Tenancy Agreement - Giving notice - Please Help

G_M

Do we assume that your original quote in post 1 above is clause 1.6.1?

It is a very poorly worded, ambiguous, contract. Where a contract is ambiguous, the courts tend to interpret it to the advantage of the party who did not draft it (the tenant).

1)

The term shall be from and including 05/10/2013 to and including 04/10/2014 being 6 months fixed and 6 months break clause incorporated.

so it is a 12 month contract, with a break of some kind after 6 months.....

But also it is a 6 month fixed term (a contradiction).

2)

a tenancy that starts with a fixed term and then becomes periodic. ......The following two clauses allow either party to terminate the agreement earlier than that date, but not before the end of the fixed term ( the date quoted in 1.6.1 as "to and including *date)")

so the tenancy can be 'broken' but only after the fixed term ends: on 4/10/14 (assuming that is the date in clause 1.6.1).

3)

2.7.1 If the Tenant intends to vacate at the end of fixed term, or at any later date, he agrees to give the Landlord at least one mont's prior Notice in writing.

This clause can be disregarded with respect to the end of the fixed term. When the fixed term ends, the tenant can leave and end the tenancy without notice whatever this clause may say.


My interpretation of this is that:

a) it is poorly worded but

b) the intention was to create a 6 month fixed term followed by a monthly Contractual Periodic Tenancy ("being 6 months fixed and 6 months break clause incorporated. " and "..creates a tenancy that starts with a fixed term and then becomes periodic.")

c) the inclusion of the reference to a 12 month term, and the specific date of 4/10/14 was either an error (caused by complete confusion as to how to draft a tenancy!) OR provides a conflicting intention (ie that there is a 12 month fixed term with NO break.)

Given this ambiguity, the tenant could argue the tenancy should be interpreted by the courts to his advantage (inclusion of 6 month break clause if that is what he wants). How the courts would decide.......??????

00ec25

the intent seems to have been to create a 12 month contract with a break clause exercisable by either party using the normal 2/1 months notice period after month 6. So a reasonably standard offering of 12 months security if you want it, but an option to leave if you need it

the fact that reference is made to a contractual periodic tenancy is a badly worded nonsense

on the basis there is a break clause available after month 6 then i think a court ought to find in favour of the tenant if they were the one seeking to exercise it since such a break would be to the tenants advantage. I would expect the court to take the opposite view if the LL was trying to evict the tenant.

at the end of the day it comes down to what the LL's reaction will be if you want to leave before 4 Oct 14 and hand him 1 month's notice saying so

jjlandlord

Why would a periodic tenancy be nonsense?

Actually that is not what the clause says, it says that the same tenancy starts with a fixed term and continues periodically.

This is important, because if so, it means that clause 2.7.1 cannot be disregarded: the tenant should indeed serve notice if he intends to leave at the end of the fixed term.

The agreeement indeed badly worded, but it would not jump to conclusions as to what a court would decide, although contradictions should be read in favour of the tenant.

BobShez

I have the following clause in my Contract: 2.6.2 While the tenancy is periodic the one month's written Notice must expire the day before a Rent Due Date.

My tenancy expired on 8th February, but my Landlord is saying that, based on the above, that any notice I give must expire the day before a rent due date. Thus, if I were to give notice on a rent due date, I would be, in effect, required to remain for 2 months less 1 day. This does not seem quite right or fair to me, but appears, from the above, to be a standard clause. Can anyone advise on this?