Over 60s Should Be Encouraged To Downsize

Originally Posted by danielf

No, the lease was for 6 months, so you are guaranteed the property for 6 months. I think they gave us two months notice in that we got a letter we couldn't renew two months before the lease was up.

Well that's insane. Surely there is a minimum termination period? Otherwise you could be out of a home in a single day...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well that's insane. Surely there is a minimum termination period? Otherwise you could be out of a home in a single day...

Yes, it's probably about two months. Either way, we were buying a place at the time, and were dependent on completing that within said timeframe. I think we got the keys with two weeks to spare. This was not a fun time.

Originally Posted by Damien

Well that's insane. Surely there is a minimum termination period? Otherwise you could be out of a home in a single day...

not really,Danielf got the letter saying that the landlord would not be renewing the lease on the expiry date ,the landlord has to give minimum 2 months notice and then he has start eviction proceedings so a tennant will always get a few months extra in which to find somewhere else to live

[danielf]

Yes, Marty is right. I just looked it up.

Ending a fixed term tenancy agreement

Many fixed term agreements contain a 'break clause', which allows a tenant to end the agreement before the fixed term runs out. It is important for landlords to be aware of the implications of including such a clause. If the agreement doesn't include such a clause then a tenant cannot end the tenancy early without the landlord's agreement. If the tenant leaves anyway they can still be liable for the rent to the end of the period. If it does include a break clause, the tenant will be able to leave early provided they follow the procedure laid out in the clause, for example the amount of notice they must give.

If the agreement is for a fixed term, a tenant has the right to leave on the last day of the fixed term without giving any notice. If they stay even one day over the fixed term, they will automatically become a periodic tenant and will have to give proper notice unless the landlord agrees to them leaving.

A landlord can end a tenancy at the end of the fixed term (usually 6 months) provided that the tenant has been given two months written notice in the form of a section 21 notice to quit.

It may be possible for a landlord to end a fixed tenancy early if certain grounds have been met. For further information see Ending a tenancy agreement early.



Read more: http://www.tenancyagreementservice.c...#ixzz1bFDXZPQY

Well that should be increased to a 6 month notice if you ask me....

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well that should be increased to a 6 month notice if you ask me....

You can't really, seeing the contract is for 6 months. It would mean the Landlord would have to give you notice the moment you sign the contract.

[georgepomone]

I would also point out that the over sixties would be looking in the very same market as first time buyers. It don't look like anyone gains from this.

Originally Posted by danielf

You can't really, seeing the contract is for 6 months.

Well increase the tenancy agreement then

[techguyone]

Yes Damien got it right, in essence once you've gone over your fixed term, you usually have to give a months notice, and in the Landlords case, they need to give you two months notice.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well increase the tenancy agreement then

Yes, we did ask about this, but the landlord wouldn't, as she wanted to be able to kick us out at short notice. She did absorb the agent's 'cost' (£150) for printing out a new contract every 6 months though.

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, we did ask about this, but the landlord wouldn't, as she wanted to be able to kick us out at short notice. She did absorb the agent's 'cost' (£150) for printing out a new contract every 6 months though.

you can download and print a standard tenancy agreement for free

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by martyh

I'm not sure the abolition of stamp duty for over 60's will be enough ,for example if a pensioner wishes to downsize and sell their £250,000 house they would normally pay about £7,500 stamp duty but the value of the house they are selling may be £10,000 or more less because of the influx of properties onto the market ,most people tend not to sell when prices go down

They'll have paid off the mortgage, nothing owing, and it'll be worth in real terms far more than they paid for it regardless. In addition it'll reduce the price of their new home if the market isn't at its peak.

I'd love to see a £250,000 4 bedroom house, stick a 1 in front of that for here!

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

They'll have paid off the mortgage, nothing owing, and it'll be worth in real terms far more than they paid for it regardless. In addition it'll reduce the price of their new home if the market isn't at its peak.

I'd love to see a £250,000 4 bedroom house, stick a 1 in front of that for here!

I appreciate what you are saying and agree to a certain extent but quite a few of these people will be looking to make as much as possible because they bought the house as a investment for the future and human nature being what it is they won't be happy if the house they are selling is worth 10-20 grand less than it was worth a year ago .As with most schemes like this though the proof of the pudding is in the eating ,so much depends on personal circumstances and future markets

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by martyh

I appreciate what you are saying and agree to a certain extent but quite a few of these people will be looking to make as much as possible because they bought the house as a investment for the future and human nature being what it is they won't be happy if the house they are selling is worth 10-20 grand less than it was worth a year ago .As with most schemes like this though the proof of the pudding is in the eating ,so much depends on personal circumstances and future markets

If they bought it as an investment rather than a home, and thus cling on to get maximum return, there's a big part of the problem.

Oddly that's the exact opposite of many people's criticism which is that these are people's homes so there should be no hint of pressure for them to move and this would imply pressure.

[bonzoe]

I doubt that it would have the desired effect - price of smaller (starter) properties would go up, surely?