To think long term tenancies are also good for landlords

[doobledootch]

The issues of short term tenancies and the negative implications these can have for renters is often mentioned on here on threads about renting, I was thinking about this and what puzzles me is why more security can't be given to tenants, surely a majority of landlords would prefer to have regular rent, not to have to pay marketing fees or have periods when the property is empty.

I'm a landlord, and Id much prefer long tenancies.

But some properties lend themselves better to students and others who only need them short term, and some landlords only want to rent out their property while they are working abroad temporarily or something.

I think many landlords would be likely to offer long term tenancies if they had more protection from tenants that don't pay or who damage their property.

it would be could if you could limit it to 12 months then offer them long term if you have had no issues with them

Well of course there will always be people who want short tenancies but why does that preclude giving people who want longer term rentals more security?

The issue with long term tenancies is how much rent rises. With a new 12 month tenancy, the new rent is agreed each year.
with a longer term tenancy, annual rises have to be agreed in advance, which could be detrimental to either party.
If the landlord could raise it as much as they want, then it is not a secure tenancy as they could raise it sufficently to drive someone out anytime they wanted.

Agree, there needs to be some balance. If a landlord offers a long term tenancy there has to be something in place to make it easier to get non paying tenants and / or those who damage property out.

DH rents out his flat. We had a lovely couple rent it for 3 years. They paid on time, asked if they could decorate it (we paid in the end, they chose the colours) and looked after their home / our flat. We were really sorry to see them leave, unfortunately they had to move for work.

The next couple we had in were horrible, late payers who treated the place with utter contempt. They damaged 2 radiators (2 year old central heating system) broke the cooker, shower, tiles in the bathroom, a window and the washing machine. The flat was fully redecorated before they moved in and the walls were disgusting when they left. We refused to renew their tenancy and they threatened the managing agent. When they left they tried to dispute us keeping their deposit, which barely covered the cleaning costs and rubbish removal and didn't touch the other repairs needed or the redecoration.

Luckily the couple we have now seem lovely, they have said they wan't to stay for a while and we are happy to offer 18 month tenancies after the initial 6 months. But having been stung so badly with the last ones we really feel we have to be careful now.

but why does that preclude giving people who want longer term rentals more security?

There is nothing stopping it if that is what both parties want and there is no mortgage. Most lenders won't allow it.

In my own case there is no mortgage but the market for my 2 flats definitely would not want a long term commitment and neither would I. My tenants stay around 36 months and then move on. I've never ended a tenancy but one of the flats will eventually be occupied by my son and the other might have to be sold depending on what happens when I retire.

I don't see why you couldn't have a tenancy with a six-month probationary period (so if the LL is useless, or the tenant fights with the neighbours, or whatever) either side can pull out. If both parties were happy after six months, they could go on to a 24-month rolling tenancy with rent reviews every 2 years. The rent review could be timed to be 6 months before the tenancy is due to end, giving both parties, effectively, a long notice period and the tenant (if they decide to stay) ample warning of a rent increase.

That way people who have paid their rent and behaved themselves will know they can't be chucked out with two months' notice, and the LL will know after the rent review that either a) the tenant will be leaving in six months or b) the tenant is there for another two-and-half years (the last 6 months of the current tenancy, and the 2 years of the next one).

Obviously there would have to be provisions for non-payment or breaches of conditions by the tenant, or unreasonable rent increases or failure to maintain the property by the LL, but it would give sides more long-term certainty. And that would be beneficial all round.

Why won't lenders allow long term tenancies? Surely they just want the mortgage to be paid off and having void periods would put that at risk?

The letting agents dont want you to sign a long tenancy agreement as they get paid fees every time you sign a new one.

Lenders don't want to sell a house with a sitting tenant as it reduces the market for it. If it is part of a letting portfolio fine but if it's one house belonging to an individual absolutely not. You're reducing the pool of available purchasers.

So far as " long term lets" it really only works one way. If a tenant signs up for 2 years but decides to go after 3 months other than keeping the deposit there's nothing a landlord can realistically do to to enforce the contract.

And bear in mind if a tenant does a runner there is nothing in Scots law (might be different in England) which entitles the landlord to assume the tenant has gone. A landlord can't safely re-let without a court decree ending the tenancy. Many will of course but if the tenant pitches up 2/3/ 4 months later then he will have been unlawfully evicted.

Not being there and not paying rent does not mean the tenant has given up the tenancy.

It has nothing to do with the letting agents. It's up to the landlord (and landlords'lender) to decide the length of leases.

If the landlord could raise it as much as they want, then it is not a secure tenancy as they could raise it sufficently to drive someone out anytime they wanted.

elsewhere, people have tenure even when the lease is up. rent rises are linked to inflation.

written This may be in the tenant interest, but not the landlord, they would want rents rising related to property prices or interest rates, not inflation.

As i understand it, tenancies are not legally binding beyond 6 months. If someone out there can be tell me otherwise (English law) I'd be interested.

You don't necessarily need long fixed term tenancies to avoid void periods. I rent my house on a periodic tenancy (after the initial 6 months obviously) which means I could give them 2 months notice of I ever needed to, or they could give me one. The tenants are still there and still pay but I don't see a reason to tie either of us in.

Purple that is correct. That's how most leases work.

what a lot of bollocks is being talked, as usual. English law does not specify a maximum.

if both sides want a long tenancy, it is perfectly possible RIGHT NOW. It is the landlord that decides with the tenant, not the agent.

I know someone on a four year tenancy. I'd happily rent my property out on a longer tenancy (probably without rent rises for a while as that is the market here) but it is my tenant who wants to keep it short.

the problem is alot of affordable renting (i.e. flats that are damp, old, falling apart, furniture and appliances on last legs etc) would cost alot of money to put the problrms right.

LT tenant are is more likely to want more work done (cost and effortwise) to the flat than ST tenants so landlords will have to actually put some money back into their properties - this isnt good for them especially when they can just deduct money from numerous deposits and try to blame tenants.

There might be some lovely mnetters who own 1 flat and are nice landlords but thats not my experience. My experience is all I am to a LL is a money producing but otherwise highly inconvenient ant tbh..

This may be in the tenant interest, but not the landlord, they would want rents rising related to property prices or interest rates, not inflation.

of course. I never said it was in the landlords interest.

however, it would take pressure off the selling market. people wouldn't be in such a rush to buy if renting was reasonable.

We have a long term rent. We signed up for a three year term. We just asked!

My DP has been renting his flat for six years with no issues at all. He moved me in over a year ago and that wasn't a problem either. We have freedom to decorate as we see fit but we don't want to plough too much cash into a flat that isn't ours.

We've been renting our house privately for nearly 3 years with no rent increases. Landlord has said that he's going to do away with the letting agent sothe monthly fee that gets taken from our rent to pay for inspections etc. will go to the LL. He gets more money, our rent doesn't get increased.

Win win

We have had two previous sets of tenants and had no problems with either. They moved on because one bought a house and the other moved for a job in a different area. The ones that are in now seem good too-they only moved in a few weeks ago.
We would prefer to have long term renters.
Ours is mortgage free and we don't ever intend on selling so the longer they stay the better arrangement it is for us

I'm not sure that tenants want 'long' tenancies as such. What they want is security of tenure, which is another thing entirely!