Renters Rights Bill & timetable for selling a (currently rented) house

FlorayG

When the bill becomes law this will not be a new tenancy it will be an existing tenancy so your six months required on your initial AST is already nearly up, so that's not a problem. If you give notice now, the notice is also on the existing rules.
Unless you want to sell the house with a tenant in situ you need to give notice now - by the time the notice is due the 6 month AST will be over  - nobody will even consider making an offer on a house they want to live in themselves until the tenant is gone, because if the tenant refuses to leave it can take months to evict them and they may cause considerable damage in that time if they are the resentful sort. If you don't give notice 'until you get an offer' you are unlikely ever to get an offer.
The LL on this forum are all hoping your tenancy is all correct, gas and electric safety certificates up to date and the deposit protected in a recognised scheme...otherwise you are possibly in big trouble

FlorayG

Seriya_DL said:

The thing that worries me in the new bill is that once the existing Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreements (which would include ours) are converted into periodic tenancies, the current guide the government published on the expected changes lists under legitimate grounds for possession "1A - sale of dwelling house. Cannot be used for the first 12 months of a new tenancy.  Notice period: 4 months". 

I don't really understand what worries you about this - your tenancy will already be periodic well before then and the bill won't become law until well after you (hopefully) already have the house on the market

Chrysalis

Here is what I believe to be correct.  Section 21 notice (otherwise known as no fault eviction, can be given without any legal reason), requires 60 days notice, but the notice can be given so the date times with end of contract. the above comments about correct deposit, safety records etc are important, because if they not valid, it can invalidate a S21 notice.

I got no idea what the minimum notice is if its specified in a tenancy agreement, but that would only apply during the agreement, not during periodic.
I tried to find out before posting but the vast majority of information out there seems focused on the tenants point of view.  Shelter have an opinion a break clause could be ruled unfair if the same break clause isnt present for the tenant.
I would give a S21 notice now, and also be honest with the tenant of your plans, so they know there is a clear reason behind, then they more likely to be onside with it, if the notice expires because it isnt sold, then issue a new one immediately.  Although I agree with the earlier post, it ideally should be an empty property if you selling.

penners324

The minimum notice period on a section 21 is 2 months.

Then they don't have to leave until forced to by a bailiff enforcing a court eviction notice. That could take 6+ months.

Seriya_DL

Thanks all - the feedback has been very helpful. Put my mind at rest re the potential impact of the change in legislation but also very useful to hear your feedback about the likelihood of selling while the tenant is still in place (ie none). This is not what the estate agent told us, BUT that was the letting agent who I suspect would've said pretty much anything to get us to let the property.

Our next step will still be to speak to the current tenants to see if they're potentially interested in buying. If not, we'll look at serving them notice sooner rather than later.

ReadySteadyPop

Seriya_DL said:

Thanks all - the feedback has been very helpful. Put my mind at rest re the potential impact of the change in legislation but also very useful to hear your feedback about the likelihood of selling while the tenant is still in place (ie none). This is not what the estate agent told us, BUT that was the letting agent who I suspect would've said pretty much anything to get us to let the property.

Our next step will still be to speak to the current tenants to see if they're potentially interested in buying. If not, we'll look at serving them notice sooner rather than later.

What happens if they leave and then the house doesn`t sell?

Seriya_DL

Then we will need to rethink a lot of plans. Or talk to the 'we buy any house' type people.  But that's a worst case kind of scenario, hopefully it won't be as bad as that. 

FlorayG

ReadySteadyPop said:

Seriya_DL said:

Thanks all - the feedback has been very helpful. Put my mind at rest re the potential impact of the change in legislation but also very useful to hear your feedback about the likelihood of selling while the tenant is still in place (ie none). This is not what the estate agent told us, BUT that was the letting agent who I suspect would've said pretty much anything to get us to let the property.

Our next step will still be to speak to the current tenants to see if they're potentially interested in buying. If not, we'll look at serving them notice sooner rather than later.

What happens if they leave and then the house doesn`t sell?

The world is full of what if's. It does or it doesn't, cross that bridge when you get there

ReadySteadyPop

Voyager2002 said:

The general consensus is that if someone is serious about selling, they ensure that the property is empty first. Alternatively, market it as a ready-tenanted investment to someone who wants to be a landlord.

That is the best bet if you think the tenants want to stay, it avoids ending up unsold and un-tenanted, which would be the worst of both worlds.