PDA

View Full Version : Can I grant a non-AST letting? How?



kayak
10-04-2008, 08:26 AM
Before I start, I would like to make it clear that I am not looking for a way to make a tenancy into a 'non AST' but it is feedback I have heard from prospective tenants about other agents.

Could the following scenario result in a tenancy agreement that was not an AST?

6 month contract
Landlord not resident in property
Two individuals in mid 20's
Property privately owned by an individual landlord
Rent under £25 000 pa

I believed that this would legally have to be an AST and therefore any deposit would have to be protect by the tenancy deposit legislation but I am interested to see if I am mistaken.

Kind regards,

John

Colincbayley
10-04-2008, 08:28 AM
There is no reason why it can not be a A.T contract as long as it is worded that way. Downside for the LL would be the loss of use of a S.21.
Deposit would not need to be protected.

kayak
10-04-2008, 08:38 AM
Interesting, makes sense but it seems very risky for a LL as the tenant could 'up and leave' at any time so you could in theory be changing tenants every month.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify something for me. (I don't use A.T's).

A tenant wants a short term let of two months. If an AST is used the tenant could turn around and say he won't go unil he gets a section 21, which will then be 6 months (in total) before he leaves.

If an AT is used on a period tenancy then how does the LL gain possession (assumming a S8 can't be used?). Evidently, the tenant could leave after one month (if they gave their notice straight away).

Many thanks,

John

attilathelandlord
10-04-2008, 09:26 AM
LL can't, that's the risk you take if you issue AST with fixed term of only 2 months.

jeffrey
10-04-2008, 09:44 AM
There is no reason why it can not be a A.T contract as long as it is worded that way. Downside for the LL would be the loss of use of a S.21.
Deposit would not need to be protected.

I agree. To ensure that it is an SAT, not an AST, include appropriate clause complying with paragraph 3 in Schedule 2A to 1988 Act.

kayak
10-04-2008, 10:03 AM
I understand that is the risk of the an AST with 2 months as essentially you are allowing them to stay for 6 if they wish.

But with regards to an AT, how does the LL gain possession at the end of the 2 month period or any other period that an AT is set for.

This is all out of curiousity as it is not a route I will be using.

Kind regards,

John

jeffrey
10-04-2008, 10:42 AM
I understand that is the risk of the an AST with 2 months as essentially you are allowing them to stay for 6 if they wish.

But with regards to an AT, how does the LL gain possession at the end of the 2 month period or any other period that an AT is set for.

This is all out of curiousity as it is not a route I will be using.

Kind regards,

John

AT= SAT or AST. Be specific here.

If you meant an SAT:
a. L cannot use s.21;
b. L can still use s.8; but
c. otherwise, T is irremovable unless/until T wants to go voluntarily.

kayak
10-04-2008, 11:20 AM
I meant AT as in Assured Tenancy as opposed to AST meaning Assured Shorthold Tenancy.

What does the S infront of the AT mean?

It seems interesting to me that a LL who knows that he is not going to need his property back can let their house out on an AT (assured tenancy) and completely avoid the deposit legislation, with no problem as long as they know they aren't going to need the property back.

Assumming a SAT and AT are the same!

Many thanks,

John

jeffrey
10-04-2008, 13:41 PM
I meant AT as in Assured Tenancy as opposed to AST meaning Assured Shorthold Tenancy.

What does the S infront of the AT mean?

It seems interesting to me that a LL who knows that he is not going to need his property back can let their house out on an AT (assured tenancy) and completely avoid the deposit legislation, with no problem as long as they know they aren't going to need the property back.

Assumming a SAT and AT are the same!

Many thanks,

John
Look:
Any residential letting within 1988 is an AT (Assured Tenancy).
Since 28 Feb. 1997, an AT is an AST (Assured Shorthold Tenancy) UNLESS L opts out and makes it into an SAT (Standard Assured Tenancy).
So ASTs + SATs = ATs.

kayak
10-04-2008, 14:23 PM
In that case I was referring to a SAT rather than an AST although some of my reference material seems to refer to a SAT as a assured tenancy rather than a standard assured tenancy.

Thank you for your explanations.

Kind regards,

John

jeffrey
10-04-2008, 14:29 PM
In that case I was referring to a SAT rather than an AST although some of my reference material seems to refer to a SAT as a assured tenancy rather than a standard assured tenancy.

Yes. The Act does not use the SAT definition which is more just a convenient way to describe an AT that's not an AST.
All the provisions in Chapter I of the 1988 Act [i.e. s.1-s.19] apply to both types of AT.

bagpuss
11-04-2008, 15:22 PM
So just to clarify, and as I understand it, there is, at the moment, no legal way to let to a tenant for LESS than 6 months and for the landlord still legally to be able to apply for vacant possession before 6 months are up?

There are many situations where tenants want very short term lets and the law seems to be working against tenants in this case as LLs aren't able to let to them without taking HUGE risks and so won't now let for less than 6 months.

Is there anything in the legal pipeline to address this problem??

Just curious.

jeffrey
11-04-2008, 15:28 PM
L can let to T for less than six months, but:
a. (AST) L cannot obtain a s.21 Possession Order that operates before six months; and
b. (SAT) L cannot use s.21 at all.

However, L can:
a. let inside 1988 Act by using SAT and serving an applicable pre-tenancy Notice (e.g. under g1, if L used to be owner-occupier); or
b. let outside 1988 Act (e.g. to company, or at over £25 000 rent p.a.)

bagpuss
12-04-2008, 10:10 AM
So I am right in thinking that there's nothing you can do to let safely because of your first two provisos:

"a. (AST) L cannot obtain a s.21 Possession Order that operates before six months; and
b. (SAT) L cannot use s.21 at all."

and if your property doesn't fall under the other two situations you outline:

"a. let inside 1988 Act by using SAT and serving an applicable pre-tenancy Notice (e.g. under g1, if L used to be owner-occupier); or
b. let outside 1988 Act (e.g. to company, or at over £25 000 rent p.a.)"

I'm sure a lot of LLs would let for shorter periods (summer lets for example) if there was a safe way of doing it.

By the way, how long would a person have to live in a property in order for them to be legally regarded as a previous owner occupier?

jeffrey
13-04-2008, 14:29 PM
So I am right in thinking that there's nothing you can do to let safely because of your first two provisos:

"a. (AST) L cannot obtain a s.21 Possession Order that operates before six months; and
b. (SAT) L cannot use s.21 at all."

and if your property doesn't fall under the other two situations you outline:

"a. let inside 1988 Act by using SAT and serving an applicable pre-tenancy Notice (e.g. under g1, if L used to be owner-occupier); or
b. let outside 1988 Act (e.g. to company, or at over £25 000 rent p.a.)"

I'm sure a lot of LLs would let for shorter periods (summer lets for example) if there was a safe way of doing it.

By the way, how long would a person have to live in a property in order for them to be legally regarded as a previous owner occupier?

Summer let may be OK if it's a holiday let: outside Act because of paragraph 9 in Schedule 1.

bagpuss
17-04-2008, 21:05 PM
Thanks Jeffrey - I think holiday lets would be the only way.

Any comments on my other question?
Quote:
"By the way, how long would a person have to live in a property in order for them to be legally regarded as a previous owner occupier?"

jeffrey
18-04-2008, 01:01 AM
By the way, how long would a person have to live in a property in order for them to be legally regarded as a previous owner occupier?
Ground 1 does not say. It just mentions "...at some time before the beginning of the tenancy..." This is same wording as in Case 11 of Schedule 15 to Rent Act 1977, as amended in 1985. Any reported cases on 1977 Act would therefore be relevant to 1988 Act situation.