Why is sublet prohibited?

bigmun

mrginge wrote: »

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

AFAIK, tenancy agreements typically allow for sleepovers but not subletting. By your logic, you lent your mate your car but you let him lend it on for free but not for a price.

System

The risks aren't the same. If the T sub-lets then his tenant has the right to carry on the tenancy AFTER the T has left, The sub-lettee's tenancy reverts to the LL being his LL and not the T.

Then you have the question of who is responsible for damages/costs. The remaining tenant or the one that is left. What is the situation with the contracts? Where is the sub-tenants deposit? It opens a huge can of worms that any sane LL won't want to get involved in.

Guests and friends can be turfed out as soon as the T leaves, they have no rights of tenure.

Errata

LL's don't like subletting because a subletter can sublet to someone else who can sublet to someone else ad infinitum.

bigmun

AdrianC wrote: »

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.

Yes, subletting gives more rent, more risk, more hassle. But, since the tenancy agreement is between the LL and the T, the LL is protected from the latent risks T's subletting brings on. Of course, T's income might largely depend on the subletting, so if one of the subletters misses their payments the T might miss theirs as well. That said, it'd be the same if the T's income largely depends on some unstable stream.

somethingcorporate

I'm not really sure what you are after here bigmun. It's been explained why Ts cannot sublet due to the massive increase in risk to the LL and ultimately the mortgage company.

bigmun

!!!!!! wrote: »

The risks aren't the same. If the T sub-lets then his tenant has the right to carry on the tenancy AFTER the T has left, The sub-lettee's tenancy reverts to the LL being his LL and not the T.

But that's only if the subletting is done via AST, right? If the sub-lettees were issued a license rather than an AST, then the tenancy wouldn't revert to the LL being his LL.

Pixie5740

bigmun wrote: »

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.

There is a world of difference between the rights of a friend staying over (none) to a subtenant with full tenants rights. They're not the same thing at all.

My landlord referenced me and was satisfied through the referencing that I will pay my rent on time and not damage the place. Why would he take the extra risk of me subletting and having to chase me for unpaid rent and damages when he doesn't have to?

Is this just a hypothetical question or are you a tenant looking to sublet or a landlord considering not putting a clause prohibiting subletting in the tenancy agreement?

bigmun

Pixie5740 wrote: »

There is a world of difference between the rights of a friend staying over (none) to a subtenant with full tenants rights. They're not the same thing at all.

My landlord referenced me and was satisfied through the referencing that I will pay my rent on time and not damage the place. Why would he take the extra risk of me subletting and having to chase me for unpaid rent and damages when he doesn't have to?

Is this just a hypothetical question or are you a tenant looking to sublet or a landlord considering not putting a clause prohibiting subletting in the tenancy agreement?

It is a hypothetical question, as I don't quite understand why LLs tend to frown upon subletting. AFAIK, subletting using a license rather than an AST doesn't give them full rights.

Pixie5740

bigmun wrote: »

It is a hypothetical question, as I don't quite understand why LLs tend to frown upon subletting. AFAIK, subletting using a license rather than an AST doesn't give them full rights.

What do you mean when you say "using a licence?" What licence? What do you mean by subletting? Are you referring to taking a lodger in or an actual subtenant?

AdrianC

bigmun wrote: »

Yes, subletting gives more rent, more risk, more hassle. But, since the tenancy agreement is between the LL and the T, the LL is protected from the latent risks T's subletting brings on.

"Protected" in what way, practically? The landlord can evict the tenant, and can hit their deposit. Great.

Except the landlord can't evict the actual occupiers, without a lot more work and expense, because he doesn't even know they exist... And if the damage is more ex(t/p)ensive than the deposit? What then? Who does he sue? Is it even worth sueing?