Serving Notice between rental periods

MrsNubs

Hi all

Hope you can help. I'm sure I've read somewhere that when serving notice on a rental property, it has to be fit with rental 'periods' - is this correct?

Real-life example: the rent is paid on 10th of each month (and tenancy began on 10th October 2016). The AST runs until the 9th October 2017. The tenants have served notice under the break clause on 12th April, saying their last day will be 12th June - can they do this? Would the rent be pro-rated for 10th-12th April? Or should the notice fit within a rental period, so end on the 9th?

Sorry if this is a stupid question!

Slithery

What does the break clause say?

Guest101

That depends on the break clause.


What you refer to only applies to statutory periodic tenancies.

MrsNubs

Sorry, the wording of the break clause is below:

Surrender of the Tenancy
Either party may terminate this agreement by serving not less than TWO calendar months written notice, such notice may be served at any time but will not expire before completion of the minimum term of EIGHT months from the date of commencement of the term hereof. On the expiry of such notice this agreement shall end but without any prejudice to any antecedent breach of the terms hereof by either party

Guest101

MrsNubs wrote: »

Sorry, the wording of the break clause is below:

Surrender of the Tenancy
Either party may terminate this agreement by serving not less than TWO calendar months written notice, such notice may be served at any time but will not expire before completion of the minimum term of EIGHT months from the date of commencement of the term hereof. On the expiry of such notice this agreement shall end but without any prejudice to any antecedent breach of the terms hereof by either party

So you just need to serve notice of 2 months, to expire no earlier than June, which you can do now.


typically rent would be pro-rata'd. a good clause would explain this. Legally the full rent would be owed, but subsequently a LL would find themselves in court and probably lose the difference

saajan_12

MrsNubs wrote: »

Sorry, the wording of the break clause is below:

Surrender of the Tenancy
Either party may terminate this agreement by serving not less than TWO calendar months written notice, such notice may be served at any time but will not expire before completion of the minimum term of EIGHT months from the date of commencement of the term hereof. On the expiry of such notice this agreement shall end but without any prejudice to any antecedent breach of the terms hereof by either party

There you go then.. no need to align with rental periods. A break clause is a specifically negotiated term, there are no statutory 'rules' such as minimum notice periods etc that apply to it.

G_M

Why are you using a tenancy agreement to let your property with terms in it which you do not understand?

Having said that, the Break Clause is pretty clear and unambiguous isn't it? Which bit of

not less than TWO calendar months written notice, such notice may be served at any time but will not expire before completion of the minimum term of EIGHT months from the date of commencement of the term hereof.

do you not understand?

* fixed term is 10/10/16 - 9/10/17
* 8 months is 9/6/17
* notice served on 12th April for 12 June is
a) 2 calender month, and
b) 8 months from commencement of the term

In their final rental period, starting on 10/6/17, the tenants will owe 2 days rent.

Miss_Samantha

Guest101 wrote: »

typically rent would be pro-rata'd. a good clause would explain this. Legally the full rent would be owed, but subsequently a LL would find themselves in court and probably lose the difference

The last rent payment is due in full whenever the tenancy ends. This is clearly established in law and the landlord would win in court (along with court and legal costs being awarded to the landlord).

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

The last rent payment is due in full whenever the tenancy ends. This is clearly established in law and the landlord would win in court (along with court and legal costs being awarded to the landlord).

If you say so. There is of course the argument that if the landlord wanted the full rental period rent, the break clause would require it to align with rental periods

Miss_Samantha

Guest101 wrote: »

If you say so.

It's not me saying so. It is the very established legal position, despite what the MSE armchair experts might argue against.

Guest101 wrote: »

There is of course the argument that if the landlord wanted the full rental period rent, the break clause would require it to align with rental periods

There is no such argument in law because the default position is that the full rent is due, so the landlord does not need to add anything. And in fact the legal argument is the opposite: the tenant should negotiate a clause giving her a right to apportion the rent or should give notice in line with rent periods if she does not want to end up payment extra.

The MSE bubble is often quite disconnected from reality...