Notice required if leaving on last day of AST?

[jjlandlord]

namely that as the AST is written such that it becomes a Periodic Tenancy upon expiry of the fixed term (with the phrase "and thereafter from month to month").

This is the first time you mention that your tenancy agreement agreement is worded as such.

[zcacogp]

Jjlandlord,

You're right! I thought I had made that clear in my first post but on checking I can see that I didn't. Many apologies.

(However this also comes back to the question I asked in my last post, namely whether all AST's become Statutory Periodic Tenancies when the fixed term expires. Although I'd rather not derail this thread with a side-issue question.)


Oli.

[jpkeates]

All ASTs become Statutory Periodic Tenancies unless the tenant isn't resident at the end of the fixed term.
It's a bit abstract, because most tenancy agreement templates I've seen contain wording that creates a contractual periodic tenancy by default - something like "and then continues monthly until [something happens].

Personally I think the practical position is muddy.
If a landlord and tenant can agree any notice they like, why don't all ASTs have break clauses included to remove the restrictions around s21 notices?
There's no regulation requiring a deposit being protected (for example) in order to serve notice that isn't based on s21, so it seems an obvious work round to include a break clause of a month's notice either way.

The housing act 1988 is specific about what terms don't persist into a statutory periodic tenancy "except that any term which makes provision for determination by the landlord or the tenant shall not have effect". As the SPT arises whether or not there's a contractual periodic tenancy, and the tenants "right to possession shall depend upon a periodic tenancy arising by virtue of this section", it seems to me that the contractual periodic tenancy should actually be invalid.
"depend" is quite a key concept, in that you rely on it entirely, so the CPT is spurious.

At which point, I wander into the garden for a sit down.

[Lawcruncher]

Whilst it is true that if the tenant is not residing at the property when the tenancy comes to an end the tenancy cannot be an assured tenancy, the conditions for a tenancy to be an assured tenancy are a bit wider. They are set out in section 1(1) HA 1988:

A tenancy under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling is for the purposes of this Act an assured tenancy if and so long as—

(a) the tenant or, as the case may be, each of the joint tenants is an individual; and

(b) the tenant or, as the case may be, at least one of the joint tenants occupies the dwelling-house as his only or principal home; and

(c) the tenancy is not one which, by virtue of subsection (2) or subsection (6) below, cannot be an assured tenancy.

If a fixed term tenancy has a break clause and it is exercised by the landlord the exercise is valid and the fixed term will end early. However, if the tenancy is an assured tenancy once it ends section 5 HA 1988 applies and a statutory periodic tenancy will arise.

A statutory periodic tenancy does not arise if it has been agreed that on the fixed term ending a new periodic tenancy will start. By "new periodic tenancy" is meant a tenancy agreed after the fixed term was granted. The act does not specifically cover the situation where at the outset it is agreed that the fixed term will continue as periodic. However, we have judicial confirmation that in such a case there is only one tenancy. In any event, the tenant's right to continue in occupation arises under contract and accordingly a statutory periodic tenancy is not needed. If an assured tenancy is a periodic tenancy, whether statutory or periodic, it cannot be ended by a landlord's notice to quit - see section 5(1) HA 1988.

[mk1fan]

An AST has an end date for a reason - as is common in contracts. Both parties notice of this end date is served upon signature of the contract - afterall why would you sign something you hadn't read and understodd?

An AST has the flexibility to allow a continuation of the provided service by either a CPT or SPT arising automatically if the T remains in occupation beyon expiry of the fixed term.

If the T chooses not to remain beyond expiry of the fixed term they are free to leave. Why shouldn't they? They have fulfilled their side of the contract.

If it is that important to a LL that they 'know' whether the T is wanting to remain or not then ask them 6-weeks ahead of expiry. It is hardly a burdensome task. Afterall, it is the LL who is running the business not the T.

[Notyetagain]

If it is that important to a LL that they 'know' whether the T is wanting to remain or not then ask them 6-weeks ahead of expiry

Why would a tenant provide an honest response if the reason why they didn't take it upon themselves to inform the landlord, it is most likely because they don't want to have to deal with new potential tenants visiting the place whilst they are still there. The Landlord intention will obviously be to avoid as much of a gap between tenants as possible, hence wanting notice. The tenant's intention will be to enjoy peace and quiet until they are gone, hence in their interest to say nothing.

[mk1fan]

Why would someone be honest?

Curious question to ask. Suggests more about how you conduct yourself rather than how Tenants 'will'. Assuming you're a Landlord the same could be asked of you. Why would you be honest with your Tenants?

I conduct myself in good faith and expect others to do so in return. If someone decides to act decitfully then that's their choice. It is very unlikely that such behaviour would result in a significant and detrimental effect on my life. I have no doubt that there will be plenty of Tenants who would lie, in the same vein there are plenty that won't.

If a T were to announce on the morning of expiry that they're off then so be it. Gives me the oportunity to address issues with the property (maintenance or Tenant related) and turn it around for re-letting. I don't run my business on the basis that 1-month loss of income will bankrupt it.

Given the current UK rental market [as a whole] decent quality properties are not empty for long.

While I agree that it is not an ideal situation and that it is 'polite' for a Tenant to provide a notice, legally, they have no such obligation if they depart before expiry. I don't think any clause in an AST requiring such Notice would be [legally] enforceable.

[Notyetagain]

So you are saying that you would accept that it wouldn't be unusual for tenant to not give you notice if they don't have to, hence we are saying the same thing!

I have rented my property twice so far, and twice have dealt with dishonest tenants who lied for their benefit, leading to me losing a significant amount of money, so indeed, I have no expectation of a tenant being 'polite' and informing me of their intention to go early if they don't have to. In terms of my conduct, I have never lied, mislead my tenants or ignored any request for repairs, unfortunately, the courtesy hasn't been returned. Probably bad luck, hence hoping for 3rd time lucky, but until proven different, I will have little expectation of politeness.

[Lawcruncher]

If landlords want the flexibility to get tenants out if they do not like them and therefore grant short terms, they have to accept that short terms also afford tenants flexibility. For every landlord who complains when a tenant leaves at the end of a short term without giving any warning, there is another who wants to know why the government interferes with freedom of contract and will not let him evict his tenant the day after a fixed term ends. It is not unusual for the two to be the same person.

[mk1fan]

Notyetagain,

We are not saying the same thing.

You are saying a T will only lie if asked.

I am saying that Notice is already served when the AST is signed (as it is with all the other clauses of the AST) so there is no obligation for the T to give further Notice. If a LL has a [frankly unreasonable] issue with this then it is for them to proactively protect themselves. There are many ways to do this. I have previously suggested one way. Another could be to diarise the end date and be stood on the doorstep waiting to check-out. It is for the LL to run and understand their business. This includes protecting and maximising their asset. It is not the T obligation or liability.

I reitterate, if a months lost income brings the buisness into failure then the way it is run is wrong.

[Lawcruncher]

I reitterate, if a months lost income brings the buisness into failure then the way it is run is wrong.

The problem that many think of BTL as an investment rather than a business.