Tenant moved in but AST still not signed

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

    Tenant moved in but AST still not signed

    T moved in, but i was v/busy at the time and AST was not ready.

    Now the AST is ready T does not agree on certain clauses inc 6mnth break-clause. I am not willing to budge and so we've hit a dead-end.

    I did not take a deposit at all and have no intention of doing so in the future.

    T is not playing ball and I need to get rid asap.

    what to do?

    #2
    Serve a s21 notice. I believe you can't get possession before 6 months in the tenancy. Might be worth telling your tenant that you can evict at 6 months anyway so agreeing to a 6 month break clause doesn't leave him worse off
    All views posted reflect my personal opinion only and do not constitute professional advice which I am not qualified or knowledgeable enough to provide.

    Comment


      #3
      Ah great. so can serve 2mnth notice i.e. s21 at the 4month period?

      Comment


        #4
        You can serve it now, but it might not be able to expire before the six months.

        It would be best practice in future to give a copy of the contract to the potential tenant before moving in so that they have time to understand and agree it, then always get them to sign it.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by IP MAN View Post
          T moved in, but i was v/busy at the time and AST was not ready.

          Now the AST is ready T does not agree on certain clauses inc 6mnth break-clause. I am not willing to budge and so we've hit a dead-end.

          I did not take a deposit at all and have no intention of doing so in the future.

          T is not playing ball and I need to get rid asap.

          what to do?
          It would seem that the T has a periodic AST by default. You can serve a s.21 notice at any time, giving at least two months and expiring 'after' the last day of a tenancy period, however a court will not make a possession order to take effect earlier than six months after the start of the tenancy under s.21. You can apply before the expiry of six months, though, (assuming the notice expires before the expiry of six months).

          If the T is otherwise reliable and paying his rent, I don't see any need to evict, simply for failing to sign the written contract. There's still a valid tenancy in place, with verbally agreed terms such as the amount and frequency of rent payable (I'll assume you've given notice under s.48 LTA1987 of an address for serving notices, if only in the text of the draft contract provided).

          Comment


            #6
            Assuming there is no devil in the detail, there are various possibilities here:

            1. The terms agreed before the tenant moved in did not include any agreement on the length of the tenancy. If that was the case then the tenant has a periodic tenancy.

            2. The terms agreed before the tenant moved in did specify the length of the tenancy (being three years or less) but no mention was made of a right to break. If that was the case then the tenant has a fixed term tenancy for the period agreed without any right to break.

            3. The terms agreed before the tenant moved in did specify the length of the tenancy (being three years or less) and a right to break was agreed. If that was the case then the tenant has a fixed term tenancy for the period agreed with the right to break included.

            If, as appears not to be the case here, before the tenant moves in an agreement is submitted to the tenant for signature on the understanding that he is to sign it at some stage in the future, then (assuming the tenant was given sufficient time to read the agreement and that it reflects what was agreed and does not contain any non-standard provisions) the absence of the tenant's signature is not fatal and the terms of the tenancy will be as set out in the agreement. Further, a right to break is a significant term and if required ought to be drawn to the tenant's attention when the length of the tenancy is first discussed and not when the tenant comes to read the agreement.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
              Assuming there is no devil in the detail, there are various possibilities here:

              1. The terms agreed before the tenant moved in did not include any agreement on the length of the tenancy. If that was the case then the tenant has a periodic tenancy.

              2. The terms agreed before the tenant moved in did specify the length of the tenancy (being three years or less) but no mention was made of a right to break. If that was the case then the tenant has a fixed term tenancy for the period agreed without any right to break.

              3. The terms agreed before the tenant moved in did specify the length of the tenancy (being three years or less) and a right to break was agreed. If that was the case then the tenant has a fixed term tenancy for the period agreed with the right to break included.

              If, as appears not to be the case here, before the tenant moves in an agreement is submitted to the tenant for signature on the understanding that he is to sign it at some stage in the future, then (assuming the tenant was given sufficient time to read the agreement and that it reflects what was agreed and does not contain any non-standard provisions) the absence of the tenant's signature is not fatal and the terms of the tenancy will be as set out in the agreement. Further, a right to break is a significant term and if required ought to be drawn to the tenant's attention when the length of the tenancy is first discussed and not when the tenant comes to read the agreement.
              In actual fact a periodic tenancy was agreed for initial 3mnths, and if the tenure went smoothly we could sign a 12mnth AST, but he doesn't like certain clauses in the contract such as 'fair usage policy'.

              I'll start another thread this, but the question [for me anyway] does arise, what can and what cannot be changed within a standard AST before signing ?

              tia

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by IP MAN View Post
                I'll start another thread this
                Don't do that - keep all the info together here

                what can and what cannot be changed within a standard AST before signing ?
                Given that there's no such thing as a 'standard' AST, pretty much anything. The point is that you should negotiate and agree terms with the tenant before signing and moving in, and if not acceptable to both parties, then you both walk away.

                That said - the fact that you agree and sign a contract doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be completely binding: to give an over-the-top example, if the tenant had agreed to a clause which said there'd be 1000% interest payment per day if the rent was overdue, then if you later ended up sueing the tenant for this money then no court would ever find in your favour.

                Comment


                  #9
                  "A periodic tenancy was agreed for initial 3 months" is a contradiction in terms. What was agreed was a fixed term of three months.

                  "There's no such thing as a 'standard' AST" is true in the sense that there is no standard form of agreement. However, there are various provisions (however expressed) which one would expect to find in a tenancy agreement intended to create an AST.

                  The law distinguishes between a situation where (a) no terms (other than of course the very basic ones) are agreed and (b) the parties agree that the tenancy is to be on the "usual terms". In the case of (a) the terms implied are very limited. In the case of (b) the terms implied are wider and are of two kinds. The first covers terms which are always implied. The second kind covers terms which are implied depending on the circumstances and will be such terms as can be expected to be found in a tenancy of the same kind in the same area with the important exception that certain terms are always excluded. It would take too long to expand the foregoing setting out what may or may not be included in any particular case.

                  There has been much litigation arising from cases where the parties, having agreed basic but not detailed terms, intended to enter into a formal agreement but failed to do so before the tenant went into occupation. Problems are easily avoided by ensuring that an agreement is signed by both parties before the tenant goes into occupation.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    So you wanted a 3 month fixed term and disagreed about a 6month break clause?
                    All views posted reflect my personal opinion only and do not constitute professional advice which I am not qualified or knowledgeable enough to provide.

                    Comment

                    Latest Activity

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X