PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Scotland - AT5/short-assured tenancy still valid?
monty119
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hi there, I was hoping to get a bit of advice if possible please, and I hope I'm not duplicating a conversation already listed somewhere - this relates to a Scottish rental.
I entered in to a rental contract on 1/11/2018. This was intended to be for six months, however circumstances have meant that I now need to leave - and so I offered my landlord a month's notice, which I believed was the required amount.
However, they have told me that I entered in to an agreement for six months and am therefore bound to that. Looking at the document I signed (and the clauses quoted by the landlord) this is a short assured tenancy agreement, and an AT5 form was provided.
Am I correct in thinking that both types of agreement above ceased to exist after 1 December 2017? And that I should have been provided with/entered in to a private residential tenancy agreement?
If that is the case - does that mean the landlord can insist I'm bound to the six months, or a longer notice period than a month? Or is the agreement I entered altogether invalid?
Any advice or clarity would be greatly appreciated
I entered in to a rental contract on 1/11/2018. This was intended to be for six months, however circumstances have meant that I now need to leave - and so I offered my landlord a month's notice, which I believed was the required amount.
However, they have told me that I entered in to an agreement for six months and am therefore bound to that. Looking at the document I signed (and the clauses quoted by the landlord) this is a short assured tenancy agreement, and an AT5 form was provided.
Am I correct in thinking that both types of agreement above ceased to exist after 1 December 2017? And that I should have been provided with/entered in to a private residential tenancy agreement?
If that is the case - does that mean the landlord can insist I'm bound to the six months, or a longer notice period than a month? Or is the agreement I entered altogether invalid?
Any advice or clarity would be greatly appreciated
0
Comments
-
Yes, should have been a new-style tenancy. But I don't think that affects your rights to break it at an earlier date. Does it appear to be for a six month term?0
-
Thanks for the response David. Yes it does appear to be for a six month term - which is what they're saying I'm bound to.
My logic is (and of course I could be wrong) - is that if it was a new style tenancy, a private residential tenancy I think it is - then I'd only be required to give one month's notice. And it should have been this type that I was provided with.
If the other type no longer exists, and shouldn't be entered in to - then would not all clauses and obligations set out in it be void?0 -
Ah, right enough. I had overlooked that aspect of them.My logic is (and of course I could be wrong) - is that if it was a new style tenancy, a private residential tenancy I think it is - then I'd only be required to give one month's notice.
Not all of them, no - if you're occupying the property and paying rent, neither party can really claim there isn't a tenancy. But my best guess would be that the missing terms needed to make it into a modern tenancy would be implied. Just had a quick look at the Act - it's a private residential tenancy no matter what the agreement says it is. So you have the right to give 28 days notice.If the other type no longer exists, and shouldn't be entered in to - then would not all clauses and obligations set out in it be void?
Has the landlord otherwise given the impression they know what they're doing? Are they registered?0 -
Yeah the landlord is registered. In terms of knowing what they're doing - when I first moved in I'd say yes - inventory, deposit info, change to council tax and so on was all relayed. Friendly people, they let it out for the same six month period every year when they go away.
But on reflection - they should have known that I was to be supplied with a private residential tenancy (and admittedly I guess I should have checked, but assumed they'd given me the right docs). Whether they did this through genuine omission - ie not knowing the rules had changed - or genuine intention, ie to try and tie someone in for the six month period without the chance to leave, and hoping they wouldn't know any different - remains to be seen.
Like you say, neither party could claim there isnt a tenancy. I guess my main concern is if things start to get messy or complicated, and for example and it ends up with them demanding that I pay for each month remaining, even if I leave - whether the power lies with them; or whether I've every right to say - I gave you a month's notice, paid you until then, and our agreement was outdated and shouldn't have been in place0 -
Are there any people from Scotland out there who might have experienced this issue?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards