Short let - worth the hassle?

[hoegaardenruls]

With the end of an existing tenancy coming up, and a potential tenant fallen through we have been asked if we would consider a short let of a month.

This may work well, as we have a possible tenant waiting, albeit who needs to provide 2-4 weeks notice. So the question for any other landlords who may have done the same - are short lets worth the hassle rather than having a vacant period, and are there any pitfalls to avoid/consider?

[BoRED S2upid]

A month? Is that even possible? Changing over c tax, utilities etc... Sounds like hassle to me are they going to make it worth your while or expect it to be normal price?

[hoegaardenruls]

That's the sort of hassle I'd anticipated tbh, which would probably result in having to modify the price so it is fully inclusive of both those, to make it worthwhile - the only saving grace there being the fact it's summer (sort of) so less temptation to have the heating on full blast.

No real experience from a landlord's perspective of the contractual side, other than the knowledge the potential tenant will not enjoy the same rights as an assured shorthold but are still in the property which is possibly the main concern.

[nyt]

Can you be sure that the 'temporary' tenants will move out when expected.
You could lose the long tenancy if they choose to be difficult because their plans change.

[walm]

I have done short lets before.
You don't change the utilities (or rather YOU the landlord pay them) - you charge a LOT more rent to cover everything.
It was usually professionals in town for a project or a couple doing up their kitchen who needed something temporary.
They were great tenants with zero hassle.
But you still need to do the changeover with them so that's a pain.

[hoegaardenruls]

walm said:

I have done short lets before.
You don't change the utilities (or rather YOU the landlord pay them) - you charge a LOT more rent to cover everything.
It was usually professionals in town for a project or a couple doing up their kitchen who needed something temporary.
They were great tenants with zero hassle.
But you still need to do the changeover with them so that's a pain.

Thanks, still some hassle in the circumstances but much reduced with that approach - what did you do in terms of lease?

[walm]

hoegaardenruls said:

Thanks, still some hassle in the circumstances but much reduced with that approach - what did you do in terms of lease?

I just used a standard AST lease with the relevant dates and timings adjusted.
Make sure the agent doesn't charge you for a new one of these each time.
I used one from the web (although wife is a solicitor so did run an eye over it).
It was a while ago though so I don't have it to hand - sorry.

[hoegaardenruls]

That's perfect, thanks

[olivebrown]

Just let the AST run into a periodical and give a one months notice so it expires at the end of the month.

[tescorank]

therefore perfectly legal to go for a short let. The downside though is that with anything less than 6 months a landlord can’t use a Section 21 to obtain accelerated possession until after 6 months of the tenancy has elapsed. If the tenant stops paying rent after month 2, it may well be another 4 months before a order of possession of a rental property is obtained. If you are worried about this exposure to risk one way around this issue is to take a large rental deposit to cover this period, or a legally binding house owning guarantor, another little problem if you do it a few times it may be considered holiday letting, which is commercial (totally different tax regime) as opposed to residential.