6 month break clause but tied-in for 8 months?

purple-rain_3

I'm hoping to rent a house and wanted a 6-month AST. The letting agent said today that the LL is not willing to grant 6-month ASTs but will allow a 1-year lease with a 6-month break-clause.

However, apparently the 6-month break-clause means I give 2 months worth of notice in month # 6 - so can't move out until month # 8.

Is this normal?

Thanks!

DVardysShadow

What is the wording of the clause? No point in arguing over he said she said the agreement says. What matters is what it actually says.

purple-rain_3

DVardysShadow wrote: »

What is the wording of the clause? No point in arguing over he said she said the agreement says. What matters is what it actually says.

Well I don't know yet because nothing has been agreed in writing.

I'm just wondering how what the agent stated could be described as a "six month" break-clause? Surely that would be an "eight month" break-clause?

sooz

It really depends on what the break clause says. They vary wildly, depending on who writes them (usually quite badly).

It is normal to ask for 2 month's notice for a break clause, even though legally tenants only need to give one month's notice. So, depending on how it's written, it could be give notice on month 4 to leave on month 6, or give notice on month 6 to leave on month 8.

Or it could be re written to allow you to envoke the break at any point from month 6 onwards (so meaning you could leave from month 8 onwards)

It's all up for negotiation. If you don't like what the LA says, find another property with another agent.

DVardysShadow

purple-rain wrote: »

Well I don't know yet because nothing has been agreed in writing.

I'm just wondering how what the agent stated could be described as a "six month" break-clause? Surely that would be an "eight month" break-clause?

You know, sometimes, it pays not to ask too many questions too early. To me a 6 month break clause means you can leave at 6 months. So I would take that at face value and ask for the agreement in writing to inspect beforehand. If it was not a 6 month break clause, then I would insist and be prepared to walk away.

Done that way, you can go in strongly and say 'that it not the agreed 6 month break clause!". Whereas having their interpretation now, you have to say "Please, pretty please, will you alter the break clause to allow me to leave at 6 months?"

G_M

sooz wrote: »

It really depends on what the break clause says. They vary wildly, depending on who writes them (usually quite badly). True.

It is normal to ask for 2 month's notice for a break clause, True even though legally tenants only need to give one month's notice. NOT TRUE! You are confusing this with a periodic tenancy. This is a fixed term tenancy. Legally, NO notice is required at the end of the fixed term, and the notice for a break clause depends entirely on the wording of the clause. So, depending on how it's written, it could be give notice on month 4 to leave on month 6, or give notice on month 6 to leave on month 8.or give notice in month 3 to leave on month 6, or....or....

Or it could be re written to allow you to envoke the break at any point from month 6 onwards (so meaning you could leave from month 8 onwards)

It's all up for negotiation. If you don't like what the LA says, find another property with another agent.

The most usual arrangement is to give 2 months notice to activate a break clause from the 6 month point onward. ie notice month 4, leave month 6; notice month 5, leave month 7.