Tenants notice in the first couple of months of Renters’ Rights Act?

In answer to the question, if the tenancy says they can give one month’s notice, that has not changed. For all new Assured Periodic Tenancies, it is two months to expire at the end of a rental period. So if the rent is payable on the first of the month notice must be given no later than the rent payment date. Let me give an example. Tenancy commences 1st June 2026 and rent is payable on the first of the month. Tenant wants to leave and on July 3rd gives notice. That notice will expire, not on 2nd September but on 30th September.

As landlords will generally not be willing to wait 2 months or in an extreme case 2 months and 30 days tenants may have to pay double rent for an overlap period. Of course what is more likely is that tenants will give notice in advance and if they cannot find a new home will stay put. This will muck around the landlord and any prospective tenant the landlord finds to take over the property.
It will come as no surprise that under the Renters’ Rights Act this appalling behaviour does not invoke a £7000 fine or indeed any sanction. Landlords and prospective tenants who find that they cannot move in when they expected to will just have to suck it up.

We have a similar situation. A couple within the 12 months fixed period have yesterday given notice and asked to be allowed to give only one month’s notice, rather than two.
Having their cake and eating it?

Does anyone know if the double rent for overstaying in a tenancy is still legally allowed?

Reply to the comment left by DAB at 13/05/2026 – 12:00
if not a good tenant, then take it (just to get rid). If a good tenant then negotiate?

Unless they are moving into an unoccupied rental, they will also be dependant on when the current tenant of that property actually moves out. If this tenant has given the LL 2 months notice but cant find anything, they wont be going anywhere themselves….

How far into the 12 month fixed tenancy were your tenants before they gave notice?

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 13/05/2026 – 15:29
I’m quite happy in this case but I can see all sorts of complications for tenants . For me I can no longer book a holiday knowing I have no tenancy changes in that time. We will all get used to it I expect.

A few points here.

Firstly, the maximum notice a tenant is required to give is two months. If that notice has to fall on a rent day, that could be almost three months. The legislation only refers to a maximum of two months so I could argue that takes precedence over the rent day bit. We may need new case law to determine if the notice period could be up to almost three months.

The legislation is clear. It say a maximum I’m of two Mk the unless agreed in writing with the landlord. The tenancy agreement is in writing. If the AST said one month, that still applies,

I’d love my tenants to leave. They can go yesterday if it suits them.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 13/05/2026 – 15:29
“Unless they are moving into an unoccupied rental, they will also be dependant on when the current tenant of that property actually moves out”

’twas ever thus! This has always been a potential problem. We either do not sign until the existing tenant moves out or we say the tenancy is conditional upon them moving out.

It would have been straightforward and entirely fair – to use a word beloved of politicians – for the law to provide a sanction for a tenant failing to move out having given notice.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Essex at 12:20
If you mean the Distress for Rent Act of 1757, then as far as I know, the section on mesne profits at double the former rent is still in force, but only for a tenant holding over after serving a valid notice.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Essex at 13/05/2026 – 12:20
S18 Distress For Rent Act 1737 not repealed by RRA 2025, so yes, in theory.