Renewal of lease \ Possible repossesion - options

Situation is as follows:

- living in rental property under a fixed term lease (1 year) with my family
- fixed term period due to end in about 2 months
- wish to remain in property for the foreseeable future (more than 1 year, possibly 2 -3 years)
- landlord is not the communicative type
- bank are currently attempting to repossess property


Question is, what is the best course of action to continue renting here?
- Do I look for a fixed term renewal and risk landlord seeking rent increase \ property tax offload etc (current rent is fair)?

- Do I request a continuation under a Part 4 Tenancy Agreement?

- Do I do nothing?

At best guess, Landlord is happy to have us remain. If it weren’t for the bank, I believe Part 4 would be the most straight forward route to take. The involvement of the bank is complicating things in terms of what could happen to our tenancy if and when they were to get possession? As a tenant, what arrangement would offer us the best security, if any?

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Your best security is another Part 4 (my error should be Fixed Term lease as no one can evict you until the end of the lease. If the house is repossessed, the bank would become your new landlord (and they will probably be happy to receive the rent).

If you do nothing, your Fixed Term lease lapses into a Part 4 lease (but retaining any special conditions that were in the fixed term lease (e.g. no smoking in the property, no pets, etc.) The problem with a Part 4 lease is that should the landlord (who ever that is) is entitled to remove/evict you (with the appropriate notice period which would be 42 days (you have been in occupancy for more than one year but less than 2 years).

If the bank move before the end of your present fixed term lease, you may have to move out earlier. To claim your Part 4 rights to remain in the property, legally, you should inform the landlord between 3 and 1 months prior to the end of the fixed term lease and request another fixed term lease. However, not notifying the landlord does not negate your right to stay.

I think the landlord is probably hanging on as your landlord in order to get the rent and (if he believes the property will be repossessed, keep the rent money and not pay his mortgage so as to build up a little nest egg.

Much obliged for the comprehensive response.

So, Part 4 is the way to go then. We therefore have the right to remain in situ for a further 3 years, once we meet any special conditions in our (original) lease. If and when we wish to leave, we are required to give the appropriate notice period.

If my assumption that the Landlord is happy for us to remain is correct, and the landlord manages to retain ownership of the property, then I don’t have any great concerns.

However, as we have automatically acquired Part 4 Tenancy rights regardless of notifying the landlord, if the bank were to obtain possession and thereby becoming the new landlord, am I correct to assume that the banks opportunity to remove us would be limited for the duration of our Part 4 Tenancy? As I see it, their only options to terminate would be -


•Where the landlord (bank) intends to sell the dwelling within 3 months of the termination of the tenancy
(The wording of the Act in this regard is interesting as it states “The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another” – One could possibly argue that this ‘intention’ is without foundation if similar property takes longer than 3 months (+ notice) to sell and therefore is unlikely that the bank will be able to "enter into an enforceable agreement" in that space of time )
`
•Landlord requires property for their own or family members occupation
- Can the Bank claim the property for their own occupation (as distinct from requiring it for sale)
(Again, the wording of the Act refers either to the landlord, as an individual, taking occupation or a family member – not sure in practice how a separate legal entity such as a bank might take up occupancy in a residential property)

Thanks again

Sorry, OP, I just noticed an error in my post. The second paragraph should not have been Part 4 but FIXED TERM as this is the most secure lease for you. As you can read further down in my post, a landlord can remove you if he wants to sell the property with a Part 4 lease.

Very sorry for the error.