AST 12 month extension with break clause from Month 1??

Pepzofio

Has anyone ever heard of this?

I recently received a letter from LA about renewing my existing AST which is due to end in a month or so. Extension fee is £46, which I am happy to pay for 12 months security of tenure, as I love the house, LL & LA are on the whole great and I have no plans to move for the foreseeable future.

HOWEVER... LA mentioned this morning that either party can give notice at any time during the extension (1mth from tnt, 2 from LL) as it includes a release clause from month 1! As far as I can see, this puts me in no better a position than simply rolling onto a statutory periodic, so what's the point? (The only possible advantage I can see is fixing the rent for 12 months, but what's to stop LL serving notice and offering the tenancy back at a higher rent?)

Is this even a legal/valid break clause? As I was under the impression that a fixed term could not be for less than 6 months. (Not sure if it makes a difference, but the extension agreement is just a single sheet of paper, rather than a whole new AST.)

LA has given the usual spiel about "LL is not going to serve notice as this is an investment property for him". I know from a neighbour that LL inherited the property from parents (who lived there) so it is unlikely he has a BTL mortgage to get caught out by when rates rise - but even if he has no intention of selling now, his circs could easily change unexpectedly. Surely the point of an extension is to give LL & tnt some security?

Thanks in advance.

robpitt

I would refuse to pay £46 for something that gives you no rights beyond those you'd get under statutory law if the tenancy rolled over into a periodic one.

Yes a tenancy can be for less than 6 months, though they wouldn't be able to get a court to evict you during the first 6 months.

Pepzofio

Good news! LA has spoken to LL and he is happy to renew without a break clause. :cheesy:

princeofpounds

yeah, they were having you on. They wanted to give you nothing more than a statutory periodic and charge you for it. Personally, I've always thought that providing nothing for something should be considered fraud

But if they had given you a new AST, under statute you would have a minimum 6 month fixed term. So if the LL had wanted you out they would have been in trouble.