Can a landlord terminate my lease if they decide they want to move into the property?

[Helen812]

Hi, just looking for some advice.
I am about to sign a 12 month lease on an apartment for myself and my son.
One of the clauses in it says,
The landlord can terminate the tenancy at any point only if he intends to personally occupy the property. They must give minimum 30 days notice.

Does this mean that even though it is a 12 month lease they can still terminate the lease if they want to move in. Is this allowed?
Just doesn't seem very stable for me when I am assuming I have the property for 12 months.
Anyone have experience of this or know if this is standard? Thank you

If you sign you’re legally agreeing that he can. If you don’t like this, then don’t sign and find some place else.

It's a standard clause in an AST.
You could discuss it with the landlord before signing.

Signing a contract doesn’t mean all of the terms are legally enforceable - if they’re legally “unfair”, the landlord can’t enforce them.

I’d suggest speaking with Shelter/Citizens Advice to check - from memory (was a landlord a few years ago) an AST has to have a minim fixed period of 6 months where the landlord can’t give notice, and when notice is given it’s minimum 2 months, not 30.

How hard would it be to find somewhere else?

If you sign a 12 month AST, without a break clause, then notice cannot be served for you to leave before the end of the 12 months. You can write any clause into a contract, it doesn't mean it's legally enforceable.

Also, forgot to add this to my previous post. Once you are out of the fixed term the current notice period for a Landlord to give to a Tenant is 4 months.

It’s pretty standard and it makes sense, because if for some reason the landlord becomes homeless, they will need their own property to live in as t hey wouldn’t be entitled to any help with housing elsewhere if they own a house, whereas you with a child and no house, would get help from the council if evicted.

I wouldn’t worry about it though, it’s incredibly unlikely to happen, and if it does the ll would have to go through months of expensive court proceedings to get you out anyway.

@Bluntness100

If you sign you’re legally agreeing that he can. If you don’t like this, then don’t sign and find some place else.

Wrong I'm afraid.

Sounds like it could be very old tenancy agreement wording.(wont go into how, why as possibly not relevant)

Your rights as a tenant are what happens in practice, not what is on the agreement. You don't even need a written agreement to have a legally binding tenancy and have rights under the Housing Act 1985

If you are in England, then that clause would be unenforceable.
LL can put what he/she likes in the contract and if you think about it ...if it was enforceable it also means that the LL would be unable to terminate the tenancy (in the correct manner) for any other reason so shooting themselves in the foot.

Anyway look at the Shelter Website for assured shorthold tenants and that will tell you how and when the LL can end the tenancy.

The four month's notice period will be reduced back to two months in October. If there is a break clause, then yes the landlord can serve notice, without reason, after the initial six months. If no break clause, then they can't terminate the lease until the fixed term.
If your son is a good tenant, then it is very unlikely the landlord would want to lose him.

Your rights as a tenant are what happens in practice, not what is on the agreement
If you are in England, then that clause would be unenforceable.
That sounds totally contrary to contract law. Very odd.

That's a horrible clause, whether it's widely used or common. I would expect a landlord to have a back-up plan if he/she suddenly became unexpectedly homeless, not turf their tenant out on 30 days notice. The standard two months is bad enough.

I would not sign a tenancy agreement with that clause in it.

@GreyhoundG1rl

Your rights as a tenant are what happens in practice, not what is on the agreement If you are in England, then that clause would be unenforceable. That sounds totally contrary to contract law. Very odd.

Not odd. Housing Act 1988 (apologies for typo 1985 in previous post) governs how an AST has to be ended lawfully regardless of what the contract says.

Ok. Sorry, I didn't actually disbelieve you, just found it bizarre that some contracts were outside the scope of contract law. Makes sense when the area is covered by a government act, though.

Yes, they would have use a section 8 not a section 21 notice. Section 8 notices are legal and enforceable and standard in all agreements

Ignore Bluntness100. She is, yet again, giving poor advice on legal matters.

Your rights are governed by the law. If anything in the tenancy agreement is in conflict with the law, the law wins.

That clause sounds like an unfair contract term as it is one way, allowing the landlord to terminate but not giving you any right. In any event, if the landlord wants you out they must use the Section 21 process which requires 2 months notice.

I agree with slipofthekeyboard that you should check with Shelter or Citizen's Advice.

@Dazedandconfused10

Yes, they would have use a section 8 not a section 21 notice. Section 8 notices are legal and enforceable and standard in all agreements

If this break clause has any effect at all, it ends the AST allowing the landlord to serve a Section 21 notice. The courts have held that the landlord can serve notice to activate the break clause and Section 21 notice at the same time.

A Section 8 notice would not be appropriate. That is for use when the tenant has broken the agreement. Like a Section 21 notice, it normally requires 2 months notice. Due to Covid, the notice period for both Section 8 and Section 21 notices is 4 months.

The clause does not override your statutory rights under AST.

They can terminate whenever they feel like it, but it's two months notice they are legally required to give, so I would be questioning that. I had it done to me and in a really underhanded way, through Reid's Reins estate agency. I was coming to the end of my year tenancy, the landlord wanted to live in the house. I was told I either had to leave at the end of the tenancy (this was two weeks away) or I had to sign and pay for a new contract (you had to pay fees then) and then I would be served two months notice. I had a toddler and a full time job with no family near by and rentals were getting snapped up immediately. I had no choice but to pay for the contract to give myself two months to find a new home or I was at risk of being homeless. When I rang the council I was simply told that as I had a job they wouldn't help me if I was made homeless.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/renting-privately/during-your-tenancy/check-your-section-8-notice/

Ll can use section to regain possession of the property. Section 21 is more commonly used because its a no fault eviction but section 8 can be used.

So much bad advice on this thread

It would be great if you could highlight the bad advice Trilogy. I'm sure the op would appreciate it.

I'd want to review the whole tenancy agreement, and read the clause in its rightful place and with its EXACT wording, but it sounds like the landlord is complying with the law to forewarn the tenant that the property used to be their home; without a clause making reference to this, they would not have the right serve a notice on that basis.

A s8 would definitely be relevant - section 8s are not just for when tenants have broken the agreement, it includes a mandatory ground (ground 1) which allows the landlord to serve notice on the basis of the fact that the property was his home and he/she needs to return there for that purpose. The notice period is currently four months (two once things go back to normal following the pandemic).

OP, get a solicitor to read the actual tenancy agreement - the wording can be amended accordingly to fit in with what the law requires, as it would appear to me that the landlord is simply notifying you that the place used to be his home, as is the requirement for use of the aforementioned ground.

Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply. I live in Northern Ireland so I don't know if it is any different here. I have been researching all morning and it is very confusing with all these different sections and types of tenancies. But it seems that, if I have a fixed term tenancy of 12 months, which I do, then the LL can't evict me in the first 6 months and they have to give me 120 days notice.
I will consult with a solicitor but I am annoyed at the Estate Agent for allowing this clause to be put in when it is obviously not legal or they haven't done their proper research before putting it in.
I will sign the lease because I really want the apartment and need to move house. But they can't enforce it just because I signed it as it isn't entirely legal. I will consult with a solicitor this week

@prh47bridge

Ignore Bluntness100. She is, yet again, giving poor advice on legal matters.

Your rights are governed by the law. If anything in the tenancy agreement is in conflict with the law, the law wins.

That clause sounds like an unfair contract term as it is one way, allowing the landlord to terminate but not giving you any right. In any event, if the landlord wants you out they must use the Section 21 process which requires 2 months notice.

I agree with slipofthekeyboard that you should check with Shelter or Citizen's Advice.

This

@Bluntness100

If you sign you’re legally agreeing that he can. If you don’t like this, then don’t sign and find some place else.

Incorrect. This is not a legally enforceable term.

@1starwars2

It's a standard clause in an AST. You could discuss it with the landlord before signing.

Not standard at all. Standard, in 'normal times' is that a LL has to give 2 months notice, to end no earlier than the end of the original fixed term. At the moment it's 4 months notice which reduced to 2 months from October.