Landlord/agents trying to push me onto a fixed term tenancy along with rent increase and £150 admin

cashmonger

stator wrote: »

It's better to not engage with them, they will use tactics to manipulate you into doing what they want.


If they send you an e-mail, you can reply with something non-comittal if you want but don't engage with them.



You don't have to reply to their questions or requests. Just stick to your guns and ignore anything irrelevant.

I don't really understand this though. How are they expected to ever communicate with a tenant if the modus operandi is just ignore ignore ignore always?

I mean they are supposed to take care of the property for the landlord and if you always ignore any correspondence from them then I don't see how the landlord wouldn't think you are awkward?

Isn't it like those 'sovereign citizens' I watched in america on youtube who just refuse to answer any questions from police and think they can make up their own laws.

I know it is not the same (in terms of the law) but I mean in terms of being non cooperative at every turn wouldn't the landlord get sick of this after a while? I mean you have to communicate with them sometime or other don't you.

Sure you could ignore everything and only correspond in legal letters back and forth but that should be a last resort when common courtesy breaks down?

I am just trying to get straight when you should communicate with them and when you shouldn't.

cashmonger

G_M wrote: »

This is unclear to me.
This contract is between you as tenant and the company as landlord?

Yes, the original people who built the property were the landlords as well before it was passed over. I think they commonly build properties, fill them up with tenants, then sell the properties individually as they go since I saw many properties in this building for rent/sale when I was originally looking.

G_M wrote: »

So 3 months later the property was sold.
* your tenancy was unaffected by the sale, other than that you had a new landlord.
* no new tenancy agreement was needed - your previous one continued on exactly the same terms
* but did the landlord comply with section 3 of Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 ?? If not: criminal offence.

Oh ok then, so that makes it all the more likely that it is just the agents telling lies as to why a contract needs to be written up.

I am just reading that act now, it will take a bit, EDIT: this part?

Duty to inform tenant of assignment of landlord’s interest.

(1)If the interest of the landlord under a tenancy of premises which consist of or include a dwelling is assigned, the new landlord shall give notice in writing of the assignment, and of his name and address, to the tenant not later than the next day on which rent is payable under the tenancy or, if that is within two months of the assignment, the end of that period of two months.

(2)If trustees consititute the new landlord, a collective description of the trustes as the trustees of the trust in question may be given as the name of the landlord, and where such a collective description is given—

(a)the address of the new landlord may be given as the address from which the affairs of the trust are conducted, and

(b)a change in the persons who are for the time being the trustees of the trust shall not be treated as an assignment of the interest of the landlord.

(3)A person who is the new landlord under a tenancy falling within subsection (1) and who fails, without reasonable excuse to give the notice required by that subsection, commits a summary offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

Ah yes and just found this.

are you just saying whether they provided an address or something else in the act I haven't read yet? if the former the definitely haven't given me an address. Just first and last name of the landlord and nothing else.

Reading that link above the writer says

However be aware that under s48 a landlord does not have to give his OWN address. It just needs to be somewhere you can serve notices. So often the address given is the letting agents address.


There is nothing wrong with this – and if the agents address is given then, if you issue proceedings, that is where you should serve the paperwork.


But maybe you want the landlords address for another reason? Maybe, for example, you want to inform the landlord about the bad practices of his agent. In which case, the agent will have a vested interest in not telling you.


However, here your Local Authority TRO may be willing to help you (under the L&T1985 s1). There’s no harm in asking anyway. Most agents will not want to risk a prosecution as it will affect their credibility.

So does that mean the agent doesn't have to give me the LL's address? Indeed the case is as stated- that I want it to inform/confirm the agent's shady tricks. But I don't see why I need to give reasons to the agent for wanting it.

G_M wrote: »

that is an option.

Or just go periodic.

And just ignore any rent increase requests? I am just playing devil's advocate but what would you do if you owned a property and wanted to increase the rent and the tenant just starts ignoring you? Seems like it will get people's backs up unnecessarily vs. limited cordial intercourse.

saajan_12

cashmonger wrote: »

And just ignore any rent increase requests? I am just playing devil's advocate but what would you do if you owned a property and wanted to increase the rent and the tenant just starts ignoring you? Seems like it will get people's backs up unnecessarily vs. limited cordial intercourse.

If I was the LL, I would initially try to discuss an increase, but if the tenant was unresponsive I would go the formal route and serve a Section 13 notice. Then the tenant would have to raise to tribunal or start paying the increase (or get into rent arrears!)

However IF a LL doesn't know that (no excuse, of course they should know but in the real world many don't) and they have a LA in their ear saying you're a terrible unresponsive tenant who's underpaying and there's no formal notices, the LL may be convinced to insist on a new fixed term or eventually serve S21 notice.. thus bagging the LA more fees etc.

Instead, you could respond briefly saying you think the current rent is fair and a SPT will be best for everyone too avoid unnecessary fees. Don't let them get you into a back and forth, and stay firm.

cashmonger

G_M wrote: »

I did just check the LA letter and that does state it is section 48 and giving the Agent as the address.

cashmonger

saajan_12 wrote: »

Instead, you could respond briefly saying you think the current rent is fair and a SPT will be best for everyone too avoid unnecessary fees. Don't let them get you into a back and forth, and stay firm.

That does certainly sound like a more amicable way to go about it; short and to the point. Then they will know where I stand; though still open to all suggestions.

By the way as far as rent prices there is one property recently gone at £500 per month and another on the market for £525 in my same building; so the LA figures were indeed true but if they wanted to get me out then I imagine that it would cost at least a month's rent and admin fees for the LL on top of that right?

So they would still save money by me staying on periodic (so not contract fees for them) and at the same price. £20 x 12 only comes to £240 for the year so nowhere near a month's lost rent not including the fees that go with it.

EDIT:

What do you all make of this letter to send to agents

I had a look and saw the rental quoted was indeed indicative of the current market.

However, I still feel that it is fair to stay at my existing rent of £475 per month while staying on a periodic contract since if I moved out the landlord would lose at least a month's rent. That equates to more than what they would make in 1 year of the rent increase and that does not even include the fees for marketing the property and admin fees that go with it.

It would not be in either mine nor the landlord's interest to have to pay such fees unnecessarily. So I believe this is still better for both parties in terms of avoiding unwanted and unneeded costs.

There is no reason to write up a new contract other than to incur administration fees. If these are the landlords wishes please provide me with their contact details so I can confirm this with them directly and which redress scheme <agent's name> belongs to as I question the motives for the requested change which comes very close to administration fees being outlawed in June.

Should I add the last sentence about questioning the agent's motives or no?

saajan_12

cashmonger wrote: »

I had a look and saw the rental quoted was indeed indicative of the current market.

However, I still feel that it is fair to stay at my existing rent of £475 per month while staying on a periodic contract since if I moved out the landlord would lose at least a month's rent. That equates to more than what they would make in 1 year of the rent increase and that does not even include the fees for marketing the property and admin fees that go with it.

It would not be in either mine nor the landlord's interest to have to pay such fees unnecessarily. So I believe this is still better for both parties in terms of avoiding unwanted and unneeded costs.

There is no reason to write up a new contract other than to incur administration fees. If these are the landlords wishes please provide me with their contact details so I can confirm this with them directly and which redress scheme <agent's name> belongs to as I question the motives for the requested change which comes very close to administration fees being outlawed in June.

That's the very definition of getting into back and forth.
- Don't opine on market rents when it agrees with them
- Don't spell out to the LA that you're trying to avoid the LA themselves profiting from the fees
- Don't tell the LA you effectively want their boss's (LL's) contact to complain about the LA themselves.

I'd say:
"I believe the current rent is fair and hope to continue to enjoy a long term periodic tenancy, to avoid a void for the Landlord. I request you provide the landlord's physical address as required by Section 48."

No more.

G_M

cashmonger wrote: »

Yes, the original people who built the property were the landlords as well before it was passed over. I think they commonly build properties, fill them up with tenants, then sell the properties individually as they go since I saw many properties in this building for rent/sale when I was originally looking.
OK. Makes sense. Developer builds. Finds tenants and then sells to a landlord who benefits from a going 'business' with no need to market, set up tenancy etc etc

Oh ok then, so that makes it all the more likely that it is just the agents telling lies as to why a contract needs to be written up. Yes

I am just reading that act now, it will take a bit, EDIT: this part? Yes. But note you are correctly quoting section 1 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

Ah yes and just found this.
This is NOT relevant here. This refers to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 which as I have already explained to you, has been complied with.
are you just saying whether they provided an address or something else in the act I haven't read yet? if the former the definitely haven't given me an address. Just first and last name of the landlord and nothing else.

Reading that link above the writer says
That is the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 . You need to read the
Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

So does that mean the agent doesn't have to give me the LL's address? Indeed the case is as stated- that I want it to inform/confirm the agent's shady tricks. But I don't see why I need to give reasons to the agent for wanting it.
Under the 1987 Act, AN address must be provided to all tenants to 'serve notices' on the LL. Any correspondance sent there is assumed by the courts to have been received by/served on the landlord.

Under the 1985 Act section 1, a tenant who writes and asks for the LL's actual address, must be given it.

Under the 1985 Act section 3, if a tenancy is assigned, ie passed to a new landlord, the new LL must write and give the tenant 'his name and address' (not "AN address", as in the 1987 Act).

Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

what would you do if you owned a property and wanted to increase the rent and the tenant just starts ignoring you? Seems like it will get people's backs up unnecessarily vs. limited cordial intercourse.

well

* firstly I would be communicating with my tenant - not using an agent.
* if using an agent, I would make sure I gave clear instructions to my agent, and received back feedback as to what my tenant was doing/saying so that I could amend my instructions if appropriate
* but assuming I really wanted to increase the rent, and the tenant really did not want a new fixed term, I would wait for the current fixed term to go periodic and then, depending on the wording in the tenancy agreement, either
a) increase the rent in accordance wth the wording in the tenancy agreement, or
b) serve a S13 Notice to increase the rent

G_M

saajan_12 wrote: »

I'd say:
"I believe the current rent is fair and hope to continue to enjoy a long term periodic tenancy, to avoid a void for the Landlord. I request you provide the landlord's physical address as required by Section 48."

No more.

Basically I agree, except that it is section 1 (of the 1985 Act), not S48 (which is the 1987 Act).

I'd also add just a bit more. Many agents are ignorant of the law and/or pretend to be ignorant and /or try to suggest the tenant is ignorant of it. So I'd spell it out:

"I request you provide the landlord's physical address as required by Section 1 of theLandlord & Tenant Act 1985 which says:

"1 Disclosure of landlord’s identity.

(1)If the tenant of premises occupied as a dwelling makes a written request for the landlord’s name and address to—

(a)any person who demands, or the last person who received, rent payable under the tenancy, or

(b)any other person for the time being acting as agent for the landlord, in relation to the tenancy,

that person shall supply the tenant with a written statement of the landlord’s name and address within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he receives the request.

(2)A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (1) commits a summary offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale."

cashmonger

G_M wrote: »

well

* firstly I would be communicating with my tenant - not using an agent.
* if using an agent, I would make sure I gave clear instructions to my agent, and received back feedback as to what my tenant was doing/saying so that I could amend my instructions if appropriate
* but assuming I really wanted to increase the rent, and the tenant really did not want a new fixed term, I would wait for the current fixed term to go periodic and then, depending on the wording in the tenancy agreement, either
a) increase the rent in accordance wth the wording in the tenancy agreement, or
b) serve a S13 Notice to increase the rent

If I fail to communicate with them til they server a s13 doesn't that shut the door on negotiating rent prices?

Also if I force the landlord to server the section 13 I imagine they will incur an admin fee from the letting agents, which they would not have if I had been more cooperative by email? so it might make them see me as a troublemaker and caused them unnecessary hassle vs a more passive tenant? ie a black mark against me going forward?

steampowered

I am actually in a very similar situation.

It sounds like this is all being driven by the agency rather than the landlord.

I simply told the letting agent "no". Simply state that you are happy with the current arrangement and do not agree to a rent increase or to an unnecessary fixed term contract.

Nothing they can do about it. The only thing that could be done would be for the landlord to serve a s21 notice if he is genuinely that unhappy. The landlord is most unlikely to evict you if you are paying close to market rent and a good tenant.

Even if the landlord did want to evict you, they'd probably tell you about that first and would have to give 2 months notice, plenty of time to find another property.

There is no need to start criticising the letting agent's motives or threatening to report them. That will just get their backs up and they will just deny it. Best just to be give a polite but give a clear "no".