6 month break clause really 8 months? (wording included)

jjlandlord

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Check the legality of requiring two months notice. In most circumstances the landlord is obliged to give two months, the tenant only one.

No, this is legal.

nick12

HappyMJ wrote: »

You can give notice at any time. If the landlord can find another tenant quickly then your liability for the rent stops. You'll most probably be charged the "tenant finder" fee if you let this property through an agent. A landlord can also pass on the reasonable costs of re-letting the property. So my advice the sooner you hand in your notice the sooner they can get another tenant in and you no longer have to pay rent. At least if you tell them you are leaving the property empty they might be tempted to get it re-let as soon as possible to avoid any potential damage to the property or to avoid squatters moving in.

If you have a fixed term agreement (as OP does) you are liable for rent until the fixed term ends (or until the end of any notice period following use of a break clause). You cannot just give notice at any time.

Of course you can always ask the LL if they will agree to surrender the tenancy early but they are under no obligation to do so.

underthesea

So much support - thanks all for hashing this out.

Summary, I can always ask the LL but he can refuse. Otherwise, the 6 month break clause means I can move out in 8.

Wish there was a firm way of ending it sooner as I feel locked in

booksurr

nick12 wrote: »

If you have a fixed term agreement (as OP does) you are liable for rent until the fixed term ends (or until the end of any notice period following use of a break clause). You cannot just give notice at any time.

Of course you can always ask the LL if they will agree to surrender the tenancy early but they are under no obligation to do so.

did you read this thread at all?
there is a valid break clause which when correctly invoked will allow the tenancy to end before the fixed term expiry

G_M

SerialRenter wrote: »

Assuming that the rent due date is the same as the first day of each period.

e.g. My agreement states that the rent must be paid by the 22nd. However the period of each tenancy starts on the 24th.

Whilst i doubt the letting agent/landlord would enforce this, it could be nearly a whole extra month on top.

Wrong.
This is a (12 month) fixed term tenancy. The 'period' is.... 12 months.

You are thinking of a Statutory or Contractual Periodic Tenancy, whish has weekly, monthly or quarterly periods. Not applicable here.

Check the legality of requiring two months notice. In most circumstances the landlord is obliged to give two months, the tenant only one.

Again, this applies to a SPT (as above).

A Break clause in a fixed term AST can have whatever conditions the 2 parties sign up to - in this case 2 months notice.

The requirement that "Notice must be served in writing on a rent due date" is harsh, and debatably unenforcible.More normal would be that it could be served on or before a rent due date, with the 2 months notice running from the rent due date.

I find it hard to believe a court would rule against a tenant who served notice the day before a rent due date ( or 2 , 3 days before), to expire on the next but one rent due date (ie giving the landlord more than 2 months notice.

Finally, yes, I agree with others: you cannot end the tenancy earlier than 8 months, with notice being served on (Ha!) the 6th rent due date.

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

I find it hard to believe a court would rule against a tenant who served notice the day before a rent due date ( or 2 , 3 days before), to expire on the next but one rent due date (ie giving the landlord more than 2 months notice.

Why?
The requirements of the clause must be met for the notice to end the tenancy.

Even if there are strict requirements, the alternative is no break clause at all, so the clause is still to the tenant's benefit.

G_M

You are right in a strict interpretation of the wording, and the law.

However I still suspect that different judges (who can be fickle!) may rule in different ways.

They may take the view that it was a poorly worded clause with the intention being for
a) 2 months notice and
b) notice to align with rent days so as to end the tenancy on rent day

Maybe I'm wrong.

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

They may take the view that it was a poorly worded clause with the intention being for
a) 2 months notice and
b) notice to align with rent days so as to end the tenancy on rent day.

A clause is poorly worded if the drafting is unclear.
Here it is clear, and even crystal clear regarding when the notice must be served...