Question about wording of tenancy agreement

jjlandlord

breaking_free wrote: »

For example, "... the tenancy shall absolutely determine without prejudice to the other rights and remedies of the landlord."

The tenancy shall absolutely determine what?

It means that the tenancy will end ('determine' means 'end') but the landlord will still have the right to go after you for any unpaid rent or compensation for any breaches.

As said, in the vast majority of cases that clause will not apply because it can only be used in very specific cases.
You would need to find a solicitor expert in the field and probably pay £200+ if you wanted the exact details (which I don't know).

Guest101

I believe it gives rights of re-entry (not re-possession) and is implies that a s8, 10 and/or 11 notice may be served.

It means also that this clause is not limiting the rights of the Landlord, to use s.21 for example.

Rights of re-entry are complicated in regards quiet enjoyment. Whenever exercising these rights the LL is safer to get a court order first.

breaking_free

Aha, thanks for the clarifications jjlandlord and Guest101. "Thanks" button clicked :beer:

TheCyclingProgrammer

If you have any suspicion that your landlord might enter without your permission, then change the lock barrels - keep the originals and reinstate when you leave.

jjlandlord

Guest101 wrote: »

I believe it gives rights of re-entry (not re-possession)

It means to enter in order to take possession back and end the tenancy (so indeed re-possession), not just enter and have a look around.
It has no relation to any notice prescribed in the Housing Act (e.g. section 8 or section 21). Same for quiet enjoyment.

This is a rather technical legal clause and issue. As said, a knowledgeable solicitor would be the right person to comment.

breaking_free

Thanks to everybody who chipped in with advice and clarifications.

I'm now a little bit more legally aware. Case closed.

princeofpounds

I quote from landlordzone forums, and the ever-useful Jeffrey the lawyer:

The underlying legal purpose is to ensure that L can use s.8 during the fixed term of an AST/SAT.
See s.5(1)(c) for an example of why- below, with my underlining:

5. Security of tenure.

(1). An assured tenancy cannot be brought to an end by the landlord except by:
(a) obtaining:
(i) an order of the court for possession of the dwelling-house under section 7 or 21, and
(ii) the execution of the order,
(b) obtaining an order of the court under section 6A (demotion order), or
(c) in the case of a fixed term tenancy which contains power for the landlord to determine the tenancy in certain circumstances, by the exercise of that power,
and, accordingly, the service by the landlord of a notice to quit is of no effect in relation to a periodic assured tenancy.

The point is, the clause itself almost never applies as written. I believe it can only apply when you aren't actually resident any more, otherwise the law sets much stricter standards.

But it appears so that the landlord can access certain legal processes like Section 8 (the process to end the tenancy by court order for breach of contract).

This is just one of those very stupid things that grow up around law, which is why people are forced to pay for lawyers.

It would be harmless, except that I'm sure there are plenty of landlords out there actually believe it holds. Wouldn't be surprised if more than one illegal eviction has been encouraged by such nonsense in the past.

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

It means to enter in order to take possession back and end the tenancy (so indeed re-possession), not just enter and have a look around.
It has no relation to any notice prescribed in the Housing Act (e.g. section 8 or section 21). Same for quiet enjoyment.

This is a rather technical legal clause and issue. As said, a knowledgeable solicitor would be the right person to comment.

Thanks. I agree it seems to be a very specilist clause, and one i think anyone (inexperience landlord or tenant) could fall foul of very quickly. Lets hope the Tenants keeps up with rent, and the LL doesnt act in any illegal manner

Kynthia

I've seen or heard of this clause being in many contracts. I've always assumed it was related to the standard 14 days courts give as notice of possession. Although some landlords out there may take it as they can evict themselves but these are in the minority and are probably already the uninformed and confrontational type who make their tenants unhappy. The majority of landlords are either informed about their responsibilities or would do some research on what they had to do if their tenants were late with the rent.

theartfullodger

I understand that the clause is for use should tenant no longer live at the property. If then it cannot be, may not be, legaly cannot be an AT or AST. And provides eviction route under the then "common law tenancy"