Semantics of a break clause

variety

I'm anticipating an issue with my LL.

Briefly:
-12 month fixed term lease, rent due 1st of the month.
-Break clauses: months 3, 6 and 9.
-Only wording in the entire lease is an inserted note in the Special Conditions: "Break clauses effective at months 3, 6 and 9, enforceable by the Landlord and/or by the Tenant".

I wrote to LL in month 8 confirming I would be effecting the break clause in month 9 (gave him 6 weeks written notice of same) and notified that I would be leaving on the last day of the month (ie the day before the next rent fell due).

LL says that's not how the break clause works. He thinks I should have informed him in month 9 that I was leaving in month 10.

So, who's right? Any insights?

OS119

variety wrote: »

So, who's right? Any insights?

i would have said you were - after all the 'break' is when you leave and stop paying rent, not when you tell him that you're going to leave and stop paying rent.

ah, amateur LL's playing at being amateur Solicitors - how can it possibly go wrong...

odds_on

I agree with OS119.

I think what he meant is not what he wrote.

I think if it went to the PRTB, you would win, if there was no other defining of the break clause in the lease.

Try the same question in "legal discussions" a see what the legal eagles think - whether the clause is valid or not.

djimi

A break clause means that you can walk away at the specified time assuming the proper notice has been given. If its after 6 months then you can leave after 6 months provided you gave the agreed notice period prior to leaving.