PDA

View Full Version : Standard Assured Tenancy: deposit/eviction rules?



Thyrsis
11-04-2008, 11:31 AM
I have just read this '
Since 6 April 2007, all deposits (for rent up to £25,000 per annum) taken by landlords and agents for assured shorthold tenancies (AST) in England and Wales have had to be protected by an authorised tenancy deposit scheme.'

What if the rent is over £25,000? What do I have to do with the deposit?

jeffrey
11-04-2008, 11:37 AM
I have just read this '
Since 6 April 2007, all deposits (for rent up to £25,000 per annum) taken by landlords and agents for assured shorthold tenancies (AST) in England and Wales have had to be protected by an authorised tenancy deposit scheme.'

What if the rent is over £25,000? What do I have to do with the deposit?

1. Deposit rules apply only to ASTs.
2. Letting at > £25 000 p.a. cannot be AST.
3. So the rules do not apply in your case.
4. Deposit is therefore capable of beng held by L in the 'old' way, as if the rules never existed.
5. Preferrably place deposit in its own little (interest-bearing) bank/B.Soc. account, to contain nothing else, and ask Bank/B.Soc. to give the account an appropriate title (e.g. "Mr Landlord (Deposit account on trust for Mr Tenant)"). This ring-fences it, esp. if L ever becomes insolvent or disappears.

Thyrsis
11-04-2008, 11:54 AM
Thanks, I need to do some more research! Where can i find more about this? Even this website only says 'All new tenancies since 28 February 1997 are automatically Assured Shortholds, unless the agreement has specified an Assured Tenancy.' Nothing about if the rent is over £25,000!

I've been sent an AST document by the company involved in the let, even though the rent is over £25,000.

jeffrey
11-04-2008, 12:00 PM
Thanks, I need to do some more research! Where can i find more about this? Even this website only says 'All new tenancies since 28 February 1997 are automatically Assured Shortholds, unless the agreement has specified an Assured Tenancy.' Nothing about if the rent is over £25,000!

I've been sent an AST document by the company involved in the let, even though the rent is over £25,000.

So this website's misleading- as if that's never happened on a website!

See Schedule I to Housing Act 1988. This lists cases that, by definition, are outside the Act (so which cannot be AST or SAT). Amongst them is paragraph 2(1): "A tenancy which is entered into on or after 1 April 1990...under which the rent payable for the time being is payable at a rate exceding £25 000 a year."

No matter what your L's useless agents say, and irrespective of the Letting Agreement's text, this case of yours is not going to be an AST.

Thyrsis
13-04-2008, 19:45 PM
I have just found out that the agents who let my property (reputable national company!) should not have used an AST as the rent is higher than £25,000. I have been advised that the tenancy agreement is not therefore binding. What should I do about this?

jeffrey
14-04-2008, 08:59 AM
I have just found out that the agents who let my property (reputable national company!) should not have used an AST as the rent is higher than £25,000. I have been advised that the tenancy agreement is not therefore binding. What should I do about this?

Wrong! It is binding, but it's not an AST.

Thyrsis
14-04-2008, 09:32 AM
So the fact that it says 'ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCY AGREEMENT' across the top does not mean that it is an AST??

jeffrey
14-04-2008, 09:36 AM
So the fact that it says 'ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCY AGREEMENT' across the top does not mean that it is an AST??

Yes, that's correct. If I label an apple "Turnip", is it
a. an apple; or
b. a turnip?

jeffrey
14-04-2008, 09:38 AM
...and see paragraph 2 (1) in Schedule 1 to Housing Act 1988 for the provision which stops the letting of a higher-rent property from falling within the Act at all.

jeffrey
14-04-2008, 13:41 PM
I have just found out that the agents who let my property (reputable national company!) should not have used an AST as the rent is higher than £25,000...What should I do about this?

You might reasonably point out to them that they're wrong. You pay them for a service which they don't seem too well-equipped to deliver.

htrj
07-06-2008, 15:39 PM
I was flicking through the landlord development manual when I noticed a chapter entitled "3.1.5 Tenancies which cannot be Assured or Assured Shorthold Tenancies (Common Law Tenancies)."

According to this chapter the rental agreement I have cannot be an AST due to it being over 25k per year. The problem is that my tenancy agreement states that it is intended to be an Assured Shorthold Tenancy.

So what status does the rental agreement have? Did we just have a periodic tenancy all along and a nonsense document signed by me and the tenant?

Could someone please try to explain it to me? I get the impression that this could be really messy.

attilathelandlord
07-06-2008, 16:29 PM
It's not an AST as rent > £25k therefore Housing Act(s) don't apply.

It's a straightforward contract for rent and if they breach the terms of the contract then you can apply to the courts for possession.

Also, since you are paying Landlord Action, why not ask them?!

htrj
07-06-2008, 16:50 PM
So does that mean that we can just ask the tenants to leave?

Do they really have no right to stay in the property despite the intended duration of the agreement?

jeffrey
08-06-2008, 13:32 PM
It's not an AST as rent > £25k therefore Housing Act(s) don't apply.

It's a straightforward contract for rent and if they breach the terms of the contract then you can apply to the courts for possession.

True. Even using an AST form will NOT make it an AST. Read paragraph 2 in Schedule 1 to Housing Act 1988.

jeffrey
08-06-2008, 13:35 PM
So does that mean that we can just ask the tenants to leave?

Do they really have no right to stay in the property despite the intended duration of the agreement?

The Agreement DOES create a binding tenancy. During its term, L cannot terminate it unless T is in breach. After its term expires, conversely, T has no continuation rights at all. The Agreement is read literally, as no Housing Act 1988 provisions apply to it.

htrj
08-06-2008, 13:43 PM
So can it be terminated for any breach at all?

What if the tenants remedy the breach?

jeffrey
08-06-2008, 13:46 PM
So can it be terminated for any breach at all?

What if the tenants remedy the breach?

Yes, it can be terminated subject to normal Common-law rules for unstatutorily-regulated contracts. If T remedies a breach capable of being remedied, there is now no subsisting breach upon which L could rely.

Paul_f
10-06-2008, 10:55 AM
Just to add - if there is nothing in the tenancy agreement to state how the tenancy will end then it will automatically do so at the end of the fixed term by effluxion of time and neither party needs to give the other Notice to Quit. If however there is something to say how it can be ended then it should be followed. If the tenancy is periodic then you will need to serve Notice of at least one rental period with a minimum of 28 days dependent upon the terms within it.

The agreement you have written is still valid although references to the Housing Act etc. are irrelevant, and clauses cannot be ignored because under an AST they might have been considered "unfair".

dlangston
01-12-2008, 22:02 PM
I have a tenant on a bare contractual tenancy, whose rent is £30k pa. The tenant is two weeks in arrears with the rent. Would someone know the procedure used to evict the tenant if the rent remains unpaid?

jeffrey
02-12-2008, 09:53 AM
I have a tenant on a bare contractual tenancy, whose rent is £30k pa. The tenant is two weeks in arrears with the rent. Would someone know the procedure used to evict the tenant if the rent remains unpaid?
You operate the Agreement literally. Asuming that any 'grace' period has expired, simply begin possession proceedings; no Notice applies.

arsebook
02-12-2008, 09:54 AM
Hi,

I'm looking to rent a flat where the rent will exceed £25k per annum. I understand that an AST cannot be granted for such a rental.

If this is the case, what tenancy agreement would I normally be given, and what rights do I lose or gain when compared to an AST?

jeffrey
02-12-2008, 10:35 AM
Hi,

I'm looking to rent a flat where the rent will exceed £25k per annum. I understand that an AST cannot be granted for such a rental.

If this is the case, what tenancy agreement would I normally be given, and what rights do I lose or gain when compared to an AST?
1. The Agreement will be similar to an AST. However, and even if an AST form is used, it will not be an AST; 1988 Act will not apply at all.
2. Obviously, 1988 Act Notice provisions [esp. s.8/s.21] and (AST-only) Deposit Protection rules will therefore not apply either.
3. T's only protection from enforcement of literal wording of the Agreement will be the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Paul_f
02-12-2008, 10:37 AM
You will have a common law tenancy; unfair contract terms do not apply and the deposit can be retained by the landlord during the tenancy. There is no requirement for either party to serve Notice to end the agreement unless there is somethng in there to say how you should end the tenancy. It' WYSIWYG (known as wizzywig).

arsebook
02-12-2008, 11:01 AM
Thanks for your answers. I think I'll be checking the contract very carefully before signing.

Given the time of year and current market I'm going to try negotiating the rent down to £480/week so I can get in under the AST threshold. What would then happen if there was a subsequent rent increase to take it over the £25k limit?

jeffrey
02-12-2008, 11:19 AM
Thanks for your answers. I think I'll be checking the contract very carefully before signing.

Given the time of year and current market I'm going to try negotiating the rent down to £480/week so I can get in under the AST threshold. What would then happen if there was a subsequent rent increase to take it over the £25k limit?
When it goes over the limit, it stops being an AST.

xfs
23-01-2009, 22:13 PM
After two years of letting my property through an Agent to the same tenant, i've now been told by a friend that the property should not have been let on an AST but rather a Common Law Tenancy Agreement.

The tenancy agreement is to be renewed in three months.

Question:

1) Does the tenant currently have rights under an AST because that's what i have signed with him?
2) Should i issue a new non-AST tenancy agreement now?
3) If i wait till renewal, will a new Common Law tenancy agreement be ok to issue and will it be effective from renewal date?
4) What clauses differ from AST and non-AST?

Thanks

Fais

Preston
23-01-2009, 22:38 PM
After two years of letting my property through an Agent to the same tenant, i've now been told by a friend that the property should not have been let on an AST but rather a Common Law Tenancy Agreement.

The tenancy agreement is to be renewed in three months.

Question:

1) Does the tenant currently have rights under an AST because that's what i have signed with him?
2) Should i issue a new non-AST tenancy agreement now?
3) If i wait till renewal, will a new Common Law tenancy agreement be ok to issue and will it be effective from renewal date?
4) What clauses differ from AST and non-AST?

Thanks

Fais

Hi

Even though the letting cannot be an AST if the rent is over the relevant threshold, the agreement you have signed is still likely to have legal effect excepting those aspects which are specific to ASTs.

So, you can issue a new agreement provided the tenant agrees, or provided any fixed period has come to an end and you have served a proper notice to end the periodic contractual tenancy. In my view it is worth issuing a proper agreement if you can; having an agreement headed AST only causes confusion.

There is very little, necessary, difference between an AST and an ordinary contractual tenancy. The former provides a minimum six months security of tenure, whereas the latter can be as long or as short as the parties agree. Deposits need to be protected for ASTs, but not for other tenancies. There is a different possession procedure for an AST compared with a contractual tenancy, but neither require any grounds to be proven after the initial six month period in the case of an AST or after the end of any agreed fixed period for both tenancy types.

Preston

jeffrey
25-01-2009, 13:45 PM
Although Preston is correct, remember that s.8/s.21 procedures do not apply (because the 1988 Act itself does not apply) to common-law contractual tenancy. It's read literally, in fact, except that the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 does apply.

johnboy
25-01-2009, 15:12 PM
Although Preston is correct, remember that s.8/s.21 procedures do not apply (because the 1988 Act itself does not apply) to common-law contractual tenancy. It's read literally, in fact, except that the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 does apply.


Am i reading you right there jeffrey? I thought you could use the normall s8 route with a common law and or company let tenancy.
If that is the case and you cant, how do you evict?

jeffrey
25-01-2009, 15:30 PM
Am i reading you right there jeffrey? I thought you could use the normall s8 route with a common law and or company let tenancy.
If that is the case and you cant, how do you evict?
Again: none of the 1988 Act applies unless it's an AST/SAT: not s.8, not s.21, NONE.
So, as I said in post #3, the contractual rules laid-down in the Agreement apply almost unrestrictedly.
To evict T, L just sues for possession. If further rent were demanded/accepted, of course, that might evidence a re-letting.

Preston
25-01-2009, 15:41 PM
If further rent were demanded/accepted, of course, that might evidence a re-letting.

Hi

Once a notice to quit has expired (which brings a common law tenancy to an end if drafted and served properly) make it clear that you are collecting "mesne profits" rather than rent and you shouldn't have any problems. And in fact, the case law in this area is really quite generous to landlords; even if you send letters demanding "rent", call the occupier a "tenant", etc the courts will not normally imply a new tenancy unless it was pretty clear that this was your intention. In this respect, there is a clear difference in the way residential and commercial tenancies are treated.

Preston

johnboy
25-01-2009, 16:32 PM
I now have a couple of maybe dim questions

Could a SAT be used for a tenancy where the rental income is more
than 25K??

If so why would someone choose to use a common law tenancy over a sat or vice versa

jeffrey
25-01-2009, 16:39 PM
I now have a couple of maybe dim questions

Could a SAT be used for a tenancy where the rental income is more
than 25K?
No no no no no nonononononoon etc. Look: AST and SAT are both within 1988 Act which DOES NOT APPLY!!!- geddit?

scribbler
06-11-2009, 12:52 PM
I am looking at renting a property for more than £25k a year. Am I bound by the TDS legislation?

tom999
06-11-2009, 12:55 PM
Deposit protection is not required if annual rent is more than £25k for an AST in England or Wales.

jeffrey
06-11-2009, 13:05 PM
Let's say, "a rate of rent exceeding £25 000 per year."
Example: rent @ £3000 per month for six months' AST- it does exceed £25 000, even though total rent = £18 000 only!

Lawcruncher
08-02-2010, 13:35 PM
Could a SAT be used for a tenancy where the rental income is more than 25K??

With respect, this question confuses:

(a) documents

with

(b) tenancies.

There is no such thing as an SAT agreement, by which I mean that there is no agreement which if you use it will guarantee that the tenancy will be an SAT. There are only agreements suitable for use where the intention is to grant an SAT and such agreements may be suitable for use for a tenancy which will not be an SAT. Whether a tenancy is an SAT depends entirely on whether the statutory conditions are for the time being fulfilled.

kikuyu
27-03-2010, 10:03 AM
Am I correct in thinking that the £25,000 per annum limit has recently been raised to create addition AST's and also to protect tenants deposits?

Not sure where I read it, but no doubt someone will be able to shed some light on this.

mind the gap
27-03-2010, 10:24 AM
Am I correct in thinking that the £25,000 per annum limit has recently been raised to create addition AST's and also to protect tenants deposits?

Not sure where I read it, but no doubt someone will be able to shed some light on this.
Yes, it has, as of October this year. See:
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=27029

kikuyu
27-03-2010, 11:02 AM
Yes, it has, as of October this year. See:
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=27029

Many thanks for the quick response. So this is indeed something which has only happened in the last few days.

jeffrey
31-03-2010, 23:35 PM
Many thanks for the quick response. So this is indeed something which has only happened in the last few days.
But it may never begin, in October, given that:
a. the SI already contains uncertainty re effect on pre-existing lettings at a rate of rent > £25 000p.a.; and
b. what happens on 6 May could lead to it being cancelled.

karenh
20-04-2010, 19:40 PM
Can anybody advise what happens if the initial rent payable p.a. is over 25k but during the term of the tenancy it is reduced so that it is below 25k. Does it then automatically become an AST?

jeffrey
20-04-2010, 19:48 PM
Yes. A Letting Agreement can move into and out of the 1988 Act's scope.

Thyrsis
06-05-2010, 08:24 AM
Hi,
The rent on the property we let is over £25,000.
The letting agent mistakenly gave the tenant an AST and told us the deposit had been put in a Deposit Scheme.
As the tenancy is not actually an AST can I as LL hold the deposit myself in an interest bearing bank account?

Thanks

jeffrey
06-05-2010, 10:45 AM
Hi,
The rent on the property we let is over £25,000.
The letting agent mistakenly gave the tenant an AST and told us the deposit had been put in a Deposit Scheme.
As the tenancy is not actually an AST can I as LL hold the deposit myself in an interest bearing bank account?
Yes. Deposit protection does not apply (and nor does the entire 1988 Act). The Letting Agreement is valid, apart from that.

Thyrsis
06-05-2010, 11:51 AM
Yes. Deposit protection does not apply (and nor does the entire 1988 Act). The Letting Agreement is valid, apart from that.

Thank you. Presumably the letting agent cannot refuse to let the LL hold the deposit?

jeffrey
06-05-2010, 12:32 PM
Thank you. Presumably the letting agent cannot refuse to let the LL hold the deposit?
Certainly not! The Letting Agreement is between L and T; the deposit is payable, under it, from T to L. The Agent (A) needs forcefully reminding that he/she is merely L's appointee, doing work (as sub-contractor) that L could equally do in person. L tells A what to do and not vice-versa!

Lawcruncher
06-05-2010, 13:32 PM
Thank you. Presumably the letting agent cannot refuse to let the LL hold the deposit?

That depends on the terms on which the deposit was paid. If it was paid to the agent as stakeholder or otherwise on the basis that the agent would hold it, the agent has to retain it.

If it was paid on the basis that it would be protected then either (a) it must be protected if protection is possible even though not necessary; or, (b) if it cannot be protected it ought to be returned to the tenant because you cannot comply with the condition on which it was paid.

Thyrsis
06-05-2010, 13:44 PM
I have asked the agent for the deposit but they say:

Under the TDS scheme although we do not need to formally register the deposit they will still arbitrate, if necessary, and it has been registered with them. That aside, we are unable to release it to you under Clause 6 of the agreement without the tenants consent

Clause 6 says:
...the tenant shall pay to the Landlord's agent £3600 by way of deposit which shall be subject to the Tenancy Deposit Protection Insurance scheme in accordance with Chapter 4, Housing Act 2004.

I thought you couldn't register a deposit with the TDS if the tenancy isn't an AST?

jeffrey
06-05-2010, 13:52 PM
You thought correctly; and the Letting Agent is incorrect.

westminster
06-05-2010, 14:29 PM
I thought you couldn't register a deposit with the TDS if the tenancy isn't an AST?

TDS rules state:
4.1.2 TDS will cover tenancies owned or managed by a member which are not Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs), unless the Member specifically requests otherwise. These tenancies will be outside the statutory scheme and their details must not be entered onto the tenancy database.

Thyrsis
06-05-2010, 14:45 PM
TDS rules state:
4.1.2 TDS will cover tenancies owned or managed by a member which are not Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs), unless the Member specifically requests otherwise. These tenancies will be outside the statutory scheme and their details must not be entered onto the tenancy database.


If the tenancy is outside the statutory scheme does Clause 6 in the tenancy agreement apply?

...the tenant shall pay to the Landlord's agent £3600 by way of deposit which shall be subject to the Tenancy Deposit Protection Insurance scheme in accordance with Chapter 4, Housing Act 2004.

(Does something in Chapter 4, Housing Act 2004 say the agent must ask the tenants consent to release the deposit to my care.... I can't find anything!)

westminster
06-05-2010, 15:19 PM
If the tenancy is outside the statutory scheme does Clause 6 in the tenancy agreement apply?

...the tenant shall pay to the Landlord's agent £3600 by way of deposit which shall be subject to the Tenancy Deposit Protection Insurance scheme in accordance with Chapter 4, Housing Act 2004.

(Does something in Chapter 4, Housing Act 2004 say the agent must ask the tenants consent to release the deposit to my care.... I can't find anything!)
No, Chapter 4 HA2004 doesn't say this. However, Clause 6 does say that T will pay deposit to A (not to you) and that it'll be subject to deposit protection. And for TDS protection to apply, it must be kept in the TDS member's bank account (which is itself protected).

Lawcruncher
06-05-2010, 18:10 PM
Whilst the legislation does not apply it seems to be the case that a deposit can be protected where it need not be. The contract provides for the deposit to be protected and it must therefore be protected if it can be protected.

If it turns out that the deposit cannot be protected and therefore needs to be "unprotected", there are two possibilities.

The first is that the whole deposit clause is void because it requires the deposit to be paid subject to a condition that cannot be fulfilled. In that case the deposit should be returned.

The second is that the deposit clause is to be read without the impossible condition. In that case it needs to be decided if the deposit is held as stakeholder or agent for the landlord. If the agreement is silent as to how the deposit is to be held I am afraid I cannot remember what the default is.

I am inclined to think that the first possibility is the one more likely to be applicable.

Ian1000evans
07-05-2010, 08:26 AM
I would be concerned about this and £3600 is a lot of money for them to be sitting on and to which you apparently don't have any protection over.

There's some good advice here regarding the LA, go at him.

IE

Thyrsis
09-05-2010, 16:21 PM
No, Chapter 4 HA2004 doesn't say this. However, Clause 6 does say that T will pay deposit to A (not to you) and that it'll be subject to deposit protection. And for TDS protection to apply, it must be kept in the TDS member's bank account (which is itself protected).

The problems I now have come from assuming the 'experts' knew more about tenancies than I do.
I was told the tenancy was an AST and the LA had to protect the deposit.When I realised myself that the tenancy could not be an AST and I could have held the deposit myself it was too late to change things.

westminster
09-05-2010, 18:18 PM
Assuming that the deposit is being held in a protected account, i.e. if agent went bust the money wouldn't just vanish, I don't really know why you perceive it as a problem. Remember, the deposit isn't your money, it belongs to the tenant. And it's being held in a safe place, which can't be a bad thing - especially from T's point of view.

Even if you were getting 3% interest, you'd only get around £100 per annum. You may argue why should the agent get it - but the agent has TDS fees to pay (which are the highest of all the schemes).

Thyrsis
09-05-2010, 19:01 PM
My problem is that I know I am going to have to retain some of the deposit for unpaid rent, damages, etc.
As the agent is holding the deposit, not me, I have less control over it.

Also, as I said earlier, I could have held the deposit myself in the first place if the LA hadn't made a mistake with the type of tenancy.

Moderator1
09-06-2010, 15:35 PM
Two or more threads by the same member have been merged here. Please do not start a new thread if you merely wish to continue a previous discussion or report on subsequent developments. It can cause unnecessary confusion (quite apart from losing the connection with facts previously established or legal points previously explained).

solbreizh
07-10-2010, 15:06 PM
our rent is 25800 per year so it seems that it doesnt enter in the deposit scheme. How are we protected then knowing our landlors refuse to give us back our deposit for no real reason? what can we do to defend ourselves and protect our rights?

jeffrey
07-10-2010, 15:49 PM
our rent is 25800 per year so it seems that it doesnt enter in the deposit scheme. How are we protected then knowing our landlors refuse to give us back our deposit for no real reason? what can we do to defend ourselves and protect our rights?
You use the terms of the contract (Letting Agreement) into which L and you entered.

MrJohnnyB
07-10-2010, 16:13 PM
presumably the proposed changes to the limit on rent for ast's never came into force! Ie the proposed cap of 100k?

jeffrey
07-10-2010, 16:33 PM
Oh yes they did. See http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=32465&highlight=%C2%A3100,000

theartfullodger
12-10-2010, 15:38 PM
Dunno if you've all seen this already but..

http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/privaterentedhousing/annualrentalthreshold/


Landlords with existing common law tenancies which will become assured shorthold tenancies when the rental threshold is increased, will not need to protect their tenants' deposits in a recognised scheme immediately, although we would recommend that it is good practice to do so. They will, however, need to protect the deposit if the tenancy is renewed on or after 1 October, or if a new deposit is taken. We do not consider that deposits taken before 1 October will need to be protected as these were not taken in connection with a shorthold tenancy and therefore do not meet the criteria for protection specified in the Housing Act 2004. Ultimately, however, it is for the courts to decide when deposits should be protected and we are unable to give a definitive interpretation of the legislation or speculate on how the courts might find in any particular case.

westminster
12-10-2010, 16:02 PM
our rent is 25800 per year so it seems that it doesnt enter in the deposit scheme. How are we protected then knowing our landlors refuse to give us back our deposit for no real reason? what can we do to defend ourselves and protect our rights?
If the property is in England/Wales, and was previously a common law tenancy, then you now have an assured shorthold tenancy; as from 1st October 2010, the threshold for ASTs rose to £100,000.

If the LL refuses to return the deposit, you can bring a claim in the county court. If the deposit is less than £5,000 the claim would be allocated to the small claims track, which is designed for use by litigants in person (i.e. you don't need a solicitor).

markprice
14-10-2010, 15:48 PM
In the event tenants still occupy a property where annual rent of £28,800 is paid, and the non-housing act tenancy agreement expired on 10/07/2007, with no new lease being signed, does the rise in threshold to £100k mean tenants automatically occupy now under an AST?

jeffrey
14-10-2010, 20:21 PM
In the event tenants still occupy a property where annual rent of £28,800 is paid, and the non-housing act tenancy agreement expired on 10/07/2007, with no new lease being signed, does the rise in threshold to £100k mean tenants automatically occupy now under an AST?
Yes! This is why:
1. Tenancy1 was outside 1988 Act:
a. when granted; and
b. when fixed term expired.
2. So there was no SPT.
3. So T- if he/she remained resident there- was no longer holding Tenancy1.
4. So if- in that case- T paid (and L received) rent after term expiry, what they inadvertently created was a new CONTRACTUAL periodic SAT.
5. So, on 1 October, that was transformed into a CONTRACTUAL AST...
6. ...which is what T now holds.