Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

terms

Re: terms

Postby dls » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:13 pm

It does not matter whether you can see it.

It is an absolute fundamental of landlord and tenant that a lease has to have a definite term. Without one, it is just not a lease.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12124
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: terms

Postby theycantdothat » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:09 pm

It is possible that what we have is a tenancy at will, which is a bit of an oddity - and according to some not a tenancy at all despite its name.

I think we need to know the exact context in which the words quoted come. Please let us have the whole clause.
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: terms

Postby preacherman » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:27 am

theycantdothat wrote:It is possible that what we have is a tenancy at will, which is a bit of an oddity - and according to some not a tenancy at all despite its name.

I think we need to know the exact context in which the words quoted come. Please let us have the whole clause.


front face
contractual periodic tenancy agreement ( with general notes, mentioning housing act law of property act etc)


second page
this agreement is made on the date specified below between the landlord and the tenant.
it is intended that the tenancy created (by) this agreement is and shall be a contractual periodic tenancy within the meaning of the housing acts.(my emphasis as word missing)
tenancy particulars

date: date inserted

landlords address: (for administritive puposes only) as listed in schedule 3

tenant: names inserted

property; name/address inserted

term; until further notice by mutual agreement

commencing on; date inserted

rent; amount inserted

deposit; wavered by landlord
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 984
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: terms

Postby theycantdothat » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:27 pm

The drafting is as bad and amateurish as I feared it might be.

I think we can say that the document does not create a tenancy at will since nothing in it indicates that either party may end the arrangement at will.

The intention of the parties seems to have been to create a periodic tenancy. It says so on the front sheet, but that is technically not part of the document so is not conclusive. However we also have in the body of the document a clear statement of intent to create a periodic tenancy. The reference to the housing acts does not help, but neither does it undermine the expressed intention. The words "term: until further notice by mutual agreement" are however problematic. If we did not have the words then there would no problem. Whilst the length of the periods are not specified, they would (assuming nothing in the agreement about notice other than as quoted) be implied by the frequency with which the rent is made payable. However, we do have the words. If we did not have the statement of intent that the tenancy is to be periodic, then I think the whole thing would be void because all we would have is a term expressed to end when the parties agree it will, which does not meet the requirement that the parties must know the maximum length of the tenancy when it starts.

What we have, of course is both the expression of intent to create a periodic tenancy and the definition of the term. If the definition prevails then the whole thing is void because you cannot have a tenancy which continues if both parties cannot agree it will end. On balance, one would hope that a court would allow for the amateur drafting and rewrite or delete the definition. It may also be open to either party to ask for rectfication if can be shown that a periodic tenant was agreed during the negotiations.

If the agreement is void, what is the position? I do not think that a failed attempt to create a tenancy will result in a licence if the occupier has de facto exclusive possession and is paying rent. I think there has to be a tenancy, but not one created by the agreement. Whilst it may sound tautological to say so, there is a tenancy where there is a relationship of landlord and tenant.

Is there actually a dispute here or you just trying to establish the position for the future?
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: terms

Postby atticus » Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:34 pm

I do wonder when the OP last got involved in something that did not create a legal mess.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19507
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: terms

Postby dls » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:29 am

P, if you have any personal involvement, agree with the other party to tear up this agreement and to create a tenancy (not a dog's breakfast) by the use, perhaps, of a similar form, without the words "term; until further notice by mutual agreement"

It has to fix a date. A tenany has to have a fixed term. By design, a shorthold tenancy has a periodof six months, and if not terminated, it is followed automatically by a series of terms of one month. That is how it works. Try it a different way, and it very likely will not work.

As it is, since it allows the tenancy (if it managed to become one) to last less than six months, it cannot be a shorthold tenancy, and risks being an assured tenancy.

Please say to yourself 'this is just wrong' It is a disaster waiting for a fallout and a huge legal bill.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12124
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: terms

Postby preacherman » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:18 pm

atticus wrote:I do wonder when the OP last got involved in something that did not create a legal mess.



:lol: I never wrote it, I am amazed as well, it even states, no animals, birds or reptiles to be kept on the property (accept a pet dog) :lol:
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 984
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: terms

Postby preacherman » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:26 pm

theycantdothat wrote:The drafting is as bad and amateurish as I feared it might be.

I think we can say that the document does not create a tenancy at will since nothing in it indicates that either party may end the arrangement at will.

The intention of the parties seems to have been to create a periodic tenancy. It says so on the front sheet, but that is technically not part of the document so is not conclusive. However we also have in the body of the document a clear statement of intent to create a periodic tenancy. The reference to the housing acts does not help, but neither does it undermine the expressed intention. The words "term: until further notice by mutual agreement" are however problematic. If we did not have the words then there would no problem. Whilst the length of the periods are not specified, they would (assuming nothing in the agreement about notice other than as quoted) be implied by the frequency with which the rent is made payable. However, we do have the words. If we did not have the statement of intent that the tenancy is to be periodic, then I think the whole thing would be void because all we would have is a term expressed to end when the parties agree it will, which does not meet the requirement that the parties must know the maximum length of the tenancy when it starts.

What we have, of course is both the expression of intent to create a periodic tenancy and the definition of the term. If the definition prevails then the whole thing is void because you cannot have a tenancy which continues if both parties cannot agree it will end. On balance, one would hope that a court would allow for the amateur drafting and rewrite or delete the definition. It may also be open to either party to ask for rectfication if can be shown that a periodic tenant was agreed during the negotiations.

If the agreement is void, what is the position? I do not think that a failed attempt to create a tenancy will result in a licence if the occupier has de facto exclusive possession and is paying rent. I think there has to be a tenancy, but not one created by the agreement. Whilst it may sound tautological to say so, there is a tenancy where there is a relationship of landlord and tenant.

Is there actually a dispute here or you just trying to establish the position for the future?


long story! dispute. I live in the manse of a church, the guy who wrote the agreement, is the same guy who put (allegedly) £30,000 into the charity as an unauthorized loan, now he is seeking his money back through any means possible......
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 984
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: terms

Postby preacherman » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:33 pm

dls wrote:P, if you have any personal involvement, agree with the other party to tear up this agreement and to create a tenancy (not a dog's breakfast) by the use, perhaps, of a similar form, without the words "term; until further notice by mutual agreement"

It has to fix a date. A tenany has to have a fixed term. By design, a shorthold tenancy has a periodof six months, and if not terminated, it is followed automatically by a series of terms of one month. That is how it works. Try it a different way, and it very likely will not work.

As it is, since it allows the tenancy (if it managed to become one) to last less than six months, it cannot be a shorthold tenancy, and risks being an assured tenancy.

Please say to yourself 'this is just wrong' It is a disaster waiting for a fallout and a huge legal bill.


well thats reassuring, see post above.

An assured tenancy is a legal category of residential tenancy to an individual (or individuals jointly) in English land law. Statute affords a tenant under an assured tenancy a degree of security of tenure. A tenant under an assured tenancy may not be evicted without a reasonable ground in the Housing Act 1988
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 984
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: terms

Postby dls » Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:31 pm

But that is only if it attains the status of a tenancy. It falls entirely on its face without reaching that far.

An absolute requirement of the creation of a lease is that there is a 'term certain'. Without such it is by definition not a tenancy of any sort.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12124
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

PreviousNext

Return to Landlord and Tenant Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron