Earnings to rent

Yorkie1

That clause doesn't hold water.

You can legally leave at the end of the fixed term without giving any notice at all.

If you do not leave at the end of the fixed term, a rolling tenancy automatically arises. Once in this rolling period, you need to give one month's notice, to end at the end of a tenancy period.

If the LL gives you notice after the start of the rolling period, he has to give you two month's notice, to end at the end of a tenancy period. He can give you a straight two months' notice before the end of the tenancy - but this does not expire (and therefore the tenancy does not end) until the end of the fixed term, or the two months' notice, whichever comes last.

The contract does not override the law.

See this post for more detail:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=52421475&postcount=6

Even if the clause was valid, it does not say, however, that you can leave in September (unless the LL agrees, as noted above). The clause refers to "the expiration of the contract period". Therefore it is referring to ending the contract after the end of the fixed term - i.e. after the 21 November.

To sum up: Unless the LL specifically agrees a mutual surrender, in writing, you and your ex are legally bound to pay the rent until 21 November, and do not need to give any notice at all if you wish to leave the property [edit: [STRIKE]by[/STRIKE] on that date. If you wish to stay on after then, and the LL does not want you to, then he has to serve you notice as I've described. If you stay beyond 21 November and then want to leave, you have to give 1 month's notice as described.

One final thing: you say the contract ends on 21 November. Does the contract specify this as the end date? If not, did the tenancy start on 22 November, or did it start on 21 November?


Edit: re your question about the HB clause. That just means that if a) the council pays the LL any HB directly (which is rare); and b) the council reclaims that money back from the LL; then you have to repay the LL. You can ignore it.

It is possible that the LL's insurance doesn't allow him to take tenants on benefits, but otherwise it's entirely up to the LL whether he wishes to take on tenants on benefits.

SUGARSPICE

Wow Yorkie1

Thank you so much for this.

Ive got alot of reading to do & try to understand.

I will most probably get back to you once read if thats ok.

:beer::beer::beer:

Yorkie1

You're welcome, it's a bit complicated, especially when the contract isn't right!