Required notice period on an assured shorthold periodic?

Emanef

Hi guys

Our 12 month assured shorthold tenancy is coming up to an end in two months. We want to stay here and the landlord is happy for us to stay. I suggested letting it go to a periodic as the terms of the original agreement would then apply. The tenancy required two months notice from the day the rent is due.

I've had an email from the letting agents saying that the landlord does not want to go onto a periodic as it would only give one months notice if we decide to leave, which wouldn't give them time to remarket the property.

I disagree with this. My understanding of the Housing Act is that when an assured shorthold ends it automatically becomes a periodic under the same terms as the orginal agreement. Therefore, if the original required two months notice, the periodic would also require this from both parties.

The agents have said that the landlord would be satisfied with a further 12 month tenancy but with an immediate two month break clause.

As far as I can see, there is no purpose in her issuing a new tenancy over letting it go to a periodic if both will allow two months notice from either party, and suspect that the agents are just insisting so they can charge the landlord for the new tenancy.

So who is right? Is there anything in housing law that allows a tenant to end a periodic tenancy with just one months notice despite the orginal requiring two? It seems an odd notion if it does, as it then benefits the tenant as soon as it becomes a periodic, but would also make a landlord more eager to tie a tenant into a new fixed term contract!

Thanks!

sequence

The original contract can't require any notice, it's a daft clause put in by inept landlord/agents. You can leave at the end of the contract without notice.

After the contract ends, all the terms carry on except the notice periods which are 1 month for you and two for the LL

G_M

The agent is right and you have misunderstood.

Once the contract becomes periodic (month by month) only one months notice is required by the tenant (ending on a rental period). This is irrespective of what it says in the contract. The contract cannot take away your rights under the law.

If the LL does not want you to go periodic there are several options.

Just wait and do nothing. If a new contract is sent/presented to you, do not sign it. Once your 12 months is up, if you stay a single day beyond, you will automatically be on a periodic tenancy. The LL can then choose to either accept this position, or give you notice (2 months). He then loses a good tenant and has the hastle and expense of finding another.

Agree to sign a new 12 month contract. This would commit you (and the LL)to 12 months, subject to any break clause. I'm not sure what " an immediate two month break clause " means. If the break clause is immediate, how can it require 2 months? I suspect they mean a break clause that can be actioned at any point, subject to 2 months notice. I find it hard to believe this would be found as valid by a court as it makes a nonsence of the concept of a 12 month Fixed Period contract.

A break clause needs to be at a defined time ie at 6 months subject to 2 months notice.

Since this is clearly an attempt to circumvent the Housing Act (which gives tenants on periodic tenancies the right to leave after 1 months notice) I believe a court would rule it as unenforcable.

However, you could go along with it, but I should insist that the LL pay any charges the agent requires for drawing up this contract.

ps - Shelter has info on ending periodic tenancies here.

bebewoo

If the agency/Landlord hasn't sent you a section 21 notice to quit yet, (and they have to do so at least 2 months before they want you to leave), then if you do not sign a new contract you will automatically roll over to periodic.
A month is plenty of time to market a property.
I would contact the landlord to confirm that what the agency says is true, even if it is true you may find that they have told him that a month is not enough time and put him into panic. The agency will want to make money from you and him by charging renewal fees, so it's worth their while.

Emanef

sequence wrote: »

The original contract can't require any notice, it's a daft clause put in by inept landlord/agents. You can leave at the end of the contract without notice.

Ours had a six month break clause whereby we could give two months notice no sooner than the end of the fourth month, so from then we could give one months notice.

Does anyone know the actual law that allows the tenant to give one month to be given after it's a periodic and that a landlord must still give two?

G_M wrote: »

I'm not sure what " an immediate two month break clause " means. If the break clause is immediate, how can it require 2 months? I suspect they mean a break clause that can be actioned at any point, subject to 2 months notice. I find it hard to believe this would be found as valid by a court as it makes a nonsence of the concept of a 12 month Fixed Period contract.

A break clause needs to be at a defined time ie at 6 months subject to 2 months notice.

Since this is clearly an attempt to circumvent the Housing Act (which gives tenants on periodic tenancies the right to leave after 1 months notice) I believe a court would rule it as unenforcable.

However, you could go along with it, but I should insist that the LL pay any charges the agent requires for drawing up this contract.

Yes, I think they intended putting in a clause that effectively allows us to give two months notice at any time, although in practise it's not going to be until the end of the first month and therefore at least three months.

So if they put that in, would you think there would be no problems if we decided to give notice during that first month? It's unlikely that we will, but we're unlikely to more than six months.

G_M

As I said, I believe any break clause along the lines outlined would be unenforcable. So you might end up stuck with a 12 month contract. But this is just conjecture. The only way to find out would be to try, get taken to court (or go to court yourself) and get a judge's ruling.

Fire_Fox

It should be noted that you do not have to allow viewings at any time during the tenancy, so it is irrelevant whether the agency have one or two months to market if you choose to be obstructive. As others have said clauses in your AST do not override the legislation - one month notice to quit from the tenant coinciding with a rental period, right to quiet enjoyment etc.

Notlob

Fire_Fox wrote: »

It should be noted that you do not have to allow viewings at any time during the tenancy, so it is irrelevant whether the agency have one or two months to market if you choose to be obstructive. As others have said clauses in your AST do not override the legislation - one month notice to quit from the tenant coinciding with a rental period, right to quiet enjoyment etc.

Unless the agreement makes it is a requirement. Usually there is a clause stipulating that the tenant must allow viewings in the last two months, or upon service of notice.

Notlob

Wee_Willy_Harris

Notlob wrote: »

Unless the agreement makes it is a requirement. Usually there is a clause stipulating that the tenant must allow viewings in the last two months, or upon service of notice.

Notlob

And that clause would be unenforceable.

Notlob

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

And that clause would be unenforceable.

Apparently, I must use ten characters to ask- Why?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Notlob wrote: »

Apparently, I must use ten characters to ask- Why?

Because it is voided by the right to peaceful enjoyment.