Advantages to renew lease or let tenant run over existing.

handlemaster

What are the benefits/pitfalls for letting a tenant stay over the contract one year lease with no lease. I'm I better to get them to sign a new lease ?

murphaph

First off it's the tenant's decision as to whether or not they sign a new lease. Most landlords I would say use a lease for 12 months then transition to part IV and a rolling month to month tenancy. The tenant has established their part IV rights after 6 months anyway and leases generally can't be economically enforced by the landlord should a tenant break one.

handlemaster

murphaph wrote: »

First off it's the tenant's decision as to whether or not they sign a new lease. Most landlords I would say use a lease for 12 months then transition to part IV and a rolling month to month tenancy. The tenant has established their part IV rights after 6 months anyway and leases generally can't be economically enforced by the landlord should a tenant break one.

Of course if the tenant wants to stay !!
The tenant wants to stay. I'm I better to get them to sign a new contract or not. Whats the best option for ME the landlord.

what does part four imply ?

petecork

handlemaster wrote: »

Of course if the tenant wants to stay !!
The tenant wants to stay. I'm I better to get them to sign a new contract or not. Whats the best option for ME the landlord.
what does part four imply ?

The tenant chooses if they want to sign a new lease so you cant force them to sign even if thats what you want

Aka Ishur

petecork wrote: »

The tenant chooses if they want to sign a new lease so you cant force them to sign even if thats what you want

It astounds me how many landlords and even estate agents who think I am having them on when I say I am not going to sign a new lease but stay on Part 4. This is your profession!

djimi

handlemaster wrote: »

Of course if the tenant wants to stay !!
The tenant wants to stay. I'm I better to get them to sign a new contract or not. Whats the best option for ME the landlord.

what does part four imply ?

You won't be getting them to sign anything. You can suggest it, but ultimately its up to the tenant as to whether or not they sign a new lease. You can't force a lease upon a tenant and you can't penalise them for not signing one (after they have been there 6 months).

A fixed term lease offers greater security for both parties in theory. In reality its more beneficial for the tenant than it is for the landlord. Part 4 termination clauses don't apply under a fixed term lease (aside from breach of lease/anti social behaviour) and rent cannot be altered. From a landlords point of view the security offered is more theoretical; a tenant can legally reassign a lease, and even if they bail on a fixed term lease there isn't much that a landlord can do other than deduct from the deposit for lost rent (which must be mitigated quickly).

Mrs OBumble

In short, it really makes very little difference for you, the landlord.

You've got a theoretically guaranteed 12 month tenancy - but as the last poster said, if the tenant changes their mind for whatever reason good luck with enforcing it beyond the deposit.

I tend to think you get longer tenancies out of a rolling agreement: the tenant isn't thinking "ahh, my lease is up in 2 months, time to start looking around" - but that's purely anecdotal with no evidence behind it.

And even if you do sign a new fixed term lease, it's possible that the Act's Part 4 notice periods apply anyway, which over time become greater than you'd ever get away with putting into a lease.

gaius c

Aka Ishur wrote: »

It astounds me how many landlords and even estate agents who think I am having them on when I say I am not going to sign a new lease but stay on Part 4. This is your profession!

Some of them know perfectly well but feign ignorance and try to bully the tenants into locking themselves into another 12 months.

Handlemaster
A compromise that I proposed before was to sign a copy of the lease with the end date removed.

OldNotWIse

handlemaster wrote: »

What are the benefits/pitfalls for letting a tenant stay over the contract one year lease with no lease. I'm I better to get them to sign a new lease ?

I dont think you can get them to sign a new lease.

djimi

gaius c wrote: »

A compromise that I proposed before was to sign a copy of the lease with the end date removed.

Theres no real point in doing this unless the terms of the lease are changing. When a fixed term lease ends and rolls over to a part 4 tenancy, the terms of the original lease still remain valid, so signing a further open ended lease would not make any difference.

handlemaster

Good points thanks for the replies

gaius c

djimi wrote: »

Theres no real point in doing this unless the terms of the lease are changing. When a fixed term lease ends and rolls over to a part 4 tenancy, the terms of the original lease still remain valid, so signing a further open ended lease would not make any difference.

When dealing with people who are convinced that the whole Part 4 thing is a stroke of some sort, it's a useful exercise. Threshold suggest it whenever it comes up.

Iggy154

My landlord told me that if I didn';t sign for another 12 months, he would hav e to sell the house. He siad he had to be guaranteed another 12 months rent. I didn't want to move at that time so IO had no choice but to sign.

djimi

Iggy154 wrote: »

My landlord told me that if I didn';t sign for another 12 months, he would hav e to sell the house. He siad he had to be guaranteed another 12 months rent. I didn't want to move at that time so IO had no choice but to sign.

What a ridiculous threat! I'd have called his bluff and see what happens.

Iggy154

djimi wrote: »

What a ridiculous threat! I'd have called his bluff and see what happens.

Easy to say that. Not so easy to contemplate running around for weeks with no car and a boss who makes no allowances for personal difficulties (including making and taking phone calls) seeking new accommodation and who will be insisting on a 12 month lease anyway.

Scortho

Iggy154 wrote: »

Easy to say that. Not so easy to contemplate running around for weeks with no car and a boss who makes no allowances for personal difficulties (including making and taking phone calls) seeking new accommodation and who will be insisting on a 12 month lease anyway.

He wouldn't have been able to terminate it though as you'd have been on part 4 without giving adequate notice and a valid reason. I'd have called his bluff.

Iggy154

Scortho wrote: »

He wouldn't have been able to terminate it though as you'd have been on part 4 without giving adequate notice and a valid reason. I'd have called his bluff.

Selling is a valid reason! Call his bluff, get handed my notice and sign up for 12 months anyway, with someone else, after weeks of misery. Some plan.

djimi

Intending to sell is not a valid reason. Only if a sale is imminent can the landlord terminate the lease. I'd actually take pleasure in watching a landlord sell a property just to spite me!

Scortho

Iggy154 wrote: »

Selling is a valid reason! Call his bluff, get handed my notice and sign up for 12 months anyway, with someone else, after weeks of misery. Some plan.

I'd have called his bluff because I've a good feeling that the landlord wasn't going to sell. He only used it to convince you to sign again.

Iggy154

djimi wrote: »

Intending to sell is not a valid reason. Only if a sale is imminent can the landlord terminate the lease. I'd actually take pleasure in watching a landlord sell a property just to spite me!

Intending to sell is a valid reason. I would take no pleasure in flat hunting to find out!

Iggy154

Scortho wrote: »

I'd have called his bluff because I've a good feeling that the landlord wasn't going to sell. He only used it to convince you to sign again.

I would prefer to rely on my logic than your good feelings.

Scortho

Iggy154 wrote: »

I would prefer to rely on my logic than your good feelings.

Fair enough. Everyone's different and I'd have preferred my logic. If the landlord wanted to sell, he'd have put the property on the market anyway. But he hasn't.

Iggy154

Scortho wrote: »

Fair enough. Everyone's different and I'd have preferred my logic. If the landlord wanted to sell, he'd have put the property on the market anyway. But he hasn't.

I don't see you logic. I never said the landlord intended to sell, so the fact that he hadn't put the house on the market is irrelevant.

Scortho

Iggy154 wrote: »

I don't see you logic. I never said the landlord intended to sell, so the fact that he hadn't put the house on the market is irrelevant.

Iggy154 wrote: »

My landlord told me that if I didn';t sign for another 12 months, he would hav e to sell the house. He siad he had to be guaranteed another 12 months rent. I didn't want to move at that time so IO had no choice but to sign.

you did

Iggy154

Scortho wrote: »

you did

I did not. The intention to sell would only manifest itself if I didn't sign the lease.
That is what I said.

Scortho

Iggy154 wrote: »

I did not. The intention to sell would only manifest itself if I didn't sign the lease.
That is what I said.

He told you he intended to sell if you didn't renew the lease. If he was going to sell he'd have put it on the market when you signed the new lease anyway. Just because you've signed a new lease doesn't mean he can't sell.

cerastes

gaius c wrote: »

Some of them know perfectly well but feign ignorance and try to bully the tenants into locking themselves into another 12 months.

Handlemaster
A compromise that I proposed before was to sign a copy of the lease with the end date removed.

As part IV would apply, the tenant would not be bullied into staying 12 months, they would have the rights and obligations of Part 4 as the landlord would.

djimi wrote: »

Theres no real point in doing this unless the terms of the lease are changing. When a fixed term lease ends and rolls over to a part 4 tenancy, the terms of the original lease still remain valid, so signing a further open ended lease would not make any difference.

If the terms of the lease or any part of it are changing, surely a new lease would be a requirement, say for example the rent amount. I'd have to see something in writing to say either party couldn't insist on lease to cover themselves to say what they are agreeing to, both parties already have the rights and obligations of part 4 to comply to anyway.

Iggy154

Scortho wrote: »

He told you he intended to sell if you didn't renew the lease. If he was going to sell he'd have put it on the market when you signed the new lease anyway. Just because you've signed a new lease doesn't mean he can't sell.

He would sell if I didn't sign the lease. I signed the lease so he didn't. He can sell if he wants but if he has a lease signed he doesn't want to. You are trying to fit the facts to your theory.

Scortho

Iggy154 wrote: »

He would sell if I didn't sign the lease. I signed the lease so he didn't. He can sell if he wants but if he has a lease signed he doesn't want to. You are trying to fit the facts to your theory.

He would sell if you didn't sign the lease and he still can sell. Im saying that if he was serious about selling if you didn't renew the lease, then he'd be serious about selling anyway.
The fact remains that he can turn around next week and put your home on the market

Mrs OBumble

I'm with Iggy: sometimes pragmatism triumphs the letter of the law.

Iggy154

Scortho wrote: »

He would sell if you didn't sign the lease and he still can sell. Im saying that if he was serious about selling if you didn't renew the lease, then he'd be serious about selling anyway.
The fact remains that he can turn around next week and put your home on the market

I never said he couldn't sell but if he was intending to do that he wouldn't sign a lease himself. It is easier to sell with vacant possession.

Scortho

Iggy154 wrote: »

I never said he couldn't sell but if he was intending to do that he wouldn't sign a lease himself. It is easier to sell with vacant possession.

How do you know he was going to sell if you didn't sign a lease? Because he said he would?
Thats the reason why id have called his bluff. Mainly because I believe he was bluffing.

Anyway Id have done differently to you, which you wouldn't have been happy to do....this argument is going to keep going around in circles anyway, as I'll say he would have sold anyway and you'll say he wouldn't.


Depending where you're renting and what you're renting, selling with a tenant in place may make it easier. I know Id rather buy a flat in bundoran with a good tenant than with no tenant.

djimi

Iggy154 wrote: »

Intending to sell is a valid reason. I would take no pleasure in flat hunting to find out!

The house must be in the process of being sold (ie a buyer has been found) and there is a time limit on it. I'm on my phone at the moment so can't find a link, but I've read it before; you can't just put a house up for sale and then use it as a reason to terminate a lease. Hence why I would call his bluff.

Iggy154

djimi wrote: »

The house must be in the process of being sold (ie a buyer has been found) and there is a time limit on it. I'm on my phone at the moment so can't find a link, but I've read it before; you can't just put a house up for sale and then use it as a reason to terminate a lease. Hence why I would call his bluff.

Look at the legislation. It would be better if you did this than pretending to know something.
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 2004
3. The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.

djimi

I believe that I have read that there must be some evidence that a sale is imminent, rather than just that a sign has gone up in the garden, but to be honest Im not bothered going looking for anything at this hour of the morning so if thats what the act says then so be it!

I still dont believe that a landlord is going to give up several months of rent and possibly go through with selling a property just to spite a tenant that is unwilling to sign a lease; it would take one seriously stubborn genius to carry out such a threat rather than just continue collecting rent from you on a part 4 tenancy. Id be calling their bluff (I wouldnt let myself be bullied into signing something that I didnt want to sign) and if they end up selling then so be it, but each to their own.

Iggy154

djimi wrote: »

I believe that I have read that there must be some evidence that a sale is imminent, rather than just that a sign has gone up in the garden, but to be honest Im not bothered going looking for anything at this hour of the morning so if thats what the act says then so be it!

.

Either put up your evidence or stop talking nonsense. You have never met my landlord and are trying to psyche him out. You seem to like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

djimi

Im not cutting my nose off to spite anything! Its your choice at the end of the day how to act; Im simply saying that if it were me I wouldnt allow myself to be forced into signing a lease that I didnt want to sign, and would be inclined to see if the landlord is willing to follow through on their threats. If you want to sign a lease then more power to you, but do it on your terms, not because someone else forced you into it.

As for the clause in the Part 4 tenancy, I cant find what I have read about it and am not prepared to go trawling through the internet looking for it, so Ill concede that what is written is gospel.

Iggy154

djimi wrote: »

Im not cutting my nose off to spite anything! Its your choice at the end of the day how to act; Im simply saying that if it were me I wouldnt allow myself to be forced into signing a lease that I didnt want to sign, and would be inclined to see if the landlord is willing to follow through on their threats. If you want to sign a lease then more power to you, but do it on your terms, not because someone else forced you into it.

The choice is sign one lease or another. Tenants don't dictate terms.

djimi wrote: »

As for the clause in the Part 4 tenancy, I cant find what I have read about it and am not prepared to go trawling through the internet looking for it, so Ill concede that what is written is gospel.

You won't find it no matter how much trawling you do. There is legislation governing the matter which is readily available.

L1011

Iggy154 wrote: »

Either put up your evidence or stop talking nonsense. You have never met my landlord and are trying to psyche him out. You seem to like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It appears the only pysching out here was you being bullied by your landlord.

Daith

Iggy154 wrote: »

The choice is sign one lease or another. Tenants don't dictate terms.

In your case because you had no flexibility in finding new accommodation.

"The tenant don't dictate terms" seems an odd wording.

markpb

Iggy154 wrote: »

You have never met my landlord and are trying to psyche him out. You seem to like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

He's not doing anything of the sort - he's just pointing out that what your landlord threatened to do is irrational and probably unlikely to happen. He said he'd roll the dice and see what happens. It's an opinion, nothing more or less.

I don't see why you're getting upset that someone says they'd handle a situation differently to you. If you want everyone to agree with you, maybe a discussion forum isn't the best place for you?

Iggy154

Daith wrote: »

In your case because you had no flexibility in finding new accommodation.

"The tenant don't dictate terms" seems an odd wording.

Who said "The tenant don't dictate terms"?

Daith

Iggy154 wrote: »

Who said "The tenant don't dictate terms"?

Iggy154 wrote: »

The choice is sign one lease or another. Tenants don't dictate terms.

You?

Iggy154

markpb wrote: »

He's not doing anything of the sort - he's just pointing out that what your landlord threatened to do is irrational and probably unlikely to happen. He said he'd roll the dice and see what happens. It's an opinion, nothing more or less.

To know if it is irrational a person would have to know all of the circumstances. He doesn't. What he would do is irrelevant since he wasn't in the situation. Even calling the landlords bluff and succeeding will leave a sour taste in his mouth. He is not above having the water turned off on a Friday and switching his mobile phone off. He is away for the weekend "Playing golf" and sorry about the plumber forgetting to turn the water back on after doing a repair to the boiler.

markpb wrote: »

I don't see why you're getting upset that someone says they'd handle a situation differently to you. If you want everyone to agree with you, maybe a discussion forum isn't the best place for you?

I am not uoset, merely challenging the know-alls on this forum who seem to think they know everything about residential tenancy law.

drumswan

Iggy154 wrote: »

To know if it is irrational a person would have to know all of the circumstances. He doesn't. What he would do is irrelevant since he wasn't in the situation. Even calling the landlords bluff and succeeding will leave a sour taste in his mouth. He is not above having the water turned off on a Friday and switching his mobile phone off. He is away for the weekend "Playing golf" and sorry about the plumber forgetting to turn the water back on after doing a repair to the boiler.

Yet you signed a new lease, good grief.

markpb

drumswan wrote: »

Yet you signed a new lease, good grief.

Stockholm syndrome?

homemadecider

Iggy154 wrote: »

Even calling the landlords bluff and succeeding will leave a sour taste in his mouth. He is not above having the water turned off on a Friday and switching his mobile phone off. He is away for the weekend "Playing golf" and sorry about the plumber forgetting to turn the water back on after doing a repair to the boiler.

Well done on signing a new lease. You have a great landlord there.

Iggy154

homemadecider wrote: »

Well done on signing a new lease. You have a great landlord there.

He is a good landlord if you pay your rent on time, keep the place clean and don't mess around or bother him about fiddly repairs.He is good about giving back deposits provided you haven't annoyed him.

QuiteInterestin

Iggy154 wrote: »

He is a good landlord if you pay your rent on time, keep the place clean and don't mess around or bother him about fiddly repairs.He is good about giving back deposits provided you haven't annoyed him.

I get why you signed the lease. Sometimes its easier to go along with things even when you know the other person is in the wrong then put up a fight and create and bad atmosphere, especially when the person who it affects the most is yourself. Pick your battles as they say.

A bit worried about your deposit though. Deposits are to cover the repair of any damage you have done to the property above normal wear and tear and to pay any unpaid bills you have left. They do not belong to the landlord and a landlord should not use the threat of keeping your deposit to stop you contacting him if necessary. Repairs, fiddly or otherwise are the landlords responsibility

Iggy154

Daith wrote: »

You?

No I didn't. You should read what I typed.

Iggy154

QuiteInterestin wrote: »

A bit worried about your deposit though. Deposits are to cover the repair of any damage you have done to the property above normal wear and tear and to pay any unpaid bills you have left. They do not belong to the landlord and a landlord should not use the threat of keeping your deposit to stop you contacting him if necessary. Repairs, fiddly or otherwise are the landlords responsibility

He does do repairs. He just likes to be told about them when he comes for the rent. He doesn't like getting phone calls about loose door handles or sparks from sockets or a mouse running around.