tennant rights during assured shorthold

G_M

yan101 wrote: »

I think it means at the end of the tenancy as per the housing act 1988. It dosent say at any time during the tenancy or at the landlirds discression

2 bullet points that say the landlord can end the tenancy with 2 minths notice and the tennant can end the tennancy with 2 months notice.

How can that be possible?

No notice is required 'at the end of the tenancy' (I assume you mean end of the fixed term?) by the tenant.

And a landlord cannot 'end the tenancy with two months notice' at the end of the fixed term' without first getting a court order (as per the '88 Act)

So if the clause were to relate, as you suggest, to the end of the fixed term only, it would be meaningless.

It must relate to within the fixed term. It's a Break Clause.

It could be worded more fully/clearly, but it's still a break clause.

jjlandlord

yan101 wrote: »

http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/tenancy-agreement-break-clauses/

Read this

Did you start this thread to get advice and information, or to get people to agree with you?

I stated facts, not opinions. If you want to ignore them, good for you but don't waste everyone's time.

That article you linked to contains many errors by the way.

G_M

yan101 wrote: »

http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/tenancy-agreement-break-clauses/


Read this

and your point is.....?

yan101_2

The fact is the contract is worded so badly that its not clear what it pertains to. The landlord can mean it one way but it can be interperited another. The link was to show you the example of a welk constructed legal break clause. Not a couple of sentences added to the end of a pre printed internet contract. With regards to the way it reads when you read the actual document it ia under the last section along with other points outlining the rights of a tennant from the ha 1988. Which states that in a 12 month fixed term tenancy, if you dint intend to go onto a periodic contract or renew then you should give notice 2 months prior to the term ending. Meaning you leave before you move on to a periodic. I wanted unbiased advice not just on the break clause but other points also. You seem to have picked out the part where i was complaining about the state of diy lawyer landlords.....took offence and went on the defensive. If you read the post again, you will see that if the break clause was worded better it would ve a benefit to my sister. She wants out and into council/housing assoc as she is a single working mother of 2. The council housing officer said it was not a legal and upstanding break clause and if she allowed herself to be evicted on the basis of those 2 sentences she would not get help from them as she would be intentionally making herself homeless. Its a bad situation and when your searching for real experienced advice on a forum yoh inevitably get people with uneducated biased opinions usually due to the fact they have been on the wrong ebd of a situation being discussed. As i said i wish it were more than just this clause. But the ll is booking 4-5 viewings a week. Shes saying if my sister isnt home or available she will let herself or the ea in with her key. And she wont give her notice or a sec 21 until an offer has been accepted and the house sold. Which leaves my sister with 2 months to sort out a new place. Which means she will end up in a shelter until the council find her somewhere. She is self employed and dosent make alot of money. Her ex left her with 2 kids and behind in bills. And she is easily taken advantage of. But im doing my best to try and help. If u can do that with constructive helpful advice then i thank yoy for that. Whether i like the answer or not. But giving advice with snyd undertones gives me the impression of someones opinion rather than knowledge.

yan101_2

Apologies for the spelling im on my mobile

yan101_2

I should just add also. My sister spoke to the council housing officer today who are still saying it is not a break clause but because this is the 2nd contract she has signed as its her second year in the house that the 2 months notice is valid. Is that right? As if so this helpful to her as if the ll agrees she can be given notice now and therefore a better chance of moving up the council list

G_M

yan101 wrote: »

I should just add also. My sister spoke to the council housing officer today who are still saying it is not a break clause but because this is the 2nd contract she has signed as its her second year in the house that the 2 months notice is valid. Is that right? As if so this helpful to her as if the ll agrees she can be given notice now and therefore a better chance of moving up the council list

So you must decide who to believe - the housing officer or us. Your choice.

The fact that it is ' the 2nd contract she has signed' makes no difference whatsoever. Each contract stands on its own. It's terms are in no way dependant on a previouscontract which has expired.

And the fact that a housing officer believes different says much about the HO but nothing about the contract.

As for your previous long (almost unreadable) post, note the following:
* if she wants the council to rehouse her, the issue of the break clause is immaterial - she will need to be made 'unintentionally homeless' which means waiting to receive a S21 and subsequent court possession order (so the court will rule on whether the LL has validly served a S21 or not)
* if she wants to leave at a time of her own choosing, she should assume the break clause applies, serve notice, and let the LL sue if he thinks otherwise (not in his interests as he's selling anyway and will shortly want her out)

Meanwhile, the LL is perfectly at liberty to sell his property with her in occupation. Her tenancy will continue and she'll get a new landlord.

If the contract she signed includes clauses allowing the LL to show prospective new tenants/buyers etc round, then that is what she agreed to. If the demands for access become unreasonable she can claim 'quiet enjoyment' and restrict them to a reasonable level.

Short of repeating myself (and others) I can see no point in further discussion. You've asked some questions, recived the answers, and must weigh them up and decide wht to believe and what to do.

yan101_2

Thankyou gm. Not sure how it was unreadable it was statements of facts that had to be repeated to get the answer you just gave. Unreadable or not thats an opinion.... the HO are the ones who decide whether shes mives up the list or not and decide whether she has been made intentionally homeless or not so we have to go with what they say for now. Hopefully the ll will serve the sec21 and we can go from there.

jjlandlord

yan101 wrote: »

The fact is the contract is worded so badly that its not clear what it pertains to. The landlord can mean it one way but it can be interperited another.

If the agreement indeed states as you said that "the landlord can end the tenancy with 2 minths notice and the tenant can end the tennancy with 2 months notice", then you are just trying it on in bad faith at this point.

thequant

jjlandlord wrote: »

If the agreement indeed states as you said that "the landlord can end the tenancy with 2 minths notice and the tenant can end the tennancy with 2 months notice", then you are just trying it on on in bad faith at this point.

I'm no expert on housing law, and housing law is tricky as there are so many areas where housing law works differently.


However the above the term is reciprocal, which means it is highly likely to be enforceable. I.e the LL has not granted himself a right which he has not returned.