How common are break clauses in Assured Shorthold Tenancies

ruggedtoast

Alan_In_London wrote: »

Hi.

I am currently looking to move to a new rented house, and found one a couple of days ago. All was going well until it turned out that the landlord wasn't happy to have a six month break clause in the twelve month tenancy.

I was a bit surprised by this, because I have rented several places on ASTs and they have always had a break clause, so I assumed that they were fairly standard.

I'm not going to be able to proceed because, even though I will very likely be there for over a year, I am going to eventually look to buy somewhere, and having only point every year that I can vacate (without losing money), will make it very difficult.

It seems that the Letting Agent's agreement does not have a break clause by default, although they were happy to approach the landlord and request one on my behalf - however I know several people in the same area who are renting, through other agents, and all have six month clauses.

So, I just wondered how common it was not to have such a clause.

Would be very interested to hear an input. Thanks.

In my experience of letting agents there is a reasonably high probability that they have done no such thing and literally just cannot be bothered either to negotiate with the LL or to amend their standard tenancy.

I would persist and say that you arent willing to sign the AST without the break clause and will be seeking recovery of your holding fees if they dont make this provision.

angrypirate

All of my contracts ive had have been 12 month ASTs with a 6 month break clause. Also, in agreement with rugged toast - on commencement of my contract on one place i rented, i was speaking to the landlord and it became apparent very quickly that a couple of our requests regarding the contract hadnt even been passed onto him.

Alan_In_London

ruggedtoast wrote: »

In my experience of letting agents there is a reasonably high probability that they have done no such thing and literally just cannot be bothered either to negotiate with the LL or to amend their standard tenancy.

I would persist and say that you arent willing to sign the AST without the break clause and will be seeking recovery of your holding fees if they dont make this provision.

Thanks. I am sure that you are right in the majority of cases, but I think in this one the agent is on the level.

I have had some dealings with them for a while now, when I was trying to buy and they seem very professional and on the level, and seem to have a very good reputation as such.

Also, I have spoken to them again and said that I won't sign without the break clause. The guy I am dealing with at the LA said that he had spoken to landlord and explained that it was just a case of being able to give notice after 6 months, rather than us actually wanting to leave then, that it was very common and that it also helped to protect both parties, if there was ever a major problem.

The LL said absolutely not, and so we have to look again, but I am pretty happy that the LA was on the level.

It seems that it is the first time that the LL has let a property and I think they are keen to just be done for a year. Shame because (in my opinion) we are good tenants and would almost certainly have been there for a year, and probably a couple.

Incidentally, there are no holding fees, we had just said that wanted the place (subject to seeing the contract) and the LL had said they wanted us (subject to references), but obviously it has broken down now because of that clause.