Ending tenancy agreement

andy444

I am 3 months into a 6 month contract with my landlady, and I am looking for advice about whether I'll be able to give a months notice and break from my tenancy agreement.


My contract is in bullet-point form and states:

• The contract is for 6 months, which will be reviewed.
• 1 months notice is needed to terminate your contract either way.

Does that second part of those points allow me to legally give my 1 month notice and be allowed to leave? I'd rather know either way before I confront my landlady.

Any advice gratefully received.

19lottie82

Your contract is for 6 months. You have to give a months notice, so the earliest you can give your notice is one month before the six months is up.

agrinnall

It's partly nonsense anyway. You don't have to give any notice to leave at the end of your tenancy, although once you move onto a periodic tenancy you will have to give one month's notice. The LL has to give 2 months notice - the law overrides what is written in the tenancy agreement in this case.

However, Lottie is probably right that you can't leave until the 6 months are up (well, you can, but you'll still have to pay the rent). Having said that, if the tenancy agreement is not correctly written it may not be valid at all. You could try making an appointment with a housing specialist if your local CAB has one and get them to advise, or you could see if a solicitor will give you half an hour at a reasonable cost to look it over.

jjlandlord

Without reading the exact wording of the clause saying that 1 month notice is required, we cannot say whether OP is bound the full 6 months or not.

If the wording is exactly the one in OP's original post, I believe that in effect there is no fixed term and that indeed OP may give 1 month notice now in order to vacate in one month.
Best to make the notice expire in line with a rent period to avoid problems a apportionment or refund.

[I'm assuming AST in England or Wales]

G_M

Is there a start date mentioned? Is there a Term or Period? You need to quote the tenancy in full.

However it appears that bullet one makes it a 6 month Term.
Bullet two is meaningless - at the end of a Term no notice is needed. But if a fixed term tenancy then becomes periodic then notice is required (but not as simple as 'one month'.

theartfullodger

19lottie82 wrote: »

Your contract is for 6 months. You have to give a months notice, so the earliest you can give your notice is one month before the six months is up.

Nope: you can give notice right now, but cannot enforce expiry before end of 6 month initial term.


Try and do a deal, arrive at a compromise eg 1/2 rent only

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

However it appears that bullet one makes it a 6 month Term.
Bullet two is meaningless - at the end of a Term no notice is needed. But if a fixed term tenancy then becomes periodic then notice is required (but not as simple as 'one month'.

Assuming the 2 bullets are the exact wording of the agreement, imho and as mentioned in my previous post, bullet 2 is not meaningless: It's essentially a break clause allowing to end the (6 month) tenancy on a month notice.

G_M

jjlandlord wrote: »

Assuming the 2 bullets are the exact wording of the agreement, imho and as mentioned in my previous post, bullet 2 is not meaningless: It's essentially a break clause allowing to end the (6 month) tenancy on a month notice.

Perhaps, but...

A break clause, I believe, can only apply if it is mutual - ie it applies to both parties equally.

Since by statute a landlord cannot remove a tenant within the first 6 months (irrespective of any terms in the contract), the break clause can in this case only be applied by the tenant.

But I admit to a some uncertainty on this.

If the wording is exactly the one in OP's original post, I believe that in effect there is no fixed term

If so, the first bullet would be meaningless. Either way, one of the bullets is meaningless, and my guess is that a court would conclude the initial term was 6 months.

But further detail from the tenancy (if there is any) might help.

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

Since by statute a landlord cannot remove a tenant within the first 6 months (irrespective of any terms in the contract), the break clause can in this case only be applied by the tenant.

The break clause only applies to the fixed term tenancy. If landlord were to use it, it would end the tenancy the same as if the tenant were to use it. The 6 month rule is irrelevant.
In any case, if the landlord were to grant such a right to break to the tenant but not to himself, I don't think a court would conclude that he was "unfair to himself"...

G_M wrote: »

If so, the first bullet would be meaningless. Either way, one of the bullets is meaningless, and my guess is that a court would conclude the initial term was 6 months.

Granting a 6 month term tenancy together with such a break clause may not be useful, but that can happen if that's what the tenancy agreement states.
A court could not decide to ignore a clause of the contract.