Tenant sub-letting. Landlord's rights?

Innys1

Hello

I was wondering if anyone could help with a query I have.

My parents own a house that they have, in the past, let out direct to tenants.

Against my advice, in May of this year, they let it to a guy who immediately sub-let it. The guy was pretty up front about his intentions and my parents saw it as an easy way to make money, I know, I know.

Anyway, as one could have predicted, the guy has sublet the three bedroom flat to 20 or so people who causing chaos and annoying the neighbours. There are no arrears on the rent.

My parents now want to end the tenancy early - there was, fortunately, a 6 month break clause in it.

My question is, can they evict the 20 or so people living there? After all, their contract is with this middle man, not with the people living there. Even if they get a Court judgement against the middle man, that doesn't affect the occupants, does it, as my parents have no contract with them?

I suspect the best they can do is get a judgement against the middle man and hope he, in turn, seeks a judgement against his tenants forcing them to vacate.

Does anyone know?

Thanks in advance.

theartfullodger

The named landlord (? who is named as landlord?) should issue TODAY s21 & s8 & NTQ on the named tenant at the property address.

Also explain to named tenant that they were thinking of reporting him to tax man for this HUGE rental income he is undoubtedly not declaring...
https://www.gov.uk/report-an-unregistered-trader-or-business
& also likewise to the benefits authorities...
https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
= but if he clears the house, hands it back & signs a "deed of surrender" they may not...

- then whatever happens, report him anyway the little crook:

S21 for usual: S8 for grounds 12 & 14 (14 as almost certainly overcrowded & a HMO not compliant for which landlord can get CRIMINAL record & fines.. - ongoing daily fines..) see
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/content/grounds-for-possession

NTQ (which a s21 is not..) as if the named tenant is not living there it is no longer an AST so s21 & s8 don't apply..). See
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/07/20/five-tips-for-landlords-on-possession-notices/

Do NOT accept any money from occupants - that would be granting them a direct tenancy.

Do I guess parents & you have not done much training or research in being a landlord??

princeofpounds

Artful's suggestions are the sort of thing they need to look into, but to put it simply, they just have to legally end the tenancy in the correct way against the person they awarded it to.


When they are awarded possession, that will apply to all occupants of the property. What precise sub-tenancies were signed aren't really the issue of your parents from that point, although in practice it might require bailiffs to get people out.

theartfullodger

princeofpounds wrote: »

Artful's suggestions are the sort of thing they need to look into, but to put it simply, they just have to legally end the tenancy in the correct way against the person they awarded it to.


When they are awarded possession, that will apply to all occupants of the property. What precise sub-tenancies were signed aren't really the issue of your parents from that point, although in practice it might require bailiffs to get people out.

Not sure: Think occupants ASTs might transfer over to the owners.

Were they lodgers then I would agree as as the occupant's landlord is (presumably..) not resident they have valid ASTs, albeit perhaps verbal....

Mind you, bailiffs might not appreciate the subtlety... depending on what is presented to court you the actual named tenant of the owners...

Innys1

theartfullodger wrote: »

Not sure: Think occupants ASTs might transfer over to the owners.

Were they lodgers then I would agree as as the occupant's landlord is (presumably..) not resident they have valid ASTs, albeit perhaps verbal....

Mind you, bailiffs might not appreciate the subtlety... depending on what is presented to court you the actual named tenant of the owners...

Why? The owners, my parents, would have to agree to any such transfer and they haven't - they only have a contract with the middle man. He can't sign a contract on their behalf, as he isn't their agent.

Yes, you are correct, my parents are not resident landlords so the question of lodgers doesn't come into it.

theartfullodger

Innys1 wrote: »

Why? The owners, my parents, would have to agree to any such transfer and they haven't - they only have a contract with the middle man. He can't sign a contract on their behalf, as he isn't their agent.

S18 of Housing Act 1988: See
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/18

18 Provisions as to reversions on assured tenancies.

(1) If at any time—
(a) a dwelling-house is for the time being lawfully let on an assured tenancy, and
(b) the landlord under the assured tenancy is himself a tenant under a superior tenancy; and
(c) the superior tenancy comes to an end,then, subject to subsection (2) below, the assured tenancy shall continue in existence as a tenancy held of the person whose interest would, apart from the continuance of the assured tenancy, entitle him to actual possession of the dwelling-house at that time.

OK?? You may not like that but that is the law... NB An AST is but a special form of "Assured Tenancy" & this section applies to ASTs granted by tenants (of the owners...) to their sublet/subtenant tenants...

.....Yes, you are correct, my parents are not resident landlords so the question of lodgers doesn't come into it.

Sorry: The occupant's landlord (currently) is the person who is the named tenant of your parents: Because HE (the named tenant) is not resident they have ASTs..

I repeat, please (we are trying to help you but need info..)

The named landlord (? who is named as landlord?)

- in the tenancy agreement your parents granted to this dodgy bloke...

csgohan4

Ouch 20 people, how many bedrooms?

HappyMJ

csgohan4 wrote: »

Ouch 20 people, how many bedrooms?

OP did say 3 bedrooms. How many living rooms? Even if 2 living rooms it's still way overcrowded with 4 people per room and I doubt they are all children.

Is there any overcrowding legislation the OP could use to get these extra occupants out of the property sooner?

Can the AST's be deemed invalid if the property is statutorily overcrowded? I can't understand why the OP as the landlord would be responsible for the occupants if they haven't signed AST's with them. What if the occupants signed 24 month AST's with the dodgy tenant? There's got to be some way of terminating all this early.

theartfullodger

HappyMJ wrote: »

....Is there any overcrowding legislation the OP could use to get these extra occupants out of the property sooner?....

The legislation is well described here...
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repairs_and_bad_conditions/common_problems/overcrowding
but does not effect the legality of any tenancy, apart from enabling (depending on wording of head-tenancy) using s8 for breach of tenancy terms..

G_M

See

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5193112

Innys1

theartfullodger wrote: »

S18 of Housing Act 1988: See
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/18
OK?? You may not like that but that is the law... NB An AST is but a special form of "Assured Tenancy" & this section applies to ASTs granted by tenants (of the owners...) to their sublet/subtenant tenants...



Sorry: The occupant's landlord (currently) is the person who is the named tenant of your parents: Because HE (the named tenant) is not resident they have ASTs..

I repeat, please (we are trying to help you but need info..) - in the tenancy agreement your parents granted to this dodgy bloke...

The landlord in the tenancy granted by my parents to this dodgy bloke is my parents - they own the property and granted this fella an AST.