PDA

View Full Version : Is tenancy renewal invalid?



TLMA
13-02-2008, 08:44 AM
Hi

I have a situated where a tenant moved into a property on 4th June 2006 for 12 months which ended 3rd June 2007.

The initial fixed term expired and entered into a periodic. The agent at the time drew up a new fixed term tenancy for 3 months commencing on 11th June 2007 and expiring on 11th Sept 2007 at an increased rental but were signed on 12th June 2007 by both parties. There are also syntax errors all over the renewed agreement which conflict with the original tenancy.

It is my feeling that this renewed agreement is invalid and as such if the landlord wished to seek possession then he must issue Section 21 based on the original fixed term anniversary dates (i.e. 4th to the 3rd) and not rely upon the later document of 11th June.

Can anyone offer any clarity regarding this issue or confirm if my thoughts are correct?

Colincbayley
13-02-2008, 08:46 AM
What Syntax errors?

Why do you now think that the agreement is invalid?

TLMA
13-02-2008, 08:55 AM
Mainly because the renewed tenancy was signed after it had commenced also the renewed tenancy should have been in line with the dates of the original fixed term and as he orginal fixed term ended on 3rd June and therefore becoming a statutory periodic tenancy the next date that a renewed tenancy could hav commenced would have been 4th July not 11th June.

In regards to syntax errors it is mainly spelling of names and addresses etc.

jeffrey
13-02-2008, 09:24 AM
The new letting supersedes the statutory continuation of the old letting- implied surrender.

pcwilkins
13-02-2008, 10:11 AM
In regards to syntax errors it is mainly spelling of names and addresses etc.

They would be spelling errors, then, not "syntax" errors, and wouldn't affect the validity of the agreement.

Peter

Colincbayley
13-02-2008, 10:13 AM
They would be spelling errors, then, not "syntax" errors, and wouldn't affect the validity of the agreement.

Peter

And we are all really, really great at spelling!!!!!! :p

jeffrey
13-02-2008, 10:24 AM
Mainly because the renewed tenancy was signed after it had commenced also the renewed tenancy should have been in line with the dates of the original fixed term and as he orginal fixed term ended on 3rd June and therefore becoming a statutory periodic tenancy the next date that a renewed tenancy could hav commenced would have been 4th July not 11th June.

In regards to syntax errors it is mainly spelling of names and addresses etc.
What, like:
-"as he original fixed term"
-"and therefore becoming"
-"hav"
-"in regards to"
(and a single unpunctuated six-line block)?

pcwilkins
13-02-2008, 11:05 AM
(and a single unpunctuated six-line block)?

Only three lines for me --- do you have a really small screen?

Peter

jeffrey
13-02-2008, 11:11 AM
Only three lines for me --- do you have a really small screen?

Peter
Sometimes, yes (depends if text is quoted or original) but you're sounding like a cinema film-trailer voice-over:
Now coming to the Big Screen: Harry Potter and The Syntax of Doom!

ChrisG
13-02-2008, 16:59 PM
The new letting supersedes the statutory continuation of the old letting- implied surrender.

Just out of interest what would the period of time between tenancy agreements be, would it be an implied tenancy eg exchange of money for use of property in which case the date on the new tenancy agreement should have been backdated to reflect this?

Colincbayley
13-02-2008, 17:05 PM
Just out of interest what would the period of time between tenancy agreements be, would it be an implied tenancy eg exchange of money for use of property in which case the date on the new tenancy agreement should have been backdated to reflect this?

The time in between the fixed period of the first AST and the signing of a new one would just be a Periodic tenancy.

jeffrey
14-02-2008, 09:42 AM
The time in between the fixed period of the first AST and the signing of a new one would just be a Periodic tenancy.
Yes. Periodic starts by automatic operation of law; it is then superseded by new fixed term.

Bel
14-02-2008, 10:13 AM
In case this is the original poster's concern; it is irrelevant that the date of rent payment may not coordinate with new dates on agreement. For serving notice, it is the dates on the written agreement which should be considered.