Break Clauses in Tenancy Agreements

jjlandlord

sharpee wrote: »

" . . . 12Month contract with a 6 month break clause."

But what's the context? Where does it say that?

I agree with G_M that you could still use this as a basis to serve notice even if no actual clause is inthe agreement.

may_fair

G_M wrote: »

I slightly disagree with may_fair however. There is clearly an intention for the contract to include a break clause even if it is omitted. So you could imply/deduce your own clause. The most common clauses take effect at the 6 month point, with at least 2 months notice being required (ie sometime before the 4 month point), and if you act on this assumption you might be safe.

However, if the LL contested your notice, and intention to leave after 6 months, it is impossible to say for sure how a court would interpret this contract.

Personally, I doubt a court would accept that one could extrapolate from a mere mention of "a 6 month break clause" as to when and how the break clause might be exercised.

Reverse the situation and imagine how a court would view an application by the LL to regain possession mid-term via s.21 - not likely, is it? The LL would have no means of proving that the notice under the non-existent break clause had ended the fixed term early (thus enabling him to serve a s.21 expiring before the full 12 month term).

The default position, in the absence of a provision detailing the terms of the break clause, must be that there is no break clause.

tbs624

G_M wrote: »

Before calling the agent/LL, get your facts straight. Read your contract. No need to 'get it in writing' as it is already in writing..... in the contract.

The OP has now confirmed what the contract says and the contract is unclear, because although a clause was clearly intended to be included it has not been defined. The OP should therefore seek early written confirmation from the LL/LA of exactly how and when this "break clause" may be invoked by either party.