Is it necessary to renew a tenancy agreement which states: &quot;Expire on (but continuing thereafter by virtue of statute..)&quot; I have been living in UK for 10 years, lived in 5 different places. Only one of my previous landlords used to renew the contract every year. By renewing I mean signing a new contract and new dates but NO changes. Is it necessary to do that? when there is no changes in the circumstances or the line above validates the contract even after the expiry date?
If this is a typical private sector tenancy, then it would initially be a fixed-term one year'assured shorthold tenancy' a type of assured tenancy. The Housing Act 1988 says: If an assured tenancy which is a fixed term tenancy comes to an end otherwise than by virtue of— (a) an order of the court of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) or any other order of the court, or (b) a surrender or other action on the part of the tenant, then, subject to section 7 and Chapter II below, the tenant shall be entitled to remain in possession of the dwelling-house let under that tenancy and, subject to subsection (4) below, his right to possession shall depend upon a periodic tenancy arising by virtue of this section. So if the tenancy was not renewed then it would be replaced with a periodic tenancy. This has different rules to the fixed-term tenancy. Whether renewing the tenancy is necessary or not depends on whether either party strongly prefers the fixed-term tenancy to the periodic.
It depends on whether the lease requires it. If the lease requires you to have renter's insurance, you have to have renter's insurance. If it requires you to have a specific company's renter's insurance, you have to have the specific company's renter's insurance. If you don't do that, you have violated the terms of the lease and can typically be evicted. If you comply with the terms of the lease by having some renter's insurance and they still want you to have a specific brand of insurance, you have not violated the terms of the lease, and you cannot be evicted for such. They cannot &quot;bill you&quot; just because they want to change the terms of the lease -- that requires your agreement, or they can unilaterally change the lease terms at the end of the current period. The same goes for package service (I don't even understand what a monthly package service charge would mean).
Yes There is no general legal prohibition on perpetual contracts. What you describe is not a perpetual contract A perpetual contract is one where at least one parties obligations are indefinitely ongoing and there is no mechanism in the contract (outside breach or repudiation) for terminating it. The contract you describe has a mechanism for termination albeit only available to one party. Perpetual contracts can be entered into knowingly and willingly - most perpetuities, where a person leaves the income on an investment to a university or charity forever subject to conditions, are of this type. Or they can be entered into accidentally, for example, a fixed term contract with an automatic renewal where the renewal term is not specified is a perpetual contract. The important point is there must be no explicit mechanism in the contract for bringing the contract to an end for it to be a perpetual contract. In commercial arrangements, courts may imply a term that the parties can terminate on reasonable notice but this is subject to all the normal limitations. Your example As described, because there is an explicit term allowing termination, this is not a perpetual contract. Such a contract would be subject to the normal common law doctrine of unconscionably (which it almost certainly is) and, in some jurisdictions, consumer protection laws against unfair contract terms.
Not successfully It is not required that a person knows they are dealing with an agent of the principal rather than the principal directly - an agent speaks with the principal’s voice. Robert has consented to allow Elizabeth to act as his agent. It actually doesn’t matter if he consented before she acted or afterwards, he has agreed to be bound by Elizabeth’s actions. Rachel &amp; Jared have agreed to enter the lease and indicated as much by signing the document. It doesn’t matter who signed it for the landlord or even if it was signed - leases have to be in writing but there is no common law rule that they need to be signed.
Is this something for small claims court Yes. The explicitness of your prior leases overrides the statutory variations that might exist among jurisdictions in this regard. And the total of 50$/month for six or seven years indicates that you would have to pursue recovery in small claims court (at least if the landlord refuses to reimburse you). In Wisconsin, the statute of limitations for breach of contract is six years. See 893.43. Statute of limitations means the lapse of time upon which claims of certain type are no longer actionable. Thus, you would only be able to recover the fees of the latest 6 years except for this year's lease, since your current lease no longer specifies that the landlord will cover that cost. For more information on small claims courts, see chapter 799 of the Wisconsin statutory law.
Your boss is totally wrong. Legally, there is no such thing as a "probation period" in the UK. You have the right to your holiday payment, according to the days that you worked. What can happen: The legal minimum is I think 28 days per year including bank holidays, but most companies give 23 or 24 days PLUS eight days bank holiday. Your contract may say that the first three months are called probation period, and during that time you only get the legal minimum, and after that the much more common higher amount. That would be legal. But even so, you would be entitled to seven days, minus any bank holidays where you didn't work.
"an agreement by email for the cost of rent and damage deposit etc." may well constitute a lease. If it doesn't specify a term or ending method, it is probably a month to month lease. If nothing is specified about notice to leave, you probably should gt 30 days notice. The law in BC is the Residential Tenancy Act. However, many localities have laws that modify or supplement the provincial law. You probably need legal assitance beyond the scope of this forum. a Tenant Resource Advisory Center (Trac) might be able to help. Their web sitre also provides links to various other resources, including legal referrals. The Tennant Survival Guide offers pointers to legal aid. This site offers additional resources. So does the BC Law institute Note, even if you have certain legal rights in theory, the person from whom you are renting may not respect these. Consult legal or community sources to determine your best approach. This question is really beyond the scope of this forum.
There's good information at https://www.gov.uk/private-renting-tenancy-agreements/your-landlord-wants-to-end-your-tenancy. There are several types of tenancy with different rules, but in all of them, the landlord has to give you a certain amount of notice to move out, and it has to give a specific date. "Three months from when a buyer is found" doesn't seem to fit that, so I would say you have not yet received formal notice to move out. This statement may have just been a courtesy to give you more advance warning. So for instance, if you are in a tenancy that requires two months notice, the landlord may have intended this to mean "I plan to send you formal notice about one month after a buyer is found." Of course, this is not binding; he could send you formal notice tomorrow if he changes his mind. As far as I know, the sale of the house is really irrelevant in all of this. You don't automatically have to move out just because the house is sold; if you're not explicitly told to leave (with appropriate notice) then you don't have to, and you'll just start paying your rent to the new landlord. If you have a fixed-term tenancy, then the sale of the house doesn't shorten it. I am not sure what the point is of getting angry at the estate agents. Your tenancy is a matter between you and your landlord, and the estate agents have nothing to do with it. They work for your landlord, not for you.