lastlaugh

It hasn't been a legal requirement to serve a Section 21 before the start of a tenancy for over a decade. Serving a S21 early offers no protection whatsoever against problem tenants. The real reason they do it is to put pressure on tenants to re-negotiate early and accept less than favorable terms. The thing is, if a tenant is clued up the tactic will backfire. OP, if you have been given a Section 21 at the start of the tenancy, you are actually in a good negotiating position. Here's why: A Section 21 asks you to vacate the property on a given date. In essence it is the landlord giving you notice to quit. You can either leave on the given date, negotiate a new contract, or do nothing. If you do nothing though, the LL cannot act until the S21 has expired, ie. at the end of the tenancy. If you leave on the given date then you don't need to serve notice, you can just leave. You can ring up the LA a couple of days before, arrange a check out, etc, but essentially that's the first confirmation they will get that you are going. They can't deduct money from your bond either. This uncertainty isn't good for either the LA or LL. They can't start evicting you until the tenancy has ended, and they can't confidently relet the property until you are out of the door. They need your cooperation more than you need theirs. In other words, you hold all the best cards, and the LL has shown all his hand already. You are now in a good negotiating position. What you do now depends on your actual position. If you really like the place, have a good deal, and like the service you are receiving, then by all means accept the deal. If you are good tenants, then you have nothing to lose by contacting your LL directly, explaining that you cannot afford the renewal fee, and would he consider waiving it. Let the LL negotiate the renewal fee on your behalf, the LA works for the LL, not for you. If the LL says no, then you know where you stand. If, on the other hand , you are not that bothered about the place, then use the time to look for a better place. If you find something better then you can try and negotiate a better deal on your current place or just move. If you can't find something better then accept the terms you have now. Remember though, you are receiving a service and should be a valued client. At the end of the day, you can increase their costs faster than they can increase yours, you can play silly buggers as much as any LA and LL can.

You might just be "The Last Bear", Realist Bear?

Renting is not like buying a tshirt. You don't just find one that fits, take it to the kind lady and pay for it. It's more like a job interview. In reality it's a long term business arrangement and either party is free to walk away if they don't like what the other has to offer. The news article in the OP is a non story. When several prospective tenants are interested in a property it has never been the case of first come first served ie. the first to come up with the asking price gets the tenancy. Rather, a competent LA will take the particulars of all interested parties and make an informed choice. And it's not all about money either. The article just seems to be glamourising the process and calling it "sealed bids". What does seem unlikely is the requirement to pay a holding deposit when an offer (declaration of interest) is made instead of the normal time when an offer is accepted. It's a sharp practice at best, and I suspect its probably illegal.

Well said, Damocles!

IF your LL used a deposit scheme then you will definitely get your deposit back. The bank has no claim on your deposit to cover the landlords debt. Keef, in general response to your OP, here is some practical advice. First of all, don't panik. Your flat has been repossessed, which is a legal process. Eviction is a separate legal process and will take some time. It sounds like the solicitor is opening up a line of communication with you and wants to explore various options. The bank wants to minimise its loss, not just throw you out. It may sell the property to you, or it may sell it to an interested 3rd party with you as a tenant. If the block is really as empty as you say, and moving is not a disaster anyway, then you are in quite a good negotiating position. Contact the solicitor ASAP. I don't recommend calling, do everything in writing, an email will suffice. They wont even know for sure that you are still living there, so start by confirming your existence and the terms of your tenancy. If you want to stay on, then tell them so. The solicitor, acting as the agent of the bank, will either take you on as a tenant, will give you notice to quit, or will commence eviction proceedings. Whatever happens, once you have confirmed your existence, the solicitor and the courts are obliged to inform you of proceedings and the bailiffs will not turn up out of the blue. At the very worst you should get about 6 weeks from the start of eviction proceedings. I'm sure you've done this already, but stop paying rent to your landlord. Don't pay anything to the solicitor without a tenancy agreement. If you feel like it, make a formal offer to buy the place - you may get very, very lucky. You will get your deposit back if it is with an official scheme, so shouldn't be out of pocket by this process. You may even avoid paying a couple of months rent too, which will be a bonus. It's annoying to lose your home and have to move though. The court has no discretion not to evict you in this circumstance, but if you can be bothered to fight your corner, the court should give you an extra few weeks grace. Good Luck, and make sure you enjoy your 40th birthday!

Who cares what the law says! NEVER get yourself into a position where you have to chase a DODGY landlord for money at the end of a tenancy! Sounds like she wont be doing you any favours.

Hi ToW, Curious as to why you want a long notice period and not just a long fixed term lease? I have a family too, and currently have a 2 year contract with my landlady. There is no break clause and just the normal notice periods at the end of the fixed period. My previous, and smaller, place had a similar ontract. They take a long while to find though. About a year for both places. I recommend avoiding letting agents if you can. Look in the small ads, or put the word out in your local network of contacts. If you must use a LA then try at some point to speak to the landlord direct. Honest LAs will have nothing to hide and should understand your concerns. Be honest and be polite. Tell them exactly what you want. Remember, most landlords only want good tenants that will stick around, pay up, and not trash the place. If you can demonstrate all 3 points, there is no reason why a LL shouldn't be happy making a longer term commitment to you. If they wont, then it is only fair to suspect their motives. Letting Agents, of course, have their own agenda!

Well done ,Planner. I'll eat my hat lightly sauted, please. Does that mean a fixed term tenancy without a break clause is protected right up to the end of the Fixed Term? If landlords want the option to get rid of a tenant after 6 months, why aren't they just honest and fair with tenants and agree a 6 month tenancy. Instead they offer a 12 month tenancy, a tenant is happy and accepts it, pays a deposit, organises references, gives notice on their old place, but when it comes to signing the agreement a 6-month break clause is slipped in. It seems the break clause simply allows the landlord to circumvent the protections for the tenant in Section 8, yet there is little benefit to the tenant who needs to stay put for a year. Furthermore, Letting Agents routinely lie when pressed on the matter. I have heard all these explanations: 1. All ASTs MUST have a break clause. 2. The break clause is there to protect the tenant. 3. Don't worry, the break clause will only be used if you are a "bad" tenant. None of this seems to be true. If the OP had been told the truth from the start, that his 12 month tenancy was in reality only guaranteed for a year, he may have made a better informed choice.

Hi Planner, I think you do me a disservice with this statement. I know full well that at the end of a fixed term a judge has NO discretion but to evict a tenant after a correctly served S21. This is probably the only certainty in this whole saga. If this turns out to be the case it would certainly be game over for the tenant and not worth pursuing. Yet the OP has a fixed term of one year, but his LL wishes to invoke the break clause after only 6 months. Given that a S21 can only be used at the end of a fixed term, how does the break clause get round this. You and others contend that the break clause, by necessity, shortens the fixed term thus allowing the S21 route to be immediately used to evict the tenant. You contend that by invoking the break clause, a landlord unilaterally turns a Fixed Term Tenancy into a Periodic Tenancy, so allowing a S21 to be immediately served. Do I understand you all correctly? Well I remain to be convinced. I can see no mechanism in the Housing Act which allows the fixed term to be unilaterally shortened. It was argued further up this thread that "statute only protects the initial 6 months of a (fixed term) tenancy" anyway, even without a break clause. Well I believe that certainly without a break clause statute protects the entire duration of a fixed term tenancy. You may be correct that the contractual break clause overrides the statutory protections of the full term of the fixed tenancy, thus allowing a S21 to be issued early. Sure, I have seen plenty of break clauses invoked by landlords. In most of the cases the tenant just rolls over and leaves. In the other, albeit minority, of cases the tenant has ignored the break clause and either left at the end of the original fixed term or a S21 has been served to coincide with this point. The thing is, I have never seen a S21 used to evict a tenant before a fixed term has expired. If any poster to this thread has seen this happen I will happily admit that I am completely wrong and eat my hat! Planner, you are right to ask, "what is the point of a contractural breakclause anyway if a much more rigirous and enforceable statutory mechanism already exists?" Well, I cannot see the point of it other than to undermine a tenants statutory rights, and I think you confirm that when you say :"The answer is that a contractural breakclause does not have to rely on a statutory s.8 reason". The break clause is simply a ruse used by landlords to encourage tenants to forego their statutory rights and encourage a tenant to surrender a property without a fight. The OP may have agreed to the break clause with his "eyes wide open", but according to him he wanted a fixed term of a year and thought he had one. According to him, he was bamboozled by the LA. I don't dispute that staying put could cause the OP a lot of hassle. Being evicted is an unpleasant experience, but at the moment he hasn't even been served a S21 yet. If all a break clause does is turn a Fixed Term Tenancy into a Periodic Tenancy, and I have my doubts, then the OP has little to lose by waiting for a S21 to be served. He's going to lose his home anyway! At the very worst it will give the OP 2 months grace to play with. At best it wont be served at all. Posters on this thread can't seem to come up with a satisfactory explanation as to why a contractual break clause will override a statutory fixed term. All they can say is that it must happen that way or else it wouldn't work. Quite! Yet no-one has said they have ever actually known a court to uphold a S21 on this basis. It never seems to get that far. One side always backs down. I'll say it again, judges don't like evicting good tenants. Judges don't like Letting Agents bamboozling the public. Given that what is in dispute is the actual end point of the fixed term, a judge may well use legal gymnastics of their own and uphold the original fixed term. It's not black and white, but I agree it may not be worth fighting.

Hi Damocles, You may wish to inform the Department for Communities and Local Government that their advice to tenants, quoted above, is wrong. Strictly in accordance with the law you may indeed be right. I can't tell and I don't care. Fortunately, I live in the real world. And in the real world, a tenant, who simply leaves as requested by a landlord, is never going to be punished by a court for not giving notice.

Hi Damocles, I'm not quite sure we disagree on this issue. I can only write in English and not lawyer-speak, I'm afraid. I don't think I have said that an AST CANNOT have a valid break clause. My contention is that a break clause must still satisfy one of the specific Grounds in Section 8 of the Housing Act. None of these grounds include the reason that the landlord wants to sell the property, wants to rent it to someone else, or simply does not like you. The reference that you, yourself, quoted, the OFT Guide to Unfair Terms in Tenancy Agreements says: Misleading termination clauses 3.61 Tenants with assured and assured shorthold fixed term tenancy agreements are legally protected against eviction before the fixed term expires. We do not object to the inclusion of terms allowing either party to terminate the agreement early (known as 'break clauses'), but would challenge any term stating or implying that the tenant could be evicted at any time at the landlord's discretion as being seriously misleading. Now I'm sure, you Damocles, can pick legal holes in the above reference, but I'll remind you it is written for lay people and not lawyers. As the most important reasons for evicting a tenant don't require a break clause, ie. rent arrears, damage and nuisance, and that simple discretionary break clauses are challengable, I can't help but feel that break clauses, in general, add little extra legal protection to your average landlord, and are simply a stick with which to apply pressure to make an otherwise good tenant leave. My contention wrt the OP remains this: Radders, you were misled by the LA into accepting a break clause. You were told the break clause would only apply if you were a "bad tenant" when in fact the break clause is discretionary and is being used as such. Discretionary break clauses are challengable and you still have 6 months left to go on your fixed term anyway. Because your landlord's case isn't watertight, if you refuse to leave until the end of your fixed term, it is highly unlikely that your landlord will pursue a court order to evict you, rather than just wait 6 months and have a cast iron case against you. You will read on this thread convoluted arguments in lawyers language as to why the law says you need to leave your home. They could well be right. But in the real world, if your landlord is bloody minded enough to try to evict you through a court, you will find that a court has a lot of discretion in this situation. You will find that judges are very reluctant to render homeless, model tenants who pay their rent on time, simply to satisfy the whim of a landlord.

Here you go then: The Governement Guide to Tenancies Essentially a precis of the Housing Act in plain English and essential reading for all landlords and tenants. The relevant section: 6. When can I be asked to leave the property? 6.1 Can the landlord ask me to leave when the fixed term of a shorthold tenancy has ended? If the tenancy started on or after 28 February 1997 The landlord has a right to repossess the property without giving any grounds for possession at any time after any fixed term comes to an end or at any time during a contractual or statutory periodic tenancy, provided it is at least 6 months since the start of the original tenancy. For example, if the landlord initially agreed a tenancy of 4 months, and subsequently issued a replacement tenancy to follow it, he or she cannot regain possession until 2 months after the start of the replacement tenancy. However, if the original tenancy was for more than 6 months, he or she can regain possession at any time during the replacement tenancy. If the tenancy started or was agreed before 28 February 1997 When the initial fixed term (which must have been for at least 6 months) or any subsequent fixed term ends, or if the tenancy is a contractual periodic or statutory periodic tenancy, the landlord can regain possession at any time without giving any grounds for possession. 6.2 What does the landlord have to do if he or she wants me to leave when the fixed term of a shorthold tenancy has ended? The landlord must give you at least 2 months’ notice that he or she requires possession. The landlord can give you notice at any time during the fixed term, but the date he or she states possession is required cannot be before the end of the fixed term. If the tenancy is on a contractual period or statutory periodic basis, the date on which the notice expires must be the last day of a tenancy period, and the notice must state that possession is required under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. If the landlord gives you notice on or after 28 February 1997 that he or she requires possession, the notice must be in writing. 6.3 Do I have to move out when the notice requiring possession expires? You should leave the property if the landlord has given you at least 2 month’s notice that he or she requires possession. However, the landlord cannot evict you without a possession order from the court. He or she can apply to the court to start possession proceedings as soon as the notice requiring possession expires. The landlord will not have to give any grounds for possession and he or she may use the accelerated possession procedure. When you receive a notice that possession is required under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, you may wish to seek advice from your local authority if you are concerned that you will not be able to find alternative accommodation by the date specified in the notice. Notice that there is no requirement at any point for the tenant to give any notice once the S21 has been served. So in the example of a 12 month tenancy which ends on 31st December, a landlord must serve a S21 on or before the 31 October (2 months notice). A tenant can leave without any warning or notice on the 31st December. If a tenant stays beyond the 31st December of course there will be consequences. The landlord can sue the tenant for damages. If the tenant doesn't leave, then on the 1st January a landlord can commence court proceedings to evict the tenant without needing to explain any reason to the court other than the fixed term has expired. This could take some time, but it also can be done very quickly. It is plainly absurd to suggest that on the 1st Jan, if the tenant is still in occupation, he can and must give a months notice which the landlord and the court now has to honour. Damocles, I am not sure what you are getting at. You are obviously very knowledgeable, but your explanations, though erudite, often muddy an otherwise simple situation. This is not a forum for lawyers to show off, it is for people who want clear and simple explanations to their landlord and tenant problems.

Certainly, allow me, if I may, to copy and paste the section you need explaining: Misleading termination clauses 3.61 Tenants with assured and assured shorthold fixed term tenancy agreements are legally protected against eviction before the fixed term expires. We do not object to the inclusion of terms allowing either party to terminate the agreement early (known as 'break clauses'), but would challenge any term stating or implying that the tenant could be evicted at any time at the landlord's discretion as being seriously misleading. 3.62 A fixed term tenancy comes to an end when the fixed term runs out and a tenant does not have to give notice to end it. Landlords may include clauses in tenancy agreements setting out their legal powers to end the tenancy ('forfeiture' clauses) but we object to forfeiture clauses that are not in plain language and that do not make the legal position with regard to eviction completely clear to the tenant, ie: that a landlord is obliged to seek a court order to recover possession if the tenant remains in occupation (see Group 18© for our views on these terms). 3.63 We would object to a term suggesting that the tenant's rights are more limited when an agreement is terminated than is in fact the case. An example would be a term suggesting that the tenant's obligations to pay charges such as council tax can never come to an end before the expiry of the fixed period of the tenancy, even where the tenant leaves the property and is replaced by another tenant during that period. 3.64 An assured shorthold tenancy that has no fixed term gives the tenant security of possession for the first six months of their occupancy of the property and a landlord cannot bring the tenancy to an end during that period except by forfeiture (see above). 3.65 Landlords sometimes choose to use a 'break' clause allowing them to bring the agreement to an end on service of two months' notice. We would object to such a term if it was not balanced by a similar provision allowing the tenant to give notice in the same way. Notice the very first line: Tenants with assured and assured shorthold fixed term tenancy agreements are legally protected against eviction before the fixed term expires. This means a fixed term tenancy can only be terminated at the end of the fixed term with a Section 21, or before the fixed term expires with a Section 8. Now, a Section 8 covers a very exact set of circumstances, normally rent arrears and damage, but there are also some other, sometimes quirky, circumstances. Here is an example: Ground 5 The dwelling-house is held for the purpose of being available for occupation by a minister of religion as a residence from which to perform the duties of his office and - (a) not later than the beginning of the tenancy the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered on this ground; and (B ) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required for occupation by a minister of religion as such a residence. Notice my highlighted section, which says that if someone wishes to exercise that right they have to notify the tenant at the beginning. This is your break clause, and it must be specific. What the OFT is saying is that, suppose a landlord wishes to include a break clause after 6 months on Ground 5, then there must be a reciprocal arrangement for the tenant. The OFT is NOT by any means saying a break clause is a blanket tool to allow a landlord to terminate a tenancy on a whim. For a landlord to evict a tenant with a break clause they must apply to a court, and if the conditions of either Section 8 or Section 21 are not met then the judge cannot evict the tenant. A landlord can include whatever he likes in the break clause, but if it is not one of the specific grounds in Section 8, then it is meaningless, it has no teeth, and the fixed term will stand. Thus, the vague and sloppy break clauses in most tenancies have no legal teeth. At best they are a tool with which to bully a tenant into leaving early. More likely they are sold by charlatan lawyers to gullible and desperate landlords.

Hi Damocles. First of all Section 20(1)(B ) of the Act: 20. Assured shorthold tenancies: pre-Housing Act 1996 tenancies (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, an assured tenancy which is not one to which section 19A above applies is an assured shorthold tenancy if - (a) it is a fixed term tenancy granted for a term certain of not less than six months, (B ) there is no power for the landlord to determine the tenancy at any time earlier than six months from the beginning of the tenancy, In 1996 the Housing Act was amended. Prior to 1996 an AST had to be for a minimum of 6 months, if it was for less than 6 months it was, by definition, not an AST. After 1996 the subsection no longer applies. In practice it means an AST can now be for a fixed term of less than 6 months. Once again, it is not a tool to allow a landlord to end a fixed term tenancy early.

Ah, but you are quoting the subsection out of context. Section 21(5) is specifically referring to Section 21(1): Section 21 (1) Without prejudice to any right of the landlord under an assured shorthold tenancy to recover possession of the dwelling-house let on the tenancy in accordance with Chapter I above, on or after the coming to an end of an assured shorthold tenancy which was a fixed term tenancy, a court shall make an order for possession of the dwelling-house if it is satisfied - (a) that the assured shorthold tenancy has come to an end and no further assured tenancy (whether shorthold or not) is for the time being in existence, other than an assured shorthold periodic tenancy (whether statutory or not), and ( the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant not less than two months' notice in writing stating that he requires possession of the dwelling-house. If the tenancy is for a fixed term, then a Section 21 cannot be used to end a tenancy before the fixed term has expired. The 6 months in Section 21(5) is a legal device which sets the minimum term of fixed tenancies, it is not a tool to allow a landlord to terminate a fixed term tenancy early. There are other ways of terminating a tenancy early, but there must be specific reasons, none of which include either a break clause or the notion that 6 months of the tenancy has expired. All this is consistent with the government pamphlet I quoted above which is essentially a precis, in layman's terms, of the relevant sections of the Housing Act. Once again: Government Guide to Tenancies 3.4 Does a tenancy have to run for a set period or can it run indefinitely? An assured or shorthold tenancy may either: • last for a fixed number of weeks, months or years – called a fixed term tenancy; or • run indefinitely from one rent period to the next – called a contractual periodic tenancy. If you agree a fixed term tenancy, the landlord will ONLY be able to seek possession during the fixed term if one of grounds for possession – 2, 8, 10 to 15 or 17 in Appendix C – apply and if the terms of the tenancy make provision for it to be ended on any of these grounds. If it was possible to simply terminate a fixed term tenancy after only 6 months with a S21, then there would be no need for break clauses. Smart landlords, who were in it for the long term, would encourage much longer lets in order to bind a tenant to a property, safe in the knowledge that they could use a S21 at any time after 6 months. As it is, there is hardly any market for fixed terms beyond a year. Landlords hate them because they know full well that the S21 at the end of the fixed term is the only cast-iron guarantee that they can regain possession of their property.

I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the part of the Housing Act which refers to this.

Here is a link that readers of this thread might find interesting: The Government Guide to Tenancies Specifically: 3.4 Does a tenancy have to run for a set period or can it run indefinitely? An assured or shorthold tenancy may either: • last for a fixed number of weeks, months or years – called a fixed term tenancy; or • run indefinitely from one rent period to the next – called a contractual periodic tenancy. If you agree a fixed term tenancy, the landlord will ONLY be able to seek possession during the fixed term if one of grounds for possession – 2, 8, 10 to 15 or 17 in Appendix C – apply and if the terms of the tenancy make provision for it to be ended on any of these grounds. My bold and capitals. In other words, an AST fixed for one year CANNOT be ended after 6 months. With or without a S21 or a break clause. The housing act effectively gives a landlord the right to possession at the end of the fixed term in return for giving the tenant security of tenure within the fixed term. If it could always be ended after 6 months, it would make all ASTs de facto 6 month tenancies. Why would the law prevent a landlord and tenant making a mutually binding agreement with a longer term? What confuses the issue is the default setting of the Housing Act which stipulates that where no fixed term is agreed there is a statutory minimum of 6 months. However, the agreement of a fixed term overrides the statutory minimum. Which is common sense. In my personal case I have negotiated a 2 year contract on my house. I have a young family and require security of tenure longer than 6 months. Provided I can find a LL willing to make that commitment, then the law provides for that situation. Why on earth wouldn't it? My LL cannot repossess the property with a S21 until the end of the 2 years. In return I am obliged to pay the agreed rent for that time. If I don't pay it, my LL can gain possession and sue me for damages. If I just leave, my LL can still sue me for damages. I can try and give notice, but giving notice has no meaning within the period of the fixed term, and I can be sued anyway. A tenancy is a contract like any other contract, only with certain overruling statutory conditions attached. Many lettings industry so-called professionals are hooked on this 6 month thing simply as a money making scam.

You are indeed correct. An AST does not have to be for a fixed term. But this thread is all about a tenancy where a fixed term of one year has been agreed. When a fixed term has been agreed, the law says the tenancy cannot be terminated, without grounds, prior to the end of the fixed term. Thus, a S21 is not valid until the fixed term expires. I suggest you do your own research, but I can provide the links if you are struggling.

I'm sorry, but I think you are just distracting the OP with this S21 issue. It's a red herring. The OP has said they weren't served a S21. It would make no business sense whatsoever for either the LA or the LL to serve a S21 shortly after the move in date to cover them using the break clause half way through the tenancy. It's safe to assume no S21 was issued. If there was, the break clause letter should have referred to it. An AST is a Statutory instrument. You cannot override it with a clause in the contract. An AST must be for a fixed term, the minimum is 6 months, but there is NO upper limit. (My current AST is 2 years) Thus, if you have an AST for 1 year, you CANNOT override it with a break clause. LAs and LLs insert a break clause so they can bully tenants to leave, but if the tenant refuses there is nothing that can be done, and I challenge anyone to show me otherwise. You CANNOT terminate an AST without a S21, and an S21 CANNOT be dated before the end of the fixed term of the AST.

Don't worry about this. You are a long, long way from court at the moment. If the LL applies to a court for a hearing, the first thing a court will ask is "Have you served a S21?". When the answer is NO they will send the LL packing. There is no point encouraging the LL to serve the S21 notice sooner rather than later. If it does finally get to court, a little bit of gamesmanship on the side of the tenant will hardly undermine the central case that the contract is dodgy, making the exact type of tenancy debatable, meaning the break clause is unenforcable. The court will pay more attention to the tenants claim that they were lied to by the LA and thought they had agreed a full years tenancy. LLs and LAs love break clauses because it gives them an extra stick to confuse and beat a tenant with. But a break clause undermines the central premise of an AST that it is for a fixed term, which is why I always insist that a break clause is removed! I would be interested to know if a break clause in an AST has ever been tested in court and I would be very surprised if it has!

I've had a quick look at both documents and you do have some options available to you. First of all, as already mentioned, the document does not say Assured Shorthold Tenancy on it. This is important as it is now open to question what type of tenancy you have. An AST can ONLY be terminated using a S21 notice, which the break clause letter certainly isn't. The LL is, at best, being very sloppy. Next, the break clause undermines the principle term of the contract "A TERM CERTAIN OF ONE YEAR". Thus it's not exactly clear from your contract what your position is. Break clauses and contracts are normally worded to make it clear that possession is guaranteed up until the 6 month break clause, but that the rent is fixed for a year, say. Your contract does not do this, it contradicts itself, and in a court it would fail a plain English test for starters. Finally, there is the issue that you asked for and expected a fixed term of a year and that the LA told you the break clause would only be used to evict a bad tenant, which presumably you are not. Your LL cannot start court proceedings until a S21 has been issued so time is on your side. My advice is to call your LL's bluff. Wait until a few days before the check out date. Write to your LL, tell them the LA knew you wanted a contract for a year. You have a contract that states the TERM IS CERTAIN OF ONE YEAR thus the break clause is invalid. If they wish to terminate the contract on or after this date they must use the correct procedure (don't tell them what is, let them work it out). A smart LL will realise the break clause might not stand up in court and just wait the full year. A stupid one will issue you with a S21 notice which at the very least will give you 2 more months and time to get some proper legal advice.