Letting to a company

ERICS_MUM

Is it possible for a limited company to rent a residential property through a ‘high street’ letting agent, and put their own tenant in the property (with separate tenancy agreement ) ?

Thanks.

Nebulous2

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve - but companies rent property all the time. I was very briefly a landlord and a company which was relocating to a more expensive area rented our flat for two of their staff, to make sure they relocated.

Companies that have international staff coming to the UK often rent property for them. I doubt if they then have a tenancy agreement for their members of staff however.

davidmcn

Yes, that's possible. If you want more useful advice you'll really need to tell us why you're asking!

G_M

ERICS_MUM wrote: »

Is it possible for a limited company to rent a residential property through a ‘high street’ letting agent, and put their own tenant in the property (with separate tenancy agreement ) ?

Very unclear - please explain. Your title is "Letting to a company"
yet your post says it is a ltd company that owns the property which is to be let to an individual.
Which?

But no reason a ltd company which owns a property cannot let it to an individual (any individual they want), and use a letting agency to manage the tenancy.

ERICS_MUM

Sorry, I’ll try again.

Family member wants to rent a property but doesn’t have good enough credit history. Family friend has a limited company and has suggested that the company rents the property through the letting agency. She (well, her company) would then rent the property to our family member who will pay rent to the company.

Thanks

da_rule

You'd need to check with the agent as some tenancy agreements will prevent sub-letting. There is also a possibility that it will create a commercial tenancy and as such there may be changes needed to the agreement.

davidmcn

ERICS_MUM wrote: »

Family member wants to rent a property but doesn’t have good enough credit history. Family friend has a limited company and has suggested that the company rents the property through the letting agency. She (well, her company) would then rent the property to our family member who will pay rent to the company.

Is there a reason why the company (or the family friend herself) doesn't want to act as a guarantor instead? Subletting seems a rather complicated solution, and I suspect the head landlord would prefer not to agree to it.

silvercar

The company would be liable for the rent if the sub tenant didn't pay. Is the company prepared for this?

The rent received from the tenant would be income to the company and the rent paid to the landlord would be expenses. Tax neutral, but may need explaining. It does increase the company's turnover, if that has implications.

The company may need to add to its articles of association that it operates in the category of renting out property, though this is s paper exercise and doesn't required external consent.

The company would be responsible for ensuring legislation is complied with eg gas safety certificates, deposit protection, notice periods etc

The relationship between landlord and the company would be contractual, the company wouldn't have the added legal rights that an AST gives tenants as the company wouldn't be living in the property as its residential home.

G_M

This would be a commercial letting, not an AST.



Many landlords will not agree to grant a commercial letter.
Many landlord's mortgage lenders will only permit lettings on an AST basis.
Many landlord's insurance policies will require the letting to be an AST.

The commercial letting (if granted) terms would have to permit sub-letting..


There would also be tax issues with the rental income received by the limited company.

AnotherJoe

I agree, guarantor instead.

steampowered

Using a company won't help get around a poor credit rating.

Unless the company has a credit history, a guarantor would be expected.