landlord changing lease halfway through!

may_fair

watchingmymoney wrote: »

Thank you all for the comments and advice.
The break clause is "the agreement may be determined at any time by either party to giving the other not less than two calendar months previous written notice such notice not to be given before the expiration of four calendar months from the commencement of letting created by this Agreement."

Which means you or LL may serve notice on or after 19th July 2011, giving at least two months (it doesn't have to expire on the 18th of the month).

I will try to negotiate with him and make it clear that I promise not to leave before January and that I plan on staying the entire one year lease.

Your promise will not override the break clause. Either the break clause stays, with both of you entitled to serve notice under it, or you both agree to amend the contract by Deed to remove the break clause.

I guess my only concern is if my personal circumstances radically and unforeseeably change before 18 March next year if he would be at all flexible as long as I covered the cost of him finding a new tenant? Does that sound like a reasonable suggestion?

If the break clause stays, and you serve notice under the break clause, your notice will end the tenancy at notice expiry. You would have no liability to LL for his reletting costs.

If the break clause goes, you cannot serve notice to end the tenancy earlier than 18th March 2012. You could only make an offer to the LL to surrender the tenancy, and the LL would be free to accept or refuse. If he chose to accept, he could ask for a financial payment as a condition of agreeing to an early surrender. If he refused, then the tenancy would continue and you would remain liable for rent for the remainder of the fixed term.

watchingmymoney

Thank you all for the advice and information. I have just spoken to the landlord and we agreed to remove the break clause, the lease will run until 18 March, and if I unexpectedly want to leave then he would release me from the tenancy as soon as he got another tenant signed up. Given that good rental properties are hard to come by in London, I would imagine he would have no problem finding a new tenant if needed.
Thank you all again!!

Yorkie1

Make sure you get that agreement in writing from him. Verbal promises are far harder to try to enforce ...

DVardysShadow

may_fair wrote: »

... Your promise will not override the break clause. Either the break clause stays, with both of you entitled to serve notice under it, or you both agree to amend the contract by Deed to remove the break clause.

Contracts can be amended by exchange of correspondence. Or even verbally. But exchange of correspondence gives evidence to both parties, which is preferable.

As for a Deed, this would be OTT. If the initial contract can be set up as a contract rather than a deed, then carrying on on the contract model will be sufficient.

may_fair

DVardysShadow wrote: »

As for a Deed, this would be OTT. If the initial contract can be set up as a contract rather than a deed, then carrying on on the contract model will be sufficient.

Where's the consideration? If the amendment isn't executed as a deed (which isn't especially difficult to do), either party could later dispute the amendment, and could well find it was unenforceable through lack of consideration.

DVardysShadow

may_fair wrote: »

Where's the consideration? If the amendment isn't executed as a deed (which isn't especially difficult to do), either party could later dispute the amendment, and could well find it was unenforceable through lack of consideration.

You are regarding the amendment as a totally separate contract - but as an alteration to the existing contract, the consideration is within the overall contract. Additionally, the change to the break clause is binding both ways, so both parties are gaining security and losing flexibility.

Amendments to contracts occur every day in business and no one ever uses a deed to make the amendment. I can see your argument, but frankly, it would be a bizarre way to proceed.

And, of course, if your argument does hold, a deed is not to the benefit of the OP who prefers flexibility over security.