Agent Liability - Ending Lease Agreement

ridin8ude

I can only see Date of Commencement - nothing specific about the expiry date of the agreement. DoC is Dec 13th for 18 months rent payable on 13th of each month.

I've already moved out of the house
Whatever I sort out that is before the 12th of Feb is bonus for me.

adg1

ridin8ude wrote: »

From this clause I make out that my maximum liability is January 12th provided that I give 2 months notice in writing and that the agreement began on Dec 12th.

“To give two calendar month’s notice in writing to determine this Agreement, such notice not to be given at any time before the twelfth month of the Agreement period.”

Quite simply, the break clause is stating that you can offer "...two calendar months notice..." in writing not to be handed in "...before the twelfth month of the Agreement period...".

Basically, as you moved in (I assume) in December 2008, you can offer two months notice in the twelfth month of your tenancy, ie December 2009, and move out in February 2010 - two calendar months.

I can see that it isn't the best worded clause in the world, but just reading it slowly makes things quite clear.

However, the agent have rather messed up by not knowing their break clause inside out and hence given you some leeway with their incompetence.

I would argue with them about what they have written to you but they can hold you to the contract for another 2 months unless

N79

adg1 wrote: »

Basically, as you moved in (I assume) in December 2008, you can offer two months notice in the twelfth month of your tenancy, ie December 2009, and move out in February 2010 - two calendar months.

If a tenancy starts on say 12th December then the 12th month will be from 12th November of the following year. The period from 12th December of the second year would then be the 13th month.

tbs624

As the OP has moved out anyway, and presumably surrendered the tenancy, then the LL and LA should be looking to get a new T in asap , rather than sitting on their hands and trying to stiff the T for an extra month.

tbs624

adg1 wrote: »

I can see that it isn't the best worded clause in the world, but just reading it slowly makes things quite clear. ...

:rotfl:

As several of us seem to have a different view to your own, perhaps not!

adg1

tbs624 wrote: »

:rotfl:

As several of us seem to have a different view to your own, perhaps not!

Indeed. Though no one, not even the agent who uses this contract and break clause has managed to define exactly what is meant by it! Bit shocking really on the agents part though nice of them to leave a paper trail indicating all the different ways of interpreting it.
:eek:

To me, reading it suggests that, after the first twelve months of the tenancy one can offer two months written notice to break. If it is in the twelfth month then surely they would have written not to be offered before the end of the 11th month.

Ah well.

Fire_Fox

ridin8ude wrote: »

Thanks all for the quick thoughts - I'm fairly confident of my understanding and will go back to the LL/LA on this.

To be fair the LL has been flexible it's the agent that's been difficult!

The obvious answer is to bypass the monkey (letting agent) and serve your notice in writing directly to the organ grinder (landlord), I'd give the shortest possible and let him come back and argue the toss.

tbs624

adg1 wrote: »

Indeed. Though no one, not even the agent who uses this contract and break clause has managed to define exactly what is meant by it! Bit shocking really on the agents part though nice of them to leave a paper trail indicating all the different ways of interpreting it.
:eek:

To me, reading it suggests that, after the first twelve months of the tenancy one can offer two months written notice to break. If it is in the twelfth month then surely they would have written not to be offered before the end of the 11th month.
.

On the other hand, if they had meant "after 12 months has elapsed" why not say " until after 12 months has elapsed" .

Tbh , I reckon even their use of "such notice not to be given at any time before" is ambiguous because there is nothing to prevent the T giving their notice earlier than whatever date they meant (!) its just that it wouldn't become effective until then.

The bottom line though is that if there is ambiguity, then the interpretation most favourable to the T is likely to be the one that gets applied. After all, the argument would be " How was the T expected to understand this clause, when even the "drawer-upper"/idiot LA didn't?"

Break clauses are more trouble than they are worth IMO.

tbs624

Fire_Fox wrote: »

The obvious answer is to bypass the monkey (letting agent) and serve your notice in writing directly to the organ grinder (landlord), I'd give the shortest possible and let him come back and argue the toss.

The OP apparently gave notice in October, after querying what the break clause meant

adg1

tbs624 wrote: »

Break clauses are more trouble than they are worth IMO.

I agree. Its become the norm for agents to just include them nowadays without confirming with either party, not even their client.

I suppose they do have their uses though. As long as they are worded correctly, of course.