Assured Shorthold Tenancy – why do i have to pay to have it renewed?

I suspect this is alll a bit massive con, but its completely legal.

Rented a flat through an estate agent, 12 months contract, 6 month break assured short hold tenancy, but i have to pay 150 quid to have it 'renewed'.

my understanding was that it would just default to a periodic tenancy at the end of the contract.

is there any way to avoid this fee?? the estate agent say no.

if you have it formally renewed then the fee would be added on for preparation of renewal documents, etc. but you're right that it would just go to statutory periodic if not renewed, and you are not compelled to renew it.

there is also little point in renewing as the initial certain term has lapsed, so you would still be able to give two months notice or be given two months notice during the renewed term.

the agent is either wrong or lying to say that you must renew.

a way to avoid the fee, by the way, is to inform the agent that you have taken legal advice, are aware of the position regarding whether or not you have to renew and do not wish to, preferring it to revert to statutory periodic.

obviously there is a risk that the LL may get upset and want to serve notice, but it is probably unlikely in this market. i would stick to your guns and say you want it to revert to statutory periodic.

the only issue might be whether you signed the initial agreement stating a fee to be paid to the agent on renewal, but as you would not technically be renewing then i imagine you could contest that if they try to charge it.

As above, tell them you don't want to renew and are happy to revert to a periodic tenancy. You are, of course, risking that they will give you the two months notice at any point in the future. Tell them that you'd be happy to sign up for say 12 months but would not do so unless the charges were waived. Ball in their court, and there are lots of rentals about at the moment….

going to check the contract later. tempted to challenge it in small claims court as an unfair if they are ruling out letting the contract revert to periodic.

well they'd have to challenge it if you didn't pay it, as they'd be going for the claim. i'd write a letter, sending a copy to both landlord and agent, saying that you understand the position, do not wish to renew in favour of letting it go statutory periodic and so will not be paying the renewal fees as no documents are being prepared.

You DO NOT have to pay for it to be renewed, BUT if you don't it will likely lead to a notice, and you will then have to move.
You can't challenge it in the small claims court, as there is nothing to challenge. Letting agents are unregulated and as such can charge whatever they like.

If you want me to look at your contract, you can email me a copy if you like.

Click my name for the law on housing, and correct legal advice on Private tenancies

The flatboy said "a way to avoid the fee, by the way, is to inform the agent that you have taken legal advice, are aware of the position regarding whether or not you have to renew and do not wish to, preferring it to revert to statutory periodic.

obviously there is a risk that the LL may get upset and want to serve notice, but it is probably unlikely in this market. i would stick to your guns and say you want it to revert to statutory periodic."

Not good advice Flatboy. The letting agent will most likely have loss insurance that the tenant will be paying for, so if they serve notice and have an empty property, they don't lose anything. They get the chance to get a new lot of fees from a new tenant. In this market new tenants means more money, and in this market, thats only a good thing for landlords/letting agents
Tenants in this case, have two choices. pay the fees OR don't pay the fees and deal with consequences

Interesting Steve, does the landlord lose out in that situation? Round here, rents appear to be back to the levels they were 4-5 years ago (not that they moved much in that period). There also seems to be much more available. Mind you, this kind of shit simply underlines why I bought somewhere, that way at least the agents only get to **** you in the ass once in a blue moon.

i don't know where you work, steve, but i was a lettings manager in central london for two years and worked for two years in the office before that and we certainly didn't have insurance to offset void periods. if the property was empty we didn't get a fee. we would always write to try to negotiate renewals but if the tenant didn't want to and the landlord was happy to keep them then they just went to statutory periodic.

as i said, if you've been a decent tenant then it's unlikely the landlord will want to get rid of you as practically speaking there's really no difference between a renewal and a rolling statutory periodic.

As a landlord I dont use agents or charge any fees, just tell them you are not paying it, and dont sign anything, they cannot force you to sign. But as others have said you run the risk of being served notice to quit. I woul try and contact the landlord directly and see if he is interested in cutting the middle man out, if he is not local then tell him to give you the numbers of plumbers/electricians/handy men to sort out any problems and see if you can arrange a more amicable solution. I've got and AST in word format you can have gratis.

if the agent's prepared a proper agreement with the landlord then he won't be able to avoid paying their fee as long as you're there.

makes no difference to your position, though – and, steve, i don't know of any agent or landlord who would get rid of a paying tenant on the gamble of getting a higher rent unless for some reason the existing one was paying a hugely low price.

well, theres nothing in the contract about this.

Seems to be a lot about this on the net, mostly from the landlords side though.

I don't understand how the Estate Agents can justify it having done nothing for the last 12 months. can't be legal surely? 150 quid NOT to get evicted?? thats nuts.

I'm darned sure that there was a court case recently about these contracts – try a Google search, something got flagged at work in press releases or something.

My letting agent has charged me £30 to renew my contract. The letter i was given also stated that if we forgot to put in the £30 we would be charged an extra £30. Which i thought was very cheeky. I think i am in the wrong trade. I would be all too happy to post a 4 line letter for £30.

Mark 84 – Member

My letting agent has charged me £30 to renew my contract. The letter i was given also stated that if we forgot to put in the £30 we would be charged an extra £30. Which i thought was very cheeky. I think i am in the wrong trade. I would be all too happy to post a 4 line letter for £30.

Just don't pay it lets see them sue you for 30 or their fine of 30, its unenforcable tosh.

We never paid the £25 to renew ours. They never asked and we never mentioned it. Just signed and returned.

For more advice, check out Citizens advice (office or website), Shelter Website or Housepricecras.co.uk.

FWIW £150 is taking the urine surely there's something in law about reasable charges? In the same way they tried for the banks. What they are doing is not £150 worth of work.

The contract currently resides under the yellow pages and some pizza/kebab menus. It has lived there since the begining of December. I know its a bit silly but that letter really put my back up 🙄

I had a letter off our lettings agency today wanting 150quid extra per month for March, April as a retainer to guarantee another 12months rental contract in May.

Seriously, where do they dream this stuff up?
The agency actually said on the phone 'like it or lump it!'

swadey – Member

I'm darned sure that there was a court case recently about these contracts – try a Google search, something got flagged at work in press releases or something.

the challenge you're thinking of was to do with whether it is reasonable for lettings agents to continue to charge fees to landlords on the renewed term of contracts. it was held that it is, but only if they continue to provide a service. this is part of the reason that agents will want to take the rent payments themselves these days, and then pay them over to landlords, as this counts as a service for which they can justify charging.

it doesn't relate to this situation too much, though my points above still stand – let it go periodic and contest their attempted charges.