Seeking clarification on the notice period a tenant must give to end a periodic tenancy that has transitioned under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 1 March 2025 as a 12-month fixed term AST. Under the Act, fixed-term assured tenancies in the private rented sector ended on 1 May 2026, at which point this tenancy became a statutory periodic tenancy.
The original tenancy agreement contains a break clause requiring one calendar month’s notice from the tenant. The Act states that tenants must give two months’ notice to end a periodic tenancy.
The tenant has now served notice dated 10 October 2026 stating they wish to leave on 10 November 2026, i.e. one month’s notice, citing the original contractual term.
My questions:
1/ Does the two-month statutory minimum under the Act override the one-month contractual notice period, given the tenancy has transitioned to a statutory periodic tenancy?
2/ Is the notice valid at all given it does not meet the two-month requirement, or is it simply ineffective?
3/ If the notice is ineffective, does the tenant remain liable for rent until either a valid notice is served or the tenancy is ended by mutual agreement?
4/ Is it worth mentioning that the tenant’s notice letter does not reference the Act at all and instead quotes the original break clause verbatim?
My understanding is that s.13A of the Act sets the minimum at two months and that contractual terms providing for a shorter notice period are overridden. But I have not been able to find specific guidance on whether the notice is simply void or whether it triggers some other process.
The two-month minimum under the Act does override the contractual term. Once the tenancy transitioned on 1 May 2026 the old break clause ceased to have any practical effect because the statutory framework governs how the tenancy can be ended. A one-month notice is not valid notice under the current regime. It does not trigger anything, it is simply ineffective, and the tenancy continues as if the notice had not been served. The tenant remains liable for rent until they serve a compliant notice giving at least two months. That said, in practice what usually happens is that the landlord writes back pointing out the error, the tenant serves a fresh notice with the correct period, and everyone moves on. If you want to hold the tenant to the full two months I would respond promptly in writing explaining that the notice does not meet the statutory minimum and inviting them to serve a fresh one. From recollection there is a model notice form on gov.uk but I am not certain whether it has been updated for the Act yet.
GrumpyLandlord47 is right on the headline point but there is a wrinkle worth noting. The notice as served is defective because it falls short of the statutory minimum, and the orthodox position is that a defective notice is a nullity. However courts have on occasion treated a defective tenant’s notice as evidence of an intention to surrender, which can in certain circumstances give rise to a surrender by operation of law if the landlord acts in a way that is consistent with accepting that the tenancy has ended. For example if the landlord accepts the keys back on 10 November or re-markets the property before the two months would have expired, the tenant could argue that the tenancy ended by surrender rather than by notice.
The practical advice therefore is to respond in writing making clear that the notice is not valid, that the tenancy continues, and that rent remains due. Do not accept the keys on 10 November. Do not advertise or re-let. If the tenant vacates anyway without serving a proper notice, do not re-enter or change the locks. You can pursue the tenant for rent until a valid notice expires or you reach a written agreement to end the tenancy early.
On point 4, the fact that the notice quotes the old break clause rather than referencing the Act is not in itself fatal. What matters is whether the notice meets the statutory requirements as to form and length. But it does suggest the tenant is unaware the rules have changed, which may make a straightforward correction the quickest resolution.
Thank you for the clarification on the defective notice point. Two follow-up questions:
1/ If the tenant now serves a fresh notice giving the full two calendar months required under the Act, does the clock start from the date of that fresh notice, or is there any argument that the original notice date should apply given the landlord received it and was aware of the tenant’s intention?
2/ During the period between the expiry of the defective notice and the service of a valid replacement, is the tenant’s position that they remain liable for rent in full with no ambiguity, or could the landlord argue constructive surrender if the tenant has already vacated or partially vacated?
On question 1, the clock starts from the date of the fresh notice. There is no mechanism under the Act to backdate it to the original defective notice, regardless of the landlord’s awareness of the tenant’s intention. The statutory requirement is a valid notice of two calendar months and nothing else satisfies it. The original notice is simply void for the purpose of ending the tenancy.
On question 2, constructive surrender requires both parties to act in a way that unequivocally demonstrates the tenancy has ended. If the tenant is still in occupation, even partially, there is no basis for the landlord to argue surrender. If the tenant has already vacated and returned keys then potentially yes, but that would be an unusual situation given the tenant is the one who wants to leave. In practice if the tenant is still physically present and paying rent the answer is straightforward, there is no surrender and rent remains due in full until a valid notice expires.