Notice to landlord

justme111

So there was no exchange then yet ? And seller wants ro move on December the 4th (completion day December the 4th? )
That's a bit optimistic. I hope you realise you don't have to do what seller wants.
Nothing stops you from checking with your landlord whether they would accept the last payment pro rata if you give them a month notice not on the 10th.

Dird

I'm having the same issue as you. My solicitor decided to go on holiday for 2 weeks last month so everything was approved last week meaning that I had no chance of handing in my tenancy notice end of last month Now my current timeframe is:
Exchange: tbc, presumably next Wednesday
Completion: Wednesday 25th (my recommendation after they said they can't wait until next month, my initial recommendation...also tbc)

It means I'll pay mortgage on December 1st but also paying December's rent.

It sucks that the rules are per calendar...I don't see how a LL is fine to cope with 30 days warning at the end of the month but not in the middle. The government could just say rent should be pro-rota on a 28 day calendar month (landlord gets slightly more than they would per day on a 30-31 day month) + 2-3 days from the posted date

AdrianC

Hand your notice in as soon as you exchange contracts. Until that point, it can all go south. A couple of extra weeks' rent is small beer compared to both the other costs of buying and moving, and to the potential downside.

Guest101

joolsbfd wrote: »

Thank you for the interest and support all...

G_M - My apologies .. the exact wording is as follows:

"
5. This agreement may be brought to an end (but not earlier than the expiry of the term certain) by the Tenant(s) giving to the Landlord at least one Calendar Month's written notice. - Why put this in, it's totally irrelevant.
6. One month before the end of the fixed term, it shall be the absolute duty of the tenant to notify the Landlord in writing if he intends to surrender the tenancy on the expiry of the term certain. - Interesting. and unenforceable.
7. If no notice of surrender of tenancy is issued, then at the end of the FIXED TERM the tenancy automatically becomes a Statutory Periodic Tenancy, all terms/conditions being unchanged. " - Unnecessary.

Fixed term was the 10th day of month x to the 10th day of January 2014. Rent payable every 10th day of the month.

Thanks for the link to the Ending/Renewing AST. From my reading of this, I would need to pay rent to the 10th of each calendar month (whether or not I moved out earlier). Is my reading of this correct, or does the information above change anything in that respect?

Thanks all...

So it was X months and 1 day ( a mistake no doubt ).


In respect of what you need to do, is:


Serve notice prior to the 10th of the month (today) / On the 10th of the month (though I don't recommend this).


Move out by the 9th of the following month.

Guest101

G_M wrote: »

Clauses 5 & 7 present an interesting legal contradiction.

Bear in mind that a Statutory Periodic Tenancy can (by definition) only be created by Statute (not by contract). The relevant statute is the Housing Act 1988 S5. Section 5 para (4) states:
In this case, the contract (clause 7) grants the tenant another tenancy following the end of the fixed term, thus
1) it is the contract that creates the periodic tenancy, and therefore
2) S5 of the Housing Act can not create a Periodic tenancy

Thus (so far) it must be a Contractual Periodic Tenancy, not a Statutory Periodic Tenancy.

This is further borne out by clause 5, which specifies notice; If this were a SPT, notice could not be defined by the contract. The contract could only specify notice in a CPT.

So again, this looks like a CPT, in which case notice is as defined in the contract (clause 5) namely 1 calender month.

Against this is the wording of clause 7: "tenancy automatically becomes a Statutory Periodic Tenancy". This could be interpreted as being for information only, that is, the contract is not creating a periodic tenancy (CPT), it is simply advising the tenant that the Housing Act will create a periodic tenancy (SPT).

In that case, notice would be a full tenancy period, ending on the last day of a period, thus making clause 5 redundant.

So that sorts that out eh?!

I agree, it's interesting, and I agree clause 7 is for information.


Since neither clause 5 or 6 specify what happens after the fixed term (even though clause 5 could only be enacted after the fixed term), I would say it's an SPT.


Obviously for a court to decide ultimately, but whoever wrote this is clearly not legally qualified.

Miss_Samantha

It is not uncommon for a tenancy agreement to explain that a statutory periodic tenancy will be created after the fixed term.

This does not necessarily imply poor drafting but rather a concern for informing the tenant of the law.

franklee

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

It is not uncommon for a tenancy agreement to explain that a statutory periodic tenancy will be created after the fixed term.

This does not necessarily imply poor drafting but rather a concern for informing the tenant of the law.

Which would be fine if the other clauses weren't there to contradict that. The SPT clause is very poor drafting as it adds "all terms/conditions being unchanged." which isn't the case with a SPT as that specifically drops any notice clauses.

Where clauses are ambiguous or contradictory the interpretation should go in favour of the person who didn't draw up the contract, so in favour of the tenant in this case.

joolsbfd, Why not start by reminding you landlord of clause "5. This agreement may be brought to an end (but not earlier than the expiry of the term certain) by the Tenant(s) giving to the Landlord at least one Calendar Month's written notice." ask for confirmation that's how you end the tenancy - if that's what he expects you've no problem. If he replies he wants a whole period at least you will know you have a disagreement.

Miss_Samantha

franklee wrote: »

Which would be fine if the other clauses weren't there to contradict that. The SPT clause is very poor drafting as it adds "all terms/conditions being unchanged." which isn't the case with a SPT as that specifically drops any notice clauses.

Where clauses are ambiguous or contradictory the interpretation should go in favour of the person who didn't draw up the contract, so in favour of the tenant in this case.

What clauses contradict this?

If there was a doubt as to the existence of a SPT the agreement specifically clarifies this by spelling out that a SPT will be created.
This also clarifies any doubt regarding the effect of termination clauses (which do remain, but are ineffective as long as the tenancy is a assured).

The clause may not be as well drafted as it could be, but there is no ambiguity or contradiction.

joolsbfd: Unless your landlord explicitly agrees otherwise (and perhaps even if he does), just give notice as usual for a SPT. I.e. you may give notice at any time, but the notice period must be at least one month and expire on the last day of a tenancy period.

G_M

franklee wrote: »

joolsbfd, Why not start by reminding you landlord of clause "5. This agreement may be brought to an end ... by the Tenant(s) giving to the Landlord at least one Calendar Month's written notice." ask for confirmation that's how you end the tenancy - if that's what he expects you've no problem. If he replies he wants a whole period at least you will know you have a disagreement.

Agree.

Or indeed explain the uncertainty of your plans and see if the LL would accept even less formal notice once he's had an informal 'heads up' of your intention to leave.

Some LLs are flexible (though agents working on their behalf tend not to be). If you do get an agreement/clarification (whether 1 calender month or even less) get it confirmed in writing.

franklee

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

What clauses contradict this?

If there was a doubt as to the existence of a SPT the agreement specifically clarifies this by spelling out that a SPT will be created.
This also clarifies any doubt regarding the effect of termination clauses (which do remain, but are ineffective as long as the tenancy is a assured).

The clause may not be as well drafted as it could be, but there is no ambiguity or contradiction.

joolsbfd: Unless your landlord explicitly agrees otherwise (and perhaps even if he does), just give notice as usual for a SPT. I.e. you may give notice at any time, but the notice period must be at least one month and expire on the last day of a tenancy period.

The clause says:

"7. If no notice of surrender of tenancy is issued, then at the end of the FIXED TERM the tenancy automatically becomes a Statutory Periodic Tenancy, all terms/conditions being unchanged. "

Which is contradicting itself as in a SPT the notice terms are dropped, so they don't remain unchanged:

Housing Act 1988 (section 5: Statutory Periodic Tenancy)
(3) (e) "under which, subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, the other terms are the same as those of the fixed term tenancy immediately before it came to an end, except that any term which makes provision for determination by the landlord or the tenant shall not have effect while the tenancy remains an assured tenancy."

However the clause in the OP's tenancy agreement says ALL terms remain unchanged. Therefore this includes the notice terms. It's these notice terms that the OP is enquiring about. So by tacking on "all terms/conditions being unchanged" the the tenancy agreement is saying that the notice terms hold when for a SPT they wouldn't. Yet it's also saying it's a SPT. So it's a contradiction in that clause.