Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Non Housing Act Tenancy


nicebuyer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why would an agent want to use a non housing act tenancy agreement? I understand that they would then be free from protecting the deposit unlike if they had an AST. But what other reasons are there and as a tenant, are there any major issues or things to look out for when faced with a non housing act tenancy agreement?

EDIT* This is all assuming that one would qualify for an AST, i.e not a company let, rent under £25k etc etc.

Edited by nicebuyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would an agent want to use a non housing act tenancy agreement? I understand that they would then be free from protecting the deposit unlike if they had an AST. But what other reasons are there and as a tenant, are there any major issues or things to look out for when faced with a non housing act tenancy agreement?

EDIT* This is all assuming that one would qualify for an AST, i.e not a company let, rent under £25k etc etc.

There is no such thing as a non HA tenency as the various laws in the various housing acts are implied meaning they apply regardless of what is said or written. people have tried to argue a non HA as a "license to occupy" but these are overturned in court as invalid.

There are a number of tenancies that can not be AST's in shedule 1 of the 1988 HA but these tenancies still offer similar rights as an AST but without security of tenure during the period of the contract that an AST offers. These include right to peaceful enjoyment, protection from eviction and harrasment etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did wonder whether it's because the landlord is actually looking to sell at some point and therefore wants the ability to move us out quickly. However the rest of the agreement does specify that there is an initial 6 month term so I doubt it's that. Maybe this particular EA just uses non house act agreements because that's the way they work. Is this common?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did wonder whether it's because the landlord is actually looking to sell at some point and therefore wants the ability to move us out quickly. However the rest of the agreement does specify that there is an initial 6 month term so I doubt it's that. Maybe this particular EA just uses non house act agreements because that's the way they work. Is this common?

I've had a look around, and as far as I can tell these are typically used where:

- The rent is greater than 25K p.a.

- It's not a primary residence e.g. is only used during the week by a non-local city worker who goes home at weekends

- The landlord lives in the same dwelling, or is in a flat in the same building.

- The "tenant" is a commercial entity rather than an individual or group of individuals

If none of these apply, I think (it's my opinion - what I would do) that you should insist on an AST, because if you don't then you (and equally the landlord!) are not protected by the laws regulating ASTs unless these are explicitly stated in the contract.

Finally, the 1988 housing act defines when a tenancy should be an AST so it may be that whatever the agency says, you ARE entering into an AST. It might be worth mentioning this to them and asking them why they think it is not an AST.

Disclaimer: All the above is based on googling and not pre-existing knowledge so please investigate further/take alternative advice before acting.

Edit: Removed some incorrect info

Edited by narrowescape
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The contract does not have to be an AST, the contract can be drawn up as an SAT (standard assured tenancy).

The LL then does not have to register deposit, but he also loses the right to use the S21 possession notice and can only evict under section 8. Be careful of S8 ground 1 where LL can repossess property he previously lived in, but notice must be served before tenancy commences.

Not a bad deal, subject to whatever else is in the contract.

edit: replace erroneous information

Edited by wayneL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did wonder whether it's because the landlord is actually looking to sell at some point and therefore wants the ability to move us out quickly. However the rest of the agreement does specify that there is an initial 6 month term so I doubt it's that. Maybe this particular EA just uses non house act agreements because that's the way they work. Is this common?

If the tenancy fits the bill of the an AST then it is an AST whatever it the EA calls it but that is largely what has been said above in different words. The same schedule 2 1988 HA rules apply to terminating most tenancies see http://www.letlink.co.uk/letting-statutes/...g-act-1988.html

Section 8 refers to tenant defaults not general possesion requirements, see the link above for the detail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the tenancy fits the bill of the an AST then it is an AST whatever it the EA calls it but that is largely what has been said above in different words. The same schedule 2 1988 HA rules apply to terminating most tenancies see http://www.letlink.co.uk/letting-statutes/...g-act-1988.html

Section 8 refers to tenant defaults not general possesion requirements, see the link above for the detail

'cept if he calls it an SAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The front page states:

"IMPORTANT - This Agreement is not subject to the Housing Act 1988 (as amended by the Housing Act 1996) and the

tenancy hereby created is NOT an Assured Shorthold Tenancy."

Can they do that?

If it is a tenancy that meets the requirements for an AST set out by the 1988 housing act it is an AST. Ask them which term(s) of the tenancy exempt it from AST status under the 1998 housing act

Edit: Wording changed to "read" better

Edited by narrowescape
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The front page states:

"IMPORTANT - This Agreement is not subject to the Housing Act 1988 (as amended by the Housing Act 1996) and the

tenancy hereby created is NOT an Assured Shorthold Tenancy."

Can they do that?

The basic construct of the law is that you can take legal rights away from the tenant in a contract, the previous poster is right, ask what does not comply, aslo what kind of tenancy are they saying it? a new magic one?

If all the conditions of an AST apply, it will be an AST and you will have the same legal protected

Sounds too dodgy to me, walk away

Edited by Matt Henson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The front page states:

"IMPORTANT - This Agreement is not subject to the Housing Act 1988 (as amended by the Housing Act 1996) and the

tenancy hereby created is NOT an Assured Shorthold Tenancy."

Can they do that?

Unless, for good reason, it falls into one of the categories (e.g. greater than 25k rent etc.) excluded then this is someone trying to pull a fast one. If that is the case avoid, because they will be trouble. Nasty, nasty trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True but the difference between AST and SAT is the "shorthold" which gives the LL the right to possesion at the end of the term. A SAT gives the LL less rights and one has to wonder why they would want one

Some sources are advocating SAT's to avoid TDS under certain circumstances. Apparently if LL used to live in the property and issues appropriate notice before tenancy starts, LL may have just as much power (if not more )of eviction as under AST.

CAVEAT: I'm not an expert, I may have this a bit wrong on detail.

But this does not seem to be SAT at all as SAT still comes under the housing act. Unless it fulfills non housing act parameters as mentioned above (above £25k etc) this seems seriously dodgy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some sources are advocating SAT's to avoid TDS under certain circumstances. Apparently if LL used to live in the property and issues appropriate notice before tenancy starts, LL may have just as much power (if not more )of eviction as under AST.

CAVEAT: I'm not an expert, I may have this a bit wrong on detail.

But this does not seem to be SAT at all as SAT still comes under the housing act. Unless it fulfills non housing act parameters as mentioned above (above £25k etc) this seems seriously dodgy.

The same rule applies to an AST as well, it is ground 2 of the standard schedule 2 1988 HA rules for possession.

It does sound dodgy but if the LL/LA does not put the deposit in the TDS scheme under the excuse of a SAT and the tenancy fits all the rules of an AST (and therefore is one) you could do them for the 3x deposit for trying to bend the rules, now that would teach them for trying to be smart

Edited by Matt Henson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same rule applies to an AST as well, it is ground 2 of the standard schedule 2 1988 HA rules for possession.

It does sound dodgy but if the LL/LA does not put the deposit in the TDS scheme under the excuse of a SAT and the tenancy fits all the rules of an AST (and therefore is one) you could do them for the 3x deposit for trying to bend the rules, now that would teach them for trying to be smart

Matt!

I am shocked.

Good on ya, good to see you've come round to my way of thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.