Browse All Tribes or choose a Tribe below:
By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google
By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Don't have an account? Sign Up
To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.
I have a tenant on a fixed term. We are in agreement to put the rent up so are issuing a new AST.
Does anyone know how to "unprotect" the DPS deposit and then "reprotect" for the new tenancy?
Why do you think you need to issue a new AST to achieve a rent increase or are there other reasons you wish for a new AST.
ANY new AST WILL require you to reprotect as it would be a new AST.
Some schemes charge some don't.
Personally I only use insurance based schemes which require a fee everytime there is a new AST.
I have NEVER issued a new AST just for a rent increase.
I have only ever used S13 to achieve rent increases.
That is all you need to do.
Very rarely will a tenant refer a S13 to the Rent Tribunal.
If they do then issue a new AST and if the tenant refuses to pay increased rent then S21 or S8 them.
With S13 it pays to have a discussion with the tenants so that such a S13 doesn't come out of the blue.
I always advise at the beginning of a tenancy that the rent WILL be increased but not for at least a year.
I also guessimate as to what sort of increase it maybe.
I've only ever had 1 set of tenants vacate due to a rent increase possibility.
I suggest you do as I do and issue a S13 after having a discussion with the tenant so that effectively the tenant knows what the rent increase will be.
Sometimes I have shown market comparables to my tenants to justify my increases.
It pays to involve the tenant in discussing rent increases as it can bring about an agreed rent.
So for the tenant it can give them a sense of involvement in the rent level.
I would say that by discussing things with tenants they may have slightly reduced the rent I was to increase by.
But from a tenant perspective anything is better than nothing and it does show to the tenant that the LL is prepared to involve them and not just issue prescriptive increases.
No perhaps have a sort of negotiation before you issue the S13.
That is what I do and it has hardly ever failed to result in more rent being paid with the tenant remaining
Thanks for your advice.
I am an agent, and would like to also tie the tenants in for a new fixed term (if they are good tenants); this helps my clients gain some stability in terms of cashflow...
No it doest guarantee any future cash flow at all.
There is no point in requiring existing tenants to sign a new AST.
Periodic is all you need.
But issuing a new AST for a rent increase or amended tenants is fair enough.
It should be standard practice to have a 6 month AST to continue onto CPT.
If you were my LA I would insist that under no circumstances if everything remained the same should you issue a new AST.
If you did I would terminate my contract with you.
The S13 process works very well.
It is rarely that a new AST is required.
I have NEVER issued a new AST just to continue a tenancy.
My cash flow has NEVER suffered because of tenants being periodic.
An AST will never stop a tenant vacating.
I only use them as that is the minimum period for the eviction process.
If I could I would go periodic from day one meaning I could get rid of the tenant and the tenant could leave.
With the LA fee ban my tenants will have to purchase a TRP.
I suggest you change to the TRP method.
It won't cost you a penny in referencing costs.
The tenants will buy their own TRP and show you.
I suggest to you that the TRP process is far superior to your current processes.
Have a chat with LRS and see how this TRP could benefit your business.
The TRP is a very cost effective solution for all those concerned and the tenant only pays one fee of about £40.
The only slight issue is that if they have not sourced a rental property within 3 months the TRP will have expired and a new one will be needed.
You will need to get out of old business practices.
They are necessarily costly and pointless and will constrain your future business.
Adopting the TRP will make you more competitive as you will not need to charge tenants or LL ANYTHING for referencing.
Tenants who choose NOT to buy their own TRP would simply not be considered by you.
That is the tenant's choice.
As a LA or LL you will not be permitted to require a tenant to pay for their own referencing.
But there is nothing in the new legislation that states you have to consider any tenant who doesn't have their own referencing.
If a tenant wants a property and doesn't want to buy their own TRP then they will need to use a LA that will consider them without any referencing.
This will then have to be done at LA and necessarily LL cost.
Well as a LL there is simply no way I would be prepared to pay for multiple tenant applications. .It is either obtain your TRP or you won't be considered as a tenant prospect.
If I used a LA I would only use one that adopted the TRP method.
That would mean I would never pay the LA for any referencing costs because the TRP process means there wouldn't be any!!!
If a tenant wants to leave mid term then that’s what they will do irrespective of what the tenancy says.
Which is always my point.
LL or LA who believe that another AST will guarantee cash flow are living in a fool's paradise.
Very few LL would attempt to recover the rent due from a tenancy terminated early.
All an AST does is prevent a S21 being used
The only time I have ever used S21 is for eviction of rent defaulting tenants.
I have always been a very worried LL during the 1st 6 months of a tenancy.
It is a blessed relief when it goes periodic
You hear stories of one months rent being paid and that's it.
Poor old LL can't even apply for a PO until 6 months are up and S8 is next to useless in such a situation.
Even if a tenant wanted another AST I would be very reluctant.
Nothing destroys cash flow more than a tenant defaulting on rent who has just signed another 6 month or year tenancy.
If it were possible I would prefer periodic tenancies from the start.
But the dysfunctional eviction process will not allow eviction until 6 months have elapsed so we are stuck with AST this minimum length.