Section 21 Required after Break Clause Exercised?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Section 21 Required after Break Clause Exercised?

    Can someone please advise on the following scenario?

    The tenant agreed on an AST with a two-month break clause. Either landlord or tenant can exercise the break clause after six months.
    AST is for 24 months.

    After six months, the tenant decides to exercise his right to the break clause - something he is entitled to do.
    He does it legally via a recorded delivery letter.

    At the end of the break clause period, the tenant is still there and has no intention of leaving even though he exercised the break clause himself.

    Obviously, this has caused the landlord a lot of bother as he has been referencing and talking to other prospective tenants.

    Does the landlord now need a Section 21 notice to get the tenant to leave?
    He has been paying his rent but the landlord has had enough.

    Thanking you for your reply.

    If the tenants gave valid notice that's it easierway to evict, and recently there was a similar post about double rent.


      What's the reason why the T doesn't want to move now? You would need to go to court to get possession. Also don't give a T a 24 month AST, 12 months is fine.


        6 months better.

        Indeed, s21 (& s8 if any valid grounds) then court. And remind him of the 1737 Act and that he'll owe double rent...
        I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...


          If the landlord's been accepting rent after the end of the original tenancy, they may have started a new tenancy.
          I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

          I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.


            It depends on the wording of the break clause and the notice.
            The default situation would be that the tenant's notice, if valid, brought the tenancy to an end, and, if they stay in the property beyond the end of their notice, they're trespassing.

            A landlord can use reasonable force to remove them from the property (for example, you can lock them out) or can go direct to court to regain possession - there's no need to give further notice.

            If the landlord accepts any rent from the tenant for a period after the notice expires another tenancy will arise.

            While the tenant is in unlawful possession, in theory, mesne profits are owed by the tenant which are set to double the value of the rent.
            These shouldn't be taken while the tenant is in possession as they can easily be confused with rent.
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).


              Thank you all for your responses.


              Latest Activity