To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
13 Comments
If it’s a limited company, then it will be a company let and not an AST. If it’s a sole trader, it’s arguably still an individual.
Ok thanks So the agreement is a sham? How can one start possession process if the ‘tenant’ has sublet ? Is still got 5 months left of the fixed term Paul
A section 146 notice would be needed after which court Order if the breach wasn’t rectified. (Works in a similar way to a section 8 if it were an AST).
But there are tenants on ASTs in there
Once tenancy ended by court order, landlord not bound by those tenancies as they were unlawfully entered into. Either sign them up on new ASTs directly or bailiff. Landlord is only bound by sub-letting if they were lawfully entered into.
when you say bailiff, on the order would be the company (using the forfeiture procedure) would then the order have to state all occu
It seems once the company tenancy has been ended properly (s.146 notice and then court order), then you can just apply for the bailiff without more. The sub-tenants are regarded as trespassers because they aren’t lawfully at the property (once the head tenancy is at an end) (but we don’t think the trespasser procedure will be appropriate). The bailiff form does ask if any occupiers names are known (presumably meaning you don’t have to know their names).
See this article for more information.
We will try and do an article because you and others seem to ask this type of question more and more often. Seems to be a bit of a trend of unlawful subletting going on.
Coming back to this, the ‘agreement’ is in a company name and guaranteed by a named person with the title ‘director’ who does actually live there as main residence. Im assuming its an AST? in addition LL gave verbal permission for 2 specific employees of the company to also live there i.e. sublet, however the main tenant has put different people in there i.e. put in tenants without LL permission, as only the ones which LL agreed to were permitted, albeit verbally.
If it is an AST then s21 / 8 would be the way to go, just unclear about the nature of the tenancy
If the agreement is in the name of a company, it can’t be an AST. The guarantor is just a guarantor and has no tenancy with the landlord. The guarantor may have a tenancy with the company (which would be an AST).
Don’t really see that court would end tenancy just because different people been sub-let to. Don’t see it makes any difference to landlord if it was person A or person B living in the property? Landlord gave permission to sub-let which has been done – just different names.
We could be wrong though as this isn’t something we deal a lot with (and try to avoid)!
yes its complex! but the fact the director lives there doesnt change the situation? ist still the company whom possession proceedings would be brought against using the 146 above?
the contract (despite in reality not being an AST) only has forfeiture clause like you get in an AST i.e. s8 grounds etc… not the type of forfeiture you would get in a commercial lease
In our view yes because your landlord (head landlord) only has a company let agreement.
Oh dear! Not sure what can add!