No. The tenants have this agreement with NTL, not the landlord. It is their contract and it is between NTL and themselves to resolve it.
If you sign a lease the lease terms apply, unless they are ruled to be onerous on the client or unless they are less than the minimum protections afforded to tenants. In the absence of a lease a part IV tenancy is automatically created.the landlord can break the lease if they want to sell, its as simple as that. Lodging a complaint will get them nowhere.
Unless the lease has terms for breaking the lease, there is no such thing as "appropriate notice" on a fixed term lease. The clue is in the name.a tenant can break a fixed term lease by giving teh appropriate notice even if there is 6 months left on it, same way a landlord can break it if it is done properly.
why else would anyone waste their time and effort signing a 1yr lease.
The reason why is obviously security as pointed out, but like many other instances there are exemptions, and in this case the owner deciding to sell his property within the next three months is one of them.
If you sign a lease the lease terms apply, unless they are ruled to be onerous on the client or unless they are less than the minimum protections afforded to tenants. In the absence of a lease a part IV tenancy is automatically created.
This is all pretty simple, I don't know why people think a contract can just be ignored. The latter advice is the best, if a tenant wants to be akward towards you they have plenty of opportunity, so it would be best to proceed cautiously.
26.—Nothing in this Part operates to derogate from any rights the tenant enjoys for the time being (by reason of the tenancy concerned) that are more beneficial for the tenant than those created by this Part.
A lease supersedes the act. That is the whole point in having a lease.
On the other hand, if the tenant decides to end it early, apparently the landlord has no redress against him.
Because your rent is higher if you give a fixed term lease.
Is that true? Where does it say that?
It would be sort of mad for a tenant to sign a lease which he couldn't leave early. What if your employer goes bust? What if you break your back and can no longer work? A bit harsh to force the tenant into bankruptcy because he cannot complete the lease.
Or they could have a lease but just specify in it that it will be a Part IV tenancy and all the standard breakout clauses apply (owner wants to sell, move a family member in, renovate it, or whatever).In my opinion, the best option for landlords now is not to have a lease, but just to register the tenancy and allow the default notice periods, etc. to apply.
I think the PRTB regulations are way to soft. And we have a long way to go. The tennant rights are very limited at the moment.
People are entitled to a safe, secure roof over their head. They should not have to purchase an asset to get this, they should be able to rent.
We should want tennants to have stronger rights, so people can view renting as a life time option.
At the moment, if you want to feel settled you can't rent. (unless the landlord agrees a long lease, which is very rare)
The improved flexibility in our labour market would pay economic dividends, and hopefully help limit asset bust-boom cycles, by reducing demmand for owning the assets somewhat.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?