6 month break out clause

[taniabee]

Hi there,

 

I'm new to the forum, so please bear with me

 

I have a question regarding the 6 month break out clause. In a previous flat that I rented, I was able to leave in the 8th month of a tenancy agreement because of this clause:

 

The Landlord hereby agrees that the Tenant shall have the right to terminate this agreement by giving to the landlord or his agent not less than one months advance notice in writing to expire not before

15/05/2009 of his intention to do so such notice to be delivered to the Landlord or his agent or sent by registered post or recorded delivery to the premises of the Landlords agent.

 

My lease ran from 15/11/08 - 14/11/09, so to my understanding this meant that I was able to leave anytime after 6 months, but had to give 1 months notice.

 

My new lease agreement however, states that there is a 6 month break out clause, but nowhere in the lease does it state how this works...what usually happens in this case? Is the clause that I have given above a standard one that I can fall back on?

 

I am now 9 months into my lease and have given 1 months notice, but when I spoke to the estate agent, they said that I could not do that and that I had to stay the full 12 months. The only time I could have left was at 6 months.

 

Is this true?

 

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

 

Tania

[Aequitas]

What exactly does it say in the agreement?

[taniabee]

The tenancy agreement has no details about notice that we have to give at all!

 

Also, on 1 page of the agreement is just says:

 

Initial agreement 12 months (6 month break out clause)

 

But nowhere in the agreement does it state the terms or specifics of this break out clause.

 

I just assumed (could be dangerous I know) that, that is how our one would work..?

[Snorkerz]

It seems the agent was correct - the break clause seems to be AT 6 months, not AFTER 6 months. This is actually more usual than your former arrangement.

[Aequitas]

Also, on 1 page of the agreement is just says:

 

Initial agreement 12 months (6 month break out clause)

 

But nowhere in the agreement does it state the terms or specifics of this break out clause.

 

Typical!

 

We do not know (a) who has the right to break (b) what period of notice is required © when the notice may be served (d) when the notice may take effect.

 

However, we can ask the question: If the wording was put in is it reasonable to assume it must have been intended to mean something? There are two possible answers. The first is that the wording is so vague that it has to be void for uncertainty. The second is that the intention to allow a right to break was clearly indicated and that conditions are to be assumed which favour the tenant. It is anybody's guess as to what answer you would get in a County Court.

 

If the tenancy was negotiated on the basis that there would be a right to break, that changes the picture. Then you could argue for rectification.

[taniabee]

thanks for getting back to me.

 

now the estate agent is insisting that we have to give a 2 month notice period!

 

without there being a mention of what period of notice is required, how do i know what i should do?

 

what is the standard in these cases?

 

my landlord is asking that we pay for 2 months and then he will try to find a tenant for june, if they move in on the Xth day of june, he will refund us the rent back pro rata.

 

but then he will only give us our deposit back on 1 august, when our initial tenancy was supposed to end, even though we would have been out of the property for 2 months by that time.

 

p.s. our landlord has also not registered our deposit with the TDS and after reading some of the experiences on this forum about tenants taking landlords to county court about this and the LLs registering just the day before and not being penalised for this.. so we were thinking of telling him about it a day before our tenancy expires so that he would not get a chance to do that... thoughts?

[taniabee]

nothing?

[Aequitas]

The agent/landlord seems to want to have it both ways: there is no right to break, but these are the terms if you exercise it.

 

Whatever you agree you must agree a clean break that brings the tenancy to an end and so that you only pay a fixed amount, whether greater than the rent payable up to the agreed end date or not. What you do not want to do is to agree to pay rent for any period that is subject to the landlord finding a new tenant; that is no incentive for the landlord to actively seek a new tenant.

[taniabee]

ok, just to update you on the situation. we thought it better to try and find a replacement tenant, which we did do, but the LL has refused the tenant's offer of the same rent we were paying. he is asking for more and will hold us to the rent unless someone is found who is willing to pay his new asking price!!

 

this is completely contrary to what we agreed upon, and that is where what you have said above Aequitas comes into play.

 

we have not agreed to pay for rent for the following month, so thank you for advising us on that.

 

what should we do here?

[Aequitas]

If you have the right to assign the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse to accept the assignee. the landlord cannot insist on the new tenant paying a higher rent.

 

I think perhaps you need to give notice and see what happens. Argue that the words "(6 month break out clause)" must mean something. Say you are taking it as meaning that either party has a right to break at any time after six months by giving notice that has immediate effect, but that you are prepared to give one month's notice.