Notice dispute - AT5/Short assured tenancy still valid?


Hi there, I was hoping to get a bit of advice if possible please, and I hope I’m not duplicating a conversation already listed somewhere.

I entered in to a rental contract on 1/11/2018. This was intended to be for six months, however circumstances have meant that I now need to leave - and so I offered my landlord a month’s notice, which I believed was the required amount.

However, they have told me that I entered in to an agreement for six months and am therefore bound to that. Looking at the document I signed (and the clauses quoted by the landlord) this is a short assured tenancy agreement, and an AT5 form was provided.

Am I correct in thinking that both types of agreement above ceased to exist after 1 December 2017? And that I should have been provided with/entered in to a private residential tenancy agreement?

If that is the case - does that mean the landlord can insist I’m bound to the six months, or a longer notice period than a month? Or is the agreement I entered altogether invalid?

Any advice or clarity would be greatly appreciated


Hi there,

You are correct that after 1/12/17 there were no new short assured tenancies, and there are no fixed terms in private residential tenancies so it sounds to me that your landlord cannot hold you liable for a 6 month tenancy.


SATs stopped in Dec 2017. So your new tenancy can’t be off that type. You should have been given a new PRT.

In the new PRT there is no minimum term and you cannot be held to account for wanting to leave before the 6 months is up.

It sounds to me as if your landlord is trying to pull a fast one.
Your whole tenancy agreement would appear to be unlawful.


Hi both, thanks very much for responding so quickly.

Anne, thanks, that what I thought - the agreement given to me was incorrect so they shouldn’t be holding me to the term set out in it.

Diane, thanks also - I wondered if my tenancy was therefore completely void. It definitely says ‘Short Assured Tenancy agreement’ at the top of each page (and indeed of the pages they’ve quoted to me when saying what I’m allegedly bound to). An AT5 was also given at the start.

It definitely isn’t, or doesn’t allude to, a PRT at any point.

My thinking was therefore what you both suggested - I don’t have to stay for six months, and me advising them that I will leave in one month’s time is fair and reasonably, particularly if the agreement we entered to is technically void and shouldn’t have been in place to begin with)