Under the old regime, the time limits for T to apply to the court for a new tenancy were extremely strict and – as we all know – were often overlooked. Now either L or T can apply, with the application having to be made by either:
if L has served an s25 notice: before the date specified in L's s25 notice
as the date when the tenancy will end, or
where T has served an s26 request: immediately before the date specified
in T's s26 request as being the date when the new tenancy will begin.
Note that L and T can agree to extend these time limits. There is no limit in the Act for how long those periods of extension may be. Nor is there any limit on the number of extensions that can be agreed. Suggested wording to agree with the other side is:
‘We propose that the time limit for making an application to the court under s29A(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 should be extended for a period of three months (ie up to and including… date). Please confirm your agreement by signing, dating and returning to us the duplicate of this letter attached.’
One uncertainty is the extent to which L and T can agree a ‘general’ extension of time. The likelihood is that it is not possible. Section 29D(1) says the parties may agree that the application to the court may be made ‘before the end of a period specified in the agreement’, and that wording would seem to imply that an actual specified period (with a specific end date) is referred to.
If the parties do agree an extension, then the tenancy continues during that extension period. Because of this, the parties may want to think before agreeing overly long extensions: L would be tied to the tenancy being extended by this period (unless he has grounds to forfeit); T would also be tied to the extension (and so will not be able to vacate before the end of the extension period).
Note that the intention of the legislation is that the extension period should be used for negotiation. It is not intended that you should apply to the court, and then apply for a stay or an extension of time; if you start proceedings, then the presumption will be that there will be no need to delay a court hearing (plus, of course, the previous rule under which there was an automatic stay of proceedings for three months at the request of L has been abolished).
