Notice required Assured Short-hold Tenancy

G_M

I agree it's poorly worded (as evidenced by "start tenancy from the 1st december and that it ends 1st June.....The fixed term of this assured short-hold tenancy is six months." Not 6 months. This is 6 months + 1 day).

However, the contract states that a monthly tenancy follows the fixed term. It also states how that monthly tenancy can be ended.

That seems clear indication of a Contractual Periodic Tenancy.

Yes, I agree the notice clause is also poor ("notice starts on a rent due date and ends no earlier than the last day of the fixed term")but

a) that clause is subsidiary to the fundamental contract ("The Term" which specifies the CPT)

b) the notice period is clearly intended (rightly) not to apply to the ending of the tenancy before the end of the fixed term (as would be the case were it a Break Clause - which it clearly is not). The intention (albeit poorly worded) is for it to apply after the fixed term.

But as pmlindyloo says, ultimately only a court could decide (and even then different judges may reach different conclusions!).

His_Dudeness

It does not really matter what the intention of the notice clause is. It is quite common for agents to sneak such clauses in agreement in the hope that the tenant will think it is effective.

The key is the sentence about the tenancy 'reverting' to a periodic tenancy. This is unclear, does not mean much, and seems not to have been brought to the attention of the tenant, all of which are negative points if the agent tries to claim that the notice clause applies.