Can a tenant sub-let an entire property?

cloo

I think everyone's being a bit harsh on the OP, I can understand the landlord might be being taken advantage of and if there is a changing roster of people there, for whom the property is not a long-term home, then there is more risk of damage and excess wear and tear that the landlord hasn't budgeted for. It is creating risks that the landlord didn't choose to expose herself to.


I think that the situation ought to be brought to the landlord's attention so that she can investigate.


I let my house for 8 years and I'd certainly have felt p*ssed off if my tenant had been coining it letting a load of people (presumably strangers) stay there without my permission.

agrinnall

cloo wrote: »

I think that the situation ought to be brought to the landlord's attention so that she can investigate.

Well I think most people would agree that is a suitable course of action, but as the OP seems to be unwilling to do it the whole thread is a big waste of time.

libf

SanguineSteve wrote: »

Ignoring this exact case, It just seems unfair/unjust to me that a tenant can take risks with property, that is not their own, with very little actual risk to themselves. That this has concerned me and has been met with a general shrug of the shoulders from the respondents in here saddens me and just makes me think i'm not cut out to be a landlord.

Whilst the tenant lives in the property, it is their home and they are entitled to treat it and enjoy it as such. If you can't get your head around that, then you shouldn't be a landlord.

SanguineSteve

agrinnall wrote: »

Well I think most people would agree that is a suitable course of action, but as the OP seems to be unwilling to do it the whole thread is a big waste of time.

Really? I got an overwhelming vibe of 'none of your business' from the replies. Including your own.

Guest101

SanguineSteve wrote: »

I can see from the replies that everyone here has an outlook on it different to my own. So, i guess that's my problem.

I'm soon to be a landlord (perhaps this is a massive mistake), i'd want to know if my tenant was doing this, or breaching the agreement in any other way. Otherwise, what's the point in the process of vetting tenants if they are able to sub-let to anyone with relative impunity? - Not impunity. You might be able to evict them, certainly after the fixed term.

If the place get's trashed/turned over by a rogue airbnb'er, the named tenant can seemingly just walk away. - Not at all the tenant would be liable.

Ignoring this exact case, It just seems unfair/unjust to me that a tenant can take risks with property, that is not their own, with very little actual risk to themselves. That this has concerned me and has been met with a general shrug of the shoulders from the respondents in here saddens me and just makes me think i'm not cut out to be a landlord. - Maybe you aren't. But the property is the tenants, not yours, for the duration of the tenancy. You are entitled to be compensated if you suffer a loss (for example damage)

I think for the sake of my mother's sanity (and mine, i'm the one that has listen to her....) i need to convince her that it's actually none of our business and that she should do her best to ignore it and get on with her life.

I think you are correct

Pixie5740

SanguineSteve wrote: »

I can see from the replies that everyone here has an outlook on it different to my own. So, i guess that's my problem.

If the noise is genuinely as issue for your mother then she can contact the tenant, the landlord and/or the local council. Should the landlord choose to evict the tenant, and therefore the subtenants, your mother might end up with a young family living next door to her anyway.

SanguineSteve wrote: »

I'm soon to be a landlord (perhaps this is a massive mistake), i'd want to know if my tenant was doing this, or breaching the agreement in any other way.

Reference your tenants thoroughly and carry out inspections then.

SanguineSteve wrote: »

Otherwise, what's the point in the process of vetting tenants if they are able to sub-let to anyone with relative impunity?

No investment is risk free and letting property is no different. You protect yourself as best you can by checking and referencing any prospective tenants and take steps to evict if necessary.

SanguineSteve wrote: »

If the place get's trashed/turned over by a rogue airbnb'er, the named tenant can seemingly just walk away.

What makes you think this? A subtenant trashing the place is no different to a landlord to the tenant trashing the place. It's why landlords reference tenants, carry out inspections and take a deposit. Any damages caused by a subtenant can be deducted from the tenant's deposit. It would then be up to the tenant to try and get the money back from the subtenant.

SanguineSteve wrote: »

Ignoring this exact case, It just seems unfair/unjust to me that a tenant can take risks with property, that is not their own, with very little actual risk to themselves. That this has concerned me and has been met with a general shrug of the shoulders from the respondents in here saddens me and just makes me think i'm not cut out to be a landlord.

Well you see that's where you are wrong. During the tenancy the tenant does own the property and has exclusive use of the property. Perhaps you aren't cut out to be a landlord and should invest your money elsewhere.

SanguineSteve wrote: »

I think for the sake of my mother's sanity (and mine, i'm the one that has listen to her....) i need to convince her that it's actually none of our business and that she should do her best to ignore it and get on with her life.

If the subtenants are causing a nuisance to your mother then yes she can report it to the landlord or the council same as if they were any other nuisance neighbour. If they aren't causing a nuisance then yes she just needs to keep her nose out. Sometimes it's better the devil you know.

PlutoinCapricorn

But the tenant isn't living in the property!

SuzieSue

davidmcn wrote: »

What makes you think that? It would have exactly the same consequences for the tenant as if they trashed it themselves.

But the landlord's insurance probably wouldn't pay out and the landlord would have to pursue the tenant through the courts if he didn't have adequate insurance for Airbnb.

If the tenant wasn't renting through Airbnb, the landlord's insurance probably would pay out and then try to pursue the tenant.

SuzieSue

libf wrote: »

Whilst the tenant lives in the property, it is their home and they are entitled to treat it and enjoy it as such. If you can't get your head around that, then you shouldn't be a landlord.

As long as the tenant has suitable insurance for renting through Airbnb.

Guest101

PlutoinCapricorn wrote: »

But the tenant isn't living in the property!

Largely irrelevant.


The tenant might be allowed to sub let via his tenancy anyway.