Tenancy notice clause

[MrChips]

Quick thoughts on the following please.. Here's the contract term and clause:

The Term
For a fixed period of 12 months from 1st September 2015 to 31st August 2016

Notice Period
The tenant may bring the tenancy to an end at any time before the expiry of the fixed term (but not within ten months of the commencement date) by giving the landlord at least two months written notice.

So the question is... Can notice be given at the end of April, to move out at the end of June?

Or can notice only be given at the end of June, to move out at the end of August?

[surveyor]

MrChips said:

So the question is... Can notice be given at the end of April, to move out at the end of June?

yes

[blindspot]

The end of your fixed term is 31 August. To end the contract at that point, you must give at least 2 months written notice.

[TooMany2cvs]

blindspot said:

The end of your fixed term is 31 August. To end the contract at that point, you must give at least 2 months written notice.

That was my first reading and thought... and I'm sure it's the intent.

But when you read what it actually says...

[surveyor]

Pretty clear to me.

The Term
For a fixed period of 12 months from 1st September 2015 to 31st August 2016

Notice Period
The tenant may bring the tenancy to an end at any time before the expiry of the fixed term (but not within ten months of the commencement date) by giving the landlord at least two months written notice.

Tenant allowed to end term at any time, as long as it's not within ten months of the commencement date.

To give notice Tenant must give at least two months notice.

I suspect someone may have had a brain fart when draughting.

[bladebloke]

What surveyor said.

The wording seems clear to me too. The tenant can bring it to an end, as long as they don't bring it to an end in the first ten months. Which would mean that 1st July would be the first day it could be ended, rather than 30 June - you would need to check carefully what provisions there are regarding payment of rent for partial months.

Although you might take a guess that what the draftsman meant to say was thAt the notice shall not be served in the first 10 months, there would be a strong argument to say that that couldn't have been the intention of the parties, all the clause would have said is that the tenant could give notice to quit at the end of the fixed term (which would have been an entirely unnecessary provision)

[Monty Python]

The way I read that was that the tenancy could be terminated on July 1st (10 months from Sep 1st), in which case notice would have to be served on May 1st.

[daytona355]

We have always worked on the basis of as long as they give plenty of notice, let them go regardless. That way you get a happy tenant paying his rent until he leaves, and one who wants to help out because he is leaving early, and so let's you market the property while he is still there, maybe even helps find the next tenant. Once someone wants to leave the tenancy, the important things are the rent money, and getting the keys back. What date they leave is really not the most important part of the deal

[2Btoo]

daytona355 said:

We have always worked on the basis of as long as they give plenty of notice, let them go regardless. That way you get a happy tenant paying his rent until he leaves, and one who wants to help out because he is leaving early, and so let's you market the property while he is still there, maybe even helps find the next tenant. Once someone wants to leave the tenancy, the important things are the rent money, and getting the keys back. What date they leave is really not the most important part of the deal

Precisely this. Although I think that the answer to the original question is 'Yes'.

[BertBert]

Unless you are the OPs landlord how is this relevant?

daytona355 said:

We have always worked on the basis of as long as they give plenty of notice, let them go regardless. That way you get a happy tenant paying his rent until he leaves, and one who wants to help out because he is leaving early, and so let's you market the property while he is still there, maybe even helps find the next tenant. Once someone wants to leave the tenancy, the important things are the rent money, and getting the keys back. What date they leave is really not the most important part of the deal

[blindspot]

I would agree that the wording is poorly chosen, but the intent remains clear and the wording is just specific enough.

You can end the agreement after the 10 month point by giving 2 months notice. The mechanism for ending the tenancy is the notice, which if given at the earliest permissible time takes you to 12 months.

Still, if there's a decent agent/LL they will probably shrug philosophically and crack on with finding new tenants. Can't see it being worth anyone's while arguing about it particularly as both parties know full well what was intended by the clause.

[surveyor]

blindspot said:

I would agree that the wording is poorly chosen, but the intent remains clear and the wording is just specific enough.

You can end the agreement after the 10 month point by giving 2 months notice. The mechanism for ending the tenancy is the notice, which if given at the earliest permissible time takes you to 12 months.

Still, if there's a decent agent/LL they will probably shrug philosophically and crack on with finding new tenants. Can't see it being worth anyone's while arguing about it particularly as both parties know full well what was intended by the clause.

I don't agree. Intent can be guessed at, but it is not clear or we would not be having this thread.

[andburg]

I'd say you can end it after 10 months by giving notice at 8. The contract doesn't state you cant give notice before 10 months only that the tenancy cannot end before 10 months.

You can of course terminate before this point but you'd be liable to pay rent to the 10th month anyway.

[anonymous-user]

It's worded badly but I think anyone with an ounce of common sense would infer that the earliest they can give 2 months notice is on July 1st thus ending the contract on August 31 as the fixed term states.

[surveyor]

garyhun said:

It's worded badly but I think anyone with an ounce of common sense would infer that the earliest they can give 2 months notice is on July 1st thus ending the contract on August 31 as the fixed term states.

I don't use common sense when reading Lease / Tenancy Agreements. I read what the words say.

If they need common sense after that then they are badly drafted.

[Rangeroverover]

blindspot said:

I would agree that the wording is poorly chosen, but the intent remains clear and the wording is just specific enough.

You can end the agreement after the 10 month point by giving 2 months notice. The mechanism for ending the tenancy is the notice, which if given at the earliest permissible time takes you to 12 months.

Still, if there's a decent agent/LL they will probably shrug philosophically and crack on with finding new tenants. Can't see it being worth anyone's while arguing about it particularly as both parties know full well what was intended by the clause.

This +1......any fule kno dat

[anonymous-user]

surveyor said:

garyhun said:

It's worded badly but I think anyone with an ounce of common sense would infer that the earliest they can give 2 months notice is on July 1st thus ending the contract on August 31 as the fixed term states.

I don't use common sense when reading Lease / Tenancy Agreements. I read what the words say.

If they need common sense after that then they are badly drafted.

Depends if you want to keep waging wars or build good relationships between tenant and LL I suppose.

[MrChips]

Ok, so i purposely didn't include whether we are landlord or tenant so as not to bias the responses.... we're the landlord. Our tenants are moving country so have given us the heads up that (in their words)..."We need to give notice of contract termination on the first available date of 30th June and pay for the last 3 months upfront". I believe this is because they can claim the final 3 months back from their employer who is relocating them (they need me to sign something for them to be able to claim the 3 months rent back)

I've taken that as per the intended contract that they planned to give notice on the 30th June, and pay for June/July/Aug upfront.

Long story but yesterday they just paid 3 months upfront (without me asking!), ahead of a meeting that I had already scheduled tonight to discuss the options as I know they were keen to move out earlier.

Given the split of opinion, the wording in itself is definitely not clear, but in my view taken in conjunction with the fixed term being 12 months, then I believe the minimum rental period is 12, not 10 months. This was certainly the intention, although reading it back now it is unclear, hence the fixed term period becomes more important in showing the intent.

They have been very good tenants so far, and if we were going to be renting the house out again they it wouldn't be an issue, however we're planning to put it on the market at some point to sell. This means we'll likely need some flexibility from the tenants to allow us to hold an open day/viewing etc. (There is a clause in the contract to allow this, but i'd rather keep on good terms with them).

So.. meeting tonight I suspect may need a conversation about the fixed period, and some compromise on both sides. I think as i'd like to come out of it with an agreement that we can hold an open day to try to sell it, and that if it sells quickly then we agree to them moving out at the end of June so my gut feel is that i'll need to compromise so as not to get into a dispute over the contract terms.
Hopefully the fact that their employer will pay for the final 3 months means that there is some flexibility on both sides.

I suspect it's not worth the risk/hassle of trying to enforce the full 12 months rent payment given that they could become a pain in the ass so i'll have to chalk it up to experience and change the wording of the notice clause if we don't sell, and end up renting it out again.

[anonymous-user]

Sounds like a sensible approach OP especially considering the need for them to make viewings as easy as possible.

[MJG280]

surveyor said:

I don't use common sense when reading Lease / Tenancy Agreements. I read what the words say.

If they need common sense after that then they are badly drafted.

I agree with you. If (but not within ten months of the commencement date) had been after 'by giving the landlord at least two months written notice.' then it would have to run for the full term.

In court a judge reads the wording, nothing else and makes his decision on that basis. If the landlord had intended for there to be no early release then the Notice clause would surely not have been included.

I'm a retired Surveyor who has read lots of crappy leases and other documents with errors where the legal advice was nearly always, what is written is what counts, as that reflects the intentions of the parties. Surely each party read the document before signing it. I always read my standard AST agreements in case I've made an error, even the pages that I have not altered.