LL saying she will call the police if I don't leave immediately, I have an AST.

[westminster]

Just to clarify: if the "break clause" has no effect (which is arguable) I cannot be served notice (or asked to leave) until the end of the fixed term, in my case September?

IMO that phrase in the contract is not a break clause. It might be 'arguable', but I don't think it's an argument the LL would win.

That being the case, the LL cannot obtain a possession order under s.21 until after fixed term expiry in September.

[jjlandlord]

The contract provides that the T or LL *can* serve a NTQ, but it doesn't follow that anything happens at notice expiry if the contract doesn't specify what happens, regardless of intent - and in addition, OP clearly had no such intent when agreeing the contract.

My point is that just '1 month notice to quit' is not too difficult to interpret, imo, as to the likely effect and intent of the parties, which is what the contract records. It would have been quite different if it was just stated 'notice'.
This is written very visibly on the front page of the contract. Now OP wants to argue that she didn't understand or agree?

People should read and ponder contracts before agreeing to them, not at some later point when the terms come back knocking.

[ks11]

Thanks again for your replies they've been very informative, and very very appreciated.

Just to say - I did read the contract before I signed it, I either overlooked the sentence or allowed the land lady's verbal assurances to let me attach no significance to it. Terrible from a law student! Certainly won't be making that mistake again (and thankfully that wasn't my exam!)

Either way inclusion of a break clause was certainly against my intention, which I made clear to her many times.

I had my own views on the matter but hearing it from people that appear to know their stuff more than me is reassuring.

I'll be using the legal clinic at uni when I get the chance too but you guys and girls have helped no end.

Thanks so much.

[ks11]

Hi,

I posted the other day to confirm some stuff about my occupancy agreement: confirmed it as an AST and consensus (3/4) of replies believed the break clause to be non-effective.

The thread is here:

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...ause-validity)

but I don't think there's any need to read it.

I was informed when I returned home about an hour ago that the LL will be calling the police if I do not leave immediately.

What is my legal position? I'm worried that I'm going to come home and see my stuff on the curb.

If you could take the time to reply I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

[Snorkerz]

The police will not get involved because this is a civil matter. The only people who can legally evict you are court bailiffs. However, I suggest you speak ASAP with the 'tenancy relations officer' at your local council as they are the ones who will have to take action if you are illegally evicted. Outside of office hours, its the police, but it can sometimes be difficult to get them to take notice. Illegal eviction s a criminal offence - so they should. You may find this useful http://tenancyanswers.ucoz.com/index..._eviction/0-22

[islandgirl]

Tell her to go ahead and call them, then enjoy what happens next!

[Moderator2]

Two related threads have been merged.

[westminster]

I was informed when I returned home about an hour ago that the LL will be calling the police if I do not leave immediately.

What is my legal position?

As I said above,

The only way that the LL can legally regain possession and evict you is by serving valid notice under s.21 (or s.8) Housing Act 1988, then applying for possession after the notice expires, then getting a court bailiff to execute the possession order.

So, anything else - e.g. threatening you, changing the locks, physically forcing you to leave, etc - is illegal, a criminal offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

I agree with Snorkerz that you should immediately contact the Tenancy Relations Officer at the local council and report the LL.

[leaseholdanswers]

Actually the notice to quit is invalid as a contractual term. An NTQ refers to a periodic tenancy and this is still a contractual tenancy (an AST as Westminster says, based on what info you have provided) in the contract term Sep 12 to Sep 13.

Neither party can therefore serve an NTQ until later this year.

Amateur drafting, got to love it

I would suggest refusing to move and if proceedings are brought to remove you I cant see any prospect of success. of more interest is the person with whom the landlord lay has fallen out with. If they seek possession then you can ask the court to recognise your tenancy.

If the document you have do not have the name and address of the landlord given under section 47 and 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 insist on this and refuse to pay rent in the meantime, as is your legal right. under section3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 you can also give notice this landlady requiring them to provide the information.That way you know who you are talking to.


Contact your local tenancy relations officer who may be able to assist.

[jta]

If the document you have do not have the name and address of the landlord given under section 47 and 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 insist on this and refuse to pay rent in the meantime, as is your legal right. under section3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 you can also give notice this landlady requiring them to provide the information.That way you know who you are talking to.

Keep the rent safe because it will be due as soon as the landlord complies wit the law