Hello everyone,
I had a tenant who paid 6-months rent upfront at the start of their tenancy last February. On that basis, I did not take a deposit. He has been a perfectly acceptable tenant and the property has been kept in great shape. At the end of the AST agreement, the tenant wanted to stay on for another 6-month term, so I issued a new 6-month AST. He said he was unsure as to whether he wanted to pay 6-months upfront again, or revert to monthly standing order; it was all depending on a couple of invoices he was waiting on being paid. I issued an AST agreement, detailing that a deposit equal to 1-month's rent would now apply and that rent would be due on the 25th of each month, which he signed and returned to me.
I received an email the day before the original AST expired (and the new one was due to begin) stating that the deposit had been posted the day before and that the rent would be paid later that day. I was away at the time but returned a few days later to find no deposit had been delivered, and no rent had been paid...
I contacted the tenant who replied saying he was in hospital and would pay as soon as he was discharged a day or two later. Those days arrived with no payment forthcoming, so I contacted him again. H said he was still in hospital, but would be discharged later that day (last Friday) and would pay the rent then. Again, nothing forthcoming. He emailed me Monday (yesterday), stating that he had been kept in hospital, but would be being discharged later that day and would pay the rent before the day was out. As of now, no rent has been paid and he has completely ignored my questions about the "missing" deposit.
What I would like to know is whether the latest AST agreement is valid without any deposit or initial rent being paid (as is prescribed in the standard AST), or whether, in effect, the tenant has reverted to a periodic agreement? Naturally, without the deposit and rent being paid, I would never have handed over the keys but as the tenant was already living at the property what else could I do?
Clarifying this would be of great assistance so that I can determine which route (s. 8 or s. 21) I need to go down to take possession of the property. I would prefer the rent and deposit to be paid, however the process of taking possession is so long, I feel that I would be stupid not to begin these proceedings at the earliest opportunity (I believe I have to let the tenant get 2 months behind with his rent first though?).
Thanks so much,
L
I had a tenant who paid 6-months rent upfront at the start of their tenancy last February. On that basis, I did not take a deposit. He has been a perfectly acceptable tenant and the property has been kept in great shape. At the end of the AST agreement, the tenant wanted to stay on for another 6-month term, so I issued a new 6-month AST. He said he was unsure as to whether he wanted to pay 6-months upfront again, or revert to monthly standing order; it was all depending on a couple of invoices he was waiting on being paid. I issued an AST agreement, detailing that a deposit equal to 1-month's rent would now apply and that rent would be due on the 25th of each month, which he signed and returned to me.
I received an email the day before the original AST expired (and the new one was due to begin) stating that the deposit had been posted the day before and that the rent would be paid later that day. I was away at the time but returned a few days later to find no deposit had been delivered, and no rent had been paid...
I contacted the tenant who replied saying he was in hospital and would pay as soon as he was discharged a day or two later. Those days arrived with no payment forthcoming, so I contacted him again. H said he was still in hospital, but would be discharged later that day (last Friday) and would pay the rent then. Again, nothing forthcoming. He emailed me Monday (yesterday), stating that he had been kept in hospital, but would be being discharged later that day and would pay the rent before the day was out. As of now, no rent has been paid and he has completely ignored my questions about the "missing" deposit.
What I would like to know is whether the latest AST agreement is valid without any deposit or initial rent being paid (as is prescribed in the standard AST), or whether, in effect, the tenant has reverted to a periodic agreement? Naturally, without the deposit and rent being paid, I would never have handed over the keys but as the tenant was already living at the property what else could I do?
Clarifying this would be of great assistance so that I can determine which route (s. 8 or s. 21) I need to go down to take possession of the property. I would prefer the rent and deposit to be paid, however the process of taking possession is so long, I feel that I would be stupid not to begin these proceedings at the earliest opportunity (I believe I have to let the tenant get 2 months behind with his rent first though?).
Thanks so much,
L