Shortest fixed-term tenancy

G_M

cinereus wrote: »

No - what I agreed to was a 2.5 month obligatory term followed by a rolling 1-month contract. They are reneging on this agreement.

So is that what the tenancy agreement says? "A fixed term of 2.5 months (or from X date to Y date), followed by a monthly Contractual Periodic Tenancy" (or similar wording)?

thesaint

cinereus wrote: »

1. When I signed they said it reverted to a rolling 1 month contract after the initial 2.5 months. After considerable effort, they allowed me to stay for a few weeks longer but still maintained that I'd only signed for 2.5 months. If it turned out that the minimum term is actually 6 months and I have been lied to, I'd prefer to stay.
2. Yes.

I asked 3 questions. I notice you cut one out. Very telling.

cinereus

thesaint wrote: »

I asked 3 questions. I notice you cut one out. Very telling.

Why?! It was less than 2.5 months ago in case that makes any difference.

G_M wrote: »

So is that what the tenancy agreement says? "A fixed term of 2.5 months (or from X date to Y date), followed by a monthly Contractual Periodic Tenancy" (or similar wording)?

It simply say "to continue as a rolling monthly contract".

G_M

cinereus wrote: »

It simply say "to continue as a rolling monthly contract".

Please quote the section or clause in full.

However, subject ot seeing the full wording, it looks like a CPT follows the fixed term.

If that is the case, then the LL has allowed for, and should expect, the tenancy to continue on beyond the end of the fixed term.

PasturesNew

There are some properties that can have you out quicker than the standard AST. e.g. if the property is usually a holiday let and they're letting it out between peak seasons.

Was it advertised as a 6-month AST when you negotiated the shorter-term? It'd be unusual for many to agree to such an agreement.

What's changed? Why do they want it back? What's changed in your situation that makes them want you out now?