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

Question

Sub-letting and Assigning Tenancies (England) | Tenant Wants to Leave (England) | Types of Tenancies (England)

company let to a company with permitted occupants

15 Sep 2017 | 6 comments

The head tenant wants to evict the sub tenants for non payment of rent. Can the head tenant firstly end their tenancy with the landlord as both parties agree, or does the tenancy need to be ended with a court order? if it can be ended by head tenant and LL in agreement, can this be ended by a the head tenant serving an NTQ? say with one month notice or is there a quicker was to do this as the LL wants to evict the sub tenants at the earliest opportunity without (if possible) evicting the head tenant through the courts. This would then allow the sub tenants to evicted quicker. The fixed term ends on the 6th November. If the tenancy can be ended between LL and head tenant in this way then what would the procedure be to evict the subtenants as there is no AST between the sub tenants and the LL or the head tenant. The nature of the agreement is that they are employees of the head tenant who are no longer employed but wont leave. The rent was being paid through deductions in the sub tenants wages, and this ceased over 2 months ago. thus no rent is being paid. To compound this the current sub tenants are not named as occupants on the agreement between the landlord or head tenant, the original sub tenant has left, though the agreement allows for substitution i.e. the right to substitute with other employees. How would one go about acquiring possession from the sub tenants. I am assuming that the landlord has to be the claimant correct?

Answer

6 Comments

  1. guildy

    From what’s described, the occupiers are assured shorthold tenants despite no agreement because it’s their only or principal home and rent is payable (via deductions).

    By far the easiest way to gain possession from the occupiers is for the head company tenant to seek possession directly via a section 8 notice. There is a special ground 16 for this precise purpose:

    The dwelling-house was let to the tenant in consequence of his employment by the landlord seeking possession or a previous landlord under the tenancy and the tenant has ceased to be in that employment.

    For the purposes of this ground, at a time when the landlord is or was the Secretary of State, employment by a health service body, as defined in section 60(7) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, or by a Local Health Board, shall be regarded as employment by the Secretary of State.

    The ground is discretionary but the court would need good reason not to give possession where the ground has been made out.

    The head tenant would also be wise serving a section 21 as a backup.

  2. eden2011

    so the tenancy between head LL and head Tenant doenst need to be surrendered in any way?

  3. eden2011

    the employer isnt the head LL but the head tenant by the way

  4. guildy

    The head tenant (company) is the landlord of the actual occupiers (confusing but the company is both a tenant and a landlord!)

    That’s why they’re best obtaining possession themselves in this case because they are able to do so as they are the landlord of the occupiers and as such it’s easier for them in particular as there’s a specific ground for the circumstances.

    There’s no requirement to own something to be a landlord just a better right to possession which they have by way of the agreement between them and the owner landlord.

    There’s no need to surrender anything which would in fact make it more difficult because they would no longer have a better right to possession.

  5. eden2011

    Thanks, its is rather confusing, so why is it different if its not this type of contract whereby you would have to end the tenancy between head LL and head Tenant first?

  6. eden2011

    And we don’t have to prove rent arrears under this ground, and only that employment has been terminated?

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)