This type of tenancy is very common. A written lease usually creates this type of tenancy. However, the lease does not have to be in writing if the tenancy is for a period of less than a year. Periodic tenancy This is a tenancy that continues for successive periods of the same length for an indefinite amount of time. The most common is a month – to – month rental agreement. A periodic tenancy may be defined in terms of any period Assured Shorthold Tenancy This is the most common type of tenancy given by private landlords.
Any new tenancy created where there is no written agreement is an assured short hold tenancy. An assured Shorthold tenancy is basically an assured tenancy but with some important differences. An assured Shorthold gives the landlord additional grounds to evict you because at the end of the fixed term period s/he can get permission to repossess the property with a court order without the tenant breaching any terms of the contract. Changes that have been brought about by the 1996 Act in respect of Assured Shorthold Tenancies:
Section 96 inserts a new s19A into the Housing Act 1988 providing for a new type of assured Shorthold where it will no longer be a requirement to serve a notice of assured Shorthold tenancy before the commencement of such a tenancy. All assured tenancies entered into on or after 28th February 1997 will automatically be an assured Shorthold tenancy unless a notice is served or provision is made in the tenancy agreement stating that the tenancy is not to be an assured Shorthold tenancy.
There is no minimum time period for granting an assured Shorthold tenancy, although a landlord cannot recover possession within six months of the start of an assured Shorthold tenancy. A landlord cannot obtain a court order for possession even if the fixed term is for less than six months, unless the tenants are in breach of their tenancy agreement for some other reason (e. g. rent arrears). What protections are there from eviction?
Part IV of the 1988 Act extends protection already available to most tenants and most licensees under the PROTECTION FROM EVICTION ACT 1977. However there is an alarming number of houses in England are unfit for human habitation in relation to the statutory criteria amended by the local Government and the Housing Act 1989. The area that is effected the worst is the private sector, where such properties are unfit, where in some cases the properties are of less value and old houses.
So it could be argued that under s10 of the 1985 Act these houses are below the standard required, thus unfit for human habitation. The standard of the fitness of the property is required to be that of ' the ordinary reasonable man ', per Hall v Manchester Corporation (1915). The issue of repairs is not well structured out in this area of the law. Although the Housing Act 1996 states the duties and powers of local authorities, however it fails to cast an eye on the repairs of a property, of which the landlord is under an obligation to do.
Although landlords are not expected to repair any intentional damage caused by the tenant, or repair the tenant's own furniture, yet there needs to be strict guideline for the repairing of a property. Which may be in a bad state. All properties must be fit for human habitation, and the Government, must stay inline with its promises on housing and deal with the housing and the issue of repairs. Conclusion Having completed this module, I have realised my complete ignorance on the area of housing law and in particular the great problem of homelessness.
The viscous circle of homelessness is a complex issue, where the poor who are once trapped in it, may remain in it. The Government have failed to live up to their pre election promises, during elections housing is the hot subject for the political parties, as it is a vote buyer. However once elected the promises concerning development of the housing problems including homelessness are forgotten. There are not enough houses being built, and yet the green built is ever increasing.
The preservation of the green belt is in danger, but the need for housing is greater then ever. Thus prompting the house prices and rents going sky high. This would only increase the number of homeless as poor cannot afford housing at the present prices, thus for the poor it's going back to square one. The proposed 19 billion is no where near the amount needed. Although development of inner city homes, can be seen as a positive. However it does not get rid of the huge problem of homelessness, where the poor are trapped in the vicious cycle of life.