Periodic tenancy - tenancy agreement wording around calendar month for tenant notice period

greatcrested

militantconsumer said:

Thanks to the people who provided these answers. Looks like the way the forum now works the posts got a bit out of order!

I still think that clause in the tenancy agreement is arguably misleading. It really does imply that a tenant can give a calendar month's notice at any time of the month, with the part in brackets reinforcing that it can be at any time of the month. If there is a legal "tenancy period" lurking in the background that the tenant's notice has to be served in accordance with, surely it should say that in the agreement, not only get revealed when you try to serve notice at a different time!

Further to that, I guess the options we're looking at are:
1. Appeal directly to the landlord, who is at least a reasonable person and may look favourably having received all of the rent on time for many years throughout the whole tenancy.
(Failing that...)
2a. Pro-rate the final rental payment to the desired end date and then let them decide if they want to go through a deposit resolution process to recover disputed rent arrears. As I understand it, that won't cost the tenant anything in legal fees or other risks even if they lose anyway. I wonder if there are any other legal bases for challenging this, even if it's missing from the Housing Act for example. Like just general rules on how consumers/tenants are meant to be treated fairly - I have no idea on the intricacies of the law in this area.
(And also...)
2b. I think instead the tenant can refuse the mediation and insist on it going to court? That might increase the chances of the landlord deciding not to pursue it. I also feel that a court might look more favourably on a tenant and examine the actual contract and whether it's misleading, whereas the deposit scheme hearings are probably a bit like the FOS in that they're packed with industry people who often accept something unreasonable is just the way things are and don't do very well at challenging the status quo.

Looks like you have either not read my posts, or read but failed to understand them, or chosen to aacept princeofpounds opinion over mine- which of course is your prerogative.

Prince does regularly post helpful and accurate resposes on the forum but we all make mistakes......

militantconsumer

Sorry @greatcrested and thank you for persisting! Put it down to trying to move house and home school at the same time (oh yes, and do my day job!).
So your view is the same as mine on initially reading the contract, that we can serve notice that ends on any day of the month? Because the contract overrides the common law rule about "rental periods" ending on a specific date? (or anything in or not in the Housing Act for that matter?)

Whereas @princeofpounds is focusing on the "rental periods", which can't be subdivided. My beef with that argument though is that the rental periods don't even seem defined - and the agency is actually demanding payment up to a different date in the month (31st) than the date the contract started (7th). That all points towards a "calendar month" being the only really relevant period of time, in which case the bracketed sentence "not necessarily to the end of a calendar month" takes on more significance as it confirms that the meaning of 'calendar month' is that it doesn't have to run to a specific date.

If @greatcrested is right then I need to insert an extra 0th step in the plan - challenge the agency on this point and ask them to explain themselves. If they still insist it runs to a calendar month then I will carry on with the 1st step (appeal to the landlord), and then potentially 2nd step (deposit argument through the TDS mediation or the court).

Depending on the outcome to 0th and 1st steps we need to decide how much rent to pay on 1st month next Monday - nothing or a pro-rated amount.

princeofpounds

Hey I'm happy to concede if you're confident I'm mistaken, although I'm not sure I managed to properly get across what I was trying to say as the point I was trying to make was the the part that seemed to have been misinterpreted. If it helps, I was not assuming that a CPT would be created by this clause alone. 

greatcrested

princeofpounds said:

. If it helps, I was not assuming that a CPT would be created by this clause alone. 

and if you are right, then it's a SPT, and notice must align with the tenancy periods.

Since tenancy periods are apparantly 1st to last of each month, notice on 22 Feb would expire on 31st March (full tenancy period from 1st to 31st March).

However, if that were the case, then the entire clause would be redundant - hence my belief that it creates a CPT.

challenge the agency on this point and ask them to explain themselves.

Good luck with that! I suspect it will result in one of two things

* they reiterate their claim that notice must end on 31 March, and you conceed and acept that or

* they reiterate their claim that notice must end on 31 March, and you embark on an endless to and fro debate on the issue which lasts till you vacate the property.

militantconsumer

challenge the agency on this point and ask them to explain themselves.

Good luck with that! I suspect it will result in one of two things

* they reiterate their claim that notice must end on 31 March, and you conceed and acept that or

* they reiterate their claim that notice must end on 31 March, and you embark on an endless to and fro debate on the issue which lasts till you vacate the property.

Yes I can't see them giving up easily, even if they know they are wrong. But I'm not going to concede either, I'm even more certain of that!

I'm also fearful for the inventory check-out as they are professional fault finders and unfortunately have a financial interest in finding unnecessary work that needs doing (to get those secret commissions/kickbacks that they also sting landlords for). Since charging tenants got banned I imagine they are being even more ruthless on this kind of stuff now. But that's another topic for discussion.

I will try and remember to update this thread with what happens as I'm sure others will be interested in the outcome.

militantconsumer

Response from the letting agents:

Please accept our apologies there was an error in processing your notice. It was missed that this was an old [name of local letting agent] agreement and the notice period does not have to follow the Housing Act 1988. As such I have instructed for this to be reprocessed and you should receive new letters in due course.

I didn't mention it previously because it shouldn't have been relevant, but the agreement was taken out several years ago before the local agent was bought out by a well know national letting agent chain.

I'm slightly in shock about how easy this seems to have been. And very happy about a saving of approx £500. Just goes to show that if you don't ask, you don't get. As well as how appallingly the national letting agent chains treat the uninformed or nonbelligerent.

Thank you again to the posters who took the time to post their comments.

greatcrested

Great news!

You're right there was no need to mention the change of agent - as it was irrelevant to the interpretation of the law.

It's not just national letting agents. Small independants can be just as bad, or indeed just as good.

In most cases what makes the difference is the individual in the office, or ther local manager, who either knows what's what or doesn't, or perhaps knows but is more concerned with his profit margin or end of month targets.....