How much notice - assured shorthold tenancy

travel_freak

Hi,

Please can anyone tell me how much notice must be given by either party in an assured shorthold tenancy agreement?

I think the norm is 1 month but is it possible to write into an agreement 2 months notice instead?

Many thanks for any advice on this.

silvercar

Are we talking fixed term AST or one that has gone periodic.

For a periodic AST, 2 months notice to end on a rent day from landlord to tenant and 1 months notice to end on a rent day from tenant to landlord.

If the tenancy is still in the fixed term then the landlord can give notice (at least 2 months) that he requires possession at the end of the fixed term. The tenant has no obligation to give notice that he wants to leave at the end of the fixed term, though it would be polite to do so.

travel_freak

Hi Silvercar,

Thanks for the reply.

It's a new tenancy agreement so hasn't gone periodic. It would be for a year/12 months. But wanted to have a clause that after 6 months either party could give 2 months notice.

It is worded as an Assured Shorthold for 12 months but want comfort on both sides that if it isn't working out either party can give 2 months notice. Not sure if this is illegal or if this type of clause makes it not an AST? Sorry, confused:o.

Many thx.

silvercar

Perfectly acceptable if both parties agree at the outset, called a break clause.

franklee

Yes, but why not just have a six month contract and then a periodic tenancy (one month notice from tenant, two from landlord). That way you can just let it run with no need for more agreements.

Break clauses can be hard to draft so they stick and are often badly worded so as to be unclear.

tbs624

franklee wrote: »

Yes, but why not just have a six month contract and then a periodic tenancy (one month notice from tenant, two from landlord). That way you can just let it run with no need for more agreements.

... because the agreement with the break clause gives the LL more security. Having passed the date for the break clause to be invoked the T is locked in for the balance of the full term.

franklee wrote: »

Break clauses can be hard to draft so they stick and are often badly worded so as to be unclear.

...which is why you don't insert your own drafting of the clause but get proper professional advice.

franklee

tbs624 wrote: »

... because the agreement with the break clause gives the LL more security. Having passed the date for the break clause to be invoked the T is locked in for the balance of the full term.

That isn't what the OP wants is it? The OP said:

travel_freak wrote: »

It would be for a year/12 months. But wanted to have a clause that after 6 months either party could give 2 months notice.

Doesn't sound like he wants a "one shot" chance to break at six months to me but that he wants to be able to give notice any time after 6 months so the ealiest T could go is at month eight (or possibly he means give notice any time after four months so the first opportunity to leave is at the six month point?). Either way doens't sound like he wants a "one shot".

tbs624 wrote: »

...which is why you don't insert your own drafting of the clause but get proper professional advice.

I've never drafted a break clause :rotfl: but I've read plenty of duff ones and plenty of people trying to figure quite what's meant afterwards. Even agancy ones which are supposed to be professional.

travel_freak

Hi everyone,

Many thanks. Yes, it is a break clause - sorry my brain is addled. Would like to achieve a 12 month agreement but with the ability for 2 months' notice to be given at any time after the first six months (so the earliest the tenant could leave would be month 8).

Franklee, I noticed your "signature". I know from past reading that this is a bit of a contentious issue - please could you tell me in a nutshell the situation from a landlord's and from a tenant's perspective? As a landlord I understand by law I do not have to give any notices any more prior to a tenancy - is this correct?

Are there any notices I should be serving pre-tenancy? Apologies but it's been a while since I've had to think about this as have in the past had an agent who dealt with everything.

Many thanks in advance.

silvercar

If you wanted to serve a section 21 notice (for the tenant to leave at the end of the tenancy), you know have to wait until after you have protected the deposit before you do so. I'm sure franklee will give you the reasons why it is a bad idea, but many landlords do it to protect themselves against any difficulty in getting a bad tenant to leave at the end of the fixed term.

Premier_2

travel_freak wrote: »

... As a landlord I understand by law I do not have to give any notices any more prior to a tenancy - is this correct? ...

Not really, not if you want to protect your interests.

All the traditional pre-TA notices should be served save the notice of an assured shorthold tenancy, since latest legislation now presumes a TA is an ASTA unless specifically notified otherwise.

franklee

If you serve a Section 21 notice asking the tenant to leave at the end of month 12, then expect them to leave then.

So if you want them to leave then, and they realise that too then all is fine.

If you serve the notice but really want them to stay, and let them know that, then you can hardly expect to use the notice. (It is technically void if on the one hand you ask them to go via the notice whist at the same time (or afterwards) telling them they will be able to stay as you are giving conflicting instructions). Not that you'd do that, but some landlords do.

You do seem to want to control quite tightly what the tenant can do, is your home that you wish to return to? Only it seems a lot of hassle you could avoid by a six month fixed term and then a periodic tenancy. Also worth letting the tenant know that it will be a short tenancy in advance (if it is) to save any hassles of them not wanting to leave.