Rolling tenancy - two month or one month notice period, help!

[Sparkers24]

Hello, hoping someone can help. We had a six month contract with an estate agent. In the contract (under Special Conditions) it states that once our six month tenancy has expired we put onto a rolling contract, this requires a two month notice period (not one month as is the case with the six month).
This is in the contract, and it is also in the "options" letter we received near the end of our six month contract period (which we did not sign). What is the legal situation here. Am I required to pay two months notice?

A lesser issue is that when we took up the tenancy the estate agent required of us that we PAID FOR OUR KEYS! Yet they want these back at the end of our tenancy? Are we not entitled to a refund for a something we paid for?

The first question is, of course, the most important. Would appreciate any help as leaving in one month is a far better situation than two months. Thank you.

[Steve__M]

I've been advised that 1 month's notice is required if paying rent monthly on a periodic tenancy, and that nothing in the contract can modify this.

Check though that you have not got a 1 year contract with a 6 month break clause as the situation may be different till the year is up. I am not sure.

With regard to the keys you would have to check the contract. How much did they charge? And did you pay for the keys or pay for the services of some numpty to hand the keys to you?

Obviously the landlord will not wish you to keep the keys and you could get charged to change the locks if you don't return them. But if they are yours I would say you can do what you like to them before you return them (including damaging them).

[Aequitas]

The question cannot be answered until we know exactly what the agreement says.

[Sparkers24]

In the six month tenancy agreement, which has expired, (but am not on a rolling contract) it says as part of the First Schedule (under special conditions) that "that if you decide to vacate at the end of your six month fixed term, a minimum of one months written notice is required. After the initial fixed term tenants are required to give two months written notice, failure to do so will result in the deposit being retained in lieu of notice." The further letter requiring information as to what we intend to do now the six-month contract has expired stated that no reply to the letter constitutes acceptance that we are now on a periodic contract.

It turns out that the situation with the keys was that they did provide us with one set. But not provide another set of keys for me, the other housemate. I had to go to a locksmiths and pay for one. And they want it back. Which is understandable.

[Esio Trot]

Nothing in the contract can overrule statute.

The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 s5 (1) states that you only have to give four weeks notice. It must be in writing and, clarified by Laine v. Cadwallader (2001) 33 HLR 36, it must end at the end of a period in the tenancy (i.e. the day before the rent day).

[Aequitas]

I ought to have made it clear that I needed to know (a) the notice provisions and (b) whether the tenancy was granted for a fixed period to convert to periodic when the fixed period expires.

I am going to assume that (b) does not apply and that the tenancy agreement did not state that the tenancy was granted for "six months and then from month to month..." or words to that effect.

"that if you decide to vacate at the end of your six month fixed term, a minimum of one months written notice is required. After the initial fixed term tenants are required to give two months written notice, failure to do so will result in the deposit being retained in lieu of notice."

This is rank amateur drafting.

As to the red: A fixed term is a fixed term. It does not require notice to bring it to an end. The words are of no effect.

As to the green: At the time the tenancy was granted the statutory periodic tenancy to which the words apply did not exist. You cannot impose conditions in respect of a tenancy that does not exist. The words are of no effect.

As to the blue: If no notice is given, the tenancy continues. Since the tenancy continues, so does the obligation to pay rent. Therefore there is no need to provide for what happens if no notice is given. If the tenant moves out without giving notice and stops paying rent, the rent can be taken from the deposit.

As to the green and blue: Strictly interpreted, this imposes an obligation (though exactly when the obligation arsies is not made clear) to give notice even if the tenant does not want to leave, which is clearly a nonsense.

So, if you paid rent monthly and have a statutory and not a contractual periodic tenancy all you need to do is give a common law notice to quit, i.e. a notice ending the tenancy at the end of a complete month. Do not forget that the first month of the periodic tenancy started the day after the fixed term came to an end and that the subsequent months are calculated accordingly. The periods are NOT calculated according to when rent is paid.

The further letter requiring information as to what we intend to do now the six-month contract has expired stated that no reply to the letter constitutes acceptance that we are now on a periodic contract

You cannot create an agreement by default. In any event the letter was quite unnecessary - a statutory periodic tenancy had already arisen.

Amateurs!!!

[Aequitas]

Originally Posted by Esio Trot

Nothing in the contract can overrule statute.

The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 s5 (1) states that you only have to give four weeks notice.

Not quite. The Act states that not less than four weeks' notice is required. If the contract or the common law requires a longer period of notice then the contract or common law prevails.