Landlord Advice

KeyserSoze

Hi There,

I have recently given my tenants 8 months notice to vacate my property in the summer of 2019. I intend on using the property for personal use, my family and I want to move in.

The tenant was happy with the process and the manner the notice was provided, however the timing does not suit them. They asked for a 12 month extension to the lease, bringing them to summer 2020. By giving them an extension, it will cost me a significant amount every month for that 12 months.

They also offered to increase the rent they pay by 25% during the 12 months from summer 2019 to summer 2020. The house is in a hot zone, where rental increases are limited. Can I legally accept this offer from the tenant?

Any advice would be great.

ted1

KeyserSoze wrote: »

Hi There,

I have recently given my tenants 8 months notice to vacate my property in the summer of 2019. I intend on using the property for personal use, my family and I want to move in.

The tenant was happy with the process and the manner the notice was provided, however the timing does not suit them. They asked for a 12 month extension to the lease, bringing them to summer 2020. By giving them an extension, it will cost me a significant amount every month for that 12 months.

They also offered to increase the rent they pay by 25% during the 12 months from summer 2019 to summer 2020. The house is in a hot zone, where rental increases are limited. Can I legally accept this offer from the tenant?

Any advice would be great.

Just get them out.
How king have they been in? Where will you live if you let them stay ?

KeyserSoze

They're in there 8 years.
We have an option to live somewhere else, but will cost a lot more. The increase they are offering will cover my cost.

They are good tenant and I'd like to help them out, but it has to suit me financially and I need to make sure I can legally accept their offer.

Fian

No, you cannot legally accept this offer from the tenant.

If you do it would be easy for them to subsequently complain to the RTB, have a refund ordered and potentially punitive damages on top. never mind that it is likely to be criminalised (as well as unlawful) shortly when announced legislation is enacted.

I am assuming when you talk about it costing you money you are talking about saving accomodation costs where you currently live rather than renting to another person at a rate above RTB rates.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Unfortunately your only option is to kick them out, despite how logical their offer is, and how good a tenant they have been.

GGTrek

Eden Scary Cookout wrote: »

Unfortunately your only option is to kick them out, despite how logical their offer is, and how good a tenant they have been.

In the current anti-landlord climate this is the best advice the OP can receive. The current regulations have been crafted to be highly adversarial and the landlord cannot concede an inch or he/she will be in serious trouble.



Having a tenant 8 years is just very uneconomical with the current regulations (the law of unintended consequences of overregulation), if the 8 years have not expired the OP should also provide a second part-4 end notice (a Section 34(b) notice) for additional safety.


A tenant asking an extention of 12months after receiving an 8 months statutory notice is just taking the proverbial p.... OP should review that the notice has been served correctly (with statutory declaration attached) and prepare all the evidence to take the case to RTB when 8 months expire, in my opinion most long term tenants will understand only at the RTB when told by the adjudicator that the notice is valid and they have to get out.


If the OP goes to the RTB for overholding then he/she can negotiate the additional months as damage for the overholding by providing receipts on how much not moving to the property will cost the OP. Only at such point can the OP perform some negotiation on extra stay vs damages payment since the adjudicator will review the paperwork and agree that what the OP is requesting is monetary damage for overholding and not additional rent! And it absolutely should not be framed as a % of the current rent, but as a fixed value proved by receipts.

awec

GGTrek wrote: »

In the current anti-landlord climate this is the best advice the OP can receive. The current regulations have been crafted to be highly adversarial and the landlord cannot concede an inch or he/she will be in serious trouble.



Having a tenant 8 years is just very uneconomical with the current regulations (the law of unintended consequences of overregulation), if the 8 years have not expired the OP should also provide a second part-4 end notice (a Section 34(b) notice) for additional safety.


A tenant asking an extention of 12months after receiving an 8 months statutory notice is just taking the proverbial p.... OP should review that the notice has been served correctly (with statutory declaration attached) and prepare all the evidence to take the case to RTB when 8 months expire, in my opinion most long term tenants will understand only at the RTB when told by the adjudicator that the notice is valid and they have to get out.


If the OP goes to the RTB for overholding then he/she can negotiate the additional months as damage for the overholding by providing receipts on how much not moving to the property will cost the OP. Only at such point can the OP perform some negotiation on extra stay vs damages payment since the adjudicator will review the paperwork and agree that what the OP is requesting is monetary damage for overholding and not additional rent! And it absolutely should not be framed as a % of the current rent, but as a fixed value proved by receipts.

Just sounds like someone asking a question to be honest. Sounds like a good tenant and landlord relationship.

But that doesn't suit your doom and gloom narrative I suppose.

q85dw7osi4lebg

awec wrote: »

Just sounds like someone asking a question to be honest. Sounds like a good tenant and landlord relationship.

But that doesn't suit your doom and gloom narrative I suppose.

What's the alternative ?

handlemaster

OP you have given the required. After that its their issue. They were happy with notice etc... apparently not 12 mth extension .. . This will not be easier. Be polite and decline offer to pay more will not fly legally and you cant afford to go else where. Give and inch and you'll be on again with another thread tenants refuse to move.

KeyserSoze

Fian wrote: »

No, you cannot legally accept this offer from the tenant.

If you do it would be easy for them to subsequently complain to the RTB, have a refund ordered and potentially punitive damages on top. never mind that it is likely to be criminalised (as well as unlawful) shortly when announced legislation is enacted.

I am assuming when you talk about it costing you money you are talking about saving accomodation costs where you currently live rather than renting to another person at a rate above RTB rates.

Correct, it's actual cost to me to let them stay an extra 12 months. Not loss of additional rental income.

awec

Eden Scary Cookout wrote: »

What's the alternative ?

"Sorry, I need the house back". The guy only asked a question, all this talk of taking the piss, uneconomical to have long term tenants etc is bollocks.

But again, it doesn't fit the narrative that before the rent controls the sector was absolutely perfect, landlords were never raising rents, nobody was ever evicted, it was a letting utopia for all involved.

q85dw7osi4lebg

awec wrote: »

"Sorry, I need the house back". The guy only asked a question, all this talk of taking the piss, uneconomical to have long term tenants etc is bollocks.

But again, it doesn't fit the narrative that before the rent controls the sector was absolutely perfect, landlords were never raising rents, nobody was ever evicted, it was a letting utopia for all involved.

I think you are looking at different posts than I am, sorry.

the_syco

KeyserSoze wrote: »

The tenant was happy with the process and the manner the notice was provided, however the timing does not suit them. They asked for a 12 month extension to the lease, bringing them to summer 2020. By giving them an extension, it will cost me a significant amount every month for that 12 months.

In today's market, leaving a letting doesn't suit anyone.

KeyserSoze wrote: »

They also offered to increase the rent they pay by 25% during the 12 months from summer 2019 to summer 2020. The house is in a hot zone, where rental increases are limited. Can I legally accept this offer from the tenant?

When they leave, they'll be able to bring a case to the RTB that you increased rent above the rules.

Heck, they could do so after the first month, and then claim any attempt to evict them after that to be on false reasons.

runawaybishop

awec wrote: »

"Sorry, I need the house back". The guy only asked a question, all this talk of taking the piss, uneconomical to have long term tenants etc is bollocks.

But again, it doesn't fit the narrative that before the rent controls the sector was absolutely perfect, landlords were never raising rents, nobody was ever evicted, it was a letting utopia for all involved.

Ah cop on would you, no one said it was perfect before rent controls

notharrypotter

KeyserSoze wrote: »

I have recently given my tenants 8 months notice to vacate my property in the summer of 2019.

The tenant was happy with the process and the manner the notice was provided,

They asked for a 12 month extension to the lease, bringing them to summer 2020.

A 12 month lease is superceded by tennant rights under law.

If you grant the "12 month extension" you run the risk of the tennant gaining full rights after 6 months.

If the correct legal notice for termination has been given simply follow the timeline. And leave it at that.

GGTrek

awec wrote: »

Just sounds like someone asking a question to be honest. Sounds like a good tenant and landlord relationship.

But that doesn't suit your doom and gloom narrative I suppose.

I usually don't answer to this type of sorry comments which do not add any value at all to thread in my opinion. But since you are a moderator, I shall just add my two cents worth:
other posters and I tried to provide practical advice based on experience and current legal framework (which is very anti-landlord). Please ask yourself this question in which way your posts in this thread have helped the OP?

Graham

GGTrek wrote: »

Please ask yourself this question in which way your posts in this thread have helped the OP?

By highlighting all the tenant has done so far is ask what would appear to be a perfectly reasonable question.

That adds as much 'value' as someone that assumes the tenant is preparing a case for the RTB while working out how long they're going to overhold.

beauf

Graham wrote: »

By highlighting all the tenant has done so far is ask what would appear to be a perfectly reasonable question.

That adds as much 'value' as someone that assumes the tenant is preparing a case for the RTB while working out how long they're going to overhold.

Regardless of who asked it. The current rules do not allow it. The Landlord could risk heavy fines.

I'm not sure how a suggestion that could invite heavy fines can be seen as reasonable. Unless we infer that it's ok for one side to circumvent the rules but not for the other side.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

Regardless of who asked it. The current rules do not allow it. The Landlord could risk heavy fines.

Absolutely, no argument that the answer should be no.

The tenant asked a question that I'm sure he/she thought would be an all-round-win, it's quite possible the tenant has no idea the position he'd be putting the landlord in.

There's nothing inherently unreasonable about asking a question (even if the answer is/should be no) and it's certainly no indicator that the tenant is taking the p*** / planning to overhold / about to launch an RTB attack.

beauf

Its just as likely they know exactly what they are asking.

Its likely the rent is 25% or more below market rate.
They realize the same rule that has given them below market rent for the current lease has now shafted them.
They will pay 25~50% more in the next place. If they can even find somewhere. They might not.

If they don't want the hassle and just leave as per the notice thats actually the worst option for them.

KeyserSoze

Thanks for all the replies people.... There is some good information in there which has given me further food for thought. Appreciate the feedback and details.

steddyeddy

Eden Scary Cookout wrote: »

What's the alternative ?

The tenant is simply asking for something that may suit them better. There's no threatening involved. Not everything is a conspiracy to make the LL suffer.

steddyeddy

OP it sounds like you have a decent relationship and you sound like a decent person for even asking about it. However if you can't do it then you can't do it. There's nothing wrong with ending on a good note.

beauf

We are all stuffed by the regulations.

That said it did help the tenant for the current tenancy. So there is that positive for them.

steddyeddy

beauf wrote: »

We are all stuffed by the regulations.

That said it did help the tenant for the current tenancy. So there is that positive for them.

Indeed. Tenant recieved service and LL recieved profit.

q85dw7osi4lebg

steddyeddy wrote: »

The tenant is simply asking for something that may suit them better. There's no threatening involved. Not everything is a conspiracy to make the LL suffer.

The landlord is also simply asking a question ? Where did I say anything about a conspiracy ? Are you a tenant ?

beauf

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed. Tenant recieved service and LL recieved profit.

Amazing you can do someones P&L statement without evening knowing anything about the figures.

I simply meant that the rules are advantageous to a tenant in a long tenancy in RPZ. if you are new tenant, and a new rental, not so much.

the_syco

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed. Tenant recieved service and LL recieved profit.

Going forward, the OP only profits if they break the law, sadly.

1874

awec wrote: »

Just sounds like someone asking a question to be honest. Sounds like a good tenant and landlord relationship.
But that doesn't suit your doom and gloom narrative I suppose.

Unfortunately in the current climate, a landlord would have to be wary that the tenant is trying to out maneuver them by dangling a tempting carrot, but the thing is, if the landlord/OP accepts then it seems to negate their need to take the property for their family which would seem to be a very important thing, if they accepted the tenants offer, they might find they have fallen foul of the law and the tenant would have them over a barrel where they look very badly, ie not needing the property so urgently and having taken extra money for it.

notharrypotter wrote: »

A 12 month lease is superceded by tennant rights under law.

If you grant the "12 month extension" you run the risk of the tennant gaining full rights after 6 months.

If the correct legal notice for termination has been given simply follow the timeline. And leave it at that.

This is what I was thinking originally, along with how long have they been there, maybe they are holding out in the hope any new agreement buys them time for new regulations to come into force and stay longer, ID say thats unlikley as the regulations in force at the time would seem to be the ones the landlord would have to abide by, but you never know the way things are now.


OP if you need the house for your family, give the notice and ensure it is given legally correct, so get a solicitor who deals with this to ensure it is exact, if you read it up in detail and ring the rtb Im sure you could do this yourself, but as you seem very unaware/unclear of accepting payments greater than are allowed, Id suggest you inform yourself of the current environment regarding lettings/landlords repsonsibilities so you dont fall victim to a typo or misunderstanding on your part.


Give them their 12 months, be professional, civil and keep exact records and make a record of your potential costs/losses if they overhold, stick to your guns, dont tip your hand to the tenant, if you even hint you might be able to take their offer, you saying you need property for your family looks like its not true. If you have hinetd as much, tell them you got advice on the matter and although it really would suit you, it looks like you cant due to the current regulations and its that which prevents you from taking them up on their kind offer.

q85dw7osi4lebg

It should be illegal for tenants to offer more than 4% above current rent in RPZ's, and should be grounds for eviction. Just as it is illegal for landlords to accept it.

beauf

As tenancies in the rpz start hitting the end of 4yrs and with new legislation looming. I wonder will supply of rentals fall further as more LL get out. Rents on new rentals will increase if so, and the cheaper rents will leave the market.

Alternatively supply might increase, which would stabilise the market.