Management Company won’t allow Periodic Tenancies?

Management Company won’t allow Periodic Tenancies?

9:14 AM, 21st December 2017, About 4 years ago 23

Text Size

I am the Leaseholder of a flat in a large, city-centre block – popular with mature students and young, single, professionals.

The management company are trying to force me to issue new AST’s every 6 months – presumably to bolster the fees they then charge.

The lease requires me:-
31.1 not to … part possession of part only of the property:
31.2 not sublet the whole of the property save that:
1) the grant of the assured shorthold tenancies for a duration of no more than 6 months are permitted without the consent of the landlord; and
2) the grant of assured shorthold tenancies for a duration of more than 6 months are permitted with the Landlords consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed

Based on this, I have assumed that I could let on a 6 month AST and then either renew with another 6 month AST, or rollover to a periodic tenancy – without requiring consent.

However, the management company have now said that a rolling contract would not be deemed as a valid AST – and that it must be on a signed period for 6 months or more.

I’m concerned that a new fixed period might be unsuitable for some tenants – also, I can’t actually force the tenant to sign the new AST. Is this reasonable/enforceable ? Does it mean that I would have to evict every tenant that said they wanted a new AST but then failed to actually sign it?

I believe that the management company are taking this approach so that they can milk the AST renewal fee ‘cash cow’ as much as possible…

The Lease has the following
32.2. within one month after the date of any and every subsequent assignment transfer mortgage charge underlease or tenancy agreement including any immediate or derivative underlease or tenancy Agreement of the Property assignment of such underlease or grant of probate or letters of administration order of court or other matter disposing of or affecting the Property or other devolution of or transfer of title to the same to give to the Landlord notice in writing of such disposition or devolution or transfer of title with full particulars thereof and in the case of an underlease (and if so required by the Landlord) a copy thereof for registration and retention by the Landlord and at the same time to pay to the Landlord such reasonable fees including value added tax for such registration (being not less than £65 plus VAT thereon) in respect of the registration of each such document or instrument so produced

In practice, they now charge “a not unreasonable” (sic) £90+VAT for each AST registration/retention – ie they expect me to pay them £108 every 6 months letting.

Does a rollover/periodic tenancy count as “an assured shorthold tenancy of not more than 6 months” (thus satisfying clause 31.2.1) ? If so, should it require registration/retention – and hence trigger the charge ?

I want to comply with the terms of the Lease – but I’m not sure that the management agent’s interpretation is reasonable, affordable or practical.

Does anyone have any advice or suggestions on resolving this ?

Thanks in advance for any help.
Dave



Comments

by Shining Wit

12:21 PM, 30th December 2017, About 4 years ago

Can anyone explain the difference between an underlease and a tenancy agreement - both mentioned in the lease clause 32.2.
For underleases, if the Landlord (Management Company?) requires it, there is an obligation to send a copy of the document(s) (and pay a fee for registration).
Does this also apply to tenancy agreements (which are listed separately at the start of clause 32.2, but not in the second part of the clause) ?
Is there a difference ?

by Puzzler

17:34 PM, 30th December 2017, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by money manager at 24/12/2017 - 15:47
Yes this would be tricky to enforce as you could rent a house for work and have your main home elsewhere. However that is the definition.

by ilc72

16:42 PM, 31st December 2017, About 4 years ago

On one of my properties the Freeholder put similar stipulations in the Lease Agreements.

During the purchase my solicitor pointed this out, when questioned about the rationale and legality of the restrictions, the Freeholder backed down and issued a side letter allowing tenancies up to five years as long as there was a break clause after three years.

Even more ridiculous was the restrictions aimed at curtailing subletting. Another part of the Freeholders business is short term lets. Just when you think it can get any worse I have re-let the property to the Freeholder for the past five years on the basis of them using it for short term let’s!


Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

BECOME A MEMBER