I think I might play Devils Advocate here.
In that case why is there a break clause at all. If the LL wanted/expected the tenant to stay then he just has a 12 month fixed term with no break clause?
Originally Posted by jta
Also, whats the point of a break clause that allows the landlord to charge the tenant rent for the rest of the term after the tenant has lawfully termoinated and moved out?
Can the OP confirm that there is a similar clause allowing the landlord to break the tenancy after six months with the landlord being responsible for the costs incurred by the tenant of finding new accommodation and the LL paying the extra £25 per month in rent over and above what the tenant currently pays because thats what it will now cost for similar accommodation.
There has to be balance and good faith in the contract and in my experience I think the second clause the OP has referred to is subject to serious challenge under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.
The comments given here are provided free of charge and inevitably without sight or knowledge of the full facts and are thus given in good faith but without liability and should not be relied upon as formal legal advice.