Rolling contracts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Rolling contracts

    I am a sharer in a house, where for the last ten years or so, every time someone has left they have 'replaced' themselves. Meaning that the tenancy has never been treated as formally ended. I'm concerned that this is highly dubious, does this count as one contract over ten years (even though each time a new contract is signed) or an entirely new contract.

    We have a 6 month contract, which then becomes monthly. When someone decides to leave, a new housemate is found, they transfer the deposit to the leaving housemate, the two old housemates and one new housemate then all sign a new contract. Even with the changes to the tenancy law, we have been told its 50 for the new contract, and 50 for the referencing fee for the new housemate. We've never been given the option of 'ending' the tenancy, and the inventory attached is 10 years old and we are always told that the new tenant has to accept the inventory as is.

    Does anyone know where we stand on this and whether they're allowed to charge for these things, and keep requiring us to accept a completely inaccurate inventory.

    #2
    Where you stand is hard to say with any certainty.

    The "arrangement" you have is quite common (particularly in large cities), but all wrong.
    Tenancies just don't work like that.

    The upside is that it's hard to tell who benefits from the arrangement most.
    The landlord will find it almost impossible to end the tenancy in any legal way, and the informality of the arrangement makes it flexible for the tenants (if it was more formal, there'd be new tenancies all the time and people couldn't leave within the fixed term, for example).

    If the arrangement broadly works for you, there's not much you can do other than move somewhere else.

    The fees are not illegal for existing tenancies until next year.
    I am not sure you aren't creating a new tenancy with each new person, but I'm not sure you're not either.
    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Happy feet View Post
      and the inventory attached is 10 years old and we are always told that the new tenant has to accept the inventory as is.
      Great (for the tenant), 10 years worth of wear and tear.
      I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

      I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
        Where you stand is hard to say with any certainty.

        The "arrangement" you have is quite common (particularly in large cities), but all wrong.
        Tenancies just don't work like that.

        The upside is that it's hard to tell who benefits from the arrangement most.
        The landlord will find it almost impossible to end the tenancy in any legal way, and the informality of the arrangement makes it flexible for the tenants (if it was more formal, there'd be new tenancies all the time and people couldn't leave within the fixed term, for example).

        If the arrangement broadly works for you, there's not much you can do other than move somewhere else.

        The fees are not illegal for existing tenancies until next year.
        I am not sure you aren't creating a new tenancy with each new person, but I'm not sure you're not either.
        Yeah it feels like we are neither a new tenancy nor an old one. The tenant leaving was within their right to end the contract as the 6 month fixed period had passed. So this should theoretically be treated as a new tenancy rather than a new one. They've certainly charged us a 'new contract fee' every time a tenant has changed. They're now not charging us the fees they used to charge, so I think fitting in with the new rules about charging 50 for changes to a tenancy agreement. And yet, it's a new agreement from a new date with the new tenant on.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by KTC View Post

          Great (for the tenant), 10 years worth of wear and tear.
          Yes on the one hand, but on the other previous tenants have left behind an awful lots of things that I think we will be held responsible for removing... They've made the comment about it being 10 years old so not to worry, but have never put anything in writing and always emphasise that we are accepting it as is..

          Comment

          Latest Activity

          Collapse

          Working...
          X