Renters Reform Bill (as it stands September 2025)

laboy

If I, a landlord, find a bona fide, large, established Company tenant (where the Company would sign the tenancy agreement for their named employee plus named family members to occupy the property) for a 9 month fixed period only, would this situation fall OUTSIDE the Renters Reform Bill Assured Tenancy arrangements? That is, would the tenancy end in 9 months and the Company staff (plus family) occupying the property would have to move out without me first issuing them notice to vacate, or go to court etc?

laboy

Should also have mentioned: the heads of the two largest and respected letting agencies had diametrically opposite answers to my question. One agent said my scenario would fall outside the bill, the other said inside(!!) Hence my confusion (and question to the forum)

theartfullodger

Your answer can only be reliably arrived at in court if (say) occupiers challenge your view that it's not an AST and win.  Any other response is but a guess.

There is a long history of landlords/agents trying to establish tenancies outside the norm and then loosing, painfully and expensively, in court.

I speak as a landlord who inadvertently (ignorance, hubris) signed "English" tenancy in Scotland in 2000 resulting in tricky, complicated and expensive mess. 

Now only an English landlord....

Most years I make money as a landlord....

Best regards to all 

laboy

Thank you.

But if the tenant Company sign the contract at the outset on the clearly stated basis that it is a non-AST contract, can they, subsequent to moving their staff member + family into the property, claim that they have changed their mind and they now view that this an AST situation. Can they do this? Which side would the court be likely to lean towards?

mta999

as far as I know an AST only applies to individuals so you would have to let your property to a company as a corporate let, not an AST

However I would recommend you get legal advice rather than my opinion. A judge may very well rule (should it get to court) that this was not a genuine company let but an artificial structure designed to get round the AST rules

Mr.Generous

Under current laws even letting to a company makes no difference if the property is used as someones main home, so you cannot just take back the property for a serious breach of agreement like you could a storage unit for example. I would expect the same under renters rights bill. No way will they have less protection in law. My bet is that it would fall under new laws and unless you have rock solid expensive legal advice to the contrary expect it to be covered by new laws, so tenant can remain if they choose.