short term tenancy

JamesN

nubbins wrote: »

Where about abouts in the country you looking?

Warwickshire area.

Local ads is a good idea. Are there not increased risks from doing it privately though? I've heard some bad stories.

G_M

JamesN wrote: »

Warwickshire area.

Local ads is a good idea. Are there not increased risks from doing it privately though? I've heard some bad stories.

I've never understood this use of the term 'private landlord'. It seems to be used to describe landlords who manage their own lettings.

A 'commercial landlord' is a company which owns multiple properties and manages them as a business. This 'commercial landlord' might, or might not, employ letting agent(s) to manage the lettings.

Similarly, a 'private landlord' (ie an individua,l as opposed to a company, who owns and lets one or more properties) might or might not employ a letting agent.

But (more to the point), there are good, and bad, so-called 'private landlords'.

Similarly there are good, and bad, letting agents.

Renting a property via a letting agent is no guarantee that either that agent, or the landlord, will be good.

I don't believe the risk is greater either way.

kinger101

JamesN wrote: »

Warwickshire area.

Local ads is a good idea. Are there not increased risks from doing it privately though? I've heard some bad stories.

Well, sometimes you get LL who can't be bothered to find out what the law is, but I'd not worry about that too much. If you know you're rights, you can always educate them. TBH, many agents are clueless sometimes.

The problem with many agents is they want to charge fees at every opportunity, and the LL would want to pass these back onto you if it's only a short let. Agents cannot be trusted to give LL impartial advice.

A note of caution on the holiday lets.....if you do find you still need to be in there around Easter, you might quickly find out that the weekly rental is about the same as a monthly rental. Letting for more the 155 days also causes problems with tax for the landlord.

So I'd say negotiating a short AST leading to a periodic, or periodic from start, for a slightly higher rent could be a good option.

Although you've researched the area already, remember sales can also fall through, particularly if there is a chain.

Voyager2002

Guest101 wrote: »

Legally there is nothing stopping a AST for a month, then rolling monthly.

Estate agents wont do this, but a private landlord might (at an increased rent). Pick up local newspaper and take a look at the ads.

Not true.

An AST is for a minimum of six months. It would be possible for a landlord to agree to take no action if the tenant were to leave (and stop paying rent) before six months, and set out that agreement in a side letter. However, most landlords would not understand this.

Voyager2002

JamesN wrote: »

Hi all

Looking to buy a new house/relocate for a new job. I can't commute from my existing house and I doubt I'll be able to buy a house in time as I need it by the end of the month.

Any idea what the best way to go about this is? I'm not fussy on the property as long as it has off road parking for 2 cars.

We only need it until we buy the house. However, most want a minimum of 6 months. Plus estate agents want ridiculous fees most of the time. A 1 month rolling contract would be ideal.

Any suggestions on how to go about this would be greatly appreciated.

You have two options...

You (alone) could move to the new area and rent a room in a shared house. Meanwhile, the rest of the family remain in the old home and are responsible for selling it for the best possible price, while you seek to buy a suitable new property.

Alternatively, you could all move into a new rented home, probably for a good deal longer than six months, while you begin the process of selling your old home and buying a new one.

jamie11

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Not true.

An AST is for a minimum of six months. It would be possible for a landlord to agree to take no action if the tenant were to leave (and stop paying rent) before six months, and set out that agreement in a side letter. However, most landlords would not understand this.

JJ is correct. It is true.
The reason for the 6 month minimum is simply that a AST cannot be brought to an end by the landlord before the minimum period when a S21 becomes available, a AST can be written for just one day, but the 6 month period still stands before a LL can apply for possession.

princeofpounds

ASTs can be as short as you like. But LLs are barred from using the Section 21 process to terminate the tenancy in the first six months (the standard, 'no fault' eviction procedure).

So they are often cautious to award tenancies shorter than six months as the terms on giving notice become rather unbalanced.

This often leads to the misunderstanding that tenancies cannot be shorter than six months, which is not true. It is simply very hard (or almost impossible in most circumstances) for a LL to terminate one within six months.

Plus of course it is often not worth their while to do a shorter letting. Particularly as agents often demand the first month's rent as tenant finding fee, or similar. And then things like insurance may require minimum tenancy lengths.

theartfullodger

So tenant wants a short AST , so landlord would need to trust them to leave without court action. Clearly fair & reasonable & how could that go wrong.

Alternatively, take a 6 month AST & tenant trust landlord not to take court action for unpaid rent when they leave early. Clearly fair & reasonable & how could that go wrong, eh?

Dealings between decent people never require the courts - do they?

buglawton

There is some rare serviced accommodation around where 1 or 2 weeks notice can be given e.g. In Berkshire:
http://www.hitchamburymanor.co.uk
Cities often offer this sort of thing too.
I've used this type of accom between houses. Expect to pay about double of typical rents - but all bills and council tax is included.

Without knowing which locality OP is searching in, we can't offer local tips on this.

jjlandlord

jamie11 wrote: »

The reason for the 6 month minimum is simply that a AST cannot be brought to an end by the landlord before the minimum period when a S21 becomes available, a AST can be written for just one day, but the 6 month period still stands before a LL can apply for possession.

princeofpounds wrote: »

ASTs can be as short as you like. But LLs are barred from using the Section 21 process to terminate the tenancy in the first six months (the standard, 'no fault' eviction procedure).

So they are often cautious to award tenancies shorter than six months as the terms on giving notice become rather unbalanced.

I don't think that it is the 6 month rule that has anything to do with it.

ASTs used to be for a minimum of 6 months. Some people might still think they are, or they are just misguided.

It does not matter that s.21 may only be used after 6 months. I don't know why people tend to focus on that, unless the landlord wants the tenant out within 6 months, that is, but generally BTL landlords want their tenants to stay as long as possible.

What may matter, as mentioned, is the cost for the landlord to source a new tenant.
But, as suggested, that can easily be resolved if the tenant accepts to pay higher upfront fees.