Expert Opinions Required!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PaulF
    replied
    Thank you for your input.

    Leave a comment:


  • westminster
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
    Rent £975.00 (Nine Hundred And Seventy Five Pounds) for each month of the Tenancy payable in advance. (Note the wording - it doesn't say monthly in advance, it just states what the rent is each month, and could be interpreted that it is [all] payable in advance which of course it was as the agent demanded the rent up front in its entirety).
    I interpret this as £975 being payable 'each month' in advance.

    What the question was really about is that if the agent/landlord allows the tenancy to become a statutory periodic tenancy they might have missed the chance to seek possession prior to 17 August 2013, so the advantage is with the tenant. I consider the tenant would still be able to serve a minimum notice of one month should he wish to determine any periodic tenancy.
    The tenancy periods of the SPT will either by one month or six months long. If the latter, then both the T's notice and the LL's would have to expire at the end of a six month period; same rule for both.

    I'm not sure, but the LL may be able to serve notice under s.6 HA 1988 to propose different tenancy periods.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulF
    replied
    Surely the SPT would have 6 month tenancy periods? So an s21 seved 17th August could have an expiry of "after 16th February 2013"
    Yes that's true but see below about the landlord's wishes.

    The AST states the monthly rent although the wording does not actually reserve it monthly:

    Rent £975.00 (Nine Hundred And Seventy Five Pounds) for each month of the Tenancy payable in advance. (Note the wording - it doesn't say monthly in advance, it just states what the rent is each month, and could be interpreted that it is [all] payable in advance which of course it was as the agent demanded the rent up front in its entirety).

    The tenant will pay his rent monthly after it becomes periodic. The interpretation could be in two ways, so the tenant could not be tied in to a misinterpretation not of his making by having to serve 6 months notice.

    The agent/landlord actually wants the tenant to enter into a new 6 months fixed term but as yet the agent has not sent an AST to the tenant for his signature, so time is running out. Also the tenant's father currently acts as guarantor, but if the tenancy passes on to be an SPT then he will probably withdraw that obligation.

    What the question was really about is that if the agent/landlord allows the tenancy to become a statutory periodic tenancy they might have missed the chance to seek possession prior to 17 August 2013, so the advantage is with the tenant. I consider the tenant would still be able to serve a minimum notice of one month should he wish to determine any periodic tenancy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snorkerz
    replied
    Surely the SPT would have 6 month tenancy periods? So an s21 seved 17th August could have an expiry of "after 16th February 2013"

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    That's OK. I wasn't at all troubled by it.

    I reckoned that as you're the Topic Expert, you'd figure it out in the end!

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulF
    replied
    Having thought a bit more about this the "break clause" is meaningless as if the AST becomes an SPT then normal repossession of the tenancy by the landlord is governed by S.21 rules and the tenant has a statutory right to serve a month's notice ending at the end of a rental period. A break clause is only operative during a fixed term, and as it was only 6 months then the landlord has not realised this. Sorry to trouble you.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulF
    started a topic Expert Opinions Required!

    Expert Opinions Required!

    An acquaintenace of mine has sent me a copy of their tenancy agreement for a fixed term of 6 months which ends this Friday 17 August. The rent was not reserved monthly and the tenant paid the rent for the whole term up front.

    I therefore would say there is a 6 months tenancy upon which a minimum of 6 months notice is required from the landlord even if rent is paid monthly if it becomes a SPT, and that notice can only be effective from the end of the period for which rent was last paid during the fixed term. In other words any S.21 notice served after 17 August would not be effective on the tenant until 16 August 2013.

    To the crux of the matter. The AST has within it a break clause thus:

    Individually Negotiated Clauses

    Any time after four months of the initial fixed term of this tenancy either party may invoke this break clause (as there is no heading "break clause" does this affect it?) by providing a minimum of two months written notice to the other. At the end of such notice the tenancy shall end and all obligations and responsibilities shall cease; subject nevertheless to any claim by either party against the other in respect of any breach of any of the terms and conditions of the agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, once the notice referred to in this clause has been exercised it cannot be revoked under any circumstances.


    I think this "break clause" has a few problems as the intention of the landlord was to grant a tenancy for a fixed term of 6 months with rent paid monthly in advance but that is not what happened as already stated. Would that be over-ridden by the tenants entitlement to security of tenure for another 12 months from 18 August if it becomes an SPT?

    There are three parties to this agreement, Landlord, Tenant & Guarantor although the Guarantor's name does not appear on the tenancy.

    I don't feel the break clause is as watertight as it seems. What do you think?

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X