Why is sublet prohibited?

bigmun

Hi

I see that in most tenancy agreements, subletting is prohibited. Why is that the case? How come LLs tend to refuse subletting? Isn't it that as long as the flat is well maintained, the LL would have nothing to lose?

Thanks

Pixie5740

The landlord has vetted the tenant before signing over the property to them. Who says the tenant takes as much care vetting the subtenant? It's quite a gamble for the original landlord to take.

mrginge

How would you feel if you lent your best mate your car and he then lent it on to some bloke at his work?

System

Also I believe that if the tenant leaves at the end of their contract the LL is still stuck with the sub-tenant as the contract reverts to the LL.

I'm guessing that if the LL wanted everybody out then there would need to be 2 S21 and consequent court hearings to achieve it.

AdrianC

bigmun wrote: »

Isn't it that as long as the flat is well maintained, the LL would have nothing to lose?

That's one very big "as long as".

anselld

Added to all the practical reasons above, it is normally forbidden by BTL mortgage terms.

AdrianC

It's also worth considering WHY there might be benefit in somebody subletting. Simple. To make a profit. But why isn't the landlord renting the property for as much as they could do in the first place...?

Usually, it's because the man in the middle's taken the place as a complete property, and wants to sublet by the room. More rent, more risk. The landlord doesn't want to take that risk. If HMO regs start to come into play, then there's a whole raft of legislation that the landlord might suddenly and unwittingly be in breach of.

antrobus

The recent Budget made the following proposal;

make it easier for individuals to sub-let a room through its intention to legislate to prevent the use of clauses in private fixed-term residential tenancy agreements that expressly rule out sub-letting or otherwise sharing space on a short-term basis, and consider extending this prohibition to statutory periodic tenancies

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416330/47881_Budget_2015_Web_Accessible.pdf

somethingcorporate

For all the VERY OBVIOUS reasons above.

LLs pay money to ensure they get good, reliable tenants. What would be the point if the tenant could then let it to anyone they choose? It's just a massive gamble and if it all went wrong there would be fingers pointed in every direction.

RAS

I think the parliamentary situation arises because LLs have been kicking people out who have taken a lodger, taken paying guests, let family stay whilst they are on holiday rather than actually created a new tenancy.

It does not seem that the parliamentarians know the difference between a lodger or guest and a tenant? Which is scary.

I understand that the suggestion is that the LL's permission needs to be sought and should not be unreasonably refused?

bigmun

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The landlord has vetted the tenant before signing over the property to them. Who says the tenant takes as much care vetting the subtenant? It's quite a gamble for the original landlord to take.

But, at the end of the day, it'd be the T that'd be liable for any damages or unpaid rent. The risks the T brings on by subletting should be almost the same as if the T allows friends and guests to sleepover.