Query over six month break clause

Hello, we have rented out property for many years and our experience of 6-month break clauses has always been that they perform exactly as implied, ie the landlord or tenant can end the tenancy after 6 months have expired on the giving of at least 2 months notice.

We have just negotiated a new tenancy on one of our houses and we may require possession back in the summer. We have discussed this openly with the tenants who are quite happy to proceed on the understanding that we want to include a 6 month break clause which we may exercise.

Our agent however has now stated that their tenancy agreement is worded such that the landlord can not serve notice until month 5 and not end the tenancy before month 7.

When challenged their argument is that the the landlord can not serve notice within the first 4 months of a new tenancy and can not end it within the first 6 months, therefore they say month 5 and month 7 to be safe.

My understanding has always been that it is perfectly acceptable to serve notice on the last day of the fourth month and terminate the tenancy on the last day of the 6th month.

Has this position been challenged and is it now best practice to adopt the approach being proposed by our agent, or are we safe to request a change and draw up the agreement as we have always done historically?

I can’t find any information online to suggest that we need to change the practice we have always adopted historically, but I am willing to be corrected.

Thanks,

Damon