Not sure what is apropriate in the UK.
I am going to start renting in Feb 1

Background is the agency is only responsible for finding us the LL will be the agent.
The EA are rude incompetant and have seem to be trying it on whenever they can ( I had to pay a £280 registration fee to them! )
The LL on the other hand seems like an decent bloke who is going to be working/living abroad for a few years, rather than an investor.

"The tennancy agreement has a clause in it that the if the tennancy is extended or runs into a periodic tennancy then the rent will increase once a year by RPI and can never go below the initial rent."

It is a 12 month agreement and at the end of it I intend to get a new 12 month agreement written up and signed as I do not want to be on a periodic tennancy ( I have kids and want some stability)
if that is the case then I guess I can just ignor this clause or am I wrong?

Automatic rent increases would not be the norm in my book but then having them pegged at CPI actually gives me some protection against them being pushed right up. ( my place before this they pushed it up 25% after 12 months resulting in my having to move)

If I am not going to agree to that section am I better off telling them now, or should I just draw a line through it on the day when I go to sign?

That statement is outside the period of contract and therefore totally academic and irrelivant, there are strict rules on rent increases and if you don't like the increase you don't have to renew the contract and can can move out.

If you sign up for it if could form a guideline and if they really want to keep it in make sure it is capped to 5% but in all honestly if your LL turns round in 12 months time and says "your rent is going up 30%" you will tell him to whistle and he will face all the costs of finding a new tenant (usually 10% of the annual rent) plus the risk of a void period so there is no need to sign up to anything and negociate at the time depending on what the local market are doing. Where I live rents have gone up 10% in five years

Afraid I have to disagree with you here. It is valid. If the tenant allows the tenancy to lapse into periodic at the end of the fixed term then the landlord can enforce this if they choose and increse the rent accordingly.

The clause is strangely worded to imply it take place 364 days after it starts with the intention that it begins a day before the contract ends but I think they tripped up in their wording and it is actually outside the contract term.
My feeling is that it would not prevent the LL from putting the rent way up even beyond RPI if he chose and it would not prevent us demending a lower rent on a new contract so was essentialy no use to anyone.

Again I have to disagree. Why is it "outside the contract term"? Statutory periodic arises on the same terms as the original fixed agreement. Under your reasoning, as soon as a periodic starts then none of the original contract terms would be applicable, which is clearly not the case.

The essential "use" of it is that the tenant would have to agree a new contract before the periodic arises, otherwise they would be bound by it. So, a number of months before this contract ends you need to get the LL to give you a new fixed term contract at the rent you want to pay. If he wont do this then your options are to either move before the periodic kicks in or pay the increase as perscribed by this term.

Could you type the wording of the clause for us to look at.

Sure here it is.. It was not included in most of the standard agreements I could find on the net but it did show up in the sample contract for quite a few EA's web sites.
My intention is to get a new contract before the 12 months is up as I want a little more security ( I have kids)

That is a good point planner, you are right that it would aply if it went into periodic tennancy.
Would it be of any use to me? I mean if I stayed on could it prevent the LL from putting up the rent any higher or can he just give me a new contract or 2 months notice? ( that is the situation I feel I would be in)

It also mentions if the tennancy is extended or continued. What is that refering to if not periodic tennancy and could it have any affect on a new contract?




If this tenancy is extended, continued, or run on as a Periodic Tenancy then the

Rent will increase each year from the first Rent Due Date more than 364 days

after the commencement of the term ,by the amount stated for the annual

increase in the Index of Retail Prices (All Items) as quoted for the month two

months prior to the month of the renewal. The Rent will not be reduced below

the figure in I.8. 1 at any time.


I contracted the LL directly about the clause and he was unaware it was even in there t and said he would not complain if I stuck it out. He still has the right to raise the rent once we are outside of this 12 month period so I am not sure he really looses out on anything. The EA may change his mind for him but I doubt it.


If it is binding then it would seem to be a lousy clause on the tennants behalf; if the contract ran for 3 years then fair enough but were I only have a guarantee of 12 months from the LL I don't see why I should commit to anything beyond that.

It is still irelevant because once you enter a periodic contract your are entitled to give a months notice on a monthly contract and move out if you don't like the rent increase (remember RPI went up 34% on 1972!). Even if you have the clause in the contract you can still say "don't like you rent increase so going to move out... or we can negociate?" clearly the LL could enforce the rent rise and you can move out or if he values you and a tenant the LL may negociate. The only time you have no choice over a rent rise is one which is contracted in during the term of the contract where unless you have a break clause you can not say sorry pal and move out.

So yes it is enforceable, but nobody is forcing you to stay and have it enforced on you, therefore unless you love the property and desparately want to stay, it is academic. As an FYI I have the same clause in my contract but it is capped at 8% annual increase, perhaps you could negociate that in?

BUT the point is you would still have to pay the increased rent for this one month of your periodic tenancy before you moved out. You need to stop the periodic arising by moving out at the end of the fixed term or renegotiating well before the end of the fixed term. As soon as that periodic starts, you can be held to it.

404 - I dont think its going to be an issue for you as long as you strike the condition out as the landlord has suggested and get confirmation in writing from him that he his not going to enforce the condition after 12 months.

Great input from both of Matt and Planner. I am far less concerned about this now . Being stuck for 1 month's higher rent doesn't bother me should it come to that.
Also as the LL seems entirely reasonable I am sure the situation will never get to there.

I feel getting written proof from the LL saying he will not do it is equally unfair on the landlords behalf as it is making him commit to something when he does not have to ( it would take him 2 months to turf me out but again it is hard to enforce in practice.) We can reneg when it is time to renew and see what the market is doing much like my previous 15 years of renting.

So to sum up for anyone else worried about the same clause. Strike it out if you can but don't worry too much if they demand to keep it in as it is only enfocable for a month.
Thanks

Was that before you'd agreed to rent something from them? If it was, I'm fairly sure that's illegal these days - at the very least report them to trading standards, preferably sue them through the small claims court to get it back.

After I ad agreed to rent. And I complained about it ( see other thread) but they still charged me. It was before they agreed to let the place but pending their non existant background checks. They did inform me that if the deal fell through, and it was not on my account they would refund it.

Back on the topic of this thread, I am happy to say we agreed to put a line through the clause in the contract.
Speaking to the LL he thought it was daft as well.
Throughout the whole process the EA has been a the problem, and they are going to get paid.

I know that it's now gone, but just for the record I have the same term in my contract and I have just had my first rent increase in four years, at below the RPI. Pay the rent on time, keep the property in good shape and continually moan about money seems to keep a lid on it for now. However I really should start looking at other places, there appear to be a couple of desperate landlords out there.