Renewal fee

Mr_ML

canaldumidi said:

So they are claiming this is a Non-Housing Act let because it is a company let.

* how is the contract described?

* is the property provided to you as in any way related to your work?

They may simply be trying to circumvent the Housing Act by sayig it is not an AST, or it may genuinely not be an AST. We would need more information.

*the first page says non housing act tenancy
*No

Robbo66

let the agreement go periodic and seek some legal advice, I would think that a court would find in your favour. Contractual agreements are used for specific requirements such as company lets and for people who rent for someone else such as a music star renting a house for their chauffeur/housekeeper/gardener or bit on the side and the property will not be their main place of residence

name the agency

canaldumidi

Mr_ML said:

canaldumidi said:

So they are claiming this is a Non-Housing Act let because it is a company let.

* how is the contract described?

* is the property provided to you as in any way related to your work?

They may simply be trying to circumvent the Housing Act by sayig it is not an AST, or it may genuinely not be an AST. We would need more information.

*the first page says non housing act tenancy
*No

Not enough information. Have you read the links? Simply putting 'NHA Tenancy' on the contract does not make it a NHA tenancy. It is the full circumstances that matter, as defined in the HA (links provided earlier).

Mr_ML

Robbo66 said:

let the agreement go periodic and seek some legal advice, I would think that a court would find in your favour. Contractual agreements are used for specific requirements such as company lets and for people who rent for someone else such as a music star renting a house for their chauffeur/housekeeper/gardener or bit on the side and the property will not be their main place of residence

name the agency

Ok, the Landlord lives at the property so definitely it is a NHA, they live in Flat 1. 

Robbo66

Do they live in the same rented space or same building, if its a building with 4 separate dwellings i.e 4 flats and they live in one of them that wouldn't make it a NHA. if your are renting a flat with its own front door and no shared facilities on a single dwelling basis then its an AST no matter how the agreement is headed and fees cannot be charged

Edited as having done some further digging it would be a NHA if the the building was originally constructed as a single unit and the owner converted it in to create separate units and continued living in part of the building as their main home then yes it can be done as a NHA tenancy.

the question is did he buy the flats already converted if so then i'm not sure if the above would apply, hopefully someone more legally astute will come along and clarify

Jenni_D

Are you a company employee and the company is paying the rent and has their name on the tenancy agreement?

This PDF file is what's prompted me to ask these questions?

Several posts appeared between me reading and responding.

Mr_ML

Robbo66 said:

Do they live in the same rented space or same building, if its a building with 4 separate dwellings i.e 4 flats and they live in one of them that wouldn't make it a NHA. if your are renting a flat with its own front door and no shared facilities on a single dwelling basis then its an AST no matter how the agreement is headed and fees cannot be charged

They own the building, there are 4 separate flats, we don't share facilities. 

Robbo66

Mr_ML said:

Robbo66 said:

Do they live in the same rented space or same building, if its a building with 4 separate dwellings i.e 4 flats and they live in one of them that wouldn't make it a NHA. if your are renting a flat with its own front door and no shared facilities on a single dwelling basis then its an AST no matter how the agreement is headed and fees cannot be charged

They own the building, there are 4 separate flats, we don't share facilities. 

if original building was a conversion then yes could be an NHA tenancy but if purpose built then it cant. Did Landlord do the conversion or did he buy already converted as that may also change things

Mr_ML

Robbo66 said:

Mr_ML said:

Robbo66 said:

Do they live in the same rented space or same building, if its a building with 4 separate dwellings i.e 4 flats and they live in one of them that wouldn't make it a NHA. if your are renting a flat with its own front door and no shared facilities on a single dwelling basis then its an AST no matter how the agreement is headed and fees cannot be charged

They own the building, there are 4 separate flats, we don't share facilities. 

if original building was a conversion then yes could be an NHA tenancy but if purpose built then it cant. Did Landlord do the conversion or did he buy already converted as that may also change things

No idea, he told me his wife inherited the house 

Jenni_D

Mr_ML said:

Robbo66 said:

Mr_ML said:

Robbo66 said:

Do they live in the same rented space or same building, if its a building with 4 separate dwellings i.e 4 flats and they live in one of them that wouldn't make it a NHA. if your are renting a flat with its own front door and no shared facilities on a single dwelling basis then its an AST no matter how the agreement is headed and fees cannot be charged

They own the building, there are 4 separate flats, we don't share facilities. 

if original building was a conversion then yes could be an NHA tenancy but if purpose built then it cant. Did Landlord do the conversion or did he buy already converted as that may also change things

No idea, he told me his wife inherited the house 

Inherited the house, or the property already converted? Surely the LL knows whether or not he or his wife did the conversion!