Has the letting agent stitched up my mother?
Discussion
My mum was previously renting in London and moved to a small rental near me back on 31st October with a view to eventually purchasing somewhere. I said to her to check that the rental contract included a 6-month break clause as we didn't know how quickly she might find somewhere. It turns out the standard contract was a 12-month and we were told a 6-month break clause had been added with a 2-month notice period.
Fast-forward to now - she has found and had an offer accepted on a place. With changes to stamp duty and CGT coming in April both she and the seller are keen to progress swiftly as it works well for both parties (no chain their end) to complete by the end of March. If things were to complete by the end of Feb (unlikely but not impossible), she would need to give 2 months' notice at the end of Feb (month 4) that she would be looking to end the tenancy as of the end of April (which would be the 6 month point). Pretty much every source I've found online about a 6 month break clause defines it as 'being able to end the agreement from the 6th month onward' (and this was my experience of it the last time I rented although it was a couple of decades ago).
However, she's sent me this snipped from her tenancy agreement:
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained within this Agreement it is further agreed by the Landlord that the Tenant may give two months notice (on or before the rental due date) in writing to the Landlord or his Agent after the Agreement has been in force for six months and the Landlord or his Agent may give two months notice in writing to the Tenant (on or before the rental due date) after the Agreement has been in force for six months."
The wording of her tenancy looks like it could be interpreted as being that she could only invoke the 2 months' notice after the 6th month.
Has there been some wording 'sleight of hand' here to make her minimum tenancy actually 8 months and not 6? If a potential tenant asks for a 6-month break clause shouldn't it be in line with what seems to be the broadly-accepted meaning?
I suspect that things probably won't complete until the last minute in March (assuming nothing untoward pops up that sinks the purchase completely) so she may have to carry the rent until mid/late May anyway as it would be daft to give notice on the rental without having the purchase locked in.
Fast-forward to now - she has found and had an offer accepted on a place. With changes to stamp duty and CGT coming in April both she and the seller are keen to progress swiftly as it works well for both parties (no chain their end) to complete by the end of March. If things were to complete by the end of Feb (unlikely but not impossible), she would need to give 2 months' notice at the end of Feb (month 4) that she would be looking to end the tenancy as of the end of April (which would be the 6 month point). Pretty much every source I've found online about a 6 month break clause defines it as 'being able to end the agreement from the 6th month onward' (and this was my experience of it the last time I rented although it was a couple of decades ago).
However, she's sent me this snipped from her tenancy agreement:
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained within this Agreement it is further agreed by the Landlord that the Tenant may give two months notice (on or before the rental due date) in writing to the Landlord or his Agent after the Agreement has been in force for six months and the Landlord or his Agent may give two months notice in writing to the Tenant (on or before the rental due date) after the Agreement has been in force for six months."
The wording of her tenancy looks like it could be interpreted as being that she could only invoke the 2 months' notice after the 6th month.
Has there been some wording 'sleight of hand' here to make her minimum tenancy actually 8 months and not 6? If a potential tenant asks for a 6-month break clause shouldn't it be in line with what seems to be the broadly-accepted meaning?
I suspect that things probably won't complete until the last minute in March (assuming nothing untoward pops up that sinks the purchase completely) so she may have to carry the rent until mid/late May anyway as it would be daft to give notice on the rental without having the purchase locked in.
It is not a question of being 'stitched up'. It is crucial that people understand the full implications when signing a contract becuase they are then bound by its terms.
If they are unsure it is essential to seek independent advice from somebody suitably qualified before putting pen to paper. Unfortunately a great many people don't to their detriment.
Once the train has left the station it's too late. They will never catch it.
My understanding is a break clause can be either 4+2 or 6+2 depending on the specific way it is worded. IANAL, so could be wrong, but my interpretation is this one is the latter.
If they are unsure it is essential to seek independent advice from somebody suitably qualified before putting pen to paper. Unfortunately a great many people don't to their detriment.
Once the train has left the station it's too late. They will never catch it.
My understanding is a break clause can be either 4+2 or 6+2 depending on the specific way it is worded. IANAL, so could be wrong, but my interpretation is this one is the latter.
My point though, is that what she requested is fairly clear from the wording; the option to break the tenancy at 6 months. It also seems to be the widely-accepted meaning online. If she wanted an 8-month break clause she'd have asked for that.
I'm of the opinion there's some sneaky word-play going on here. She read it at the time and thought they'd done what she'd asked them to with the insertion of the clause.
I've told her to just give notice when she needs to after the 4th month and argue the toss from there if necessary.
I'm of the opinion there's some sneaky word-play going on here. She read it at the time and thought they'd done what she'd asked them to with the insertion of the clause.
I've told her to just give notice when she needs to after the 4th month and argue the toss from there if necessary.
Funk said:
I've told her to just give notice when she needs to after the 4th month and argue the toss from there if necessary.
Probably the best answer. It sounds like she should have looked a bit closer, what she asked for and what they said becomes irrelevant next to the actual contract. But getting tenants isn’t too hard right now and arguing with them is a pain so hopefully a sensible result can be found.
Red Devil said:
It is not a question of being 'stitched up'. It is crucial that people understand the full implications when signing a contract becuase they are then bound by its terms.
This, this, this & this.By all means get in touch with the letting agent, as they & only they are in a position to answer your question/help you out.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff