The 1-Month Notice Problem: How Tenants Are Exploiting Outdated Tenancy Agreements

Since the Renters Rights Act came into force on 1 May 2026, a growing number of landlords and letting agents are reporting a practical problem: tenants are giving just one month's notice to vacate, citing the notice period written in their original tenancy agreement — and some are being told by tenant support organisations that this is perfectly acceptable.

This article sets out the legal position, explains why the conflicting guidance is causing real problems, and outlines the cost implications for landlords and agents who try to enforce a two-month notice period.

The Background

Under the Renters Rights Act, all tenancies in England became periodic from 1 May 2026. Fixed-term tenancies that were still running on that date converted automatically to periodic tenancies. New tenancies created after 1 May 2026 must be periodic from the outset — fixed terms are no longer permitted.

For periodic tenancies, the statutory notice period for a tenant wishing to leave is two months, under the new rules introduced by the RRA.

However — and this is where the problem arises — many tenants are still on agreements that were drafted before the RRA came into force. Those agreements typically contain a clause stating that the tenant must give one month's notice to end the tenancy.

The Conflicting Guidance

Shelter, Citizens Advice, and several other tenant support organisations have published guidance suggesting that where a tenancy agreement states a notice period of one month, the tenant is entitled to rely on that contractual term — and that the landlord cannot insist on two months' notice.

The argument runs as follows: the RRA sets a minimum notice period for landlords serving notice on tenants, but does not expressly override a contractual term that gives the tenant a shorter notice period. If the agreement says one month, that is what the tenant agreed to give — and holding them to a longer period they never agreed to would be unfair.

This interpretation is disputed by many landlord organisations and legal commentators, who argue that the RRA creates a new statutory framework for periodic tenancies that supersedes inconsistent contractual terms. On this view, the two-month notice period is a statutory minimum that applies regardless of what the agreement says.

The Honest Position

As of June 2026, there is no definitive court ruling or government guidance that conclusively resolves this question. The position is genuinely uncertain.

What is clear is that:

- Many tenants are giving one month's notice and vacating

- Some are doing so on the advice of Shelter, Citizens Advice, or similar organisations

- Landlords and agents who challenge this face a dispute process that is slow, expensive, and uncertain in outcome

- The practical leverage available to a landlord once a tenant has vacated is very limited

The Cost of Challenging a Short Notice Period

Suppose a tenant gives one month's notice instead of two, and the landlord believes they are entitled to two months. What are the options?

Option 1: Accept the one month's notice

The landlord loses one month's rent — typically £800 to £1,500 for an average property. The void period may extend this loss further if the property cannot be re-let immediately.

Option 2: Dispute the notice and attempt to hold the tenant to two months

The landlord would need to:

- Write to the tenant asserting that the notice is invalid and two months is required

- If the tenant vacates anyway, pursue a claim in the County Court for the additional month's rent

- Instruct a solicitor or use a legal expenses insurance policy

Realistic costs of a County Court claim:

- Solicitor's letter before action: £150–£300

- Court issue fee (for a claim under £1,500): £70–£115

- Hearing fee (if defended): £170–£335

- Solicitor's attendance (if required): £500–£1,500

- Total potential cost: £890–£2,250

Against a potential recovery of one month's rent — which the tenant may dispute, and which the court may not award if it accepts the Shelter interpretation — this is a poor commercial proposition for most landlords.

Letting agents face an additional complication: if they advised the landlord that the two-month notice period was enforceable, and it turns out not to be, they may face a complaint or a claim for the lost rent.

What Landlords and Agents Should Do

1. Update all tenancy agreements immediately

Any new tenancy created after 1 May 2026 should use an updated agreement that reflects the RRA framework — including the two-month tenant notice period. Do not use pre-RRA templates for new tenancies.

2. For existing tenancies on old agreements

Consider writing to tenants to confirm the notice period that applies under the new legislation. Keep a copy of the letter. This does not guarantee compliance, but it creates a paper trail and may deter tenants from giving short notice.

3. Do not rely on the old agreement alone

If a tenant gives one month's notice on an old agreement, take legal advice before deciding whether to challenge it. The cost-benefit calculation will depend on the rent level, the strength of your evidence, and your appetite for a dispute.

4. Review your legal expenses insurance

Many landlord insurance policies include legal expenses cover. Check whether your policy covers disputes about notice periods and what the excess and claim limits are.

5. Watch for government clarification

The government is aware of the confusion. Updated guidance is expected — possibly alongside the HHSRS 2 publication or as part of a broader RRA implementation update. We will report on any clarification as soon as it is published.

The Bigger Picture

This issue illustrates a broader problem with the RRA transition: the Act came into force quickly, and many landlords, tenants, and even advisers are still working from outdated information. The gap between what the law says and what people believe it says is creating real disputes and real costs.

The safest position for landlords is to update agreements, communicate clearly with tenants, and take legal advice before escalating any dispute — rather than assuming the law is on their side and incurring costs to find out it is not.