A lilltle help please.

[scoot2001]

Hi all, looking for an answer to a couple of questions if possible.

1. I have a small portfolio of houses (mainly Victorian terraces) and all are currently under assured short-hold 6 month tenancy agreements but was told something yesterday I'm not sure on. Basically another local property owner suggested that it was in the landlords benefit not to renew 6 month tenancy agreements and just let them expire (but still let the tenant live in the property) as it is easier to evict tenants on expired agreements. Is there any truth to this or is he talking rubbish?

2. I was reading through the posts and noticed there was a person who was struggling to evict a 12 year tenant and had lost his tenancy agreement. All my tenants are under contract at the moment but say I wanted to evict a tenant who had been living in one of my houses for 10-12 years (under renewed tenancy agreements every 6 months), would I have a problem evicting them if I desired?

The longest tenant I currently have is probably 4 years or so but if letting them stay long term would make future eviction a problem I would probably not renew their contract, evict and then look for another tenant. Eventually I had intended to sell all my properties as vacant houses so this would be important.

I would really appreciate some guidance thanks.

Scott.

[Melboy]

Could be wrong here but this is what I do and I reckon it works for me.

I always renew the Contracts after the 6 Monthly period even if there is no change in circumstances. Takes me 15 mins. on the computer and then to print it out and get it signed. Lets the Tenant know that I keeping an eye on things as well.

If you go over 3 years Tenancy Occupation you have to have a different form of contract in place anyway.

The 6 Monthly contracts do not apply to long term Tenants of 12 years and I know for a fact you would have difficulty in removing them if you do not have a cracking good reason, like non payment of rent, but just because you want to sell the house doesn't really count and the Courts nearly always rule in the Tenants favour I have found.

Most Tenants do accept the fact that if the Landlord wants to sell and provided enough notice is given they do tend to move on but like I said long term Tenants who have perhaps carried out improvements to the property would not be so easy to move on.

A case in question is my own Brother in Law who has rented the same property for 27 years from a private Landlord. The Landlord wanted to sell up and my B i L refused to move on. I guess the Landlord looked into it and dropped it due to the complications involved.

There is nothing to stop you from selling a property with a sitting Tenant and a lot of investors are happy to buy these properties knowing they have a reliable paying Tenant.

[scoot2001]

Thanks for the reply Melboy but I am a little confused now.

I actually spoke to my solicitor this morning and he specializes in the property area. I asked if I had a tenant in for 10-12 years would it be a problem moving them on and he said absolutely not, providing there was an initial assured short-hold tenancy agreement (in my possession). He said the guy that was struggling to evict his tenant of 12 years was most likely struggling as he had no proof of a tenancy agreement and therefore no proof one had ever been signed.

He also made no mention of the tenancy changing if it went past the 3 year stage and he is aware I have had tenants in for 3-4 years and just renew every 6 months with a new assured short-hold.

He also said that if an initial assured short-hold tenancy agreement had been signed there was no real benefit (unless you want to put rent up or change a part of the contract) in re-signing another (especially if the tenants were lax at paying regularly).

Be interested to hear you side.

Thanks,

Scott.