Just wondering anyone has opted to remove the 6 month break clause from the standard tenancy agreement and if that can put people off? I’ve had a run of 2 tenants recently who have used it and not stayed the full year (for their personal life reasons, not to do with the property) and I’d really like someone who can fulfil at least a year next time.
If tenants are only staying 6 months then its not about the contract. I only give 6 month contracts which then go periodic, but on average my tenants stay 18 months, (in London). I suggest you find out the real reasons for their early departure and if there is something that can be fixed.
I wouldn’t take on an AST that had no break clause at 6 months - I consider it essential for both my protection and that of the landlord. Life can throw curveballs at anyone, at any time.
You may have been unlucky/inconvenienced by your last couple of tenants, but on the whole I think it’s a good option to have.
Are you sure you have not just been unlucky (or lucky as the case may be) ?
One of our properties has just had two back to back 6 monthers. The first was a young couple who went back to live with parents as COVID damaged their earning power. We offered a temporary discount but they said thanks, but no they could see no quick end to their financial difficulties. Interestingly, we have subsequently rented to them on a different property as their circumstances changed.
The 2nd was a single mum who thought she could manage (on paper she could and she had a home owner guarantor) but after 6 months ot wasn’t working for her so she gave notice and left on good terms.
Certainly in my area, employment can be precarious, many rely on universal credit to top up minimum wage . This is my clientele and offering a 6 month get out clause so far has helped to promote honest conversations.
I have always done one year fixed term with no issues, in London and Exeter. Doesn’t seem to put people off at all, if they ask for a 6 month break when renew for a second year I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
No break clause doesn’t necessarily guarantee you a straight forward 12 months of tenancy.
If you had tenants who wanted out for a good reason, eg job loss, or other serious change of circumstances, regardless of lack of a break clause, it would more than likely be in your best interests to just let them go.
Break clauses are there for the benefit of both parties. If the tenant is engaging in anti-social behaviour then its in the landlords interest to have it there. Having said that, I have little faith in break clauses and would suggest 6 month fixed terms which then become periodic instead.