Contract where Renters’ Rights Bill will not apply?

I think any attempt to circumvent the law will be destined to fail.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

It’s the same for tenancies.

I had thought they were disallowing upfront rental payments, of which what you outline will surely be regarded as such regardless of the label put on the payment? I suspect it wouldn't pass the sniff test alas.

Sounds like legislation evasion and the courts will crucify you for it.

If you are creating an AST now, or before the RRB is enacted (not when it receives Royal Assent) you are able to accept a year, 2 years, 6 years 11 months up front. (Look up what has to happen if you do a 7 year tenancy agreement 😉 ) rent money up front.

Once RRB is enacted you cannot take 1p before you have signed and dated the tenancy agreement.

That months rent can only be given to the landlord/landlords agent once the tenancy agreement has been signed. Which does open up the possibility that the tenant can withhold the rent and the only recourse for the landlord is to issue a s8 (using all the Grounds applicable) 3 months after the expiry of that month.

Joys of being a landlord under Labour and their badly drafted and ill thought out legislation only brought in to appease, and win votes, Shelter, Generation Rent et Al

Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 17/06/2025 - 16:36
But you can withhold the keys until the rent has been paid. No tenant of mine is entering a property on the basis of a calculated cheat.

Reply to the comment left by Robin Wilson at 17/06/2025 - 17:17
but can you? If they have signed the AST then they have legal access from that moment onwards...

Given the issue with not being able to demand or accept ANY payment for anything (deposit/months rent in advance) as per RRB, what are we all planning to do then when a new tenancy starts?

Are we all going to be there on the day at the property and immediately after the T signs, check the account to see money has gone in before we hand over the keys?

What is the wording in the AST going to say then post RRB in this regard so we cant be hauled up for demanding any money util after the AST is singed???

Not aware that this is one of the amendment concerns that is in front of the Lords at the mo.

thanks for all your replies. I see what you are all saying and I agree

BUT
If the T confirms (in writing) that this is what they want to do in order to secure the tenancy (because the RRB works against them being able to do so in any other way) then surely this would be accepted?

The option is perfectly legal and there is no reduction in the tenants rights of security of tenure. In fact it allows them more flexibility as a tenant because it is outside the RRB legislation (they only have to give one months notice for example rather than two)

There won't be any ASTs after the RRB becomes law. Your proposal won't work because the Tenant Fees Act is more robust than that. However, there is a kernel of a potentially workable idea in your post. Landlords would need to ask for a sub £250 rent and an initial high premium for grant of lease. This idea was proposed by lawyer, David Smith. However, there are also downsides, such as needing to grant a much longer lease and register it with HMLR. You will find more by searching his name in Google.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 18/06/2025 - 13:09The RRB will not abolish AST's - it just takes away the fixed term element - so they all become periodic. The 'sanctity' (for want of a better word) of the AST remains.
TFA only applied to AST's not other types of tenancies.
I am not convinced a grant of a lease is required - any money received over £250 PA can be classed as something else. Why not a 'premium' to simply secure the property for the following month (like a deposit)?
Even if you went down the route of granting a lease - under 7 years does not need to be registered with LR and no min term under the 7 years is mandatory (as far as I can gather?)

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 19/06/2025 - 14:52
Wrong I'm afraid. The RRB does propose to abolish ASTs. By default, all tenancies will become fully Assured Tenancies.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 19/06/2025 - 15:39
I agree the min fixed term bit in the AST 'standard' will disappear.

Getting rid of the min term part means the mechanism/process of using a specific S21 for possession purposes automatically dissolves.

My post was about trying to navigate a way of allowing a tenant to be offered a tenancy but not an assured one - one which the LL still has to use the remaining S8 process (irrespective of the type or number of grounds that can be used.)

The offer of a tenancy that is not and Assured one is still possible. I am exploring what other types are available to see the pros/cons of each. If there are ones that fall outside of being Assured then yes they will still be regarded as an agreed contract of occupancy between the LL and T, BUT the legislation in the RRB specifically will not apply.