getknk Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Friends, i'm really p***ed off with my agents.. they are now asking me to pay £150 for extending the agreement. Is this normal? i wanted to add my wife name into the document and they are asking £430.. and new agreement !! which is also madness.. I';ve been living in the apartment for 1 year Do u think calling the owner would be better and telling him if we can have a deal directly? any suggstions would be great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Miyagi Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Friends, i'm really p***ed off with my agents.. they are now asking me to pay £150 for extending the agreement. Is this normal? i wanted to add my wife name into the document and they are asking £430.. and new agreement !! which is also madness.. I';ve been living in the apartment for 1 year Do u think calling the owner would be better and telling him if we can have a deal directly? any suggstions would be great. You don't need to pay anything. You will simply go onto a rolling periodic tenancy. Tell the agents to pi ss off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Two questions there. Mr Miyagi answers one of them - check out other threads here to elaborate on his reply. As for adding your missus, is that really necessary? One would hope the two of you trust each other enough not to need that - it's not as if living with her makes you sharers or an HMO! If you really insist on her name on it, the agents may have both you and the landlord over a barrel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracleofdoom Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 You don't need to pay anything. You will simply go onto a rolling periodic tenancy. Tell the agents to pi ss off. This is normally the case, but my agents issue a Section 21 with the initial tenancy agreement as a matter of course. This means if you don't pay up for a new contract then, technically, the eviction notice is already served and they can kick you out. I'm sure it shouldn't be legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 This is normally the case, but my agents issue a Section 21 with the initial tenancy agreement as a matter of course. This means if you don't pay up for a new contract then, technically, the eviction notice is already served and they can kick you out. I'm sure it shouldn't be legal. [a] Talk to the landlord. The agent is probably overcharging him/her too. Problem: landlord is probably relying on the agent, and will believe you're trying it on if you try to explain that the agent is ripping you off. Possible solution: educate the landlord with "don't take my word for it, look at these authoritative sources". If that fails, try and get legal advice (or sub-advice, such as CAB). It may be that the very act of offering you a new tenancy invalidates the Section 21 in law, by virtue of the fact that it proves they don't really want the flat back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracleofdoom Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 [a] Talk to the landlord. The agent is probably overcharging him/her too. Problem: landlord is probably relying on the agent, and will believe you're trying it on if you try to explain that the agent is ripping you off. Possible solution: educate the landlord with "don't take my word for it, look at these authoritative sources". If that fails, try and get legal advice (or sub-advice, such as CAB). It may be that the very act of offering you a new tenancy invalidates the Section 21 in law, by virtue of the fact that it proves they don't really want the flat back. I know, it's all sensible advice. The problem is, if I cause too much trouble the landlord may just decide to get rid of me. I feel it's not really worth jeapardising the relationship for the sake of £15 a month. The whole thing does leave a very sour taste in the mouth. I'll be asking some careful questions when I choose my next agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swansea Estate Agent Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) The offer of a new tenancy will not invalidate the Section 21. That was probably served to make it easier to get rid of problem tenants and you may find more and more agents serve these on the first day of the tenancy due to more and more tenants defaulting on rent. We charge £60 for a renewal which is basically the hourly rate we charge. It takes a few minutes to edit the tenancy and then print it out. You also need to factor in phone calls to the tenant and landlord, then take time to deal with signatures etc. I would assume that you have only just signed an extended contract if you are being charged. If not, then to add your wife on to the tenancy will require a bit of editing unless they plan to go through the whole application process with her which will result in the agency application fees. Having said that the fees you mention above are extreme. Maybe you could ask the agent if they will reduce the fees and charges!! You don't get if you don't try. With regards to contacting the landlord directly. This could be bad news if the agent and landlord have a very good relationship which will probably end in eviction. If they have a poor relationship, then it could be good news for you and the landlord. It's a chance. One that I would not risk if you are happy with the property etc. Edited February 4, 2011 by SwanseaPropertyAgents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastlaugh Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 That was probably served to make it easier to get rid of problem tenants and you may find more and more agents serve these on the first day of the tenancy due to more and more tenants defaulting on rent. It hasn't been a legal requirement to serve a Section 21 before the start of a tenancy for over a decade. Serving a S21 early offers no protection whatsoever against problem tenants. The real reason they do it is to put pressure on tenants to re-negotiate early and accept less than favorable terms. The thing is, if a tenant is clued up the tactic will backfire. OP, if you have been given a Section 21 at the start of the tenancy, you are actually in a good negotiating position. Here's why: A Section 21 asks you to vacate the property on a given date. In essence it is the landlord giving you notice to quit. You can either leave on the given date, negotiate a new contract, or do nothing. If you do nothing though, the LL cannot act until the S21 has expired, ie. at the end of the tenancy. If you leave on the given date then you don't need to serve notice, you can just leave. You can ring up the LA a couple of days before, arrange a check out, etc, but essentially that's the first confirmation they will get that you are going. They can't deduct money from your bond either. This uncertainty isn't good for either the LA or LL. They can't start evicting you until the tenancy has ended, and they can't confidently relet the property until you are out of the door. They need your cooperation more than you need theirs. In other words, you hold all the best cards, and the LL has shown all his hand already. You are now in a good negotiating position. What you do now depends on your actual position. If you really like the place, have a good deal, and like the service you are receiving, then by all means accept the deal. If you are good tenants, then you have nothing to lose by contacting your LL directly, explaining that you cannot afford the renewal fee, and would he consider waiving it. Let the LL negotiate the renewal fee on your behalf, the LA works for the LL, not for you. If the LL says no, then you know where you stand. If, on the other hand , you are not that bothered about the place, then use the time to look for a better place. If you find something better then you can try and negotiate a better deal on your current place or just move. If you can't find something better then accept the terms you have now. Remember though, you are receiving a service and should be a valued client. At the end of the day, you can increase their costs faster than they can increase yours, you can play silly buggers as much as any LA and LL can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swansea Estate Agent Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Serving a S21 early offers no protection whatsoever against problem tenants. The real reason they do it is to put pressure on tenants to re-negotiate early and accept less than favorable terms. The thing is, if a tenant is clued up the tactic will backfire. It allows you to evict a tenant quicker if for example the tenant is 2 months in arrears. If you serve a Section 8, then the tenant only needs to pay part of the rent to bring them below 2 months arrears when the court case is heard. If no Section 21 is in place, then you risk a tenant always being at the property and in arrears after the tenancy expires. I agree though, it does allow a LA to be in a position of control over a renewal, but like you say it gives the tenant a strong position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastlaugh Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 It allows you to evict a tenant quicker if for example the tenant is 2 months in arrears. If you serve a Section 8, then the tenant only needs to pay part of the rent to bring them below 2 months arrears when the court case is heard. If no Section 21 is in place, then you risk a tenant always being at the property and in arrears after the tenancy expires. I agree a Section 21 is a quicker way of evicting problem tenants. BUT it can only be acted on once the fixed term expires. Not a day before. So there is nothing whatsover to be gained by serving a S21 at the start of the tenancy. All it does is create an atmosphere of distrust between the LL and tenant. LLs and LAs keep complaining about problem tenants, and then seem to do all they can to drive good tenants away. Serving the S21 early is just lazy and stupid. All it does is make good tenants feel insecure (as per the OP)- hardly fostering a good business relationship. Bad tenants wont care, they know they can stay until the end of the fixed term, and now at the start of the tenancy you've already asked them to leave. What incentive do they have to pay their rent and look after the property? Fortunately the law is't ad black and white as these forums. Serving a S21 early introduces a grey area. It's not meant to be used that way and actually undermines the statutory periodic tenancy implicit in the AST. Judges still have some discretion in this situation and they don't like making people homeless. If a judge sees that the S21 was served not because the LL wanted the property back but purely as an insurance policy and as a stick to harass otherwise honest tenants, then a judge has the discretion to demand that the S21 is served again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damocles Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) I agree a Section 21 is a quicker way of evicting problem tenants. BUT it can only be acted on once the fixed term expires. Not a day before. So there is nothing whatsover to be gained by serving a S21 at the start of the tenancy. All it does is create an atmosphere of distrust between the LL and tenant. LLs and LAs keep complaining about problem tenants, and then seem to do all they can to drive good tenants away. Serving the S21 early is just lazy and stupid. All it does is make good tenants feel insecure (as per the OP)- hardly fostering a good business relationship. Bad tenants wont care, they know they can stay until the end of the fixed term, and now at the start of the tenancy you've already asked them to leave. What incentive do they have to pay their rent and look after the property? Fortunately the law is't ad black and white as these forums. Serving a S21 early introduces a grey area. It's not meant to be used that way and actually undermines the statutory periodic tenancy implicit in the AST. Judges still have some discretion in this situation and they don't like making people homeless. If a judge sees that the S21 was served not because the LL wanted the property back but purely as an insurance policy and as a stick to harass otherwise honest tenants, then a judge has the discretion to demand that the S21 is served again. The judge has no such discretion. Look at the wording of section 21 (4): Without prejudice to any right of the landlord under an assured shorthold tenancy to recover possession of the dwelling-house let on the tenancy in accordance with Chapter I above, on or after the coming to an end of an assured shorthold tenancy which was a fixed term tenancy, a court shall make an order for possession of the dwelling-house if it is satisfied— (a) that the assured shorthold tenancy has come to an end and no further assured tenancy (whether shorthold or not) is for the time being in existence, other than an assured shorthold periodic tenancy (whether statutory or not); and (b ) the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant not less than two months’ notice in writing stating that he requires possession of the dwelling-house. The court only has to answer two questions: 1. Has the fixed term come to an end? 2. Was a valid notice served? If the answer to both questions is "yes" then an order for possession must be made. As to when proceedings may be begun see this thread: http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?34606-section-21-or-just-a-notice-to-leave Edited February 7, 2011 by Damocles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastlaugh Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 The court only has to answer two questions: 1. Has the fixed term come to an end? 2. Was a valid notice served? If the answer to both questions is "yes" then an order for possession must be made. You are quite right. The judge has no discretion in this instance. But if there is an element of doubt as to whether the S21 was served correctly then there is still a chance a judge will just give a LL the opportunity to serve the S21 correctly. The grey area is the serving of the S21, not the ability of the judge to ignore a correctly served S21. Most LA's are too stupid to send the S21 by recorded delivery, because it's not a requirement. Because all they have to do is make a statement in court that they sent it. However, it's a lot easier to challenge the serving of the S21 if it happened 8 months ago, is signed by an employee who no longer works at the LA, there's no paper trail, no signature, and I can show other admin errors that the agent has done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swansea Estate Agent Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I suppose you have a point regarding the serving of the notice. We don't serve them unless there are problems with the tenant early in the tenancy. It kind of gives them a nudge to say that if they don't sort things out, then they will be out after the tenancy. It is usually served with a cover letter to explain that the LL will disregard the notice if everything runs smoothly in future. Sometimes this helps, but some tenants take no notice. If we serve them it is served the same as a Section 8. One copy is recorded delivery and one copy is served in person with a witness plus photographic evidence. Like you said though, some LA's are lazy and just include it with the tenancy as though it is part of the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.