AST that lasts longer than it says it should

GlasweJen · 18th March 2008, 16:14

Sorry to confuse but I have an AST which specifies a term of one year. It then names dates from 1st May 2007 to 17th May 2007. Since rent is collected on the first are we liable to pay for the remaining 16 days or for the entire month?

Also how can a one year AST last for more than a year? We were all planning on moving by the end of April but we have been informed that we will have to look after this house until the 17th May.

MrShed · 18th March 2008, 23:57

Can you post the exact wording, both where it says one year, and where it says the dates you have mentioned? This should enable us to answer better.

GlasweJen · 19th March 2008, 00:06

Thanks MrShed, the contract reads

"The agreement is an Assured Shorthold Tenancy valid for the period of one year commencing on 01/05/07 and terminating on 17/05/08"

That's all it says on the matter.

MrShed · 19th March 2008, 00:13

Thats a tricky one I must admit! What does it say about rental payments - ie when they are due etc? Again exact wording if possible?

MrShed · 19th March 2008, 00:16

Oh to answer the first question, you would definitely only be liable for the 16 days, not the full months payment. It is the second question which is tricky!

GlasweJen · 19th March 2008, 01:27

The agreement only mentions how much rent we pay not when it's due. It's always paid on the first of the month by direct debit to the agent. We paid a months rent in advance when we moved in in addition to a deposit, never fallen behind with rent payments.

MrShed · 19th March 2008, 01:32

I would await clarification. However, my opinion is that the ambiguity of the date may have resulted in the fixed term for the tenancy actually being removed in effect, with the statutory security of tenure in its place. This has all kind of after effects, but it would mean that the end of April would be fine regarding the property, but you would have to give a months notice. However, as I say await clarification as it is not an issue I have ever come across before, so I am only really guessing.

GlasweJen · 19th March 2008, 01:37

We already got our notice to quit the property and it was when we were filling in the form to send back and confirm that we were moving that we noticed the discrepancy with the date and the agreement confirmed that it is longer than a year. We asked the letting company but they wont take the flat back before the 17th.

Aequitas · 19th March 2008, 10:04

The dates on which rent is payable has no bearing on when the tenancy ends.

We can first of all say for certain that no rent is due for any period beyond 17th May if you move out on or before that date.

The question is: does the tenancy end on 30th April or 17th May? There is a patent ambiguity in the wording. I think this has to be a case where the contra proferentem rule applies. This provides that in the case of an ambiguity in a contract the provision is interpreted against the party who drafted the contract.

I think the landlord only has a defence if the tenancy in fact started on the 17/18th of May i.e. if the mistake was in the commencement date and not the termination date. If the tenancy agreement is dated 17/18th May that decides the matter in the landlord's favour, but if it is dated on or before 1st May, in your favour.

The dratftsman has ignored a basic rule: either specify the start date and the length of term, or specify the start and end dates, but never specify the start and end dates and the length of term.

MrShed · 19th March 2008, 12:07

Good post Aequitas! Point of note - the provision being interpreted against the party who drafted the contract - would "interpreted against" depend on current circumstance, or what the law states is intepreted against? By that I mean, what if the situation was reversed and the tenants wanted to stay til may 17th and the landlord wanted them out at end of April? Would the tenants still win even though the decision is the opposite?

Hope that makes sense!

GlasweJen · 19th March 2008, 12:28

Thank you both, just to confirm that we moved in on the first and not the 17th. This is turning into an intellectual debate more than anything else because the letting agent wont budge and by the time we pursue it we'll be out anyway. It's just a bit of a mess to be honest we were wondering what sort of idiot adds on days to his year.

Aequitas · 19th March 2008, 13:25

If I were you I would only pay rent up to 30th April. If you have paid a deposit and the agent deducts what he thinks is due you can sue through the small claims track.

It may be worth having a word with the landlord direct.

Aequitas · 21st March 2008, 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrShed

Good post Aequitas! Point of note - the provision being interpreted against the party who drafted the contract - would "interpreted against" depend on current circumstance, or what the law states is intepreted against? By that I mean, what if the situation was reversed and the tenants wanted to stay til may 17th and the landlord wanted them out at end of April? Would the tenants still win even though the decision is the opposite?

Hope that makes sense!

A tricky one, but I think so.

CAG Products - We think that these will help you to make your claim or Reclaim your Right These sales also help us to keep helping YOU and keeps this site free of third party adverts!

Small Claims Kit	Small Claims Court Guide New Edition	CallBurner - Skype CallRecorder Review	Last Will & Testament Kit	Fight a Motoring Ticket

Alternatively you could purchase a CAG email address here, or maybe you'd prefer our address labels here
UPDATE: Consumer Forums ConsumerWiki is now LIVE - click here: ConsumerWiki N.B. Please note - due to postage costs these products are only available in the U.K.