What happens if a tenant gives a notice to quit out of a fixed term but had sublet and the sub tenants remain, do they become the problem of the head landlord?
another scenario – what if the tenant was given a s21 and after expiry the sub tenants remain? What happens to the sub tenants ?
3 Comments
If the sub-letting was lawful (i.e. the landlord had given consent either expressly or impliedly) then the tenants become the tenants of the head landlord. But, if it was unlawfully sub-let, the sub-tenants have no protection.
Section 21 wouldn’t be the correct notice if there’s subletting because the head tenancy can only be assured shorthold if the tenant is occupying as their main home. If they’re subletting, they must be living somewhere else. In this case, it would be a notice to quit on the head tenant and then same as above applies.
This article about subtenancies (lawful and unlawful) is very useful.
Sorry I realised I asked this before and sent a similar enquiry juts now. I suppose hat I’m trying to get at is does the notice given to the head LL have any effect of the subletting was either lawful or not, the tenant has never lived there and merely sublet, do the sub tenants become the problem of the head LL in any scenario if the notice given by middle tenant is valid, does it mean they are out of the equation ? The tenant has an ast which was periodic
You ask about what happens whether the subletting was lawful or not but that is the single most important question to know before the question can be answered.
You need to first establish whether the first tenant (who has a tenancy directly with the owner) was allowed to sub-let or not.
From what’s described it sounds like they did have permission from the owner to sub-let (given they never lived there) and as such, a notice to quit on the first tenant will make the occupiers (sub-tenants) the direct tenants of the landlord.