AST Break Clauses in TA

Utterlyconfused81

Quick question for those with far better insight than I.

We have been looking for a new property to rent in the local area since around Xmas time.  Enquired about many, and viewed a few, but most won't accept tenants with a small dog.  Understood by us when we opted to adopt a rescue dog just over 5 years ago and whilst awkward, appreciated that entirely the LL's choice.  

Standard tenancies have been 12 months with a break clause at 6 months, as per our current and previous tenancies.  To us, has always made sense as gives options to both T and LL.

Today I saw a listing for a property that we really liked the look of, would consider pets for an extra £100 a month, which whilst on the steeper side of things, we would pay to be free of our current tenancy.  The info also stated that the LL would accept a break clause at 6 months for a further £100 a month.

Given the serious and significant issues with have had in our current property and with the LL (currently in month 8 and had issues since month 1), we would be reluctant to sign for 12 months without having the option to free ourselves should there be issues.

My questions are:

• As this was in the listing, assume this is clearly legal (not seen it in the the years I have been renting)?
• Is this a sign of things to come as in is it to combat the potential changes I've read about regarding the possible scrapping of S21 notices?

Any info would be really appreciated as will be giving the agent a call in the morning to hopefully arrange a viewing at the earliest opportunity.  Good properties around here go quick and don't want to miss out by maybe overthinking things from the bad experience we are currently having.     

_Penny_Dreadful

Utterlyconfused81 said:

Quick question for those with far better insight than I.

We have been looking for a new property to rent in the local area since around Xmas time.  Enquired about many, and viewed a few, but most won't accept tenants with a small dog.  Understood by us when we opted to adopt a rescue dog just over 5 years ago and whilst awkward, appreciated that entirely the LL's choice.  

Standard tenancies have been 12 months with a break clause at 6 months, as per our current and previous tenancies.  To us, has always made sense as gives options to both T and LL.

Today I saw a listing for a property that we really liked the look of, would consider pets for an extra £100 a month, which whilst on the steeper side of things, we would pay to be free of our current tenancy.  The info also stated that the LL would accept a break clause at 6 months for a further £100 a month.

Given the serious and significant issues with have had in our current property and with the LL (currently in month 8 and had issues since month 1), we would be reluctant to sign for 12 months without having the option to free ourselves should there be issues.

My questions are:

• As this was in the listing, assume this is clearly legal (not seen it in the the years I have been renting)?
• Is this a sign of things to come as in is it to combat the potential changes I've read about regarding the possible scrapping of S21 notices?

Any info would be really appreciated as will be giving the agent a call in the morning to hopefully arrange a viewing at the earliest opportunity.  Good properties around here go quick and don't want to miss out by maybe overthinking things from the bad experience we are currently having.     

My view is that 12 month fixed terms with a break clause don’t make sense at all. I and the landlords I know who self-manage in England offer 6 month fixed term contracts which thereafter remain periodic. These break clauses are often poorly drafted and when correctly drafted are tantamount to a 6 month fixed term anyway. 

I’m not sure that a £100 fee for invoking the break clause is a permitted fee under the Tenant Fess Act 2019. Landlords are allowed to charge something when a tenant requests an early termination of the contract but using a break clause is not the same as an early termination so alarm bells are ringing for me with this advert already. Should the landlord choose to invoke the break clause is s/he going to give you £100? I don’t think so. 

I don’t see how break clauses have anything to do with the potential removal of the Section 21. Should a landlord use the break clause all that does is turn the fixed term into a periodic tenancy, the landlord still has to use a Section 21 so that s/he can go to court to get a possession order. Yet another reason why, in my opinion, break clauses are pointless. 

propertyrental

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Utterlyconfused81 said:

Quick question for those with far better insight than I.

We have been looking for a new property to rent in the local area since around Xmas time.  Enquired about many, and viewed a few, but most won't accept tenants with a small dog.  Understood by us when we opted to adopt a rescue dog just over 5 years ago and whilst awkward, appreciated that entirely the LL's choice.  

Standard tenancies have been 12 months with a break clause at 6 months, as per our current and previous tenancies.  To us, has always made sense as gives options to both T and LL.

Today I saw a listing for a property that we really liked the look of, would consider pets for an extra £100 a month, which whilst on the steeper side of things, we would pay to be free of our current tenancy.  The info also stated that the LL would accept a break clause at 6 months for a further £100 a month.

Given the serious and significant issues with have had in our current property and with the LL (currently in month 8 and had issues since month 1), we would be reluctant to sign for 12 months without having the option to free ourselves should there be issues.

My questions are:

• As this was in the listing, assume this is clearly legal (not seen it in the the years I have been renting)?
• Is this a sign of things to come as in is it to combat the potential changes I've read about regarding the possible scrapping of S21 notices?

Any info would be really appreciated as will be giving the agent a call in the morning to hopefully arrange a viewing at the earliest opportunity.  Good properties around here go quick and don't want to miss out by maybe overthinking things from the bad experience we are currently having.     

...

I’m not sure that a £100 fee for invoking the break clause is a permitted fee under the Tenant Fess Act 2019. Landlords are allowed to charge something when a tenant requests an early termination of the contract but using a break clause is not the same as an early termination so alarm bells are ringing for me with this advert already. ....

My understanding is that the LL is offering to include a Break Clause in the tenancy agreement provided the monthly rent is increased by £100.

Not that £100 will be charged for implementing the BC. Perhaps you could clarify?

Otherwise I agree with penny_dreadful.

What is the point of a 12month fixed term if either side can end the tenancy after 6 months? The whole advantage of 12 months fixed is to provide security, which the BC removes, so why not a 6month fixed term and then either periodic or renewal?

As for your questions:

• entirely legal, if somewhat grasping!
• no idea how this would benefit the LL if S21s are scrapped.

Utterlyconfused81

Sorry, I maybe did not make it clear, to confirm for there to be a TA with a break clause within the 21 months tenancy, the agent has advertised that the LL would require an additional £100 per month rent.

propertyrental

Utterlyconfused81 said:

Sorry, I maybe did not make it clear, to confirm for there to be a TA with a break clause within the 21 months tenancy, the agent has advertised that the LL would require an additional £100 per month rent.

though earlier you said:

we would be reluctant to sign for 12 months without having the option to free ourselves should there be issues.

typo?

Why not ask for  6 month tenancy?

Failing that, you'll have to decide whether the rent, including the extra £100 pm, is a) affordable and b) fair and in line with local market rents.

Or whether to commit to the full 21/12 months with no break clause, or whether to look elsewhere.

Utterlyconfused81

Sorry, yes typo, was quickly replying in between work calls.  

We will ask regarding the 6 months as have arranged a viewing for tomorrow. 

theartfullodger

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Utterlyconfused81 said:

Quick question for those with far better insight than I.

We have been looking for a new property to rent in the local area since around Xmas time.  Enquired about many, and viewed a few, but most won't accept tenants with a small dog.  Understood by us when we opted to adopt a rescue dog just over 5 years ago and whilst awkward, appreciated that entirely the LL's choice.  

Standard tenancies have been 12 months with a break clause at 6 months, as per our current and previous tenancies.  To us, has always made sense as gives options to both T and LL.

Today I saw a listing for a property that we really liked the look of, would consider pets for an extra £100 a month, which whilst on the steeper side of things, we would pay to be free of our current tenancy.  The info also stated that the LL would accept a break clause at 6 months for a further £100 a month.

Given the serious and significant issues with have had in our current property and with the LL (currently in month 8 and had issues since month 1), we would be reluctant to sign for 12 months without having the option to free ourselves should there be issues.

My questions are:

• As this was in the listing, assume this is clearly legal (not seen it in the the years I have been renting)?
• Is this a sign of things to come as in is it to combat the potential changes I've read about regarding the possible scrapping of S21 notices?

Any info would be really appreciated as will be giving the agent a call in the morning to hopefully arrange a viewing at the earliest opportunity.  Good properties around here go quick and don't want to miss out by maybe overthinking things from the bad experience we are currently having.     

My view is that 12 month fixed terms with a break clause don’t make sense at all. I and the landlords I know who self-manage in England offer 6 month fixed term contracts which thereafter remain periodic. These break clauses are often poorly drafted and when correctly drafted are tantamount to a 6 month fixed term anyway. 

..........

+1 , definitely.  Suspect the reason for 12 month (or longer..) ASTs is they are pushed by lettings agent so they may immediately grab their % compo....

Further, from a landlord's point of view, shorter AST followed by periodic arguable provide more incentive for tenants to comply with all terms of contract.  

Best regards to all

LegallyLandlord

I let for an initial 12 month period and I self let. It’s pretty standard as it means the property doesn’t need to be let for another 12 months. I’m also a good landlord and fix everything quickly. I allow pets too 😇

Have a look at the condition of the property and ask yourself whether it seems that the landlord looks after it