Landlord trying to force us into another fixed term contract

[Deleted User]

_Penny_Dreadful said:

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

That is an interesting business plan @diystarter7, to get rid of a perfectly good tenant because they prefer a periodic tenancy to a fixed term. A

Hi @penny_dreadful

Thanks, it is for some and not for others. The important point you have missed and many others would miss is the fact that a LL
may not want someone to leave during the Christmas period or summer hols etc as they have plans and possibly managing the property themselves etc or even with a LA.  The other elementary point you have not considered is the fact we are all different but the justifcation I have give does apply and that is why some may not want a PT but a fixed  AST.

I don't expect you to agree with me but anyone else that reads this post and possibly not posting here may agree. 
Though we have not had to do that, if we had plans to go away for weeks as we do sometimes I amy not agree  to a PT
as I don't want to be constantly looking over my shoulder. 

Never forget that it works for some and does not have to work for everyone.

It’s elementary my dear Watson, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. 

A bird that is offered a new contract and in response wants to explore a legal option for retaliatory eviction, can find another bush.

Not to mention OP makes clear they dont have long term plans for staying.

The bird isn’t in the bush though it’s in the hand…that’s the whole point dear Watson. 

I think you need to review the meaning of the phrase. A tenant who is considering legal action and has plans to move out, does not equate to a bird in the hand.

_Penny_Dreadful

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

That is an interesting business plan @diystarter7, to get rid of a perfectly good tenant because they prefer a periodic tenancy to a fixed term. A

Hi @penny_dreadful

Thanks, it is for some and not for others. The important point you have missed and many others would miss is the fact that a LL
may not want someone to leave during the Christmas period or summer hols etc as they have plans and possibly managing the property themselves etc or even with a LA.  The other elementary point you have not considered is the fact we are all different but the justifcation I have give does apply and that is why some may not want a PT but a fixed  AST.

I don't expect you to agree with me but anyone else that reads this post and possibly not posting here may agree. 
Though we have not had to do that, if we had plans to go away for weeks as we do sometimes I amy not agree  to a PT
as I don't want to be constantly looking over my shoulder. 

Never forget that it works for some and does not have to work for everyone.

It’s elementary my dear Watson, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. 

A bird that is offered a new contract and in response wants to explore a legal option for retaliatory eviction, can find another bush.

Not to mention OP makes clear they dont have long term plans for staying.

The bird isn’t in the bush though it’s in the hand…that’s the whole point dear Watson. 

I think you need to review the meaning of the phrase. A tenant who is considering legal action and has plans to move out, does not equate to a bird in the hand.

I think you need to read the response I was replying to about a bird in hand. It wasn’t specifically about the OP but tenants in general who would prefer a periodic tenancy. 

That said the OP’s landlord doesn’t know the OP is investigating retaliatory evictions. Even if they did, following the section 21 process through to its conclusion is more time consuming and stressful than just letting the tenant leave when they’re good and ready. 

diystarter7

_Penny_Dreadful said:

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

That is an interesting business plan @diystarter7, to get rid of a perfectly good tenant because they prefer a periodic tenancy to a fixed term. A

Hi @penny_dreadful

Thanks, it is for some and not for others. The important point you have missed and many others would miss is the fact that a LL
may not want someone to leave during the Christmas period or summer hols etc as they have plans and possibly managing the property themselves etc or even with a LA.  The other elementary point you have not considered is the fact we are all different but the justifcation I have give does apply and that is why some may not want a PT but a fixed  AST.

I don't expect you to agree with me but anyone else that reads this post and possibly not posting here may agree. 
Though we have not had to do that, if we had plans to go away for weeks as we do sometimes I amy not agree  to a PT
as I don't want to be constantly looking over my shoulder. 

Never forget that it works for some and does not have to work for everyone.

It’s elementary my dear Watson, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. 

A bird that is offered a new contract and in response wants to explore a legal option for retaliatory eviction, can find another bush.

Not to mention OP makes clear they dont have long term plans for staying.

The bird isn’t in the bush though it’s in the hand…that’s the whole point dear Watson. 

I think you need to review the meaning of the phrase. A tenant who is considering legal action and has plans to move out, does not equate to a bird in the hand.

I think you need to read the response I was replying to about a bird in hand. It wasn’t specifically about the OP but tenants in general who would prefer a periodic tenancy. 

That said the OP’s landlord doesn’t know the OP is investigating retaliatory evictions. Even if they did, following the section 21 process through to its conclusion is more time consuming and stressful than just letting the tenant leave when they’re good and ready. 

Hello

At times the LL may not have an option as per my posts, then what?

Thanks

elsien

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

That is an interesting business plan @diystarter7, to get rid of a perfectly good tenant because they prefer a periodic tenancy to a fixed term. A

Hi @penny_dreadful

Thanks, it is for some and not for others. The important point you have missed and many others would miss is the fact that a LL
may not want someone to leave during the Christmas period or summer hols etc as they have plans and possibly managing the property themselves etc or even with a LA.  The other elementary point you have not considered is the fact we are all different but the justifcation I have give does apply and that is why some may not want a PT but a fixed  AST.

I don't expect you to agree with me but anyone else that reads this post and possibly not posting here may agree. 
Though we have not had to do that, if we had plans to go away for weeks as we do sometimes I amy not agree  to a PT
as I don't want to be constantly looking over my shoulder. 

Never forget that it works for some and does not have to work for everyone.

It’s elementary my dear Watson, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. 

A bird that is offered a new contract and in response wants to explore a legal option for retaliatory eviction, can find another bush.

Not to mention OP makes clear they dont have long term plans for staying.

The bird isn’t in the bush though it’s in the hand…that’s the whole point dear Watson. 

I think you need to review the meaning of the phrase. A tenant who is considering legal action and has plans to move out, does not equate to a bird in the hand.

I think you need to read the response I was replying to about a bird in hand. It wasn’t specifically about the OP but tenants in general who would prefer a periodic tenancy. 

That said the OP’s landlord doesn’t know the OP is investigating retaliatory evictions. Even if they did, following the section 21 process through to its conclusion is more time consuming and stressful than just letting the tenant leave when they’re good and ready. 

Hello

At times the LL may not have an option as per my posts, then what?

Thanks

Initially though you weren’t talking about when there was no option, you were talking about as a landlord something that you do as a matter of course with all your tenancies unless I have misunderstood? 

diystarter7

brett19852010 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

That is an interesting business plan @diystarter7, to get rid of a perfectly good tenant because they prefer a periodic tenancy to a fixed term. A

Hi @penny_dreadful

Thanks, it is for some and not for others. The important point you have missed and many others would miss is the fact that a LL
may not want someone to leave during the Christmas period or summer hols etc as they have plans and possibly managing the property themselves etc or even with a LA.  The other elementary point you have not considered is the fact we are all different but the justifcation I have give does apply and that is why some may not want a PT but a fixed  AST.

I don't expect you to agree with me but anyone else that reads this post and possibly not posting here may agree. 
Though we have not had to do that, if we had plans to go away for weeks as we do sometimes I amy not agree  to a PT
as I don't want to be constantly looking over my shoulder. 

Never forget that it works for some and does not have to work for everyone.

It’s elementary my dear Watson, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. 

A bird that is offered a new contract and in response wants to explore a legal option for retaliatory eviction, can find another bush.

Not to mention OP makes clear they dont have long term plans for staying.

Hi

The highlighted bit to me cleary appears as though in instances like this the LL is looking for certainty.

We have bought one place with a sitting T, we were new to the game, went to a rolling agreement and he wanted to leave and i allowed him to go at a time that suits. We then did the house up and let it out via LA and into the second year if mem serves me well they wanted a rolling agreement. We negotiated a 6-month agreement and at the time they were happy and felt it was a good comprimise.. However they wanted out from the 3rd month. We said no and we the property back at the 6 months. Everything was new when we rented it out and the toilets base had turned brown possibly not using toilet cleaner or cleaning and oven was greased up and front and back gardens were overgrown. When they lived there it was, gardens kept nice as part of the agreement as its a nice area. Via LA we gave them a chance to clean up, they ignored so we got professionals reasonably priced via 3 quotes and claimed  - we wanted the property back in fair wear and tear and the rest of the was ok. The LA gave us the pics of before and after on the day they left and we made a claim, LA helped us and ex T's disagreed with the amount. We insisted as we had worked hard to get the very reasonably priced cleaners/etc. I think it went to some on;ine tribunal not 100% recall this but we got 100% of our claim as we felt it was very reasonable and this was paid to us from the deposit i think, this was years ago. We used the same LA since and no one else has ever left any of our properties like that. We reward good T's with no rent rises for a few years and a slightly below-market value rent intially as we are
picky who gets to stay in our properties as we have worked hard for those and T appreacite the location and the fact the property is very, very clean, tidy and we ensure our LA responds asap to any problems as our T's do email us though they are fully managed.

The bottom line is, if it works for LL & R, fine and if not, the the LL has to decide if to go along with it or not.

A bit of flexibility if possible on both sides is required if possible but in my personal opinion, if  people are polite and not aggressive and demanding, I will do what I can for them. Ideally you want the T's to stay their for life but we do not live in an ideal world

Thnaks

Hedgepigs

Goodness. No wonder the government feels the need to end S21 when some landlords feel the need to turf a tenant out of their home, causing them a huge amount of stress, hassle and cost, just on the off chance the tenant might have the audacity to hand in their notice whilst the landlord is trying to enjoy their Christmas dinner or a fortnight in the Bahamas!

_Penny_Dreadful

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

That is an interesting business plan @diystarter7, to get rid of a perfectly good tenant because they prefer a periodic tenancy to a fixed term. A

Hi @penny_dreadful

Thanks, it is for some and not for others. The important point you have missed and many others would miss is the fact that a LL
may not want someone to leave during the Christmas period or summer hols etc as they have plans and possibly managing the property themselves etc or even with a LA.  The other elementary point you have not considered is the fact we are all different but the justifcation I have give does apply and that is why some may not want a PT but a fixed  AST.

I don't expect you to agree with me but anyone else that reads this post and possibly not posting here may agree. 
Though we have not had to do that, if we had plans to go away for weeks as we do sometimes I amy not agree  to a PT
as I don't want to be constantly looking over my shoulder. 

Never forget that it works for some and does not have to work for everyone.

It’s elementary my dear Watson, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. 

A bird that is offered a new contract and in response wants to explore a legal option for retaliatory eviction, can find another bush.

Not to mention OP makes clear they dont have long term plans for staying.

The bird isn’t in the bush though it’s in the hand…that’s the whole point dear Watson. 

I think you need to review the meaning of the phrase. A tenant who is considering legal action and has plans to move out, does not equate to a bird in the hand.

I think you need to read the response I was replying to about a bird in hand. It wasn’t specifically about the OP but tenants in general who would prefer a periodic tenancy. 

That said the OP’s landlord doesn’t know the OP is investigating retaliatory evictions. Even if they did, following the section 21 process through to its conclusion is more time consuming and stressful than just letting the tenant leave when they’re good and ready. 

Hello

At times the LL may not have an option as per my posts, then what?

Thanks

As per your posts of course the landlord has the choice not to cut his or her nose off to spite their face by letting the tenancy go periodic rather than saying, “agree to a new fixed term contract or else!” Your subsequent post proves this point, tenant was happy with a periodic tenancy, you forced the issue and ended up with a !!!!!! off tenant. 

diystarter7

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

That is an interesting business plan @diystarter7, to get rid of a perfectly good tenant because they prefer a periodic tenancy to a fixed term. A

Hi @penny_dreadful

Thanks, it is for some and not for others. The important point you have missed and many others would miss is the fact that a LL
may not want someone to leave during the Christmas period or summer hols etc as they have plans and possibly managing the property themselves etc or even with a LA.  The other elementary point you have not considered is the fact we are all different but the justifcation I have give does apply and that is why some may not want a PT but a fixed  AST.

I don't expect you to agree with me but anyone else that reads this post and possibly not posting here may agree. 
Though we have not had to do that, if we had plans to go away for weeks as we do sometimes I amy not agree  to a PT
as I don't want to be constantly looking over my shoulder. 

Never forget that it works for some and does not have to work for everyone.

It’s elementary my dear Watson, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. 

A bird that is offered a new contract and in response wants to explore a legal option for retaliatory eviction, can find another bush.

Not to mention OP makes clear they dont have long term plans for staying.

The bird isn’t in the bush though it’s in the hand…that’s the whole point dear Watson. 

I think you need to review the meaning of the phrase. A tenant who is considering legal action and has plans to move out, does not equate to a bird in the hand.

I think you need to read the response I was replying to about a bird in hand. It wasn’t specifically about the OP but tenants in general who would prefer a periodic tenancy. 

That said the OP’s landlord doesn’t know the OP is investigating retaliatory evictions. Even if they did, following the section 21 process through to its conclusion is more time consuming and stressful than just letting the tenant leave when they’re good and ready. 

Hello

At times the LL may not have an option as per my posts, then what?

Thanks

As per your posts of course the landlord has the choice not to cut his or her nose off to spite their face by letting the tenancy go periodic rather than saying, “agree to a new fixed term contract or else!” Your subsequent post proves this point, tenant was happy with a periodic tenancy, you forced the issue and ended up with a !!!!!! off tenant. 

Hi

Clearly, the scenarios I have been referring to are real and this is why some LL's make that move. I hope that this scenario is very clear to you now. 

Hopefully, you are aware that there may be times when a T wants another 6/12 month AST but LL is not able to do that. These are real-life scenarios and ones that can't be ignored if one is a T or LL



Thanks

_Penny_Dreadful

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

That is an interesting business plan @diystarter7, to get rid of a perfectly good tenant because they prefer a periodic tenancy to a fixed term. A

Hi @penny_dreadful

Thanks, it is for some and not for others. The important point you have missed and many others would miss is the fact that a LL
may not want someone to leave during the Christmas period or summer hols etc as they have plans and possibly managing the property themselves etc or even with a LA.  The other elementary point you have not considered is the fact we are all different but the justifcation I have give does apply and that is why some may not want a PT but a fixed  AST.

I don't expect you to agree with me but anyone else that reads this post and possibly not posting here may agree. 
Though we have not had to do that, if we had plans to go away for weeks as we do sometimes I amy not agree  to a PT
as I don't want to be constantly looking over my shoulder. 

Never forget that it works for some and does not have to work for everyone.

It’s elementary my dear Watson, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. 

A bird that is offered a new contract and in response wants to explore a legal option for retaliatory eviction, can find another bush.

Not to mention OP makes clear they dont have long term plans for staying.

The bird isn’t in the bush though it’s in the hand…that’s the whole point dear Watson. 

I think you need to review the meaning of the phrase. A tenant who is considering legal action and has plans to move out, does not equate to a bird in the hand.

I think you need to read the response I was replying to about a bird in hand. It wasn’t specifically about the OP but tenants in general who would prefer a periodic tenancy. 

That said the OP’s landlord doesn’t know the OP is investigating retaliatory evictions. Even if they did, following the section 21 process through to its conclusion is more time consuming and stressful than just letting the tenant leave when they’re good and ready. 

Hello

At times the LL may not have an option as per my posts, then what?

Thanks

As per your posts of course the landlord has the choice not to cut his or her nose off to spite their face by letting the tenancy go periodic rather than saying, “agree to a new fixed term contract or else!” Your subsequent post proves this point, tenant was happy with a periodic tenancy, you forced the issue and ended up with a !!!!!! off tenant. 

Hi

Clearly, the scenarios I have been referring to are real and this is why some LL's make that move. I hope that this scenario is very clear to you now. 

Hopefully, you are aware that there may be times when a T wants another 6/12 month AST but LL is not able to do that. These are real-life scenarios and ones that can't be ignored if one is a T or LL



Thanks

The scenario where a landlord HAS to insist upon a new fixed term contract or commence eviction proceedings with an otherwise good tenant is still as clear as mud to me. 

BikingBud

diystarter7 said:

[Deleted User] said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

That is an interesting business plan @diystarter7, to get rid of a perfectly good tenant because they prefer a periodic tenancy to a fixed term. A

Hi @penny_dreadful

Thanks, it is for some and not for others. The important point you have missed and many others would miss is the fact that a LL
may not want someone to leave during the Christmas period or summer hols etc as they have plans and possibly managing the property themselves etc or even with a LA.  The other elementary point you have not considered is the fact we are all different but the justifcation I have give does apply and that is why some may not want a PT but a fixed  AST.

I don't expect you to agree with me but anyone else that reads this post and possibly not posting here may agree. 
Though we have not had to do that, if we had plans to go away for weeks as we do sometimes I amy not agree  to a PT
as I don't want to be constantly looking over my shoulder. 

Never forget that it works for some and does not have to work for everyone.

It’s elementary my dear Watson, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. 

A bird that is offered a new contract and in response wants to explore a legal option for retaliatory eviction, can find another bush.

Not to mention OP makes clear they dont have long term plans for staying.

Hi

The highlighted bit to me cleary appears as though in instances like this the LL is looking for certainty.

We have bought one place with a sitting T, we were new to the game, went to a rolling agreement and he wanted to leave and i allowed him to go at a time that suits. We then did the house up and let it out via LA and into the second year if mem serves me well they wanted a rolling agreement. We negotiated a 6-month agreement and at the time they were happy and felt it was a good comprimise.. However they wanted out from the 3rd month. We said no and we the property back at the 6 months. Everything was new when we rented it out and the toilets base had turned brown possibly not using toilet cleaner or cleaning and oven was greased up and front and back gardens were overgrown. Unsure on the timeline here, was there any attempt to compromise, do you feel if they were on a periodic tenancy then that might have worked rather than you forcing the full 6 months? Did they move out and you got the property back after being vacant for 3 months? Or did they leave after you forced them to stay for the full six months?

When they lived there it was, gardens kept nice as part of the agreement as its a nice area. Via LA we gave them a chance to clean up, they ignored so we got professionals reasonably priced via 3 quotes and claimed  - we wanted the property back in fair wear and tear and the rest of the was ?? ok. The LA gave us the pics of before and after on the day they left and we made a claim, LA helped us and ex T's disagreed with the amount. We insisted as we had worked hard to get the very reasonably priced cleaners/etc. I think it went to some on;ine tribunal not 100% recall bizarre to be unsure? this but we got 100% of our claim as we felt it was very reasonable and this was paid to us from the deposit i think, this was years ago. We used the same LA since and no one else has ever left any of our properties like that. Did you consider why things didn't work with one tenant and why they have done ever since? Perhaps your approach?

We reward good T's with no rent rises for a few years and a slightly below-market value rent intially as we are
picky who gets to stay in our properties as we have worked hard for those and T appreacite the location and the fact the property is very, very clean, tidy and we ensure our LA responds asap to any problems as our T's do email us though they are fully managed.

The bottom line is, if it works for LL & R, fine and if not, the the LL has to decide if to go along with it or not.

A bit of flexibility if possible on both sides is required (Like letting them depart after 3 months?) if possible but in my personal opinion, if  people are polite and not aggressive and demanding, I will do what I can for them. So why are you forcing them to unnecessarily sign new TAs?

 Ideally you want the T's to stay their for life but we do not live in an ideal world

Thnaks

no but aggravating good tenants and forcing them to sign new TAs or serving S21 notice to them makes it much more complex and risky than it ought to be!