Breach of contract?

Sickrenter

Hello, 
We signed an AST in December, that was for 6 months until June.
As the landlord is trying to sell the house, this clause was in the agreement:

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

18. Property viewings must be always available at the requested times of the estate agents during the hours of Monday to Saturday

Should someone wish to purchase the property, the tenant must vacate the property within 8 weeks of the initial offer, however this can be negotiated between the vendors, and the purchasers of the property.

We were fine with this, as they agreed not to put it up for sale until March, verbally.

They've already put it up for sale, but are now saying they want to auction the property, that it needs to be empty and that we need to be out in 5 weeks time, giving us 5 weeks notice l. 

I think I'm right in saying that the contract does not mention auctioning, and that they are in breach of the agreement. That we should have eight weeks notice when someone is purchasing the property.

Can anyone weigh in to confirm this?

Thank you. 

Schwarzwald

others can elaborate and confirm, but i doubt that such cl.18 overrides your right for quiet enjoyment, i.e. even if this was written into the contract, you do not have to oblige.

similar to the 5 weeks request ... vendor/LL can request whatever they want, you dont necessarily have to comply with it if you do not agree.

if i were in your shoes, i probably claim my right for quiet enjoyment, refuse any viewings that do not suit me and work towards finding a new rental form June onwards. 

theartfullodger

The landlord's option for enforcing this clause is to take you to court for breach of agreement (s8 ground 12 I think).  Would take about as long as it would to evict you. Daft clause to put in tenancy.

You may happily ignore it & refuse any viewings or leaving the place.

Do you need a reference from him??

BobT36

Statute trumps contract. Both for the viewings clause (quiet enjoyment / sole use / reasonable notice, times suitable for YOU, not them, and no time may actually be suitable, what a shame), and same goes for the notice period. 

They cannot contract around the law. You should get two months formal notice before they can begin proceedings of taking you to court. 

Sickrenter

Thanks for the replies, I'm not overly concerned about the viewings. It's more about telling us to leave before the auction. The clause they added was about us leaving 8 weeks after they've accepted an offer to sell.

mexican_dave

BobT36 said:

Statute trumps contract. Both for the viewings clause (quiet enjoyment / sole use / reasonable notice, times suitable for YOU, not them, and no time may actually be suitable, what a shame), and same goes for the notice period. 

They cannot contract around the law. You should get two months formal notice before they can begin proceedings of taking you to court. 

I agree with BobT36, high handed attitude of landlord (and or agent), still can't believe people like this exist! Outrageous!
Yes, they have to make an appointment for viewings at your convenience and can't ask you to make yourself scarce.
There is a Statutory Notice period which cannot be overridden by any contract clause, sorry - repeating what BobT36 said!

BobT36

I this your FIRST contract with them too, btw? If so then they cannot even serve a notice at all during the first 6 months, I believe? (Do double-check this). 

If it's not your first then they could potentially serve it on the 4th month to expire on the 6th. (and even then that's just notice that they MAY begin proceedings). 

Just going from memory here. 

propertyrental

Just to be clear:

* what are the start and end dates of the fixed term in the tenancy agreement?

* is there a 'Break Clause' other than what you've quoted (which is not a valid Break Clause)?

* Even with a Break Clause, the landlord still has to serve either 

i) a S21 Notice (giving 2 months notice and then applying to a court to end the tenancy), or 

ii) a S8 Notice giving an appropriate Ground, eg G1 (see Schedule 2 here) but that's only possible if the correct notice was served before the tenancy started (see Schedule 2)

* Re. access. Rights apply on both sides. The LL has a right of entry as per the TA, but the T has a conflicting right to 'Quiet Enjoyment' (to enjoy their home without undue interferance). As these rights may conflict, only a court can decide which takes precedence and what is reasonable. That would take time and money, so

* if/when the time comes, write (yes, write) to the LL (copy agent) stating what access (if any) you are prepared to give - eg between 5 to 7 PM 2 days per week subject to 24 hours notice (or whatever. Up to you).

And just to re-iterate:

 I think I'm right in saying that the contract does not mention auctioning, and that they are in breach of the agreement. That we should have eight weeks notice when someone is purchasing the property.

NO! the 'agreement' in this case is irrelevant. The LL must serve a S21 or S8 Notice and even that does not end the tenancy nor require you to leave. ONLY A COURT CAN MAKE YOU LEAVE. Unlike the access issue (see next post or two), ending a tenancy/evicting a tenant IS defined by statute (see Housing Act 1988) and yes, statute law (as opposed to Common Law) trumps anything in the TA.

BobT36

"The LL has a right of entry as per the TA,"

Surely that "right" is only for essential maintenance etc. though? Viewings aren't essential, and they also don't benefit the tenant. If it's not reasonable for the tenant at the time, they can decline. Right to quiet & sole enjoyment of the property is statute and trumps anything in the TA contract. 

propertyrental

BobT36 said:

"The LL has a right of entry as per the TA,"

Surely that "right" is only for essential maintenance etc. though? Viewings aren't essential, and they also don't benefit the tenant. If it's not reasonable for the tenant at the time, they can decline. Right to quiet & sole enjoyment of the property is statute and trumps anything in the TA contract. 

No. Tne tenancy agreement is a contract, so the LL has a contractual right as defined in the TA.

'Quiet Enjoyment' is not in any statute that I know of (please refer me to a statute if I'm wrong!). It is a Common Law right, built up by court decisions over decades/hundreds of years. Common Law does not automatically 'trump' Contract Law.

Hence the conflict.

(editted my previous post)

BobT36

propertyrental said:

BobT36 said:

"The LL has a right of entry as per the TA,"

Surely that "right" is only for essential maintenance etc. though? Viewings aren't essential, and they also don't benefit the tenant. If it's not reasonable for the tenant at the time, they can decline. Right to quiet & sole enjoyment of the property is statute and trumps anything in the TA contract. 

No. Tne tenancy agreement is a contract, so the LL has a contractual right as defined in the TA.

'Quiet Enjoyment' is not in any statute that I know of (please refer me to a statute if I'm wrong!). It is a Common Law right, built up by court decisions over decades/hundreds of years. Common Law does not automatically 'trump' Contract Law.

Hence the conflict.

(editted my previous post)

Interesting, it seems to be a "covenant" under "Common Law" since 1888. I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for definite there, but I do wonder how courts would handle the conflict. 
Also I wonder how the consumer contracts law point of a contract term being "unfair" if it only benefits one side. Now how could a Viewing Clause benefit a tenant? (Unless the tenant is wanting to voluntarily end the contract early). 
As far as I can see, such contractual terms (if ceding rights from common law) must be very SPECIFIC and LIMITED. They can't just be open like "you must allow access whenever we please" lol. 

Can't see that ever getting passed. 


At least the two-month MINIMUM notice period certainly is statute. They can't enforce less than that. And that's just a notice period & does not end the tenancy.