PDA

View Full Version : Periodic Monthly Contract with 2 Months Notice Period?



razorhazor
08-03-2011, 17:57 PM
Hi guys hope you cal help.

I've read on the site that if a new Tenancy Agreement is not renewed and the tenant agree's with the landlord to remain in the property, the agreement changes into a Periodic Tenancy and therefore if you pay rent monthly, the notice period should be one month.

However, my tenancy agreement seems to state a two month notice period and I was wondering if this is legally binding...?

The exact text reads:

"If the landlord or tenant wishes to terminate the tenancy a minimum of two months notice must be given at the commencement of the tenancy. If neither the Landlord nor the Tenant gives notice then on the expiry of the fixed term the tenancy shall become a Periodic Tenancy and in such case two months notice (coinciding with a rental date) by either side will be required to terminate it"

Does this sound correct? even though the tenancy agreement is no longer valid (i.e. the 12 months has expired) can I still be bound by the notice period?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks
Matt

theartfullodger
08-03-2011, 18:05 PM
The tenancy agreement is still (almost entirely ) valid - you've just moved on, on the same terms, to (usually) a month-by-month "periodic" agreement: That is the law...

Assuming you are in England or wales & unless you rent is paid every 2-months (unlikely) you only have to give 1 months notice (but** see later), landlord has to give at least 2 months.

Tenancy agreement may not take away your rights from the law see...
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/ending_a_tenancy_or_licence/ending_a_periodic_agreement#1


If your agreement is periodic (ie rolling from week to week or month to month), you normally have to give at least four weeks' notice to end it, or a calendar month if you have a monthly tenancy. ......................

It is always best to give notice in writing and ensure that the notice ends on the first or last day of the period of a tenancy. For example, if your tenancy is monthly and started on the fifth day of the month, the notice you give the landlord should end on the fourth or the fifth

razorhazor
08-03-2011, 18:39 PM
Brilliant, thanks for that. I did think the contract didn't make sense and wandered how a letting agents could impose a two month contract when they know that you can't give two months notice when moving into a new place as everyone else can move within a month!

How can I get this proved? is it something I can goto Citizens Advice with? the problem is I want to get some evidence together before presenting my argument with the letting agents as I know this will rock the boat!

Matt

Lawcruncher
08-03-2011, 22:17 PM
"If the landlord or tenant wishes to terminate the tenancy a minimum of two months notice must be given at the commencement of the tenancy. If neither the Landlord nor the Tenant gives notice then on the expiry of the fixed term the tenancy shall become a Periodic Tenancy and in such case two months notice (coinciding with a rental date) by either side will be required to terminate it"

The part in red does not make a whole lot of sense. Even so the rest is clear. If such a notice is not given when the fixed term ends a contractual periodic tenancy arises which can only be ended by giving two months' notice ending on a rent day.

Snorkerz
09-03-2011, 01:49 AM
Lawcruncher...

Is there a lay-mans guide to the difference between a CPT & and SPT?

The CPT seems to take away a tenants statutory rights - and if this is valid, are there any disadvantages to a CPT? If there are not, I can't understand why all tenancy agreements do not create a CPT at the end of the fixed term.

mariner
09-03-2011, 01:59 AM
Can we establish whether OP os T or LL and the precise terms/dates of the original AST?

razorhazor
09-03-2011, 07:57 AM
Can we establish whether OP os T or LL and the precise terms/dates of the original AST?

Hi Guys,

A lot of abbreviations there which I dont understand, but I'll try and answer:

I'm the tenant and the contract is a Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement which expired on the 30th Jan 2011. My rental month is the 30th of the month and I gave written notice just before the 30th of Feb 2011.

I'm being told that I need to pay rent upto the 30th April (hense the extra month)

Thanks
Matt

Lawcruncher
09-03-2011, 09:32 AM
It is not so much that a contractual periodic tenancy takes a tenant's rights away, but rather that statute intervenes to fill the gap if the parties do not make any provision for what happens at the end of the fixed term.

A contractual periodic tenancy is simply one that the parties have specifically agreed.

Brixtonia
09-03-2011, 09:56 AM
Lawcruncher...

Is there a lay-mans guide to the difference between a CPT & and SPT?

The CPT seems to take away a tenants statutory rights - and if this is valid, are there any disadvantages to a CPT? If there are not, I can't understand why all tenancy agreements do not create a CPT at the end of the fixed term.

I agree. I don't understand why any LL leaves themselves open to T leaving without notice after 6 or 12 months. I toyed with fixed terms followed by CPT but Ts found it confusing (as did I). Instead I now offer a 3yr AST with a break clause allowing it to be terminated with two months notice by either party (not to expire in first 12 months). Apparently this is a lot less confusing and has so far been universally well accepted.

Obviously, T can leave without notice at end of three years but given the demographic I rent to this is an unlikely scenario and financially much more manageable than leaving after one year.

razorhazor
09-03-2011, 09:59 AM
It is not so much that a contractual periodic tenancy takes a tenant's rights away, but rather that statute intervenes to fill the gap if the parties do not make any provision for what happens at the end of the fixed term.

A contractual periodic tenancy is simply one that the parties have specifically agreed.

Thanks for that, so are we saying that 2 months notice is right and legal or I still have my legal rights which state 1 month?

I've spoken to the letting agents and they have responded stating that the contract is legal and was drawn up with a property lawyer, they wont comment on the advice I've gotten from this website and shelters website which contradicts this.

Is it worth me getting a lawyer? If they can get out of this and still impose the two months notice then I dont want to be out of pocket by a solicitors fee also!

Thanks for all your help!
Matt

Lawcruncher
09-03-2011, 11:05 AM
Thanks for that, so are we saying that 2 months notice is right and legal or I still have my legal rights which state 1 month?

I've spoken to the letting agents and they have responded stating that the contract is legal and was drawn up with a property lawyer, they wont comment on the advice I've gotten from this website and shelters website which contradicts this.

Is it worth me getting a lawyer? If they can get out of this and still impose the two months notice then I dont want to be out of pocket by a solicitors fee also!

Thanks for all your help!
Matt

With respect you are not quite approaching this from the right angle if you think in terms of having a right to terminate the tenancy on one month's notice.

What the Housing Act 1988 effectively does is to give a tenant a tenancy where he needs it. In your case if you had wanted to continue in occupation you would not have needed to rely on the Act because the contractual arrangement covers the position. Having agreed the basis on which the tenancy continues you are bound by it.

razorhazor
09-03-2011, 11:52 AM
With respect you are not quite approaching this from the right angle if you think in terms of having a right to terminate the tenancy on one month's notice.

What the Housing Act 1988 effectively does is to give a tenant a tenancy where he needs it. In your case if you had wanted to continue in occupation you would not have needed to rely on the Act because the contractual arrangement covers the position. Having agreed the basis on which the tenancy continues you are bound by it.

Interesting, so even though the law states one thing, because I've signed a contract I'm bound by those rules...? even though the contract has technically expired?

I've checked this with my local CAB and they've come back with the following:

Dear Matt,

The law states the rules of a periodic tenancy. If they wish to dispute it, they will be disputing the law. You could write the landlord a letter, outlining why you are not paying the rent, before simply not paying the last month.

Regards


So I'm not sure which ones correct now?

DrunkenJedi
09-03-2011, 12:16 PM
even though the contract has technically expired?

The contract has not expired.
It has a provision to continue on a periodic basis in the event that you do not agree a new fixed term with the LL.

razorhazor
09-03-2011, 12:18 PM
The contract has not expired.
It has a provision to continue on a periodic basis in the event that you do not agree a new fixed term with the LL.

Ok thanks. So contract has changed to a periodic with the term that 2 months notice is required by the tenant and because this is in the contract it superseeds the law which states a month and because I've signed the contract I am bound by the 2 months notice?

Thanks for your help!
Matt

DrunkenJedi
09-03-2011, 12:37 PM
Ok thanks. So contract has changed to a periodic with the term that 2 months notice is required by the tenant and because this is in the contract it superseeds the law which states a month and because I've signed the contract I am bound by the 2 months notice?

Thanks for your help!
Matt

A tenancy agreement cannot take away your statutory rights so the notice period determined by the law overrides the notice period stated in your tenancy agreement.
So you only need to give 1 month's notice, which must be given no later than the first day of a rental period.
Practically, if you don't hand in your notice in person to the LL or LA (and get a written confirmation of this), you should allow for time in the post and obtain proof of posting, especially since you are dealing with a LL/LA who don't know the law.

The consensus on this site seems to be to send 2 notices to the correct party.

1. To either the LL or LA (this should be specified in the tenancy agreement) by normal post with a certificate of posting.
2. To either the LL or LA but send it by recorded delivery.

I would also send your notice by email and request confirmation of receipt by return.

razorhazor
09-03-2011, 12:40 PM
A tenancy agreement cannot take away your statutory rights so the notice period determined by the law overrides the notice period stated in your tenancy agreement.
So you only need to give 1 month's notice, which must be given no later than the first day of a rental period.
Practically, if you don't hand in your notice in person to the LL, you should allow for time in the post and obtain proof of posting, especially since you are dealing with a LL/LA who don't know the law.

The consensus on this site seems to be to send 2 notices to the correct party.

1. To either the LL or LA (this should be specified in the tenancy agreement) by normal post with a certificate of posting.
2. The same but send it by recorded delivery.

I would also send your notice by email and request confirmation of receipt by return.

Excellent, glad I'm on the same page.

We sent the notice via email (an emailed letter attachment) so have proof of when it was sent and was sent well before the rental date.

Now I guess my next question is how do I challenge this? should I just write another letter stating I'm not paying the extra month and leave it up to the expected dispute on my deposit? or is there a standard letter I can send?

Thanks!
Matt

DrunkenJedi
09-03-2011, 12:58 PM
Now I guess my next question is how do I challenge this? should I just write another letter stating I'm not paying the extra month and leave it up to the expected dispute on my deposit? or is there a standard letter I can send?

Thanks!
Matt

There is nothing for you to challenge. You are complying with the law.
Let the LL/LA come back to you with their challenge, if they do.
If they do this, remind them of the statutory notice period for a SPT and that your notice is in line with that.

If they don't reply to your notice letter within a week or so, write to them again with something like "following on from my notice letter on (date), please advise me in writing on arrangements for the check out as I wish to present for that procedure".
Please also confirm the deposit refund time-line.

This should generate a response.

Just so you know, you do not have to provide access to the property for viewings etc., if you don't want to, whatever it says in your tenancy agreement or whatever contrary comes out of the LL/LA mouths.
The check out procedure is the only legal opportunity that the LL or LA have in order to assess the condition of the property after your tenancy has ended.

Lawcruncher
09-03-2011, 14:03 PM
Interesting, so even though the law states one thing, because I've signed a contract I'm bound by those rules...? even though the contract has technically expired?

Once again you are not looking at it from the correct viewpoint. It is not that you have some right that you have unwittingly given up. Rather, statute provides for a fall back position if needed.


I've checked this with my local CAB and they've come back with the following:

Dear Matt,

The law states the rules of a periodic tenancy. If they wish to dispute it, they will be disputing the law. You could write the landlord a letter, outlining why you are not paying the rent, before simply not paying the last month.

Regards


So I'm not sure which ones correct now?

There are two different things here which the CAB seems to be confusing:

1. If certain conditions are fulfilled when a fixed term assured tenancy, whether shorthold or not, comes to an end a periodic tenancy arises and the terms of such a tenancy are set out in the HA 1988.

2. There are rules which apply to the way in which periodic tenancies can be terminated. Stated briefly, the terms of any particular tenancy may set out the rules as to how that tenancy can be terminated. If they do not, the common law rules apply. In the case of a periodic tenancy arising under the HA 1988 the Act does not set out any specific rules and accordingly the common law rules apply, that is that (unless yearly) the tenant must give notice equal to at least a period of the tenancy and expire at the end of a period. In your case your contract sets out clearly what period of notice is needed and when it must expire.

westminster
09-03-2011, 14:15 PM
There is nothing for you to challenge. You are complying with the law.
Let the LL/LA come back to you with their challenge, if they do.
If they do this, remind them of the statutory notice period for a SPT and that your notice is in line with that.

It is not a statutory periodic tenancy. It is a contractual periodic tenancy. Therefore, the contract's provisions for notice - two months - apply.



If neither the Landlord nor the Tenant gives notice then on the expiry of the fixed term the tenancy shall become a Periodic Tenancy and in such case two months notice (coinciding with a rental date) by either side will be required to terminate it"

razorhazor
09-03-2011, 19:27 PM
It is not a statutory periodic tenancy. It is a contractual periodic tenancy. Therefore, the contract's provisions for notice - two months - apply.

So sounds like were back to square one again with the contract being correct?

Just to confirm, the Short Hold Tenancy Agreement expired on the 30th Jan 2011, we gave our notice in on the 28th Feb 2011, and we've paid up to the 30th March 2011, the agent states we need to pay up to the 30th April 2011 and this in your opinion is legal?

Is this some kind of technicality? which isnt commonly known then? just seems odd that CAB and Shelter both have reviewed the paragraph in my contract as you have and have both agreed it to be illegal, yet you (and I think Lawcruncher) state that its legal?

I've looked up the Housing Act 1988 and it states the following:


(3) The periodic tenancy referred to in subsection (2) above is one
(e) under which, subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, the other terms are the same as those of the fixed term tenancy immediately before it came to an end, except that any term which makes provision for determination by the landlord or the tenant shall not have effect while the tenancy remains an assured tenancy.

Are you able to translate? I read that this means that when the contract expires, all terms except those referring to notice are not in effect while the tenancy is not in effect? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?

I think I'll put a call into the tenancy deposit scheme company tomorrow for their opinion as I'm sure the agent will put a dispute in against that if I write to them disputing this extra month.

Brixtonia
09-03-2011, 20:58 PM
So sounds like were back to square one again with the contract being correct?

Just to confirm, the Short Hold Tenancy Agreement expired on the 30th Jan 2011, we gave our notice in on the 28th Feb 2011, and we've paid up to the 30th March 2011, the agent states we need to pay up to the 30th April 2011 and this in your opinion is legal?

Is this some kind of technicality? which isnt commonly known then? just seems odd that CAB and Shelter both have reviewed the paragraph in my contract as you have and have both agreed it to be illegal, yet you (and I think Lawcruncher) state that its legal?

I've looked up the Housing Act 1988 and it states the following:



Are you able to translate? I read that this means that when the contract expires, all terms except those referring to notice are not in effect while the tenancy is not in effect? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?

I think I'll put a call into the tenancy deposit scheme company tomorrow for their opinion as I'm sure the agent will put a dispute in against that if I write to them disputing this extra month.

If you read on:


(4) The periodic tenancy referred to in subsection (2) above shall not arise if, on the coming to an end of the fixed-term tenancy, the tenant is entitled, by virtue of the grant of another tenancy, to possession of the same or substantially the same dwelling-house as was let to him under the fixedterm tenancy.

I believe this covers your situation since you have been granted another tenancy in the form of a CPT - terms of which are set out in your agreement and include two months notice.

razorhazor
09-03-2011, 21:04 PM
If you read on:


(4) The periodic tenancy referred to in subsection (2) above shall not arise if, on the coming to an end of the fixed-term tenancy, the tenant is entitled, by virtue of the grant of another tenancy, to possession of the same or substantially the same dwelling-house as was let to him under the fixedterm tenancy.

I believe this covers your situation since you have been granted another tenancy in the form of a CPT - terms of which are set out in your agreement and include two months notice.

I see your point, but I dont know what this means (in english!):


the tenant is entitled, by virtue of the grant of another tenancy

Another tenancy? Does that mean another shorthold tenancy? or another tenancy for a different dwelling?

Brixtonia
09-03-2011, 21:09 PM
The advice given to you by CAB does not seem consistent with their own advice set out in a document called "11.5.6.4 Assured Shorhold Tenancies". I have not seen the original document but an extract on another forum reads as follows:



126

If the tenancy is a contractual periodic tenancy and the agreement does not specify how much notice the tenant must give, the notice to quit the tenant must give the landlord should:-

· be in writing; and

· be for at least 28 days (or, if the tenancy is one in which the rent is paid at longer intervals than this, for example, every three months, the notice should be for that period); and

· expire on the last day or the first day of a complete period of the tenancy, for example, if the first day of a period of a weekly tenancy is a Friday, the notice to quit must expire on a Thursday or a Friday. If a monthly tenancy began on the 20th of the month, the notice to quit must expire on the 19th or 20th of the month. Although the first day of a period of the tenancy may be the same day as the rent is paid, this is not always the case, for example, a weekly tenancy may have started on a Thursday, but the rent day be agreed as the Monday.

127

If the tenancy is a statutory periodic tenancy, any term in the fixed term agreement relating to ending the tenancy no longer has effect, and the tenant should submit a notice to quit as described in the previous paragraph.

Yours does specify a notice period.

Brixtonia
09-03-2011, 21:16 PM
I see your point, but I dont know what this means (in english!):



Another tenancy? Does that mean another shorthold tenancy? or another tenancy for a different dwelling?

Your rights of occupation were originally granted under a fixed term Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST). When the fixed term finished your contract allowed for your rights of occupation to continue under another tenancy agreement - a Contractual Periodic Tenancy (CPT). If no contractual tenancy had been agreed to the law would have stepped in and protected your rights by creating a Statutory periodic Contract (SPT).

Is that any clearer?

razorhazor
09-03-2011, 21:23 PM
Your rights of occupation were originally granted under a fixed term AST. When the fixed term finished your contract allowed for your rights of occupation to continue under another tenancy agreement - a Contractual Periodic Tenancy CPT. If no contractual tenancy had been agreed to the law would have stepped in and protected your rights by creating a Statutory periodic Contract SPT.

Is that any clearer?

It is clearer thanks. So effectively, by stating that the notice period on the contract is two months after the AST fixed term ends then effectively the agent has given me a Contractual Periodic Tenancy CPT which means that the two months stands.

And if the agent hadn't specified any notice period once the AST expires then I would be talking about a Statutory Periodic Contract SPT which means a default of one month protected by law.

So landlord can state any notice period even after the AST expires and because I've signed it, I have to go with it and pay the extra months rent?

There are a lot of conflicting opinions on here and with CAB/Shelter/Other Sites, is the deciding factor the fact that a notice period has been stated? and CAB/Shelter/Other Sites are just not picking up on that and replying with a standard reply which is only in effect if there's no notice period specified?

Just to further clarify, this is what the contract states:


If the landlord or tenant wishes to terminate the tenancy a minimum of two months notice must be given at the commencement of the tenancy. If neither the Landlord nor the Tenant gives notice then on the expiry of the fixed term the tenancy shall become a Periodic Tenancy and in such case two months notice (coinciding with a rental date) by either side will be required to terminate it

westminster
09-03-2011, 21:47 PM
is the deciding factor the fact that a notice period has been stated?...

No, not just because the contract specifies a notice period, but because it specifies that a periodic tenancy will arise - by contract - after the fixed term ends.


If neither the Landlord nor the Tenant gives notice then on the expiry of the fixed term the tenancy shall become a Periodic Tenancy and in such case two months notice (coinciding with a rental date) by either side will be required to terminate it
Most AST contracts just grant a fixed term. T would be free to vacate on the last day of the fixed term and the tenancy would end at that point, because both parties have agreed that that's the end of the contract.

However, in your case, the contract says that after the fixed term the tenancy shall become periodic. That's a contractual agreement, so the contractual notice periods apply.

If the contract didn't say anything about what happens after the end of the fixed term, then a periodic tenancy would have arisen because statute says so, and statutory notice periods would apply.

Brixtonia
09-03-2011, 21:58 PM
[QUOTE=razorhazor;289726]It is clearer thanks. So effectively, by stating that the notice period on the contract is two months after the AST fixed term ends then effectively the agent has given me a Contractual Periodic Tenancy CPT which means that the two months stands.

The contract states that you both intended to enter into a Periodic Tenancy agreement after the fixed term. Because it is specifically agreed between both parties it is a Contractual Periodic Tenancy. The contractual tenancy may or may not define a notice period. In your case it does.

An SPT is not agreed by both parties - it is forced upon them both by law under certain circumstances.


And if the agent hadn't specified any notice period once the AST expires then I would be talking about a Statutory Periodic Contract SPT which means a default of one month protected by law.

Not quite. If the contract simply said it "shall become a periodic tenancy" but did not set a notice period, it would still be a CPT but the notice period would be decided by law and would be the same as for an SPT. In that case the only difference bewteen that and an SPT, I think, would be that you would not be able to leave the property at the end of the fixed term because you would have to begin the CPT.

If your contract was simply for a fixed term and there was no agreement regarding what happens after the fixed term THEN you would have an SPT if you stayed on past the end of the fixed term.


So landlord can state any notice period even after the AST expires and because I've signed it, I have to go with it and pay the extra months rent?

In effect, but I would slightly rephrase that to say that both parties can AGREE to any notice period. I imagine it would have to pass a test of reasonableness - e.g. I don't believe it could say T needs to give 3 months notice but L can give just 1.


There are a lot of conflicting opinions on here and with CAB/Shelter/Other Sites, is the deciding factor the fact that a notice period has been stated? and CAB/Shelter/Other Sites are just not picking up on that and replying with a standard reply which is only in effect if there's no notice period specified?

The main factors are that a) both parties agreed that a CPT would follow the fixed term and that b) a notice period has been defined in the contract.

You have received quite a lot of conflicting information and I am afraid that you have to treat mine as just another part of that. But in your shoes I would be very cautious about taking the view that the notice period set out in your contract can be ignored.

FYI - I am a landlord who used to use (and still has a number of outstanding) contracts with fixed terms followed by CPTs with 2 months notice. I have stopped using them because I think they are far too confusing.

theartfullodger
10-03-2011, 15:53 PM
PF Smith, “Law of LL &T” 2002 6th edition p278 “Notice to quit, General Principles”…..


The parties to a periodic tenancy will have agreed on the length of the tenancy, either expressly or by implication. The tenancy may be for one week, one month, quarterly, for six months or yearly. Unless the parties agreed otherwise agree, (my bolding) the length of a notice to quit must be the same as that of the initially agreed duration of the tenancy. Thus, a weekly tenancy requires a week’s notice, a monthly tenancy a month and so on.

.. so, think lawcruncher is right & I was wrong.. apologies LC..

brownn
13-12-2012, 18:32 PM
Your rights of occupation were originally granted under a fixed term Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST). When the fixed term finished your contract allowed for your rights of occupation to continue under another tenancy agreement - a Contractual Periodic Tenancy (CPT). If no contractual tenancy had been agreed to the law would have stepped in and protected your rights by creating a Statutory periodic Contract (SPT).

Is that any clearer?


Thank you all for your posts, that explains lot!

Can anyone help me to understand my situation.

My 1 year AST finished in Sept 2011. I signed another AST in Sept 2011 (terms and conditions reminded the same) and that one lasted until September 2012 I havent signed next one ( our landlord gave us 1 page AST for another year (sept 2012-2013) stating that terms and conditions remind the same, but we never signed that)

So from September 2012 we are on periodic contract?

we pay monthly.

In our initial contract there is written:

"If the tenant intends to vacate at the end of fixed term, or any later date, he agrees to give the Landlord at least two months prior notice in writing".

We want to move out now, we have given one month notice, but Landlord expects two months notice according to the old contract, where is written "or any later date" ......

in the initial contract there been mentioned that after the contract finishes, we have SPT.
the quote above concerns me though... Landlord wants money for another 2 months..
could anyone advise what to do? should i pay that?

jta
13-12-2012, 19:06 PM
In a statutory periodic tenancy the tenant must give a minimum of 1 month notice which has to end on the last day of a 'period'. The landlord must give a minimum of 2 months notice, again to end on the last day of a 'period'.

Whatever is written in the agreement has no effect on this, statute always trumps any clause in the agreement.

brownn
13-12-2012, 19:14 PM
looks like i wasnt careful:

term:
"1.6.1 the term shall be for 12 months from and including xx 2010 to and including xx september 2011. Please see clause 2.5 as it contains important information about what you must do to end the tenancy. * (2.5 "If the tenant intends to vacate at the end of fixed term, or any later date, he agrees to give the Landlord at least two months prior notice in writing". While the tenancy is periodic the two months written notice must expire the day before a rent due date.

1.6.2 The "term" is to include a statutory periodic tenancy or any contractual periodic tenancy that is defined in clause 1.6.1 as following the fixed term
1.6.3 If on the coming to the end of the fixed term agreed above, the landlord does not seek posesion and the tenant reminds in the property, they will be considered, by virtue of section 5 of the Housing Act 1988, to have a statutory periodic tenancy. This will continue till ended by either party.


does it mean i need to give 2 months notice? what kind of contract i have got then?

brownn
13-12-2012, 19:18 PM
thank you, jta, for your quick response..:(happy):

jjlandlord
13-12-2012, 19:22 PM
The Housing Act 1988 states that the terms of a statutory periodic tenancy are the same are those of the fixed term tenancy expect for clauses related to termination which no longer apply.

So as said, you only need to give a month notice expiring on the last day of a period.

brownn
14-12-2012, 13:00 PM
thank you very much for your help.:)-: