Rent a property for one year only?

Reply to the comment left by Graham Bowcock at 14/08/2023 - 14:53
Totally agree. It is very diffucult to grant a licence to occupy a residential property. It doesn't what you call the agreement; if you give an occupier exclusive possession of a property it will almost always create a tenancy. The courts do not look favourably on these arrangements in the domestic sector and usually decide that a tenancy has been created. Occupiers' situations can change and if they decide that they don't want to move out you could face a costly legal battle if you try to argue you have created a licence.

Rolls Royce would be a company let not an AST although they can be similar in some respects, certain rights would not apply.

Reply to the comment left by Amanda at 15/08/2023 - 13:32
That's why you get all the money up front and agree a start and end date, and both parties sign to this agreement. You can always lock some of the bedrooms so the occupiers do not have the entire property. It can't really be a tenancy can it as the minimum term for a residential tenancy legally is a minimum of 6 months and is referred to as an AST. What name would you call a fixed 5 month tenancy? a new type of AST? AST modified or a 5 month lease perhaps?

Reply to the comment left by Dennis Forrest at 15/08/2023 - 15:23
I'd call it clutching at straws. There is no legal basis for what you suggest. An AST can be for any period, it's not limited to 6 months, but tenants have the right to stay for a minimum of 6 months. You could agree 5 months with the tenant, but if they stay you have no rights to remove them - ususal AST provisions will apply.

I'm guessing you haven't had any legal advice!

Depending on where the property is and the condition, having a management company run it for you as a short term let/serviced accommodation could align with your requirements without the risk of tenant overstaying, similar situation to the company let

Reply to the comment left by Graham Bowcock at 15/08/2023 - 15:37
From what you say, I guess I was just lucky it worked out OK for me and the straws were strong enough. Perhaps landlords as well as tenants can and often do bend the rules and get away with it. These measures are often necessary to get round the stupidity of the law which effectively stops or greatly delays landlords regaining possession of their own property. It's fine to play by the rules if the rules are fair but you can't really blame or criticise landlords trying to get around them. If occupiers or as you prefer to call them tenants, go in with their eyes open knowing this is never going to be more than a short term arrangement which is convenient to both of them. If the occupier/tenant wants a more permanent arrangement then he/she looks for another property at the end of the agreed period. In fact this should be pointed out at the onset that there will be no chance of a permanent arrangement and if this a possibility then to look elsewhere,

Reply to the comment left by Dennis Forrest at 15/08/2023 - 16:47
It’s not a criticism of landlords I’m just trying to point out how dangerous it can be if you try to get around the rules (however stupid you may think they are).Tenants have rights which far exceed those of a landlord. Just putting a lock on an internal door for the sake if it would not, IMO, prevent a tenancy from arising. Graham is absolutely correct. It doesn’t matter that you have a signed contract- the legislation trumps it. You were lucky and in many cases occupiers will stick by the agreement as yours did. But if they don’t move out… you are in a mess. Good luck with it all. From a fellow landlord.

Reply to the comment left by Amanda at 15/08/2023 - 17:00Unless you live in one of the flats in the building yourself, any agreement will be deemed to be an AST or a Periodic AST. Being a resident landlord is, as I understand it, the only way to avoid the label 'AST'.
Unfortunately, it is a very protracted and expensive process if any 'agreement' or 'licence' is 'deemed' to be an AST.
Add the loss of a £1.6m sale as unable to provide a vacant possession date due to the protracted nature of the court process, and it becomes very expensive indeed!
Every Landlord has my sympathies!

Totally agree with Graham, if this was ever challenged in court would be declared an AST what ever fancy name you gave the paperwork. And I started in business in 1996. It’s crazy how many short-term let's are lost to tenants because of the broken legal system and a minority who abuse the law. In my seaside area you could find cheap 6-month winter lets of holiday homes in the off-season - now gone because owners don’t want the risk of tenants staying on after the contract finishes - no one gains because these options have now gone

Anyione who has had the slightest legal training will be familiar with the case of Street v Mountford and the wonderful wordking therein:

‘If the agreement satisfied all the requirements of a tenancy, then the agreement produced a tenancy and the parties cannot alter the effect of the agreement by insisting that they only created a licence. The manufacture of a five pronged implement for manual digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists that he intended to make and has made a spade.’