Private landlord

[ac.cobra]

Hi everyone.
I have a sitting tenants in my private rented property on a 12 months lease. The tenants are mother and one son. 7 weeks prior to lease coming to end, we started to negotiate the new lease and the new increased rent. During the negotiating I was told by my acting agent that the mother has left the property and moved in to a nursing home in mid term.
Now the son has a twin brother who wants to come and live in the property, the twins brothers sharing the property, whiles the mother lives in a nursing home.
Negotiated the deal and completed in principle 10 days prior to lease coming to end, that the twins brothers can live in the property with increased new rent.
Now the 12 months lease has lapsed because the agent is drawing up a new lease for twin brothers to come on the new lease of 12 months.
During this process the lease came to end and the rent was due to be paid for the start of new 12 months lease, however the brothers continued to pay the rent on time of the old rent rate for the new lease.
I have spoken to the agent of this old rent rate, and the agent replied back and was told, the lease is not drawn up yet and it is not signed, so the old rent is payable.

Surely in my belief this can't be right, the new lease should follow on from the old lease, so their is no gap in between the old lease and the new lease, also the new rent should be payable.

Has anyone had any experience of this or in similar situations. Any advice much appreciated. Thanks.

[monthou]

ac.cobra said:

Hi everyone.
I have a sitting tenants in my private rented property on a 12 months lease. The tenants are mother and one son. 7 weeks prior to lease coming to end, we started to negotiate the new lease and the new increased rent. During the negotiating I was told by my acting agent that the mother has left the property and moved in to a nursing home in mid term.
Now the son has a twin brother who wants to come and live in the property, the twins brothers sharing the property, whiles the mother lives in a nursing home.
Negotiated the deal and completed in principle 10 days prior to lease coming to end, that the twins brothers can live in the property with increased new rent.
Now the 12 months lease has lapsed because the agent is drawing up a new lease for twin brothers to come on the new lease of 12 months.
During this process the lease came to end and the rent was due to be paid for the start of new 12 months lease, however the brothers continued to pay the rent on time of the old rent rate for the new lease.
I have spoken to the agent of this old rent rate, and the agent replied back and was told, the lease is not drawn up yet and it is not signed, so the old rent is payable.

Surely in my belief this can't be right, the new lease should follow on from the old lease, so their is no gap in between the old lease and the new lease, also the new rent should be payable.

Has anyone had any experience of this or in similar situations. Any advice much appreciated. Thanks.

Surely it's up to you (your agent) to draw up the new lease. If you haven't done that what do you expect your tenants to do?

[davek_964]

I don't understand why you think the rent should be based on the amount in the new lease when it hasn't even been signed.

Leases don't really 'end' - when the term of the existing lease was reached, it just became a rolling tenancy.

I am surprised with the dates you gave though - my tenants would need a full two months notice of a rent increase

[Countdown]

ac.cobra said:

Surely in my belief this can't be right, the new lease should follow on from the old lease,

Surely the new lease doesn't become effective until it's signed?

[Ham_and_Jam]

You need to leave enough time for the new lease to be drafted, signed and enforced before the new payments are due.

Your tenants sound ideal, paying exactly what is due, and on time.

[bitchstewie]

Ham_and_Jam said:

Your tenants sound ideal, paying exactly what is due, and on time.

Quite.

I'd be chasing the agent rather than expecting your tenants to pay more than they're contracted to.

[LivLL]

Another inept slumlord showing how not to do it.

Laughable really.

[KAgantua]

They're not 'sitting tenants' they are 'tenants in Situ' - an important difference.

[Heaveho]

LivLL said:

Another inept slumlord showing how not to do it.

Laughable really.

Inept he may be, but if it was a slum, I doubt they would want to continue living there, especially with a potential rent increase. Stupid comment really.

[davek_964]

Heaveho said:

LivLL said:

Another inept slumlord showing how not to do it.

Laughable really.

Inept he may be, but if it was a slum, I doubt they would want to continue living there, especially with a potential rent increase. Stupid comment really.

Typical of the private landlord hate brigade

[QuickQuack]

Until the new tenancy agreement is signed, the old tenancy agreement is in force. Assuming it was a standard AST, unless one of the parties has given notice, at the end of the AST term, it becomes a periodic tenancy with the same terms and conditions including the rent as the existing AST. When the new tenancy agreement is signed at the new monthly rental, the new rate becomes effective, but you can't enforce the rental you're proposing in the new agreement before you have actually signed it.

Are you a new/accidental landlord by any chance?

[98elise]

davek_964 said:

I don't understand why you think the rent should be based on the amount in the new lease when it hasn't even been signed.

Leases don't really 'end' - when the term of the existing lease was reached, it just became a rolling tenancy.

I am surprised with the dates you gave though - my tenants would need a full two months notice of a rent increase

This. It's become a periodic rolling tenancy (month to month) so unless an increase in rent has been agreed then the old rent applies.

[vaud]

Heaveho said:

Inept he may be, but if it was a slum, I doubt they would want to continue living there, especially with a potential rent increase. Stupid comment really.

Not really. Why should the tenants pay more than the current signed contract?

[davek_964]

vaud said:

Heaveho said:

Inept he may be, but if it was a slum, I doubt they would want to continue living there, especially with a potential rent increase. Stupid comment really.

Not really. Why should the tenants pay more than the current signed contract?

They shouldn't.
But 'slumlord' was a stupid comment

[98elise]

davek_964 said:

vaud said:

Heaveho said:

Inept he may be, but if it was a slum, I doubt they would want to continue living there, especially with a potential rent increase. Stupid comment really.

Not really. Why should the tenants pay more than the current signed contract?

They shouldn't.
But 'slumlord' was a stupid comment

It was, and it's become more common on here.

On another thread someone said landlords were universally loathed, parasites, and compared them to pedophiles!

When you resort to name calling anything else you have to say has no credibility.

[Heaveho]

vaud said:

Heaveho said:

Inept he may be, but if it was a slum, I doubt they would want to continue living there, especially with a potential rent increase. Stupid comment really.

Not really. Why should the tenants pay more than the current signed contract?

Thanks for the reply. Sadly, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

[GasEngineer]

Heaveho said:

LivLL said:

Another inept slumlord showing how not to do it.

Laughable really.

Stupid comment really.

And uncalled for. Why does admin allow this sort of poster to participate?

[LooneyTunes]

QuickQuack said:

Until the new tenancy agreement is signed, the old tenancy agreement is in force. Assuming it was a standard AST, unless one of the parties has given notice, at the end of the AST term, it becomes a periodic tenancy with the same terms and conditions including the rent as the existing AST. When the new tenancy agreement is signed at the new monthly rental, the new rate becomes effective, but you can't enforce the rental you're proposing in the new agreement before you have actually signed it.

That’s not certain to be the case. The OP could attempt to argue that the change of tenants has resulted in the surrender of the original tenancy and grant of a new one. The cost of doing so is likely to significantly outweigh the difference in rent.

The OP is not without leverage though:

There should be a clause in the original tenancy agreement regarding the continued occupation by the tenant as their only/main residence: the mother is likely in breach of this.

There is also likely to be a cause around authorised guests/occupants: if the second son has been there for a while, without the LL’s express permission, there is probably a breach of that too.

If so, those would be grounds for action under the original tenancy agreement.

OP has a few main options:
1) Get grumpy with the agent about allowing the above to happen and/or delays with the new tenancy agreement;
2) Get grumpy with the original tenants, perhaps require second brother to move out until the matter is resolved; or
3) Do nothing.

Personally, if there are breaches of the existing tenancy and especially if there’s a view that the tenants are “trying it on” I’d be getting a possession notice served as a protective measure until it is resolved (but making it clear that that is what it’s about and that the new tenancy must be signed within 14 days).

[InitialDave]

ac.cobra said:

Surely in my belief this can't be right, the new lease should follow on from the old lease, so their is no gap in between the old lease and the new lease, also the new rent should be payable.

You have to actually give them the new lease for them to sign up to it!

Technically I suppose the change in occupants could make for an argument against the expiry of the previous lease automatically moving to monthly at that rate, but if the tenants are good and pay on time, that strikes me as a silly game to start playing.

[E-bmw]

InitialDave said:

ac.cobra said:

Surely in my belief this can't be right, the new lease should follow on from the old lease, so their is no gap in between the old lease and the new lease, also the new rent should be payable.

You have to actually give them the new lease for them to sign up to it!

Technically I suppose the change in occupants could make for an argument against the expiry of the previous lease automatically moving to monthly at that rate, but if the tenants are good and pay on time, that strikes me as a silly game to start playing.

Notwithstanding the fact there is no signatures on the new lease with the new rates, so either way the old rates still apply.

No idea why the OP would think new rates would apply on a lease that has not been signed.

If the OP really wanted to get the new rate quicker, they should have started the process in a more timely manner.