5yr lease - no breaks - Questions

[lardlord]

an elderly couple want to rent a flat from us they will only sign a 5yr lease without breaks (they dont want the aggravation of moving again).

the agents foxtons, see this as an initial term and thus want their 11% on the whole 5 years! argh, but thats not the question.

due to the length of the lease it needs to be done as a deed, witnessed and signed etc. questions are:

- does the lease being 5 years confer any sitting tenant rights and if so how do we make sure to revoke them in the agreement
- a friend mentioned the amount/length of lease may make this eligable for stamp duty. does that make sense?

we've tried to offer a 1yr rolling AST with the tenants only having a break option - but the tenants won't go for it.

we don't want to loose them but also don't want to get screwed. any ideas?

[Lawcruncher]

Just to answer your questions:

- does the lease being 5 years confer any sitting tenant rights and if so how do we make sure to revoke them in the agreement

The tenant gets no additional rights.
- a friend mentioned the amount/length of lease may make this eligable for stamp duty. does that make sense?

Stamp duty land tax on a tenancy is not a landlord's problem.

[jpkeates]

Tell the tenants no and tell the agent to stop supporting a proposal that only has no downside to them.

You have no idea what the tenants will be like.
Elderly tenants are usually great, and I can totally understand why they want a longer deal, but they're unknown to you and you and they have no history.

You don't know what might happen over the next 5 years (it's hard enough to predict what might happen in April) and your situation might change.
So a five year deal is a non-starter - it only seems to benefit the tenants.

And are they totally confident that they'll be able to commit for 5 years.
Elderly people people die, have life changing falls, become less sane, have to move to supported accomodation.
Often a tenant doesn't realise the consequences of a long term binding them.
They're making a commitment to pay rent for five years, regardless of any changes in circumstance.
My like doesn't support that length of planning and certainty and I'm only vaguely "elderly".
And they're relying on you being a good landlord (which I'm sure you are, but they're relying on it).

Lose them rather than do a five year deal.
Explain that you're not going to evict them if they're good tenants unless something catastrophic happens - and that's the risk of renting generally.

[jpkeates]

And be wary of any agent wanting years of advance fees which are due to be made illegal "soon".
The agent is simply acting in their own interest, not yours.

[DPT57]

I agree. This is not a sensible option and you should turn it down even at the risk of losing them

[theartfullodger]

Agreed, 6 months then periodic:

I tell tenants they can stay as long as they like, provided they and I are both happy: And my happiness includes rent in-full, on-time, place looked after, no (valid) complaints from neighbours. And did they really really want to take a place where they'd still have to pay me the rent even if they didn't like it, didn't like the area or neighbours or some family or health crisis meant they had to move.

If the proposed tenants won't bite on that, sorry: They would need to purchase somewhere for that security, sorry: (even HA & Council tenancies start with some sort of limited introductory deal usually a year or so...).

But I think we'll see more and more elderly tenants..

Cheers all! Artful, 71....

[AndrewDod]

Don't even think about it.

Unfortunately governments (and your tenants) think that security of high-quality accommodation for people who want flexible accommodation is derived from having long tenancy agreements. It is not -- it is derived from having a vibrant, flexible, free, competitive and non-fascist-controlled rental market.

[Hudson01]

As said..... not a chance would i do this with brand new shiny tenants, at most a 1yr with a break clause, nothing more.