S21 and offer to renew contract

[elyobelyob]

My landlords agents have sent me a S21 (Notice requiring Possession) and a
covering letter asking me what new contract I want (one choice including the
same terms). I am quite happy to continue on the existing contract and the
only reason I can think the agents have done this, is so they can try and
get more money from me for the leases etc. (I had to pay £50 or so for my
lease).

I am waiting for them to call back, but just wondered is this is "standard
practice" or just a way of conning more money from me?

Thanks

update: I've just read that other 'heated' thread on here about the costs. It seems to me that first thing is ask for a 'periodic tenancy'. However the landlord (I just spoke to) believes that this renewal is done to protect himself, as after 1 year I can become a sitting tenant. Basically he is paying the agency and will let them do whatever if it's in his best interests.

Also, I've been told that sending an S21 with a letter offering a new contract invalidates the S21. Is this the case?

update 2: In fact their letter says that I need to confirm whether they should approach the landlord for a further period of tenure. So I guess this isn't an offer to renew, but an offer to investigate renewal.

[Ruth Less]

My landlords agents have sent me a S21 (Notice requiring Possession) and a covering letter asking me what new contract I want (one choice including the same terms).

snip

update: I've just read that other 'heated' thread on here about the costs. It seems to me that first thing is ask for a 'periodic tenancy'.




If you go the periodic tenancy route and the S21 is not revoked in writing, the S21 will still be valid. Make sure you understand the implications of this which you can find in this thread:

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=2137

To sum up:

The landlord has issued a valid S21 notice requiring possession after x date. The landlord takes no further action to evict the tenant but in addition doesn't revoke the S21 so it is still valid. No new contract is issued and the tenant remains on a periodic tenancy. The tenant doesn't leave as the landlord said it would be OK stay on when he issued the S21 notice. Therefore the landlord is free to take court action for eviction after x date without giving any notice. Likewise the tenant is free to leave after x date without giving any notice. The reason this is possible is because the S21, asking for possession after x date, is still valid.

[Ericthelobster]

update: I've just read that other 'heated' thread on here about the costs. It seems to me that first thing is ask for a 'periodic tenancy'. However the landlord (I just spoke to) believes that this renewal is done to protect himself, as after 1 year I can become a sitting tenant. That's total and utter bull; the tenant has no more or less rights under a periodic tenancy than a renewed AST agreement. The only difference is that under a new agreement, you would have security of tenure for the duration of the agreement (6 or 12 months I presume?); and likewise the landlord knows he's definitely got a tenant for that duration too.

Alternatively either you or the landlord might construe that having the tie-in might be a disadvantage - it depends on your respective circumstances.

Personally (as a self-managing landlord), providing I want to keep a tenant on, I will offer them the choice of having a new AST at 6 months (with no charge), or going periodic. Most seem to prefer the latter, for the flexibility, once they've cottoned on that I want to retain them and am therefore not very likely to want to evict them for any reason.