asquithea

And for that reason, I'd highly recommend opening a Halifax variable Web Saver account with £1, even if you aren't currently intending to save with the bank. At 4.36%, the interest isn't world-class but offers enough that you can park some money for a few weeks without feeling like you're losing out, and it's a great springboard to their better offerings if you don't have their current account. I was listening to this week's MoneyBox (R4), where they were going over the troubles that Barclays customers were having opening an ISA. Says the reassuring Barclays spokeswoman, "now the peak ISA season is over, it only takes 5 days to open an ISA". FIVE days! What are they smoking? If you can't do it in five minutes or less without leaving your chair, they're doing it wrong. I do sorta wish they'd stop with the special short-term fixed rate deals, though. I have two fixed rate WebSavers at 6.45 and 6.40, which I thought were a great deal earlier in the year. Now the base rate's gone down, and Halifax is offering more. Grrr. Maybe I'll throw in some more.

That sounds familiar -- are you with Leaders lettings? I've been told on this forum and over at LandlordZone that you can leave at the end of the fixed term with no notice, regardless of what your contract says. I gather it's some sort of legal quirk; you can't be held in breach of contract until you've left the property, but by that point you no longer have any legal contract with the LL because the fixed term has ended. (I dare say someone will correct me if I've got this wrong) For what it's worth, my approach was to ignore the letters and phone calls -- the LL won't kick you out just because you're pissing off the Letting Agency. That puts you onto a Statutory Periodic tenancy, with the associated 1 month's notice on your part. Make sure you haven't already been served an S21 before trying this angle.

Would it be possible to have a moderator swing through "All about renting" on a regular basis? Naming no names, a small number of recent members are putting out a large amount of unhelpful 'advice' on this board, which rather diminishes its usefulness to anyone seeking help. Cheers/

Halifax reckon that properties in Scotland are more likely to hold their value; you might be looking at little or no loss in the short term, and you could benefit when the market eventually picks up again (maybe 7 or 8 years time). Mortgage-free means that you're insulated against void periods -- the bane of most landlords with only a few properties. Sounds to me like you're much better placed, financially, than most landlords these days. I therefore see no particular reason not to rent the property, if you're willing to treat it as a business, and accept the hassles and bad tenants that inevitably come with it. In answer to your other questions, as a tenant I'd find your property much more attractive if you did get rid of the storage heaters. They have a reputation for being expensive and inadequate -- not something you want for a property in the north of Scotland! You won't be able to charge more rent, but you'll let the property more quickly and add value for a future sale. A letting agency will cost you about 10% of the rent for a find-only service. However, if you don't live locally or you both work full time, you should seriously consider going fully managed. I would let the place unfurnished with white goods. When you do the floors, beware of cream carpets and cheap laminate flooring!

I tend to agree with redwing; your questions are signalling to me that you haven't done the maths around letting. Do the calculations now, but I think you might find it's a close run thing between keeping the property and going for a quick sale. In your position, I'd be leaning toward the sale to save the hassle. Factor in a 20%-30% drop in prices over the next five years, if you're thinking seriously about holding on to it. Also worth visiting LandlordZone.co.uk -- where you will find a higher proportion of landlords to give you advice.

Re the condition of the flat, make sure there's an inventory showing its condition. If there isn't, take a set of photographs, get them printed up, take them to the LA with a printed schedule of the flat's condition, and get them to sign for receipt. That puts you in a better position when you come to move out of the flat. Clean up the mess. You've rented the place, so you might as well make the best of it in the meantime. Take the lightbulbs with you when you leave. Pay the rent. Getting a CCJ for non-payment will do you no favours at all, especially if you want to move out ASAP and rent elsewhere. Go to the LL or LA (depending on who's managing the place) in person about the shower. If they refuse to book a plumber there and then, make it clear that you'll get one at your expense and deduct the cost from the rent. Worth checking around the various sources of tenant advice (Shelter, CAB) for the correct process for this approach. FWIW, you ought to have checked the shower when you viewed the property, but what's done is done. Re the noise, I think you're stuck with that. New build property? Just my opinion as a tenant (before anyone jumps down my throat). I believe you're stuck with the property, and it doesn't sound like much work to make it a much nicer place to live.

That's a curious and probably unenforceable condition. When I rented my current flat, the LA put in a clause that asked for insurance to cover the LL's fixtures and fittings. I rang round a few providers, who gave me the telephone equivalent of a strange look, and told me that the LL would have their own insurance to provide cover. I told the LA to shove it, and the clause was duly deleted. It sounds like you need more than a phone call to sort this out, but you don't want to put anything in writing that would compromise your position, if you later need to fight a deposit case in court. I would suggest you write a letter to the LA, stating that you have contents insurance to X value, with Lloyds, policy number XXX, product XXX, and inviting them to call LLoyds if they wish to verify the existence of the policy. Don't rise to it if you get any letters or calls wanting copies -- just politely restate your position. They'll lose interest, and you'll be no poorer.

Kinda rude for someone who joined this forum only a few days ago, don'tcha think? I think it's at least polite to ask the LL before moving a pet into the property -- I doubt permission would be unreasonably withheld. And in my experience, most cats do scratch the furniture on occasion and shed hair pretty much constantly, so I don't think a higher deposit -- in a furnished property -- is at all unreasonable.

I agree that the agent won't really care -- certainly not enough to try to get you out of the property. However, I think it might be reasonable for them to ask for an increased deposit to cover possible damage to furnishings, and maybe require professional cleaning of carpets and furniture at the end of the tenancy to remove cat hair. If they (or the LL) start making a stink about it, perhaps you could offer a few hundred pounds extra deposit to smooth things over.

Make sure you haven't been served a Section 21 notice. Assuming you haven't, you can happily ignore the agent and stay on a month-to-month basis. Beware that the agent might try to claw back the renewal fee when you try to get the deposit back! Something to think about: Why does the LL want to go periodic? He might well be bound to pay the agent more fees in any case (most agents seem to charge a percentage, even for a finders service), so maybe he's minded to sell the property soon. Talk to the LL to try to find out why he wants you to do this; it could be in your best interests to get another fixed term contract.

OK, paying into a scheme would have been an option whilst the tenancy was still in existance, but given that the tenants had left the property, how could that be accomplished? It looks like the court can only take the other option, which is to repay the deposit. Either way, the 3x penalty looks unavoidable.

The local council will confirm the tax band over the phone; just reel off a list of property addresses you're interested in. I used Leaders lettings, in Guildford. They were reasonably professional during viewings, but inept with paperwork. They sent me threatening letters demanding payments I'd already made (and had receipts for), and failed to properly process standing order mandates I'd signed for them, so the rent didn't leave my account. Numpties.

Surely if the deposit was unprotected, the LL isn't entitled to retain any of it, regardless of damage? It sounds like a straightforward claim for the deposit protection penalty to be applied, and surely not an appropriate forum for a free-for-all. Not sure I understand the trailing comment from the Judge, though.

These are all things a good letting agent should explain up front (with the possible exception of #1). At least, all the other questions were asked and answered when I let my current property. It's a good list -- especially the part about mains services. From lurking on LLZ and this forum, that phone line thread is far from unique. Getting this stuff fixed after the fact could be difficult or expensive -- for me, lack of broadband coverage would be a deal breaker, and I'd always prefer a place with a shower and a gas supply. Sounds obvious, but after visiting five properties in one morning, your notes don't always make sense. I remember visiting one property and finding that I'd noted a shower when there clearly wasn't one. A few photos of each property helps job the memory. I guess there's another long list of things to check when viewing the property, including: - What furniture will be supplied - Is any of the furniture particularly valuable (antique) - What appliances will be supplied - Do all the taps, toilet and shower actually work - Are the appliances hooked up and working - Has the LL left belongings in the property or garage - Do all doors and windows close properly - Can you get a signal on your mobile phone network - What's parking like at weekends and evenings

Eh? Not normally for a single occupancy property, surely? I think £700 per month is too high for your salary. That's about the maximum I'd be willing to pay now, and I'm a few years further up the pay scale. I think you'll find you've hardly anything left over at the end of the month, which will make it hard to buy anything or have a life outside work. Don't forget you'll most likely need to pay agents fees, maybe buy some furniture, clothing, household supplies and so forth -- that stuff really adds up. And you'll be wanting money left over for holidays, 'unnecessary' purchases, and to build some savings. I (also) think you should look into getting a house share -- that'll be significantly cheaper. I'd also start learning to drive. Running a car is expensive, but it'll drastically increase your options for places to live.

But it operates through Branch and Post, not by 'phone or Internet. Personally, I think that trying to do things by post is more trouble than the extra interest is worth, so I think this one's useful only if you've got a convenient branch.

I try to do my bit in a crusade against storage heaters; I will not rent a property that uses them for heating. I wonder how many other people think the same way? Sadly, people renting at the lowest reaches of the market don't have much choice in the matter.

There's an ignore list feature? Cool, this forum really does need a feature to block supercilious weasels. Do carry on.

There might be such a thing as too good to be safe, in this case. Edit: Then again, as Muskoka said, it's only money. I think I'm currently down more than the £5K I'm thinking of putting in through the recent stock market fluctuations in any case. At least there's an FSA guarantee with this lot, even if it might take time to get the money back if they went under.

Me either; I'm going from prior discussion both here and over at LLZ, and I'm not legally qualified in any way. Flick back to the first page of this thread for the definition: The problem with the SoD is that it makes a statutory periodic tenancy risky for both LL and tenant: The LL can begin possession proceedings at any time after the fixed term ends, whilst the tenant can move out without any notice at all leaving the LL with a void. It's an inane concept that serves no one's purposes except the LA, who collect a fee in return for printing a new AST agreement. As you say, it's basically a lever to use against the tenant at the end of the fixed term.

Conventional wisdom holds that you can move out at any time. Me, I'm not so sure, and I won't be until someone points me to a provision in one of the housing acts that says you can do so. Frankly, the LL is unlikely to attempt to pursue you for the last month's rent, as they'll most likely be glad to get early possession, but the safest bet would be to serve a counter-notice -- in my opinion. Both sensible options. I wouldn't waste your ink. Apparently, this is common practice, and I can't see any way it's illegal or even shady -- though I certainly don't approve. Next time, it might be worth asking your proposed agent up front whether they serve an S21 as a matter of course -- just another bit of information to get, along with their fee schedule. If they look desperate for the business, you might use it for leverage.

Yes, provided it's valid (2 months notice, and correct dates given). A valid S21 technically becomes invalid only when a new fixed term tenancy is created to follow the possession date given. That's really the crux of the problem, because once the fixed term has ended, the LL could bring possession proceedings at any time and the tenant is effectively living by the LL's sufferance. Assuming there is no break clause, then yes: you'd be in breach of contract. LL can sue for the outstanding rent. An S21 notice to regain possession at the end of the fixed term doesn't release the tenant from their contract. IANAL, yada yada...

No; you are still bound to pay rent for the remainder of the fixed term. The landlord has given nothing away. At the end of the fixed term, you can move out without notice, regardless of what the contract says or whether an S21 notice has been issued. The key difference with SoD is that your contract does not automatically roll over as a periodic tenancy -- you are forced to negotiate a new fixed term AST. This is why the agent issues the S21; it allows them to collect their fee.

Two issues here: First, the new contract. If you didn't sign a new contract before the old one expired, you're now on a periodic tenancy. If the LL wishes to raise the rent, they must serve you with an S13 notice, and can do so once a year, giving you a minimum of one month's notice of the rise. You can either accept the new rent, or give notice. Beware -- if you start paying the new rent, you've accepted it regardless of whether the S13 was served. Either you like the place enough to pay a 4% rise, or you don't. If you do, negotiate a new fixed term contract to suit you and you're back at the status quo ante. Second, the S21. This isn't something you need to sign -- they must have been asking you to acknowledge receipt. However, it's invalid if served before the start of a tenancy agreement, so it surely couldn't have been a precondition of the contract. Assuming that it was dated to match the end of the proposed contract, you don't need to worry about the SoD dilemma for the duration, and you're no worse off than any conventional periodic tenant. If you're uncomfortable with this, you should clarify the position, either by seeking a new fixed term contract, or by asking the LL to withdraw the S21 in writing (which should, though not definitely, be sufficient). I'm not a lawyer. See other opinions, too.

Great post. Thanks for taking the time to write.