Taking all the above into consideration, wouldn't it be a practical approach to take on a new tenant on an agreed (verbal) trial basis for 6 months, and if both parties are happy approaching the 6 months, then to enter a lease agreement say for a further 12? Tenant then gets security of tenure in a home he likes, and landlord gets peace of mind regarding rent incoming and upkeep of the property etc.
In the case of my bad tenant, I considered myself fortunate that I didn't have a lease in place when I realised I needed to get rid after 4 months ...
/M.
Ahhhh, an old thread being resurrected!!!
It depends on what type of lease you verbally agreed to, and then, it is your word against the tenant's.
If you have a verbal fixed term lease, you can only remove (evict) the tenant if he is in breach of the tenant's obligations. Likewise, in theory, the tenant can only vacate and retain his deposit if the landlord is in breach of the landlord's obligations or by assigning the lease.
If you do not agree to a fixed term lease, then it will probably be a Part 4 lease. However, the tenant may vacate at any time (giving the correct notice period) and retain his deposit. However, a landlord can also, during the first six months only, evict the tenant without reason, thereafter only on the 6 grounds as cited in the RTA 2004.
In general, landlords want to keep their tenants and therefore, a Part 4 lease is less popular as it is considered a less secure lease (both from the landlord's and tenant's point of view).
Having no lease is all very well while things are going well. It's when there is a problem that a written lease is worth while as it is evidence of what was agreed. A lease should also have a schedule or be annexed with a detailed inventory of all items in the property as well as the condition of all items, furnishings, floors, walls, ceilings, doors, windows, paintwork etc. Having looked at many PRTB claims, failure to provide such a document is the principle reason that landlords lose claims where there is a dispute over damage in excess of normal wear and tear and the return of the tenant's deposit. And this can be very, very costly to a landlord.
In fact, IMHO, a detailed inventory (signed by the tenant as affirming its details) is probably more important than the lease, as a lease is normally just restating the more important parts of the RTA 2004 with possibly some special clauses such as "no pets allowed" or "no smoking within the property" or, where appropriate the term of the lease.
Furthermore, as I mentioned in an earlier post, if there is no lease, the landlord is required to supply the tenant with a rent book which should also give certain details of the lease agreement. But, with a lease, they are usually written in such a manner that they cover the laws as regards rent books.
It must also be remembered that when a tenant has been in the property for more than six months, he automatically acquires Part 4 rights to remain in the property for a total of 4 years and the tenant can decide what type of lease suits him, not the landlord. A tenant does not have to agree to a fixed term lease whether verbal or written if he feels that he may want to vacate at some point of time in the future and easily retain his deposit.