emperor: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] emperor at 05:11pm on 13/11/2006 under
In the Grand Old Days of the Empire, you signed an initial assured shorthold tenancy, typically for 6 or 12 months; thereafter you went onto a rolling 1-month contract. This was good, because when you wanted to move out, you'd just give a months' notice, and all would be well.

These days, however, you have to surrender your tenancy at the end of each 6/12 month period, pay the agents a sizable fee (around £60) to photocopy the contract, and have another fixed-term tenancy. This makes you easier to evict, and means that if you want to leave early, you get shafted. It works something like this:

"There is no notice period within the fixed term tenancy.

However, you can ask for early release from your Tenancy Agreement, and we would ask your Landlord if they are are prepared to release you. If they agree, you would be expected to pay rental until the day that the new tenants take up occupation, and you would be liable for early release costs as per your tenancy information which was given to you when you took up occupation."

The "early release cost" is a charge of £60 if you've got <2 months left to run, £120 if <3, and £300 if more than that. I think you're only liable for the rent until when the tenancy would have ended anyway. Note that there is absolutely no incentive for the agents to get anyone in before that point, because they're still getting all of their money.

It stinks.
There are 22 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] piqueen.livejournal.com at 05:14pm on 13/11/2006
Bastards! Can you chuck an advert up on a few communities on here and help to relet it?
 
posted by [identity profile] edith-the-hutt.livejournal.com at 05:22pm on 13/11/2006
*hugs*
fluffymark: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] fluffymark at 05:23pm on 13/11/2006
Rent for 6/12 Months, then when it comes to renewal, bypass the agent and negotiate directly with the landlord therefore cutting out the middleman. This won't help you right now of course, but is worth considering in the future.
 
posted by [identity profile] senji.livejournal.com at 12:42am on 14/11/2006
The contract between the Landlord and Russells doesn't permit them to do that with renters that Russells have introduced to the Landlord (possibly except if they pay a large fee). We got around this in Girton because the Landlord had introduced us to Russells[1], which was quite nice.

[1] Well, not literally, we'd encountered the slime before, but within the legal definition in context...
 
posted by [identity profile] davefish.livejournal.com at 05:49pm on 13/11/2006
You wouldn't be renting with Russel at the moment, would you? Or is this going to be on the new place?
emperor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] emperor at 05:53pm on 13/11/2006
Yes to both.
 
posted by [identity profile] the-marquis.livejournal.com at 06:05pm on 13/11/2006
The Shits! I've always rented direct though so there isn't all this bollocks.
 
posted by [identity profile] hoiho.livejournal.com at 12:04pm on 14/11/2006
Some landlords have cottoned onto this nice litle earner, as well.
 
posted by [identity profile] pjc50.livejournal.com at 06:26pm on 13/11/2006
What happened to assured shorthold tenancies? Is there some rule change that enables this scam to happen?
emperor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] emperor at 08:15pm on 13/11/2006
I don't think the rules have changed, but it seems that increasingly the "standard" contract requires the tenants to surrender the tenancy and re-apply, rather than going on to a rolling contract.
 
posted by [identity profile] crazyscot.livejournal.com at 09:10pm on 13/11/2006
None at all. It can be done trivially, if sleazily, by the landlord['s agent] simply giving notice to hoppit in appropriately good time unless a fresh fixed term has been signed.
 
posted by [identity profile] ex-lark-asc.livejournal.com at 09:31pm on 13/11/2006
That's what I was wondering...
 
posted by [identity profile] covertmusic.livejournal.com at 06:28pm on 13/11/2006
AIUI TuckerGardner (who I'm with) don't do that - six month fixed, then standard assured shorthold terms. I was very (pleasantly) surprised when I saw that in the contract.
 
posted by [identity profile] zoeimogen.livejournal.com at 08:01pm on 13/11/2006
Renting can be cheap and flexible, but it can also suck in many ways - today I received a letter from my letting agents about an interim inspection and making petty comments about the carpets not being freshly vacuumed and the kitchen appliances not freshly cleaned. It's almost like they found the place spotless but needed to pick up on something just to prove they'd been. (Oh, and complaining about stains on the carpets that were already there when I moved in but I think they just didn't look at the inventory - which is fair enough I suppose as the property was practially new when I moved in so they'd not have expected it to already have some damage)
 
posted by [identity profile] hsenag.livejournal.com at 10:04pm on 13/11/2006
I think it's just Russell, our current agents (Kirby Properties, based in Cambourne) didn't do anything like that.
rmc28: Rachel in hockey gear on the frozen fen at Upware, near Cambridge (Default)
posted by [personal profile] rmc28 at 06:32am on 14/11/2006
First Site certainly didn't do that when I was renting from them (which was lucky when I wanted to move out)
 
posted by [identity profile] caliston.livejournal.com at 10:40pm on 14/11/2006
Crofton don't either - we've just swapped housemate so had to acquire a new 6 month contract, and not only does it become rolling with a month's notice after 6 months but they've given us a Letter of Surrender which means we can give notice tomorrow if we like, despite the 6 months not being up. They, however, can't throw us out until the 6 months are up (and then must provide 2 months notice).
 
posted by [identity profile] emarkienna.livejournal.com at 01:24am on 14/11/2006
What sort of notice did they have to give you, under the old rolling contract? I mean, I've thought that at least having a year's contract each time gives me peace of mind that the landlord isn't going to tell me to get out in a month, but you say that now it's easier to evict?

But either way, it is annoying - buying a house or moving seems a hassle in general, without having to time it so you don't waste loads of rent you don't use.

And £60 to "photocopy the contract" seems absurd!
 
posted by [identity profile] gayalondiel.livejournal.com at 10:36am on 14/11/2006
Word. just... Word.

(Yes, we rent, too. Bastards.)
 
posted by [identity profile] sphyg.livejournal.com at 12:58pm on 14/11/2006
Erk. You're reminded me to check our contract as we may move again next year.
ext_27570: Richard in tricorn hat (Default)
posted by [identity profile] sigisgrim.livejournal.com at 06:18pm on 14/11/2006
It all makes a very good argument to buy instead.
 
posted by [identity profile] romancinger.livejournal.com at 06:24pm on 14/11/2006
Well, it's the first I've heard of anything like this, and it's not much more than a year since I was investigating tenancy agreements when my own tenant moved in. As far as I was aware, the sixth-month shorthold followed by rolling 1 month contract is the norm - and fine for both parties. I suppose your contract must be legal, but it certainly stinks.

October

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31