Break clause in excluded tenancy agreement interpretation required

[vincent_09]

Hi guys,

I have a lodger in my apartment. We have an excluded tenancy agreement.

"We have a point in our tenancy that "You will have the property and the furniture from X September 17 for at least period of 12 months - with a 6 month break clause - or until we or you give the other written notice to end the tenancy. 2 months notice is needed."

She just appeared saying that she will be moving out soon and that the break clause can be put up for interpretation and that she claims she does not need to give a 2 month notice and this puts me in a very bad position financially. As far as I understand, she needs to give me a 2 month notice. I read on internet that a 6 month break clause with 2 month notice means that after 4 months minimum she can give me 2 month notice already but the notice is always needed.

Can you guys help in interpretation?

Thanks.

Vince

[AndrewDod]

The clause is so badly worded as to be uninterpretable. It is 6 months OR..... already. Who wrote it? -- ask that entity to interpret....... Where is the "break clause" that is referred to? Whatever this is, it is a not "a break clause with 2 months notice". "2 months notice is needed" ..... for what.

Why would you have a lodger agreement structured in this way anyhow -- it makes no sense either for you or lodger. Typical lodger agreement runs on a timescale of weeks with vast flexibility on both sides. Yes you CAN have long lock-in lodger agreements but that is a mistake.

[mariner]

Is she a lodger ie do you live in the same apartment?
Lodger Agreements don't need a 'break clause' but rely on max 1 rental period for LL&L Notices.

[AndrewDod]

Is she a lodger ie do you live in the same apartment?
Lodger Agreements don't need a 'break clause' but rely on max 1 rental period for LL&L Notices.

Although if the agreement says differently, which this (albeit horribly worded does) then possibly not.

It seems best to me that these sorts of agreements should be completely silent with respect to notice. The default position is that LL can get rid of tenant even without notice if there is a fundamental breach (like not paying rent), and that L as you say relies on the rental period. The risk is that LL might make it difficult to evict an unwanted person from their home even in the case of a severe breach by inserting ill-advised stuff.

Of course in Scotland no sensible person should take a lodger ever given recent legislation - and the above does not apply in that place.