Giving Notice during probation period of employement

[Tina Cordukes]

Hi i have worked over 3 months at my employement. Its states in my contract i have to give one months notice after working three months.

However i am still on probation which was extended and was due for a review in the next week. Due to being unhappy i decided a review wasn't necessary and sent in a letter of resignation questioning how much notice i needed to give baring the fact i am still on probation and also asked for the amount of holidays i have accred.

They spoke to me on the telephone and said they would let me know regards holiday pay and also said they are flexible with the notice period if i have other offers of work. I did state i was happy to work my one months notice. Following the conversation I then got an email saying they are sorry i am leaving and they accept my resignation of one week notice which i don't have to work.

I replied and said i have not stated any where i have given one weeks notice i only queried the notice period. I have checked my letter of resignation to make doubly sure i didn't put one week and i haven't. My contract says one months notice to be given after working three months, but my employer only has to give me one week. Baring in mind i am on probation and have given them notice and stated one month are they allowed to make it one week, by doing this i am loosing money? I have not been terminated but have not been made a permanent employee.

 

[billmccallum1957]

What does the contract say about notice during probation?

 

[Jeff Nev]

Are you sure that the contract doesn't state how many days/weeks notice one should give during a probationary period?

 

[SoleTraderHub]

Assuming that the probation period is 3 months, the one month notice after three months employment would only come into force on the assumption that you have passed probation and are therefore a permanent member of staff. If may not say this categorically in the contract, but it is regarded as a given across the board (unless your contract states otherwise).

The fact that they have extended your probation means that you are still working within the terms of the probation period in your contract. If this states one weeks notice, then that is what you have to go by.

If in doubt, just ask them to clarify it for you.

 

[Newchodge]

Assuming that the probation period is 3 months, the one month notice after three months employment would only come into force on the assumption that you have passed probation and are therefore a permanent member of staff. If may not say this categorically in the contract, but it is regarded as a given across the board (unless your contract states otherwise).

No. The contract means what the contract says.

If the contract states that the probationary period is 3 months and may be extended, then you are still in the probationary period.

If the contract states that during the probationay period the notice is 1 week and after completion of the probationary period the notice is 1 month, and you are still inthe probationary period, then the notice is 1 week.

Whether you are still in the probationary period or not, if the contract states that the notice period is initially 1 week, rising to 1 month after 3 months, then the notice period is 1 month.

OP check your contract and, if it is clear you should give 1 month's notice then write to your employer and point out that, while you have given notice, you gave the contractual notice (while clarifying what that was). As the contractualk notice is 1 month, you expect to be paid for 1 month, plus your holiday entitlement to the end of that month.

 

[Newchodge]

If in doubt, just ask them to clarify it for you.

If you were charged with an ffence by the police and were not sure whether to plead guilty or not, would you ask the police if you should plead guilty? Neither would you ask your employer to clarify something that you already have in writing. They will naturally 'clarify' it to their advantage.

 

[SoleTraderHub]

If in doubt, just ask them to clarify it for you.

My comment was not a blanket answer to life in general, but I'm sure you you knew that so I am not sure why you made that comment. But anyway....

The fact that the OP is confused about what is written in the contract, and without the contract to hand for any of use to look at and clarify for them, what else are they supposed to do?

Interestingly enough, not being able to see the contract means that we are not even sure if the company have stated within it that they can extend the probationary period and have extended it in line with the reasons cited.

Whether you are still in the probationary period or not, if the contract states that the notice period is initially 1 week, rising to 1 month after 3 months, then the notice period is 1 month.

Can you show me a reliable source that clarifies this? Specifically that your contractual obligation to provide notice in an extended probation period reverts from that required in the probation period itself, to the notice required for those who have passed probation successfully, assuming that is what you were trying to infer.

 

[Videoguy]

i decided a review wasn't necessary and sent in a letter of resignation

Your resignation was accepted, and obviously they're not that sorry to see you go as they haven't tried to talk you out of it. They've probably got somebody else lined up for your old job, so better start looking for another job ASAP.

 

[Newchodge]

Can you show me a reliable source that clarifies this? Specifically that your contractual obligation to provide notice in an extended probation period reverts from that required in the probation period itself, to the notice required for those who have passed probation successfully, assuming that is what you were trying to infer.

No, there is no reliable source for that as it is not what I said. I implied that the wording of the contract means what the wording of the contract says. If there is no mention about the notice required being controlled by the existence of the probation period then there is no reason on earth to assume that is what the contract meant. If the contract says, as the OP stated, that after 3 months the notice required is 1 month then, after 3 months the notice requied is 1 month. Then the probation period is an irrelevance.

 

[SoleTraderHub]

I implied that the wording of the contract means what the wording of the contract says.

My tenancy agreement states that in the final two months of the fixed term, my landlord can enter the property to show perspective tenants around. I signed the tenancy agreement as I had no choice if I wanted to take occupation, however under the statutory rule of "quiet enjoyment" I can refuse entry to the property under all circumstances other than an emergency, regardless of my signature on the agreement. This is because the clause int eh contract is not legally enforceable.

Just because it is written in a contract does not make it legally binding, especially when statutory rights prove otherwise, which is why I asked for some kind of source to back up with you were saying.

If I am wrong, then I will bow down to your greater knowledge, however I have always worked under the impression that if the employee is in probation (initial or extended) then they must conform the the rules set out in that probation. The rules outside of the probation are for those who have successfully completed their probation and have been moved to "permanent staff" including all that it entails.

Again, please feel free to link to somewhere that explains to the contrary.

 

[Newchodge]

My tenancy agreement states that in the final two months of the fixed term, my landlord can enter the property to show perspective tenants around. I signed the tenancy agreement as I had no choice if I wanted to take occupation, however under the statutory rule of "quiet enjoyment" I can refuse entry to the property under all circumstances other than an emergency, regardless of my signature on the agreement. This is because the clause int eh contract is not legally enforceable.

Just because it is written in a contract does not make it legally binding, especially when statutory rights prove otherwise, which is why I asked for some kind of source to back up with you were saying.

If I am wrong, then I will bow down to your greater knowledge, however I have always worked under the impression that if the employee is in probation (initial or extended) then they must conform the the rules set out in that probation. The rules outside of the probation are for those who have successfully completed their probation and have been moved to "permanent staff" including all that it entails.

Again, please feel free to link to somewhere that explains to the contrary.

Whatever. You obviously know better.

 

[SoleTraderHub]

I'm not trying to argue with you, in fact quite the opposite.

I may well be wrong in my assumptions here and if I am then I am more than willing to correct those, after all every day is a learning experience.

You have stated something that contradicts what I have been told and believe to be true and therefore it is only natural that I question that, but more importantly find authoritative confirmation of your statement to cement the truth in my own mind, while at the same time, providing weight and credence to the advice you have given to the OP.

We can all give opinion, however if it is incorrect or simply not true how is that helping anyone? Clarification on your statement is all that I am asking.

 

[STDFR33]

My tenancy agreement states that in the final two months of the fixed term, my landlord can enter the property to show perspective tenants around. I signed the tenancy agreement as I had no choice if I wanted to take occupation, however under the statutory rule of "quiet enjoyment" I can refuse entry to the property under all circumstances other than an emergency, regardless of my signature on the agreement. This is because the clause int eh contract is not legally enforceable.

With respect, this is also rubbish.

As long as the landlord gives reasonable notice, they can enter the property for whatever reason they want.

I suggest that you read s11 (6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act. For convenience, I'll copy and past the section:-
In a lease in which the lessor’s repairing covenant is implied there is also implied a covenant by the lessee that the lessor, or any person authorised by him in writing, may at reasonable times of the day and on giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, enter the premises comprised in the lease for the purpose of viewing their condition and state of repair.

 

[SoleTraderHub]

I suggest that you read s11 (6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

It is a common misconception, but a Landlord simply does not have the ability to enter a property for whatever reason they want.

With respect, Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act specifically relates to the obligations relating to repairs in short leases and not the landlords ability to enter the property, period.

In the instance I quoted in my previous post, S11 (6) simply does not apply. Moreover, this specific rule only allows access to a property if there is a genuine need to carry out repairs or to inspect for damages, and not if a landlord wants to conduct a 6 month inspection for example.

When a landlord offers their property under a leasehold agreement, there is an implied obligation for that landlord to allow the tenant to quiet enjoyment of leasehold premises, referred to as the 'covenant of quiet enjoyment'.

In the case of a tenant who rents a house or flat where the landlord does not reside, the landlord relinquishes their exclusive rights to occupation on the first day of the tenancy agreement. The 'covenant of quiet enjoyment' then passes to the tenant as they then hold the right to exclusive occupation.

This gives the tenant the right under the covenant to refuse entry if the request is for something other than emergency repairs. Moreover, I have yet to find a case where a judge has ordered a tenant to allow access. Of course, a tenant should agree to visits if they are reasonable and at a time that suits the tenant, if for no other reason than to keep up good relations with the landlord, however, and this is the important part....they are not legally obliged to do so.

Incidentally, requests from a landlord to access a property for reasons outside of emergency repair work, could be deemed as harassment under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997.

To compound this the following would also apply...

Protection from Eviction Act 1977

Section 1 - Unlawful eviction and harassment

s11(3A) (as was amended by the Housing Act 1988) which states:

"the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household."

Also any attempt to enter the premises without your* consent will treated as, as a matter of civil law:

a. trespass; and

b. a breach of the quiet enjoyment clause under the tenancy agreement.

* (the leaseholder)

Anyway, I digress....

 

[STDFR33]

You are just arguing for arguing sake, and you are still wrong because you are failing to read the legislation properly.

s11 does apply. Because a short term lease is defined in s13(1) of the same act ... Section 11 (repairing obligations) applies to a dwelling-house granted on or after 24th October 1961 for a term of less than 7 years.
Most tenancy agreements are for 6/12 months at a time. I have never come across one exceeding seven years.

s11 also is not just for entering the property for damages. To quote (again), and I've bolded for the relevant bits for the hard of hearing:-
In a lease in which the lessor’s repairing covenant is implied there is also implied a covenant by the lessee that the lessor, or any person authorised by him in writing, may at reasonable times of the day and on giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, enter the premises comprised in the lease for the purpose of viewing their condition and state of repair.

Therefore, an owner can enter the property, along with anyone authorised by the owner (a potential tenant, perhaps?) to view the condition of the property.

 

[STDFR33]

Whatever. You obviously know better.

I should have read this before responding.

*sigh*.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

I'd just like to point out, that a tenancy agreement and an employment contract are two completely different contracts...

To a degree @SoleTraderHub is correct, however you can by law refuse access if the time doesn't suit you, It is then your obligation to arrange a time to suit yourself, unless you inform the Landlord that you are looking to stay on in the property by which case the Landlord can then not gain access to show anyone around, until you've given notification of leaving.

I had it out with an estate agent's a couple of years back, as we hadn't been informed that the Landlord was coming in, next minute on this estate agents website were photographs of our property internally! - I rang them and asked who gave them permission to enter my home, they stated the Landlord... I rang the Landlord of the property and he stated that he told them to contact me to arrange a visit... I contacted the police and had the estate agent charged with entering my property illegally... They were told to remove all images taken and destroy them until the flat was unoccupied OR ask my permission to enter and take more photo's. The copper involved was luckily a member of the NLA (National Landlord's Association) as he had a couple of properties himself, so he gave the Landlord a very severe warning on my behalf... in front of me... which was fun

If the reason for entering the property is for maintenance however, such as a property that I am aware of with my Landlord with which the tenant has been refusing access to the builders to repair a wall and re-plaster (which the damage was actually caused by the tenant, however the Landlord is probably one of the most honest and decent Landlords around and wants to look after HIS investment so is repairing at no additional charge to the tenant)... then it's a completely different story... until the tenant allows the builder access, nothing can be done. Incidentally, she's actually refused to pay rent recently because of the wall issue, so the Landlord is now in the middle of having her evicted for being a knob.

 

[STDFR33]

until the tenant allows the builder access, nothing can be done.

The tenant will most likely be in breach of their tenancy agreement.


In that case, the landlord can apply to court for a court order, granting them access to the property to undertake the remedial works.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

No point now As I said, she's withheld rent... yet she's the cause... so he's hoisting her out instead

 

[STDFR33]

No point now As I said, she's withheld rent... yet she's the cause... so he's hoisting her out instead

In my last employment, we had a tenant burn their house down thinking it would eradicate their rent arrears.
It got them sent to prison instead.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

My Landlord has a guy who owes him £6000 in rent... he's letting the NLA deal with it, problem is though, every time they find him he disappears again... It won't take long though... just last week they'd found him for the 14th time... instead of sending him a letter... it's down to bailiffs now... he's got a lovely Audi sat outside his house at the moment... so he could be looking at getting a new car instead of £6,000