End of AST- does tenant need to give Notice?

[Rootsey]

Hi
Am i correct in thinking that when the end date of a AST arrives the tenant can just hand back the keys and leave. no notice has to be given.

[Colincbayley]

Hi
Am i correct in thinking that when the end date of a AST arrives the tenant can just hand back the keys and leave. no notice has to be given.

On the last day of the fixed period yes.

Although, to be nice, it would be best to advise the LL.

[Rootsey]

Thanks Colin

[jghomer]

My agreements have a clause along the lines of 'if you intend leaving at the end of the fixed term then you must give at least one months notice in writing'. It stops tenants leaving me in a mess at a few days notice, and in fairness I would need to give them 2 months notice if I wanted them to leave anyway so it doesn't seem unfair. Not sure how legally binding the clause is though? Anyone?

[Bel]

My agreements have a clause along the lines of 'if you intend leaving at the end of the fixed term then you must give at least one months notice in writing'. It stops tenants leaving me in a mess at a few days notice, and in fairness I would need to give them 2 months notice if I wanted them to leave anyway so it doesn't seem unfair. Not sure how legally binding the clause is though? Anyone?

Funny you should mention it......

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...ead.php?t=7026

[lorenzo]

My agreements have a clause along the lines of 'if you intend leaving at the end of the fixed term then you must give at least one months notice in writing'. It stops tenants leaving me in a mess at a few days notice, and in fairness I would need to give them 2 months notice if I wanted them to leave anyway so it doesn't seem unfair. Not sure how legally binding the clause is though? Anyone?

I'm interested in the definitive answer here as well. We have members here on both sides, equally resolute in their opinions.

A month's notice is fair so I reckon it should be binding... unless of course an SoD is in place which would negate such a clause.

[jghomer]

Thanks Bel.

I had a scan though that thread but still didn't really find my answer (did i miss it?).

There was a lot of talk of when the contract ends, as the tenant has fulfilled obligation to stay for the term then it's fine to leave without notice. But if part of the contract stipulates that a 'reasonable' amount of notice must be given, i.e. 1 month, then the contract hasn't been adhered to?

[jeffrey]

Funny you should mention it......

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...ead.php?t=7026

Yes- I agree with justaboutsane on that thread. When the fixed term ends, it ends- and no "T to give prior Notice" clause will impose any subsequent liability on a T who walks off into the sunset on the expiry date.

See s.1(1)(b). A now-departing T will not be occupying the dwellinghouse as his only or principal home, so it can no longer be an assured tenancy. The s.6 continuation will not be relevant. The entitlement of T to a periodic tenancy, under s.6(2), is an entitlement to remain in possession on a tenancy which cannot now exist- under Act- as T is impliedly waiving rights by departing.

[jghomer]

I am most disappointed.

I know Jeffrey's not likely to be wrong as he has a legal brain the size of a small nebula, but it certainly doesn't seem fair :-(

[Bel]

Thanks Bel.

I had a scan though that thread but still didn't really find my answer (did i miss it?).

There was a lot of talk of when the contract ends, as the tenant has fulfilled obligation to stay for the term then it's fine to leave without notice. But if part of the contract stipulates that a 'reasonable' amount of notice must be given, i.e. 1 month, then the contract hasn't been adhered to?

I respect that it is good manners to give notice and can see why you do what you do.
But if you are saying that for a tenant to end a fixed term to your satisfaction (which expires all on its own anyway), the tenant must give you reasonable notice, I would interpret that it still goes against the OFT guidelines. You are effectively asking him to jump through a hoop to suit you, and bind him to it, when potentially, his rights are being compromised by you asking him to do so. I don't see that it differs so much as asking for 2 months notice. Either you respect his right to leave at the end or you don't...I don't think there is a half way.
I think the thread illustrates the question does the LL have the right to ask for any notice when the fixed term to expires. The OFT says the tenant should be free to leave, even if he has signed standard terms which say he should give some notice, because those terms are unfair and therefore do not have to be binding. Only a court can decide what is the law is in a certain case. Until then, we are just guessing and giving our own POV.

[jghomer]

Sorry to keep harping on but it's still not fair :-(

The situation as it is then would allow a tenant to leave on their last day of tenancy and leave the landlord in a proper mess. Whereas if I wanted them out on the last dat i'd have to give 2 months notice.

I accept that it's a contract with a set finish date, but why on earth does the tenant have the right to end it on the finish date without notice but the landlord not? It seems that this set finish date is only really set for the tenant (if they feel like leaving!) but for the landlord it's only a finish date if he gives the tenant notice first.

How the OFT (Office of FAIR trading) could think this was fair has escaped me completely?! :-(

[Bel]

How the OFT (Office of FAIR trading) could think this was fair has escaped me completely?! :-(

Because the OFT protects consumer rights, and not the moneymakers.

[jeffrey]

Because the OFT protects consumer rights, and not the moneymakers.

"Consumer rights"- yes, but what about consumer duties? Irrespective of moneymakingness, ought not people to pay for benefits received?

[nick..]

Sorry to keep harping on but it's still not fair :-(

The situation as it is then would allow a tenant to leave on their last day of tenancy and leave the landlord in a proper mess. Whereas if I wanted them out on the last dat i'd have to give 2 months notice.

I accept that it's a contract with a set finish date, but why on earth does the tenant have the right to end it on the finish date without notice but the landlord not? It seems that this set finish date is only really set for the tenant (if they feel like leaving!) but for the landlord it's only a finish date if he gives the tenant notice first.

How the OFT (Office of FAIR trading) could think this was fair has escaped me completely?! :-(

The law has to be ni favour of the tenant because it is their HOME, and it is your BUSINESS, which you can and should plan and budget for accordingly

I agree that the tenant should have to give notice, but landlords lost that battle long ago with the frankly despicable practice of issuing an eviction notice on the day of moving in