Renewing tenancy WITHOUT a break clause - risky or covering interests?

Landlord Discussion
1

I’m looking to impose a rent increase on my tenants today. They may or may not accept. However, along with this I’m considering ‘resetting’ the periodic tenancy so there’s a new contract in place.

The only change to the contract - apart from the rental amount sought - would be the dates

A couple of estate agents I spoke to recently casually suggested that if a new contract were agreed I should insist on a full 12 month term with no break clause, rather than the usual 6month break within a 1 year AST. Their logic was that IF the tenant agreed to the new higher rent, removing the break would deter them from just leaving in Nov / Dec when the market is dead.

Has anyone done this, or have a view on the wisdom of this? Feels like a risk should they trash the flat and I cant get them out, but also, keeping that rent locked in until next April would be preferable!

Thanks

2

You are far better off leaving the tenancy periodic. Giving the tenants a new fixed term severely restricts your options and is an unnecessary expense. If you want to increase the rent, you can do this with a section 13 notice whilst the tenancy is periodic.

1 Like
3

thanks - this is sensible

4

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.