Notice to end tenancy - addressed to the letting agent

rpc

Rereading it, you may be right. I still don't think it is sufficiently unambiguous (the LLZ wording is much better).

It only kicks in if the T "decides not to renew". Leaving aside any discussion of what renewing a tenancy means, what happens if T decides to renew but that renewal is not enacted by the end of the FT? That clause does not apply (T decided to renew), but no new tenancy is in place so the SPT provisions must then kick in.

What if T wants to renew but cannot agree terms with the LA? Still, this term does not kick in. T could ask for a 3 year tenancy with a break clause available to T on 1 month's notice. T has agreed to renew, so this clause would not take effect.

The LLZ clause automatically creates a periodic tenancy when the fixed term expires. The OP's clause is ambiguous and has unreasonable holes in it.

It would be interesting to force it to DPS (or court) and see what they say. My opinion is still that is badly worded nonsense that would not be upheld in court. Easy to say when it isn't my money on the line though!

sarah_barker

rpc wrote: »

Rereading it, you may be right. I still don't think it is sufficiently unambiguous (the LLZ wording is much better).

It only kicks in if the T "decides not to renew". Leaving aside any discussion of what renewing a tenancy means, what happens if T decides to renew but that renewal is not enacted by the end of the FT? That clause does not apply (T decided to renew), but no new tenancy is in place so the SPT provisions must then kick in.

What if T wants to renew but cannot agree terms with the LA? Still, this term does not kick in. T could ask for a 3 year tenancy with a break clause available to T on 1 month's notice. T has agreed to renew, so this clause would not take effect.

The LLZ clause automatically creates a periodic tenancy when the fixed term expires. The OP's clause is ambiguous and has unreasonable holes in it.

It would be interesting to force it to DPS (or court) and see what they say. My opinion is still that is badly worded nonsense that would not be upheld in court. Easy to say when it isn't my money on the line though!

Thank you for your help! Apart from a Law A-Level I have no real law knowledge, but anyone with a brain cell can see it is a load of gobbledegook designed to confuse the tenant into a) renewing and paying the outrageous fee for printing a document with a different date b) never being in a position to give in their notice due to the two month clause c) being met with all sorts of legal loopholes when trying to dispute and as such would be inclined to back down and just pay.

I am definitely not going to consider just settling for £495 of the deposit to be eaten away by daft LA tactics so will certainly dispute when it arises.

They have our one months notice, we will leave on the 3rd of March whether they like it or not.

I just hope TDS can see sense!