Can a letting agent be our 'Landlord'

basil3107

Hi

London area but this would apply across the country.

The contract we have signed with the letting agent names them as the 'Landlord' on the contract, and the Superior Landlord (owner of the property). Is this allowed? what difference does this make?

They are trying to charge extortionate renewal fees for another term and I'd like to know if the contract I have signed is even valid.

Many Thanks,

Basil

davidmcn

Are they the landlord?

atrixblue.-MFR-.

the contract with those terms seems legitimate. the "agent" is acting as "landlord", for the owner who probably has only a income related vested interest in the property and in no way wants the legal onus of being "landlord duties", hence he contracted an " estates agent" to act as "landlord" for the purposes of such duties. .

Slithery

basil3107 wrote: »

Is this allowed?

Yes.

what difference does this make?

None.

basil3107

Query really as I've never seen it before. I thought there might be some kind of regulation not allowing letting agents to be 'landlords', as the don't own the property.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

basil3107 wrote: »

Query really as I've never seen it before. I thought there might be some kind of regulation not allowing letting agents to be 'landlords', as the don't own the property.

there is "principle" contract laws that govern this type of thing, but the essence of the contract is saying that the principle (the landlord/owner) has contracted the agents to be "landlord on their behalf" does this make sense?

G_M

A more likely explanation is that this is one of those 'rent guarantee schemes'.

the owner of the property grants a commercial tenancy to the letting agency (the terms of which guarantee him a monthly rental income irrespective of whether or not the property is sub-let to an occupier).

The agency then sublets the property, under an AST, to an occupier who is their (the agency's) tenant. The tenant's landlord is thus the agency. The occupier has no legal relationship with the property owner who is the agency's landlord.

So yes, the contract between occupant (tenant) and agency is perfectly valid.

If the renewal fees are 'extortionate' the tenant can deal with this in the usual way:
* pay and renew
* negotiate over the fee (and then pay whatever is negotiated)
* leave at the end of the contract
* move to a Statutory Periodic Tenancy

See also
* Ending/renewing an AST: what happens when a fixed term ends? How can a LL or tenant end a tenancy? What is a periodic tenancy?

theartfullodger

basil3107 wrote: »

London area but this would apply across the country.

different in Scotland..

.....

? what difference does this make?

If contract between agent & owner (probably "superior landlord") ends then tenant becomes tenant of owner on same terms.

Just ignore request you renew and pay fees:. Tenancy continues if you remain in occupation, no fees chargeable.

Also assume agent is dodgier than usual.

missile

Yes, in Scotland we have a Landlords Register. LLs are required to register with their name and address. Thus one can easily verify who the Landlord is.

Great idea??????

Unfortunately, in practise many LLs do not comply with this and other regulations.

https://www.landlordregistrationscotland.gov.uk/

AdrianC

missile wrote: »

Unfortunately, in practise many LLs do not comply with this and other regulations.

There should be a law against it!

atrixblue.-MFR-.

00ec25 wrote: »

yes, but only if you know the difference between principle and principal.

I obviously do but my phone doesn't. I don't usually proof read my posts either post and go. Have not got time for grammar correction life's too short and its gives the grammar police something to do, it gives them a sense of self purpose the poor little mites, gotta love em ai!.