Why is sublet prohibited?

jonathanp89

The aversion to subletting in the UK is a cultural thing.

In Germany for instance, subletting is extremely common. I am forced to sublet here, even though both me and my landlord would prefer for me to be the main tenant
However, here, if you sign a three year rental contract, you cannot transfer it or end it, even if you leave the country! So if you want to move out, you must sublet to someone else until the end of the rental term. The actual owner does not mind, because the main tenant is still responsible if the sub-tenant causes damage.

Overall I think it is detrimental for society, because in areas where there is a housing shortage people with long term rentals tend to hold on to them even if they don't need it for a while, and less fortunate people are forced to keep switching between different sublets on short term contracts.

System

Therein lies the difference betweeen German and UK laws. There is no responsibility on the tenant once he leaves or leaves a sub-tenant in situ after he has ended his contract plus it would take a court case to apportion costs to the original tenant for damage caused by the sub-tenant.

mrginge

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. 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.

So to extrapolate your reasoning, because the LL has a contract with the T and is 'protected from latent risks' -
There is no point in credit checking or referencing any tenants.
There is no point taking a deposit.
Where there are multiple tenants, only one need sign.

Thats what you're saying.

In yor rather silly example above, the LL may be protected from the subletter missing a payment and the consequential missing rent from the T but that does not mean they are not exposed to increased risk. Two people possibly having a problem is clearly higher risk than just one.
If you can't understand that simple point then there's no hope.

AdrianC

jonathanp89 wrote: »

In Germany for instance, subletting is extremely common.
However, here, if you sign a three year rental contract, you cannot transfer it or end it, even if you leave the country!

Sounds like subletting is merely a necessary evil to get around ridiculously inflexible tenancies.

As you said - neither you nor your (eventual) landlord want you to sublet, and you can bet that the guy in the middle would rather not be involved. So who's it benefit?

bigmun

mrginge wrote: »

Two people possibly having a problem is clearly higher risk than just one.
If you can't understand that simple point then there's no hope.

I'm afraid I don't, because "Two people possibly having a problem is clearly higher risk than just one" is moot. It's like claiming that "Two bolts possibly having a problem is clearly higher risk than just one". By that logic, you should always use just one bolt for anything.

G_M

Bigmun - are you asking about subletting (ie a tenant granting an AST to a subtenant?

Or about s tenant granting a licence to a lodger/guest?

They are very different legal animals which you seem to be confusing.

So far as subleting is concerned, you've been given plenty of good business reasons (plus some legal ones) why LLs prohibit it via the contract.

If you don't like, or agree with, those reasons, fair enough. But this thread has served its purpose.

mrginge

bigmun wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't, because "Two people possibly having a problem is clearly higher risk than just one" is moot. It's like claiming that "Two bolts possibly having a problem is clearly higher risk than just one". By that logic, you should always use just one bolt for anything.

That makes absolutely no sense.
You have proved my point though, so i think we'll just call it a day at that.

AdrianC

bigmun wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't, because "Two people possibly having a problem is clearly higher risk than just one" is moot. It's like claiming that "Two bolts possibly having a problem is clearly higher risk than just one". By that logic, you should always use just one bolt for anything.

Umm, no. They are opposites.

All the landlord needs is for one of the two people involved to cause him grief.
For a bolt failure to be relevant, both bolts would need to fail.

One doubles the risk, one halves it.

onlyroz

Does subletting include lodgers? Because aren't people encouraged to take on lodgers to pay for the "bedroom tax"?

Kynthia

Subletting and lodgers are legally different and many informed landlords don't have an issue with lodgers.