6 month break clause

[LittleStone]

Dear friends

I have an urgent question regarding the 6 months break clause:

We signed a 12 month contract and we want to move at month 9 by giving the notice at the end of month 7. I put out the break clause in the contract as below. The agent said I can only leave at month 6 by giving notice at month 4. Otherwise I need to stay until the end of contract. Do you think it is right statement if we go to court?

"
Both parties shall have the right to terminate the tenancy at the end of the first six month period from the commencement date by giving not less than two months notice (at the end of month four) in writing to that effect and upon the expiration of such Notice this Agreement and everything herein contained shall cease and be void subject nevertheless to the right of the parties in respect of any antecedent breach of any of the covenants herein contained. The period of notice must expire at the end of a period beginning on the 30th of a month."

[LesleyAnne]

I am no expert on break clauses, but it certainly looks like you had to activate the clause by giving notice AT 4th month to leave AT 6th month.

Does not state you can give notice at any time AFTER 6th month.

You can always offer a financial settlement to surrender the tenancy. something like, paying all rent until new tenant moves in, plus LL's re-marketing and credit checking fees, to make it worth their while letting you go early. However, LL does not have to accept. Do you know who LL is? Can you contact them direct, as Agent will only tell you the legal stand-point, whilst LL may be more flexible.

[LittleStone]

We tried to negotiate with LL. They offer the compensation condition is 3 month rent *8%+VAT for the part that LL has paid the agent. The marketing fee 250+VAT. The check -in fee for new tenant is 300 in total. I also need to be responsible for the remaining rent if the house is not let out.

[LittleStone]

I have asked this question before:
"
I am reading the agreement. It requires 2 months notice period after 6 months. I thought the standard contract is 1 month."

The agent's answer is :
"If there is a break clause in a contract then as a general rule this is usually two months notice from either side. If your fixed term tenancy comes to an end and the contract reverts to a periodic status, you would be required to give one period’s notice, which in your case is 1 month. "

Can I argue it was misleading and made me believe it was 2months notice period after 6 months.

[Lawcruncher]

The agent is correct. The last sentence is a bit out of place as well as not achieving anything since any period must begin on the 30th of a month, but I do not think it changes what goes before.

[LittleStone]

The agent is correct. The last sentence is a bit out of place as well as not achieving anything since any period must begin on the 30th of a month, but I do not think it changes what goes before.

Thanks Lawcruncher.
can you see my arguement about the agent's reply to my question at the post4?

[Lawcruncher]

I have asked this question before:
"
I am reading the agreement. It requires 2 months notice period after 6 months. I thought the standard contract is 1 month."

The agent's answer is :
"If there is a break clause in a contract then as a general rule this is usually two months notice from either side. If your fixed term tenancy comes to an end and the contract reverts to a periodic status, you would be required to give one period’s notice, which in your case is 1 month. "

Can I argue it was misleading and made me believe it was 2months notice period after 6 months.

Not really. The agent seemed to take it as querying the length of notice, rather than when it could be served, and only addressed the former in his answer.

[LittleStone]

Does it mean that I have no excuse but to accept whatever they offer, or stay until the end of the contract? It is a really bad news for us.

[Lawcruncher]

Does it mean that I have no excuse but to accept whatever they offer, or stay until the end of the contract? It is a really bad news for us.

Presumably when you negotiated the tenancy a "six month break clause" was agreed. The problem with the phrase is that it can mean different things and all they have in common is that the words " six months" come into it. Unless therefore there is some clear indication that the intention was a rolling right to break to take effect at any time after the first six months expired, I think you are stuck with the rather clear wording of the agreement.

If there is no right to break, then I am afraid any surrender has to be on the landlord's terms. You can of course try and negotiate and what you want is a clean break. It is never a good idea to give up a property agreeing to be responsible for rent until a new tenant is found because you have no control over the process.

What does the agreement say about assignment?

[LittleStone]

Then what should we do?

5.5 Assignment and Subletting
5.5.1 The Tenant agrees not to assign sublet, part with or share the Premises with any
persons other than the persons named as the Tenant or any other person approved
of in writing by the Landlord to occupy or reside in the Premises.
5.5.2 Not to take in Lodgers or Paying Guests without the Landlord’s written consent.

[Lawcruncher]

Slightly oddly worded, but it means that you can find someone to take over and the landlord cannot unreasonably withhold his consent.

[LittleStone]

"Not to take in Lodgers or Paying Guests without the Landlord’s written consent."
Interesting! It said i need landlord's written consent but he can choose not to agree? What made you have this conclusion? Appreciate your advice very much.

[Lawcruncher]

"Not to take in Lodgers or Paying Guests without the Landlord’s written consent."
Interesting! It said i need landlord's written consent but he can choose not to agree? What made you have this conclusion? Appreciate your advice very much.

Section 19(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1927:

In all leases whether made before or after the commencement of this Act containing a covenant condition or agreement against assigning, underletting, charging or parting with the possession of demised premises or any part thereof without licence or consent, such covenant condition or agreement shall, notwithstanding any express provision to the contrary, be deemed to be subject—

(a) to a proviso to the effect that such licence or consent is not to be unreasonably withheld, but this proviso does not preclude the right of the landlord to require payment of a reasonable sum in respect of any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with such licence or consent; and

(b) [N/A]

[LittleStone]

Sorry, can you explain what does it mean using simple language? Thank you.

[Lawcruncher]

It means that if a lease or tenancy agreement says:

Not to assign [etc] the premises without the landlord's consent

It is to be read as saying:

Not to assign [etc] the premises without the landlord's consent such consent not to be unreasonably withheld