We have now moved to our new websites - [England](https://england.landlordsguild.com) or [Wales](https://wales.landlordsguild.com)
We have now moved to our new websites - [England](https://england.landlordsguild.com) or [Wales](https://wales.landlordsguild.com)
powered by bulletin


Types of Tenancies (England)

company let or ast

21 Jun 2018 | 13 comments

agreement purports to be an AST though the tenant is in the name of a company and not an individual, does this mean then it not in fact an AST



  1. guildy

    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.

    • eden2011

      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 

  2. guildy

    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).

    • eden2011

      But there are tenants on ASTs in there 

  3. guildy

    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.

  4. eden2011

    when you say bailiff, on the order would be the company (using the forfeiture procedure) would then the order have to state all occu

  5. guildy

    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.

  6. eden2011

    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

  7. guildy

    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)!

  8. eden2011

    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?

  9. eden2011

    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

  10. guildy

    In our view yes because your landlord (head landlord) only has a company let agreement.

  11. guildy

    Oh dear! Not sure what can add!

Submit a Comment

View your previously asked questions. (Will only show questions from August 2020)

(Link above back to topic only works for questions added after end of August 2020)