Suppose a lease agreement that was agreed and signed by both parties specifies the following:
Rent: £1,560.00 per calendar month (annual rent equals to eighteen thousand seven hundred and twenty pounds).
Payable: The first payment of £9,360.00p (inclusive of 6 months rent in advance) will be due on or before the signing of this agreement.
Further payments of £1,668.33 on the 29th Day of each month commencing May 2019 will be payable to the Landlord.
The tenant will not be due to pay the last two months’ rent of the tenancy, that is; November 2019 and December 2019.
One may note that 1668.33*4/6 is actually more than £2000 less in total than 1560 per month.
Which of these terms should prevail in interpreting this contract? And what would be the standing if seemingly neither of the parties noticed and rent simply got paid on a schedule of 9360+1560+1560+1560+1560+1560+1560? Would the tenant have overpaid by 2686.68 and be due a refund for this amount if such was pursued within the standard civil limitation period of 6 years? Why or why not?
I am tempted to recall that there is something within the unfair contract terms provisions which stipulates that in case of contradictory ambiguity, the conflict ought to be resolved in favour of the consumer when interpreting, and this conclusion would seem to be further supported by the fact that as one may expect, it was the landlord who had originally drafted/supplied the contract for both parties to sign.