What is the law concerning minimum lease on rented property?

[ringerz]

Hello all! I'm a serial lurker on these forums and contribute nothing - mainly because I've nothing constructive to say to anything!

I do know your (mostly) a knowledgable bunch and am wondering if you could help me with a question.

I am currently negotiating a lease on a property in London via an estate agent/landlord. They have offered me an 18 month contract with a 12 month break option and say that if they were to reduce this to a 6 month break then they would have to increase the rent. Now my question is of the legallity of this? I have been told conflicting things by numerous people with some saying that I am only obliged to accept a 6 month break and that a landlord cannot force someone to accept a 12 month lease. Who is right in this argument?

Would really appreciate some help with this. Thanks guys!

[superlightr]

wives tales.

If you have an AST assured shorthold it can be any length of tenancy and you may or may not have a break clause - depends on what you negotiate. Whats the monthly value? if over £2084 then is wont be an AST but just an agreement. Again same things apply depends on what you negotiate.


If you sign for a 12mth or 24 mth tenancy then thats what you have. Its fixed.


If sign a 12mth or 24 mth tenancy WITH a break clause half way then thats what you have but make sure you give the right notice at the right time in the right manner. Its all what you negotiate.

If you have an AST at the end of the fixed term it will go onto a month to month with you giving 1 mhts clear notice from a rent date unless a new AST is prepared. If its an agreement not AST then the tenancy automatically ends with no notice and you have to go.

I tenancy fixed for 18mths is worth more to a landlord than one with a break clause. So yes i would expect the rent to be higher if you are asking for an earlier break.

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 17:15

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 17:16

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 17:20

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 17:21

[ringerz]

Thanks for the rapid reply. I'd suspected that would be the case - although I'd hoped it wouldn't be! Cheers for clearing it up though.

[anonymous-user]

superlightr said:

wif over £2084 then is wont be an AST but just an agreement

What does that mean? I'm renting under an AST agreement but it's over £2084 per month. Am I under an AST or not? And if not what are the implications?

[superlightr]

its cant be an AST. Its a simple agreement. Housing Act states if voer that amount its outside of the act and not AST

Your deposit if tenancy started after april last year also doesnt have to be protected. You have less 'rights' so to speek than an AST. Its generally not a problem.

It better for the owner.

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 19:06

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 19:06

[anonymous-user]

superlightr said:

its cant be an AST. Its a simple agreement. Housing Act states if voer that amount its outside of the act and not AST

Your deposit if tenancy started after april last year also doesnt have to be protected. You have less 'rights' so to speek than an AST. Its generally not a problem.

It better for the owner.

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 19:06

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 19:06

Interesting. I signed a 12 month contract which I know I cannot get out of if it's an AST. If it's not AST does that change anything?

[superlightr]

garyhun said:

superlightr said:

its cant be an AST. Its a simple agreement. Housing Act states if voer that amount its outside of the act and not AST

Your deposit if tenancy started after april last year also doesnt have to be protected. You have less 'rights' so to speek than an AST. Its generally not a problem.

It better for the owner.

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 19:06

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 19:06

Interesting. I signed a 12 month contract which I know I cannot get out of if it's an AST. If it's not AST does that change anything?

No. You are still liable. They/you just dont have to give notice at the end. It just ends.

Although the owner is under a duty to mitigate a loss, hence we will try to re-let a property provided the owner doesnt lose rental income.

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 19:33

[anonymous-user]

superlightr said:

garyhun said:

superlightr said:

its cant be an AST. Its a simple agreement. Housing Act states if voer that amount its outside of the act and not AST

Your deposit if tenancy started after april last year also doesnt have to be protected. You have less 'rights' so to speek than an AST. Its generally not a problem.

It better for the owner.

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 19:06

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 19:06

Interesting. I signed a 12 month contract which I know I cannot get out of if it's an AST. If it's not AST does that change anything?

No. You are still liable. They/you just dont have to give notice at the end. It just ends.

Although the owner is under a duty to mitigate a loss, hence we will try to re-let a property provided the owner doesnt lose rental income.

Edited by superlightr on Monday 1st December 19:33

Thanks. I don't want to terminate - I hoped that because the document I signed states "Assured Shorthold Tennancy Agreeent" and is therefore incorrect (thus void??) it would offer me the opportunity to re-negotiate the monthly rental down a little. I guess not!

[superlightr]

Unlikely to be void, just an agreement.

Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 2nd December 09:24