Should I sign?

[n-i-v]

I'm wondering if anyone can help me.

I have lived in a rented house since November 2005. I have always paid my rent in full, in cash and on time.

My initial tenancy agreement was an 'assured shorthold tenancy' for 6 months, obviously that period has expired, but I continue to live here and pay my rent and have always complied with landlord inspections etc.

During recent inspection, the landlords agent asked me if I wanted to have a renewed tenancy agreement, as at the moment my tenancy could be brought to an end with just 2 months notice. I and my children are very happy and settled here (we escaped from an abusive relationship) and the thought of losing our home scares me.

I agreed and suggested that 12 months would be preferable to 6 months.

The new agreement has arrived and it seems to have a few clauses in it that aren't in the original agreement (amongst other things it states that I must pay my rent by standing order and it makes me responsible for the gutters and drainpipes). There is also a lot of 'legal blurb' that I don't really understand.

Along with the new tenancy agreement was a note asking me to sign it and return it to them along with £25 'admin fee'. - I wasn't informed that any fee was going to be payable, in fact the agent suggested the new tenacy agreement to me.

What I'd like to know is:

1) What could the repercussions be if I decide not to sign this new agreement?

2) Do I have to pay the £25 admin fee?

Any help or advice would be very welcome.

[Dave777]

I thought that the admin fees were only applicable to leaseholders who could demand a breakdown of the fees otherwise they would not be deemed payable.

[Nightmare4banks]

n-i-v,in reply to your post:

1.If you do not sign the new agreement you will continue on a "Statutory Periodic Assured Shorthold Tenancy".This would mean that as long as you pay your rent and the landlord accepts it your tenancy could in theory carry on forever.In practice this does not happen mainly due to rent rises etc.

2.In the event of NOT SIGNING the new agreement the landlord can give you 2 months notice to move out(he cannot evict you without a court order plus having the correct paperwork) and you would have to give him one month notice to vacate.

3.However,if you do sign the new agreement you are both committed to
the the fixed term agreement.If it is a 12 month agreement,he would have to serve a notice on you in the 10th month to evict you.Equally,you would have to give him a notice if you want to vacate but in the 11th month.Also,you would liable for the rent for the full fixed term.

4.You would be liable for the admin.charge.

5.By the way,payment by standing order is not uncommon.

6.I find the idea of a tenant responsible for the gutters a bit odd.The drains not so much because the tenant should make sure not to cause drain blockages.

7.If you have lived at the same place say for several years - the first tenancy is the applicable one IMHO.

Post more details about the legal blurb so I may be able to assist you further.

I hope you find this information useful.

If you have any more questions,just ask.

[n-i-v]

Thanks for the replies.

If I can take each of the points above in turn:

1)The new tenancy agreement did include a rent increase. It was £15 per month, and whilst I'm not thrilled about it, I will be able to cope with it. Incidentally - how often is the landlord allowed to increase the rent?

2) As I understand it, the house I'm living in belonged to an elderly gentleman who passed away. His children (neither of whom live local) inherited the house and employed an agent to let it out. With this in mind, the new tenancy agreement states "The Landlord (or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them) has occupied the premises as his only principal home and/or may require the premises as his or his spouse's only or principal home. The Landlord hereby gives nottice to the Tenant that possession o fthe premises may be recovered on Ground I in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988."

This doesn't appear in the original tenancy agreement. What does it mean?

Also, I accept that the landlord can give me 2 months notice - such is the peril of renting I suppose, but can they do it just because I don't sign their new agreement? I pay in full on time, and rarely bother them with repairs. I'm not a bad tenant - can they decide on a whim that they want me to leave?

3) The security of 'having another year under my belt' would be welcome, as I don't really plan to leave this house until the children have finished school, but even then, I'd have the whole trauma whent he 12 months have elapsed - the landlord can serve me notice then, if they wanted. Is it worth agreeing to all the new terms just to have 12 months security?

4) Really? Even though I wasn't informed about it and it was the agent who suggested to me that a new one was drawn up? - Stirkes me a little like inviting someone over for a coffee, the presenting them with a bill on their way out!!

Had I been warned about the fee, I would have thought twice. What if I decide not to sign..? Am I still liable then?

5) My rent is due mid-month. By that time, there isn't enough of my salary left in the bank to cover the full rent. So I find myself each month, taking from my savings account to make up my rent, then replacing it when my CSA money comes in. It's not that I won't pay by standing order. Simply can't. This was raised by the agent when she came to do the recent inspection and I explained the situation to her, and she accepted it. Despite that, it's been written into the new tanncy agreement.

6)The new agreement states "The Tenant hereby agrees with the Landlord as follows:... ...To keep chimneys swept and gutters, downpipes and drains clear and free from obstruction"

There is also a clause that states "...To leave the heating system on at all times if the property is to be left vacant overnight during the months of October to April inclusive". Not that we're away very often, but on the odd occasion that we are, I find paying to heat an empty home a bit silly.

7) So if I don't sign theis new agreement, I'm only bound by the terms and conditions of the original agreement? (Which would be the way I'd read it)

There are just 2 further things which I don't understand:

"The Premises are subject to a mortgage granted before the beginning of the tenancy and the mortgagee is or may be entitled to exercise a power of sale and may requrie possession for the purpose of disposing of the premises in the excercise of that power. The Landlord hereby gives notice to the Tenant that possession of the premises may be recovered on Ground 2 in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988."

As I understood it, there is no mortgage on the property (it was inherited). Eitherway, no mention of this was made in the original agreement.

And finally:

"The Premises form part only of a building and, except in a case where the premises also form part of a flat, the building is not a purpose built block of flats within the meaning of paragraph 10 of Schedule I to the Housing Act 1988 and the Landlord occupies as his residence at the date hereof another dwelling house which forms part of the building or in the case mentioned above also forms part of the flat"

Anyone able to translate that?! I live in a semi-detatched. The Landlords live out of town.

In short, would it be to my (and my families) advantage to sign this new agreement or not?

Sorry for such a long post, but as before any help would be gratefully recieved.

[MrShed]

Dont sign it. Blacksheep is wrong above in one small, but highly important, respect - sorry bs!!. It is little known that RENEWAL tenancy agreements basically are not worth the paper they are written on, as a Section 21 can be successfully served and executed during one.

[MrShed]

And to answer your points:

1- As often as you agree to it basically.

2- It means that they can evict during the fixed term using a Section 8 notice, in order to reclaim the property for their own use. It is slightly complex, and I am not sure that they would qualify to use it, as they didnt live in the house whilst they owned it. Unsure!

2.5- yes he can evict giving 2 months notice for no reason or any reason. It is his right.

3- IMO no, for the reason given above

5- No offence intended here, but budget? If you have the money at the start of the month, there is no reason why you cannot have it at the middle.

6- I shouldnt worry too much about these terms, they are fairly standard, and I doubt they are enforceable anyway.

7- Yes.

Your last two points. The first clause I wouldnt worry about, again standard. The second confuses me. Does the landlord live in the same building as you?

[n-i-v]

Hi, Thanks for your reply.

I take on board what you say about budgetting. But my salary alone doesn't cover the rent anyway, so I would always have to get money from aother account to top it up - even if I let the children starve until rentday!

The standing order clause is irksome (the agent was happy enough with my explanation during the inspection - then wrote it into the new agreement anyway), but not the worse of my worries.

In reply to the very last point - it confused me too. I live in a semi and the owners (there are two) both live in different counties! Niehter are within 100 miles of me.

Does anyone know where I would stand on the 'admin fee'? It wasn't mentioned to me at the time, and frankly, I feel a bit duped. Do I have to pay it?...even if I don't go ahead with the new agreement anyway?

[MrShed]

You are not liable for the admin charge if you do not sign, you are if you do. You can safely ignore the second clause by the way - I think it has been lifted from some kind of standard agreement. Either way, it is void, as it would definitely fail the OFTs "plain english" rules on tenancy agreements.

I would probably say sign, if they agree to waive the charge. Despite what I have put above - it is unlikely that even the agents and landlord know that they could evict during the fixed term!

[Nightmare4banks]

n-i-v,I would like to add:

1.that the new agreement seems to infer that you are residing with the landlord.The objective behind this would be to try to evict you more easily - you become a licensee rather than the fact that you are tenant.As you have sole occupancy of the premises WITHOUT the landlord.

2.If the landlord owns only 1 property in the country and needs it for himself he could use the Section 8 ground for eviction IMHO.

Mr.Shed,I have 1 question for you:

What is the point in issuing a revised fixed term shorthold agreement to an existing tenant with say a higher rent etc as in n-i-v's case and then using Section 21 to evict?i.e. the shorthold rule.This does not make any sense with all respect.Assuming that the tenant has no rent arrears or any other dispute exists between the landlord and the tenant.

n-i-v,my final words are:

I agree with Mr.Shed - do not sign the agreement!

[MrShed]

N4B, you are absolutely correct. I was merely pointing out the possibility that he COULD evict, not that he would.