Have agreed with Tenant an amend to the OR AST Notice period as follows:
Landlord to give 4 months notice
Tenant to give 2 months notice
ChatGPT provided the below text to insert in to the OR AST Amends section. Please can those with experience and relevant knowledge give me their constructive thoughts?
Thanks
—-
“Amended Notice Periods
The parties agree that the following shall apply in place of any existing notice provisions in the Tenancy Agreement, and subject to statutory requirements:
After the initial six (6) months of the tenancy have passed:
• The landlord shall be required to give the tenant no less than four (4) months’ written notice to terminate the tenancy, provided such notice is not given due to a breach of the agreement by the tenant.
• The tenant shall be required to give the landlord no less than two (2) months’ written notice to terminate the tenancy.
This amendment is made voluntarily by both parties and does not affect any statutory rights except as expressly agreed above. All other terms and conditions of the Tenancy Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.”
Im not sure why you would want to do this and I think it could come back to bite you. However, any legal wording can have unpredictable results and is subject to a court interpretation. If you really want to do this, consult a specialist solicitor. You should also check with your lender if you have a mortgage as it is quite likely to breach their terms. Likewise if you have rent guarantee insurance or legal cover.
Thanks David. The reason is the tenants want the benefit of a longer notice period for peace of mind. They have a great reference from renting for quite a while with someone I know. In short I don’t mind giving them the 4 months notice if it means they’re more comfortable. Mortgage, insurance etc has been checked and is fine.
The extra landlord notice isn’t necessary. It seemed like a fair balance.
Does that context help mitigate any potential unexpected side effects you have in mind?
Thanks for your thoughts
The renters rights bill is highly likely to be in place by the end of the initial term and this gives them 4 months notice if you wish to sell. It would only be less than 4 months if they are at fault so i would have thought this is unnecessary for them and they have right to only give 1 month notice.
Great point. As I understand it the RRB will effectively nullify existing ASTs. The effect of any amends made to a standard AST now, such as those Im considering, would be superseded with the RRB. Is that thinking too simplistic?
Most landlords serve a s21 notice if a tenant breaches the agreement as it can avoid a court hearing and be quicker, but you may also have an issue doing that with this clause. S21 is the no fault notice and they could try to force a 4 month notice period on the basis that you didnt serve a s8 fault based notice.
Yes I could see that the 4 month addition could over ride a S21. If the S21 remains (as of today) abolished in the renters rights bill that’ll be mooted of course.
If the RR Bill ascends as is, in this late stage, what Im suggesting won’t seem to make much difference. Id be interested to hear of any other applicable blindspots. Unknown unknowns that is.
You are opening up a while can of worms. My suggestion would be to leave the agreement as it currently is, The tenant clearly isn’t going anywhere. If they took a new property then they would have even less protection.
Tell them that the RRB will give them more protection once that comes into force… And it won’t leave you open legally.
BTW, never rely on AI for legal advice🤯
Is it fair to say adding an amend could open a can of worms not only for the landlord but for the tenant too? By potentially requiring more legal work in the event of a disagreement?