Notice to landlord

joolsbfd

G_M wrote: »

So that sorts that out eh?!

If only, eh? ....

joolsbfd

justme111 wrote: »

Not sure i'm editing this correctly, but will try...

So there was no exchange then yet ? And seller wants ro move on December the 4th (completion day December the 4th? )

yes
T

hat's a bit optimistic. I hope you realise you don't have to do what seller wants.

agree.. and yes I do! but also know there is pressure on her from her seller, hence wanted to check the situation with my contract to see if it gives me any lee way/flexibility...

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.

... except I have had some experience of landlords which makes me want to sort this out in a way which doesn't give him any 'whiff' of me moving/I'm a little wary. Wish it wasn't like that, but ..... I've had fantastic landlords in the main, but not always... and if it all falls through (hopefully not, but who knows), I don't want him to know I was thinking of leaving, which means he might serve me notice.

joolsbfd

Dird wrote: »

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

Ugh... that is potentially my situation too, and one I want to avoid at all costs as rent and mortgage make not a cheap month. Sounds like there wasn't room for manoeuvre your end then Dird with either LL or your sellers...
Best wishes with your move.

joolsbfd

AdrianC wrote: »

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.

yes ultimately I think that's what I have to do ... suck up costs and at least know i will have a home, or for a while be one of those mutliple home 'owners'.... I definitely don't want to risk losing my rental place if it all falls through, it's been the most amazing place I've ever lived, overlooking the sea and beautiful. You are right... I just hate having to spend more money than is absolutely necessary. I've spent my life without much, and old habits die hard. (and this one is good to keep I think, but as you suggest, not worth risking the downside)

joolsbfd

Guest101 wrote: »

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.

yep.. i think so...

joolsbfd

Thanks everyone.:beer:

What a mine of support and expertise you all are. Thank you for sharing thoughts and information and knowledge. I know it's not absolutely clear (well, it might be for some, but for me it has highlighted the lack of absolute clarity) .... but the discussion has helped me to think through options...

joolsbfd

Thanks everyone.:beer:

What a mine of support and expertise you all are. Thank you for sharing thoughts and information and knowledge. I know it's not absolutely clear (well, it might be for some, but for me it has highlighted the lack of absolute clarity) .... but the discussion has helped me to think through options... and is much appreciated.

Miss_Samantha

franklee wrote: »

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.

Franklee,

You are looking for complications where there are none, I'm afraid.

The agreement makes clear that a SPT is created, so there is no doubt on this.

The terms regarding termination are not effective (they are not 'dropped'), as written in my previous post. However there are a red herring and, broadly, terms remain unchanged. This is a broadly correct summary of what a SPT is, and it does not create any doubt.

As I wrote previously, joolsbfd should serve notice normally (SPT) unless the landlord agrees otherwise.

Post #8 settled it, really.

franklee

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Franklee,

You are looking for complications where there are none, I'm afraid.

The agreement makes clear that a SPT is created, so there is no doubt on this.

The terms regarding termination are not effective (they are not 'dropped'), as written in my previous post. However there are a red herring and, broadly, terms remain unchanged. This is a broadly correct summary of what a SPT is, and it does not create any doubt.

As I wrote previously, joolsbfd should serve notice normally (SPT) unless the landlord agrees otherwise.

Post #8 settled it, really.

Sorry but I still think the combination of clauses 5 and 7 are misleading and an attempt to impose notice requirements on the tenant that are different to the default. (Clause 5 isn't intended to be a break clause as it says notice can't expire before the end of the fixed term so clearly must be intended to carry over past the end of the fixed term in some way or other).

If their intention was to just give the tenant a heads up on what a SPT means then they should have stuck to wording more like the act or better still just let the act speak for itself and drop trying to duplicate parts of it in the tenancy agreement in an inaccurate way.

That said I agree there's a sound argument to say it's a SPT but I also think if the alternative interpretation benefits the tenant (as the person who didn't draw up the contract) then that interpretation should stand if the tenant wants it to. After all the person drawing up the agreement had the choice to leave those clauses out if they didn't want them used.

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

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.

If the OP follows your advice he will have to serve notice by 10th December to leave by 10th of January.

However if the OP gives a calendar months notice as per clause 5 (I'd quote the clause in the notice letter) and the landlord rejects it what's the worst that can happen? The OP can argue his case and if that gets nowhere he still has time to serve notice compliant with a SPT to leave by 10th January. So it's a no brainer to try to save some rent if his house purchase exchanges soon. I think that's better than asking the landlord's permission to allow a calendar months notice as the question itself plants doubt in the landlord's mind that may not be there if he thinks clause 5 still stands. The OP could follow up by asking for written confirmation the notice is accepted.

Another alternative is delay exchange/completion which it sounds like the OP's vendor isn't keen on.