AST break clauses

JamesN

Hi,
Currently in the process of agreeing a rental (as a tenant), its been a while since I've had to sign an AST, maybe its just because i'm with a different agent now. But I've always done 12 month terms with a 6 month break. I'm sure I read somewhere years ago that the 6 month break was a legal/statutory right for the tenant but I'm being asked to have a longer break clause. Is this allowed?  I've always preferred a 6 month break purely because of risk of nightmare neighbours (which we've had before). I get the preference for this may make some landlords nervous but given the current economic situation, it seems fair to ask for 6 months.

saajan_12

There's no right to a break clause at all, let it being max 6 months. The only statutory right is your landlord can't evict you in LESS than 6 months unless you breach the tenancy. This is effectively a minimum 6 months on the LL's break clause. To be fair, the LL's and tenant's break clause will usually match, but that could be 6 months, anything longer, or none at all. 

So its all a matter of negotiation, the LL can refuse. 

JamesN

saajan_12 said:

There's no right to a break clause at all, let it being max 6 months. The only statutory right is your landlord can't evict you in LESS than 6 months unless you breach the tenancy. This is effectively a minimum 6 months on the LL's break clause. To be fair, the LL's and tenant's break clause will usually match, but that could be 6 months, anything longer, or none at all. 

So its all a matter of negotiation, the LL can refuse. 

So if there was no break, the LL can't evict us at all until end of tenancy without having to compensate us for early termination?

Comms69

JamesN said:

saajan_12 said:

There's no right to a break clause at all, let it being max 6 months. The only statutory right is your landlord can't evict you in LESS than 6 months unless you breach the tenancy. This is effectively a minimum 6 months on the LL's break clause. To be fair, the LL's and tenant's break clause will usually match, but that could be 6 months, anything longer, or none at all. 

So its all a matter of negotiation, the LL can refuse. 

So if there was no break, the LL can't evict us at all until end of tenancy without having to compensate us for early termination?

In effect yes. The LL cannot evict you technically ever, only a court can do that

JamesN

Comms69 said:

JamesN said:

saajan_12 said:

There's no right to a break clause at all, let it being max 6 months. The only statutory right is your landlord can't evict you in LESS than 6 months unless you breach the tenancy. This is effectively a minimum 6 months on the LL's break clause. To be fair, the LL's and tenant's break clause will usually match, but that could be 6 months, anything longer, or none at all. 

So its all a matter of negotiation, the LL can refuse. 

So if there was no break, the LL can't evict us at all until end of tenancy without having to compensate us for early termination?

In effect yes. The LL cannot evict you technically ever, only a court can do that

So if they wanted to evict me without a break, they'd go to court and I assume the court would say not until the tenancy ends or there is a breach of tenancy? Not concerned btw, just curious on the process. I think I'm a pretty ideal tenant!

saajan_12

JamesN said:

saajan_12 said:

There's no right to a break clause at all, let it being max 6 months. The only statutory right is your landlord can't evict you in LESS than 6 months unless you breach the tenancy. This is effectively a minimum 6 months on the LL's break clause. To be fair, the LL's and tenant's break clause will usually match, but that could be 6 months, anything longer, or none at all. 

So its all a matter of negotiation, the LL can refuse. 

So if there was no break, the LL can't evict us at all until end of tenancy without having to compensate us for early termination?

If you breach the terms eg fail to pay rent then they can evict you earlier via Section 8 notice  and court. If you don't breach the terms, then yes the earliest they can 'evict' (ie apply to a court to evict) is at the end of the fixed term (not the same as the end of the tenancy). You don't have to entertain early termination with/without compensation (unless that's something you want and discuss mutually with whatever terms you negotiate). 

What is your aim though - are you looking for flexibility or security of tenure?

grumiofoundation

saajan_12 said:

JamesN said:

saajan_12 said:

There's no right to a break clause at all, let it being max 6 months. The only statutory right is your landlord can't evict you in LESS than 6 months unless you breach the tenancy. This is effectively a minimum 6 months on the LL's break clause. To be fair, the LL's and tenant's break clause will usually match, but that could be 6 months, anything longer, or none at all. 

So its all a matter of negotiation, the LL can refuse. 

So if there was no break, the LL can't evict us at all until end of tenancy without having to compensate us for early termination?

What is your aim though - are you looking for flexibility or security of tenure?

^This is a key question. 

If you want flexibility you can sign a 6 month fixed term and at the end of that just let it roll onto periodic tenancy.

JamesN

saajan_12 said:

JamesN said:

saajan_12 said:

There's no right to a break clause at all, let it being max 6 months. The only statutory right is your landlord can't evict you in LESS than 6 months unless you breach the tenancy. This is effectively a minimum 6 months on the LL's break clause. To be fair, the LL's and tenant's break clause will usually match, but that could be 6 months, anything longer, or none at all. 

So its all a matter of negotiation, the LL can refuse. 

So if there was no break, the LL can't evict us at all until end of tenancy without having to compensate us for early termination?

If you breach the terms eg fail to pay rent then they can evict you earlier via Section 8 notice  and court. If you don't breach the terms, then yes the earliest they can 'evict' (ie apply to a court to evict) is at the end of the fixed term (not the same as the end of the tenancy). You don't have to entertain early termination with/without compensation (unless that's something you want and discuss mutually with whatever terms you negotiate). 

What is your aim though - are you looking for flexibility or security of tenure?

grumiofoundation said:

saajan_12 said:

JamesN said:

saajan_12 said:

There's no right to a break clause at all, let it being max 6 months. The only statutory right is your landlord can't evict you in LESS than 6 months unless you breach the tenancy. This is effectively a minimum 6 months on the LL's break clause. To be fair, the LL's and tenant's break clause will usually match, but that could be 6 months, anything longer, or none at all. 

So its all a matter of negotiation, the LL can refuse. 

So if there was no break, the LL can't evict us at all until end of tenancy without having to compensate us for early termination?

What is your aim though - are you looking for flexibility or security of tenure?

^This is a key question. 

If you want flexibility you can sign a 6 month fixed term and at the end of that just let it roll onto periodic tenancy.

In all honesty, just want the flexibility in case the neighbours are a nightmare. We've had that issue in the past and although we didn't move any quicker. It just makes you think what if they were even worse. Payment wouldn't be a problem, I'm very sensible with the cash so wouldn't take on anything I can't afford. Previous tenants were there a while so I don't see them kicking us out unless they want to hike the prices beyond a fair level.

greatcrested

Read the stickie:

Post 4: Ending/renewing an AST: what happens when a fixed term ends? How can a LL or tenant end a tenancy? What is a periodic tenancy?