Tenants not completing 6 months tenancy period

Calm down Dear !! I am a landlord not a tenant..just so you know...Try not to use capitals so much Paul because it you look a bit SHOUTY and HYSTERICAL !!!!!!!

I once asked my agent if I could arrange shorter lets; he told me that the reason it is 6 months is that the courts will not take any action before that should it be necessary, he did not know why exactly. So it is to protect the landlord in that a contract is in place for a minimum term which the tenant would get in any case. If you re-let your property quickly then no problem, it happens. It is difficult to pursue out of the country, and not easy even if they were here. Your costs would outweigh the recovery even if you won, taking into account your time and stress. If you re-let the property before the term ends, they wouldn't be liable for that period anyway as you would have a new tenant. This is not the first post on here where people are chasing pennies out of a sense of grievance rather than calculating their actual loss and being business-like and planning for new tenants.

I would say NOT hysterical; just emphasing the point, especially when up against a tenant who thinks they have a correct take on things when invarably they DON'T!!!!
Didn't appreciate you were and are a LL!

I agree with the point " This is just a classic example of an AST being a guarantee of NOTHING for the LL. ". Tenants are also becoming increasingly aware of this fact and use it. There is never any point in chasing them as you lose more in your own time than the useless worth of it.

I have had a lot of tenants move in, sign six month AST's knowing that they needed shorter terms and knowing you can not do anything about it if they stop paying after 3 or 4 months and just leave once they have used their advance payment up. It puts me at a disadvantage as I may have not taken them or may have charged more had I known the truth.

Deposits are less use than a chocolate teapot in hell too. Most tenants who damage properties are smart enough not to pay enough rent to recover their deposits regardless and are then not worth the effort pursuing. Anyway, the deposit scheme surely is simply a Trojan horse for HMRC.

Add to this the problem when people just stop paying and stay in your property regardless or people who spend their LHA on beer and fags. I once had someone who was earning £780 per week (take home) stop paying rent of £450 per month. He even bragged to his neighbour about how he was ripping me off.

There needs to be a re-balancing between LL & tenant. There won't be because it will not be politically expedient (more tenants and less ll's in this country : more votes letting tenants take the mickey).

Adam

The only way you can re-balance to some extent is take out a RGI policy on the tenant/s.
As soon as they stop paying submit the RGI claim.
This will cause untold damage to their credit rating and prevent RGI being available for them in future.
Even if the RGI only recovers 1 or 2 months of rent then it has been worth the £99 annual RGI policy!!!
Even better if the tenant does not formally surrender the tenancy as you can then only obtain legal possession of the property by going down the legal route.
As the RGI is paying the rent; there is no real concern for the LL as he is receiving RGI rent money.
I am presently in that position and I am not bothered about the situation, I am receiving the RGI rent money, even though the tenant seems to have dosappeared, but not surrendered the tenancy.
I reckon it will be another 4 months before the useless county court system has wended it's way through ALL the processes.
That will then be over a year that the RGI company will have paid me rent for.
That will mean to receive my monthly rent from the RGI company will have cost me the princely sum of £7.61 per month!
I think RGI whilst not perfect in many ways, is as far as I am concerned the best thing since sliced bread!!!
These RGI companies will attempt to sometimes recover from the tenant the unpaid rent etc if they can be traced.
Tenants are playing fast and loose with their future tenancy prospects if they do not comply with their AST terms.
They think they can act with impunity.
This mostly works; but there is always the risk that they will be caught out by the likes of LRS etc!!

If Tenants do not remain for six months then they are liable for the Full Term via a court Monetary Order. Up until the six months expires OR until the time it is rented out. They entered a contractual obligation and as such an "Assured Tenancy" protects both parties.