building to the person; or

(ii)in the case of a person who makes a request to view the building, the time at which the person views the building.

Since Superstrike Vs Rodrigues confirmed that a new tenancy was a new contract, an EPC should be re-issued.

Campervanman

I have always been told that there is no need to redo the inventory as the tenancy hasnt actually ended. When the tenant finally leaves you will check out against the original inventory and that is when they become liable for any damage or missing items etc.

The only time my agent has suggested I do otherwise is when I redecorated during a tenancy due to water damage. I took photos with a date stamp on them and appended them to the inventory with email confirmation the tenants agreed they showed the property in its current state. Inventories are expensive and it will eat in to your profits if you do one without needing to.:(

jjlandlord

There is no need to produce a new schedule of condition or inventory.

G_M wrote: »

Since Superstrike Vs Rodrigues confirmed that a new tenancy was a new contract, an EPC should be re-issued.

What? Superstrike did not clarify that 'a new tenancy was a new contract'.

Regarding EPC, I don't think there is any requirement to provide it again and again.

G_M

jjlandlord wrote: »

There is no need to produce a new schedule of condition or inventory.



What? Superstrike did not clarify that 'a new tenancy was a new contract'.

Regarding EPC, I don't think there is any requirement to provide it again and again.

Sorry. Superstrike confirmed that a Stat Periodic Tenancy is a new tenancy (and hence new contract) (as obviously is a new fixed term).

So in either case it's a new contract (with implications on deposits as the case outlines), and also similar implications on EPC as per my quote.

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

Sorry. Superstrike confirmed that a Stat Periodic Tenancy is a new tenancy (and hence new contract) (as obviously is a new fixed term).

It has always been a new tenancy ditto judge himself. Superstrike clarified what 'receiving a deposit related to an AST' meant.
Anyway, Superstrike is not relevant here.

G_M wrote: »

So in either case it's a new contract (with implications on deposits as the case outlines), and also similar implications on EPC as per my quote.

I disagree.
Section 2 states that an EPC must be provided (actually 'made available', which is not the same) to a prospective tenant before entering a new contract to rent.
If the landlord did that before entering the first contract to rent, by the very definition of 'before' he has nothing more to do upon any subsequent contract.
In addition, one may argue that an existing tenant is not a 'prospective tenant'.

OneAimMan

I will not check the tenants out and re-do an inventory. The hassle involved greatly outweighs what may be an unnecessary process.

In relation to the EPC, I am going to be on the safe side with it and ask the agent to re-issue all the documents. I would take what G_M said to be true, that a court could classify an extension as a new agreement and so all documents re-issued. Saying that, jjlandlord raises a good point also.

It is the deposit protection and prescribed information that are the main sticking points in cases, and I've personally not seen EPC issues used against a LL.

I've found over the years, there is no clear judgement and not everything is a matter of fact. As 'Superstrike' has shown, anything could be tested and no doubt another ruling will come along to alter our thoughts again.

Thank you all for your input.