Do you need to give 1 months notice at end of assured shorthold tenancy?

[samtrainer]

I really need some help, I am coming to the end of my 6 month assured shorthold tenancy on the 12th March and I emailed my lettings agent on the 25th Feb after not hearing from them, today I gave them a ring because I still hadn;t heard anything and was told that the agent I delt with had left the company.

 

Now they are telling me that I had to give one months notice from the rent date even though I have told them I will pay and now stay until the 25th March giving a month even if it isn't from the rent date.

 

Is this right that I have to give them one months notice that I want to leave at the end of my contract?

they keep telling me that it becomes a rolling contract, but I want to end before this happens.

This is from my contract:

 

The Landlord lets to the Tenant the Premises for a period of 12 months (subject to the break provisions in Clauses 31.15 and 31.16 below). The Tenancy shall start on (and include) the 12th day of September 2009 and shall end on (and include) the 11th day of March 2010, unless the Tenancy is extended in accordance with Clause 31.17 below).

 

 

If the Tenant wishes to end this Tenancy Agreement at any time after the expiration of the fixed term of the Tenancy, the Tenant must give the Landlord or the Agent at least one (1) month’s notice in writing. The termination of the Tenancy may not take place before the end minimum Tenancy period. Such termination shall not affect the rights or liabilities of either party which may have accrued under any other clause of this Tenancy Agreement.

I cannot find anything that tells me about a rolling contract and that I have to give any notice except if I go over the expiration date.

 

Any advice or help in this matter would really be appreciated as I've read so many different opinions on this.

[MrShed]

That is an incredibly confusing term.

 

Have they given you are 6 month or 12 month contract? The tenancy states 12 months then proceeds to document the timescale which is 6 months.

 

IMHO - the dates are what stand.

 

As such, the fixed term ends on the 11th of March, and so you can leave, on that date ONLY, without any notice at all.

[samtrainer]

Hi it was supposed to be a 12 month, but the landlord got scared last minute and would only let us have a six month, then in september we signed another 6 months even though it stated 12 months above, it was 6 months and it ends this month.

 

As such, the fixed term ends on the 11th of March, and so you can leave, on that date ONLY, without any notice at all.

 

that's what I thought, thank you. We did ask if we could pay for another week as our property which we are also renting out won't be free untill the 18th. I will go and visit the lettings agency tomorrow, but just wanted to know I was in the right before confronting them.

 

Is there any free legal advice body I could call?

[MrShed]

Shelter are best at this.

 

However, it really is clear cut - there is zero requirement to give notice at the end of the fixed term.

[samtrainer]

That's great news, thank you so much for your advice, the only thing is we do want to stay for an extra week and would pay an extra weeks rent, would this then lead us onto a rolling contract with the lettings agency or should I email the landlord direct and say that i'm willing to pay another weeks rent if he would accept that and let him know that the Lettings agency has dropped the ball on this.

[blitz]

They would not have to agree to this and if you do try appealing to the LL say that an extra weeks rent and time will help in finding a new tenant and being less out of pocket.

 

Otherwise it would be one months notice in respect to rent payment date, or end of fixed term imo. Though Shed is much better then me at these things

[Webranger]

Yes, you have to be out on March 11th and then you can claim your deposit back if you paid one and no-one can put you in the wrong.

 

By the same token the landlord or his agent can, providing you were served with a Section 21 Notice to Quit at least two months ago, insist that you go on that date. You have no right to stay on without explicit or implicit permission.

 

As for staying on a week for an extra week's rent, you need to get their agreement in writing making it clear that this does not create a periodic tenancy (that's a running month-to-month).

[Planner]

By the same token the landlord or his agent can, providing you were served with a Section 21 Notice to Quit at least two months ago, insist that you go on that date. You have no right to stay on without explicit or implicit permission.

 

 

This is very misleading. The tenant has every right to stay there after the completion of the fixed term, whether a s.21 notice has been sereved or not. A tenants right to security of tenure is implicitly written in legislation.

[Webranger]

It's not misleading at all, it's the law. The tenant has agreed to leave on a certain date when he signs the tenancy agreement. The landlord, if he has any sense, issues the S.21 notice at the beginning of the tenancy to protect his interests. Therefore, on the expiry of the agreement, the tenant has no right to stay.

 

If the landlord takes no action to enforce the S.21 notice and accepts more rent then by implication he grants a new right to stay and possibly(??) has to issue a new S.21 giving 2 months notice.

 

If he wants to enforce the first S.21, he has to get a court order but that doesn't mean the tenant has a RIGHT to stay until the Order is made. The Order specifically says that he has no right to stay and must go and the court MUST make the Order if the procedures have been correctly followed.

[MrShed]

I agree with you here Webranger.

 

There is a difference between a right to stay and an ability to stay.

 

The law allows a tenant to stay after the expiry of the Section 21, but he has no RIGHT to stay - and this is why the tenant becomes liable for eviction and court costs at this stage.

[Planner]

It's not misleading at all, it's the law. The tenant has agreed to leave on a certain date when he signs the tenancy agreement. The landlord, if he has any sense, issues the S.21 notice at the beginning of the tenancy to protect his interests. Therefore, on the expiry of the agreement, the tenant has no right to stay.

 

If the landlord takes no action to enforce the S.21 notice and accepts more rent then by implication he grants a new right to stay and possibly(??) has to issue a new S.21 giving 2 months notice.

 

If he wants to enforce the first S.21, he has to get a court order but that doesn't mean the tenant has a RIGHT to stay until the Order is made. The Order specifically says that he has no right to stay and must go and the court MUST make the Order if the procedures have been correctly followed.

 

Im not sure which 'law' you are reading, you certainly arent reading the relevant one in this case i.e. Housing Act 1988. The law (section 5 in this case), is clear that on the coming to an end of a fixed term tenancy agreement, a periodic tenancy arises. The service of a s.21 notice does not remove this fact.

 

In terms of your s.21 notice:

 

- It would a foolish landlord that refused to take rent offered (infact I dont think you leagally can refuse rent offered). You seemed to be confused. The payment of rent after the end of a fixed term doesnt make a perodic tenancy arise, a tenant still in occupation, rent paid or not, makes a periodic tenancy arise.

 

-In temrs of the RIGHT to stay, legally, ALWAYS (Housing Act 1988 s.5) Morally? - dependant on the situation.

 

The rest of your bumff isnt relevant to my disagreement with you. You have said;

 

You have no right to stay on without explicit or implicit permission.

 

When in fact the complete opposite is true - The O/P does have the right to stay on with or without explicit or implicit permission. Fact of Law.

[MrShed]

The taking of rent after expiry of a tenancy (due to notice) is classed as mesne profits, not rent, and does not grant a new tenancy - periodic or otherwise.

[Planner]

The taking of rent after expiry of a tenancy (due to notice) is classed as mesne profits, not rent, and does not grant a new tenancy - periodic or otherwise.

 

Agreed, in that very specific situation

 

In terms of the moral angle here, I dont know how we could be possibly discussing anything BUT the legal angle in this instance. Its not even the question asked by the O/P, its merley me pointing out a factually inacuracy in what Webranger has posted.

[Webranger]

Planner: you seem to be confusing a Shorthold Tenancy which I think does give security of tenure (despite its name) with an Assured Shorthold Tenancy which only gives security for the specific duration of the tenancy which can be six or twelve months.

 

It can then be allowed with the agreement of both parties to run into a periodic tenancy, in which case a landlord has to give 2 months notice to quit. If he does it properly, then the court MUST give him possession.

 

Your claim that a tenant can just stay as long as he likes whatever the landlord wants is not the law at all - providing the landlord gets a proper ASTA signed and abides by its rules. There would be no point in an AST if it could only be brought to an end at the whim of the tenant.

[Planner]

Planner: you seem to be confusing a Shorthold Tenancy which I think does give security of tenure (despite its name) with an Assured Shorthold Tenancy which only gives security for the specific duration of the tenancy which can be six or twelve months. No Im not and no it doesnt - s.5 Housing Act 1988 its all in black and white.

 

It can then be allowed with the agreement of both parties to run into a periodic tenancy, in which case a landlord has to give 2 months notice to quit. If he does it properly, then the court MUST give him possession. No. Agreement would be helpful but not a requirement. A periodic arising is AUTOMATIC unless one of the circumstances listed is fulfilled.

 

Your claim that a tenant can just stay as long as he likes whatever the landlord wants is not the law at all Whos said this? It certainly wasnt me and it certainly isnt what the law says. - providing the landlord gets a proper ASTA signed and abides by its rules. There would be no point in an AST if it could only be brought to an end at the whim of the tenant. Again whos said this? it certainly wasnt me?!

 

I really dont understand what the difficulty is in grasping what is being said here? Its one of the most basic points of being a LL or a tenant - a periodic tenancy arises after the end of the fixed term unless 1) a further fixed term is granted; or 2) the tenant moves on or; 3) the LL gets a court order.

 

Are you suggesting there is a 4)? i.e. a s.21 notice stops the periodic arising/a periodic arising needs the LL permission?

 

For reference (my underlining);

 

5 Security of tenure

(1) An assured tenancy cannot be brought to an end by the landlord except by obtaining an order of the court in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter or Chapter II below or, in the case of a fixed term tenancy which contains power for the landlord to determine the tenancy in certain circumstances, by the exercise of that power and, accordingly, the service by the landlord of a notice to quit shall be of no effect in relation to a periodic assured tenancy.

(2) If an assured tenancy which is a fixed term tenancy comes to an end otherwise than by virtue of—

(a) an order of the court, or

(b) a surrender or other action on the part of the tenant,

then, subject to section 7 and Chapter II below, the tenant shall be entitled to remain in possession of the dwelling-house let under that tenancy and, subject to subsection (4) below, his right to possession shall depend upon a periodic tenancy arising by virtue of this section.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Planner

[Webranger]

Planner: you appeared to say those things, but now seem to be having an argument of mere semantics about the meaning of the word "right" and when the right to stay ends. The fact is that at the end of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy the court must, if asked, order the tenant to leave.

 

Your partial quote - from which Act? - appears to be in reference to assured tenancies, not shorthold assured tenancies - which is what I said previously.

[Planner]

Planner: you appeared to say those things, but now seem to be having an argument of mere semantics about the meaning of the word "right" and when the right to stay ends. The fact is that at the end of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy the court must, if asked, order the tenant to leave.

 

Your partial quote - from which Act? - appears to be in reference to assured tenancies, not shorthold assured tenancies - which is what I said previously.

 

Webranger, we are obviously not arguing semantics on the word "Right" (for the record I have already clarified my view on this in my second post) otherwise you would have merley responded with that rather than your detailed description of s.21 notices etc. Please stop trying to change tracks - from this statement can I assume you concied the point that you gave incorrect advice?

 

The Quote is Housing Act 1988 S.5 (the details of which you have been given on three ocassions).

 

Can you not see that your statement above - The fact is that at the end of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy the court must, if asked, order the tenant to leave. - Is a completley different kettle of fish from my original objection to your statement of - By the same token the landlord or his agent can, providing you were served with a Section 21 Notice to Quit at least two months ago, insist that you go on that date. You have no right to stay on without explicit or implicit permission ??????

 

People depend (naively or otherwise) on what is said in these forums and our advice should always be 100% correct. From reading this thread, a tenant (or landlord) may think that all is required to get a tenant out at the end of a tenancy is for the LL to i) ask the tenant to politley leave and/or ii) serve a s.21 notice. This is simply not the case and could result in a homeless tenant and an in trouble landlord.

 

I think your final statement - Your partial quote - from which Act? - appears to be in reference to assured tenancies, not shorthold assured tenancies - nicely sums up your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

If you are a Landlord (it begs the question what else have you missed if you dont know this obvious and fundemental point?) then please read up on all this - otherwise you may one day find yourself in serious trouble from a savvy tenant.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Planner

[Webranger]

Contemptuous arrogance is not good for the soul

 

I am neither changing tack nor admitting that I was wrong. You, on the other hand, are being pedantic. I don't think that there is any difference between us in practice, but you seem to delight in arguing about words.

 

I did not advise anyone that there could be an eviction without a court order, I merely point out that a tenant had no right to stay beyond the end of a fixed tenancy and that the landlord could then insist on him going. I actually wrote this in the context of a tenant who was being told that he had to give another month's notice.

 

I didn't say that the tenant could not ignore the landlord's insistence, nor that the landlord in that case would not need a court order to uphold his RIGHT TO POSSESSION. If the landlord has this latter right, then clearly the tenant did not have it.

 

The landlord does have to have issued a notice to quit (or claim for possession if you want to quibble about words) before a court will issue the order.

[Planner]

Contemptuous arrogance is not good for the soul

 

Its all clear now Webranger...... your one of 'those' types of posters.