Landlord wants to evict me and move back in!

MrNiceGuy_007

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

What is a break clause if not a termination clause?

Something like the below that is clear to understand and labeled Tenancy Break Clause

7.9 Tenancy Break Clause
7.9.1 In the event that the Tenant shall desire to terminate the tenancy hereby created at or at any time after the end of the first six months thereof he shall give the Landlord not less than one months previous notice in writing of such desire and shall up to the time of such determination pay the rent and observe and perform the agreements and obligations on the tenants part.
7.9.2 If the Landlord shall desire to terminate the tenancy hereby created at or at any time after the end of the first six months thereof he shall give the Tenant not less than two months previous notice in writing of such desire then immediately upon the expiration of such notice the tenancy hereby created shall cease and be void.

Miss_Samantha

mrginge wrote: »

You'll already know the sections I'm referring to, so just let me know why they or the act itself aren't applicable.

That act isn't black and white either.

mrginge

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

That act isn't black and white either.

Thank you for your continued valuable contribution to the forum.

G_M

A Break Clause is generally considered to be unfair, and unenforcible, if iit does not provide equal rights to end the tenancy to both parties.

But of course that relies on the decision of a court, and judges' decisions cannot be taken for granted.

However it is likely a judge would not consider this a fair Break Clause.

If that were so, then the LL would have to rely on Statute to end the tenancy, and as has been said, ground 1 of S8 cannot be relied on during the fixed term.

Miss_Samantha

G_M wrote: »

A Break Clause is generally considered to be unfair, and unenforcible, if iit does not provide equal rights to end the tenancy to both parties.
...
However it is likely a judge would not consider this a fair Break Clause.

As I said, this 'generally' means a few people on the internet.

A break clause is any clause that give the landlord the right to end the tenancy for any reason other than a breach from the tenant.
An unilateral break clause isn't explicitly forbidden by any statute. The only thing consumer protection regulations state is that such clause in a consumer contract may be unfair, which means one has to look at the specific case and circumstances.

The issue is far from black and white. But apparently warning that reality is a bit more complex that some would think is not constructive on the forum.

When I first wrote this point on break clauses I thought it was harmless enough, but I received so much comment and abuse on it that I really think that some people here have genuine issues.

mrginge

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

As I said, this 'generally' means a few people on the internet.

A break clause is any clause that give the landlord the right to end the tenancy for any reason other than a breach from the tenant.

The issue is far from black and white. But apparently warning that reality is a bit more complex that some would think is not constructive on the forum.

Seems to be the modus operandi to be honest.

1. Categorically disagree with someone (or everyone)
2. Provide zero evidence
3. Backtrack to a position of 'nothing is certain'
4. Complain about other members.

I dont know why you bother really. It would save everybody's time if you just had a standard one liner -

'Nobody knows anything and they are all idiots.'

Miss_Samantha

mrginge wrote: »

1. Categorically disagree with someone (or everyone)
2. Provide zero evidence

Which is exactly what you did when you 'disagreed' with my previous posts... And now of course you avoid the point and go for personal attacks.

Have a great weekend all.

mrginge

That'll be 'check' on all four points then.

iammumtoone

What I don't understand about this 'clause' is am I right in thinking a break clause works both ways. LL and tenant can end early.

With this clause the LL seems to relying on its only one way, just the LL can end early, surely that can't be right/be allowed?

mrginge

iammumtoone wrote: »

What I don't understand about this 'clause' is am I right in thinking a break clause works both ways. LL and tenant can end early.

With this clause the LL seems to relying on its only one way, just the LL can end early, surely that can't be right/be allowed?

No, you are not right because nothing is black and white.