Landlord wants to evict me and move back in!

mrginge

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

You're making a good point re. a break clause, but that's going against the will of 'the mob'

Two points.

If it's a break clause then it's inequitable.
If it's a break clause then it limits statutory requirements.

FBaby

Indeed, it is inequitable, and indeed, that would be the argument OP could make in court BUT, that clause COULD potentially still be considered valid, and therefore it MIGHT not be as clear cut as 'it's a fixed contract, so OP can't be requested to leave early, end of' and there might very well be an element of uncertainty.

Yes, the clause could be considered inapplicable, but at the same time, OP refused a reasonable offer made by the LL and a judge could consider that his refusal and excessive demand instead to be unreasonable.

Of course, there is still the issue of the lack of proper protection of the deposit, and that certainly isn't open to interpretation, so if OP's intention is to make money out of the situation, that's the part he should focus on. Move out on date of the notice, and then sue for the 3x deposit. Much easier way to 'punish' his nasty LL!

MrNiceGuy_007

There is no mention of a break clause in the TC, only a termination clause 50

Tenancy Agreement

FBaby

Indeed, so now it is coming down to legal interpretation of whether the term 'termination' and 'break clause' can be considered one and the same.

The point is that all you've got so far are view points. Some might be right, some might be wrong, some might be one or the other depending on the judge you would get in front of you.

It's up to you whether you consider yourself 100% safe and therefore right to stick to your rigid position. It sounds like your wife is not as confident as you are though, and maybe she has a point.

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

Indeed, it is inequitable, and indeed, that would be the argument OP could make in court BUT, that clause COULD potentially still be considered valid, and therefore it MIGHT not be as clear cut as 'it's a fixed contract, so OP can't be requested to leave early, end of' and there might very well be an element of uncertainty.

Yes, the clause could be considered inapplicable, but at the same time, OP refused a reasonable offer made by the LL and a judge could consider that his refusal and excessive demand instead to be unreasonable.

Of course, there is still the issue of the lack of proper protection of the deposit, and that certainly isn't open to interpretation, so if OP's intention is to make money out of the situation, that's the part he should focus on. Move out on date of the notice, and then sue for the 3x deposit. Much easier way to 'punish' his nasty LL!

Or both.

I doubt a judge would find it unreasonable.

Rambosmum

MrNiceGuy_007 wrote: »

There is no mention of a break clause in the TC, only a termination clause 50

Tenancy Agreement

The point is that the 'termination clause' could be considered a break clause (and is by the LL), though whether it could ever be upheld is what is currently being debated. Leave them to debate it, it isn't particularly relevant to your current issue (though could be should it come to court).

Miss_Samantha

MrNiceGuy_007 wrote: »

There is no mention of a break clause in the TC, only a termination clause 50

What is a break clause if not a termination clause?

mrginge wrote: »

Two points.

If it's a break clause then it's inequitable.
If it's a break clause then it limits statutory requirements.

Neither point is valid.

mrginge

FBaby wrote: »

Indeed, it is inequitable, and indeed, that would be the argument OP could make in court BUT, that clause COULD potentially still be considered valid, and therefore it MIGHT not be as clear cut as 'it's a fixed contract, so OP can't be requested to leave early, end of' and there might very well be an element of uncertainty.

For what reason could it still be considered valid?

Yes, the clause could be considered inapplicable, but at the same time, OP refused a reasonable offer made by the LL and a judge could consider that his refusal and excessive demand instead to be unreasonable.

Why is there any obligation on the OP to accept an offer based on a term which is invalid?

There's no ambiguity here.
The clause is unfair.

Guest101

Let's be fair, the LL is stretching it.

Where there is ambiguity, the clause should be interpreted in favour of the party who didn't draft the contract.

mrginge

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

What is a break clause if not a termination clause?

Neither point is valid.

Yes they are.