Subletting management company- tenancy agreement/ deposit

starting_again_in_the_sun

Hello,

Sorry, I have more questions for your wonderful brains! 

Imagine, on the 1st December I sign an agreement with Mickey. Deposit all protected, everything good. But, 2 weeks later, Mickey decides he wants to sublet the apartment to Donald's management company, so I sign a new tenancy agreement with Donald's management company. Deposit protected again, no problems.

Now, 6 months later, Donald's management company has ceased to exist. I've had no information about my contract; even when I asked Donald's old agent, which now goes by a different name.


My questions: 
- If Donald's management company is no longer my landlord, should I have been informed?

- If Mickey tries to take me to court, can I just show the court that my agreement is with Donald's management company, not Mickey 
?

- If Mickey has indeed taken over my tenancy, should be have reprotected my deposit and let me know?

Many thanks 🙏 

FlorayG

If your deposit has not been returned to you then it's still in a protected scheme regardless of who has put it there. Why would Mickey want to take you to court? Over what? I think that's probably relevant 

DullGreyGuy

starting_again_in_the_sun said:

Hello,

Sorry, I have more questions for your wonderful brains! 

Imagine, on the 1st December I sign an agreement with Mickey. Deposit all protected, everything good. But, 2 weeks later, Mickey decides he wants to sublet the apartment to Donald's management company, so I sign a new tenancy agreement with Donald's management company. Deposit protected again, no problems.

Now, 6 months later, Donald's management company has ceased to exist. I've had no information about my contract; even when I asked Donald's old agent, which now goes by a different name.


My questions: 
- If Donald's management company is no longer my landlord, should I have been informed?

- If Mickey tries to take me to court, can I just show the court that my agreement is with Donald's management company, not Mickey 
?

- If Mickey has indeed taken over my tenancy, should be have reprotected my deposit and let me know?

Many thanks 🙏 

So you are the tenant? 

Your terminology is odd because it's a tenant that sublets a property not the landlord. 

So when your tenancy agreement transferred from Mickey to Donald was your deposit returned or simply transferred to Donald?

What mechanism was used to terminate the contract with Mickey? Without knowing the relationship between Mickey and Donald it's a bit of guess work however personally would probably have used a Deed to novate the contract across rather than cancelling the original and setting up a new one. 

Was the new contract actually a triparty contract? When I've had management companies involved they always have been with the Landlord, Tenant and MC all being parties to the contract so Mickey never ceased to be part of the contract. 

Why is Mickey now trying to sue you? 

starting_again_in_the_sun

FlorayG said:

If your deposit has not been returned to you then it's still in a protected scheme regardless of who has put it there. Why would Mickey want to take you to court? Over what? I think that's probably relevant 

Rent arrears, probably unlikely given the amount but a possibility.

starting_again_in_the_sun

DullGreyGuy said:

starting_again_in_the_sun said:

Hello,

Sorry, I have more questions for your wonderful brains! 

Imagine, on the 1st December I sign an agreement with Mickey. Deposit all protected, everything good. But, 2 weeks later, Mickey decides he wants to sublet the apartment to Donald's management company, so I sign a new tenancy agreement with Donald's management company. Deposit protected again, no problems.

Now, 6 months later, Donald's management company has ceased to exist. I've had no information about my contract; even when I asked Donald's old agent, which now goes by a different name.


My questions: 
- If Donald's management company is no longer my landlord, should I have been informed?

- If Mickey tries to take me to court, can I just show the court that my agreement is with Donald's management company, not Mickey 
?

- If Mickey has indeed taken over my tenancy, should be have reprotected my deposit and let me know?

Many thanks 🙏 

So you are the tenant? 

The sub tenant, I guess.
Your terminology is odd because it's a tenant that sublets a property not the landlord. 

So when your tenancy agreement transferred from Mickey to Donald was your deposit returned or simply transferred to Donald?

Mickey unprotected it, and then Donald reprotected it. It was never returned to me in between.

What mechanism was used to terminate the contract with Mickey? Without knowing the relationship between Mickey and Donald it's a bit of guess work however personally would probably have used a Deed to novate the contract across rather than cancelling the original and setting up a new one. 

Nothing, I was simply told the landlord had chosen a different level of service and I had to sign a new agreement. 

Definitely no deed, as far as I'm aware. 

Was the new contract actually a triparty contract? When I've had management companies involved they always have been with the Landlord, Tenant and MC all being parties to the contract so Mickey never ceased to be part of the contract. 

No mention of Mickey in the contract; Donald is listed as the landlord.

Why is Mickey now trying to sue you?

He isn't, but may in the future over rent arrears.

Answers in bold- thank you! 

_Penny_Dreadful

Are you positive that Donald is listed as the landlord on your tenancy agreement and not as Mickey's letting agent?

If Donald really is your landlord then you don't have a contract with Mickey.  No contract means there's nothing for Mickey to sue you for.  Mickey is going to have to sort out whatever mess he's facing with Donald.

starting_again_in_the_sun

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Are you positive that Donald is listed as the landlord on your tenancy agreement and not as Mickey's letting agent?

If Donald really is your landlord then you don't have a contract with Mickey.  No contract means there's nothing for Mickey to sue you for.  Mickey is going to have to sort out whatever mess he's facing with Donald.

Yes, absolutely positive. New contract states 'Donald's platinum service' as landlord. 

I assume it overrides the contract with Mickey as it's newer. Also have an email from Donald's agency saying the original agreement is void.

_Penny_Dreadful

starting_again_in_the_sun said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Are you positive that Donald is listed as the landlord on your tenancy agreement and not as Mickey's letting agent?

If Donald really is your landlord then you don't have a contract with Mickey.  No contract means there's nothing for Mickey to sue you for.  Mickey is going to have to sort out whatever mess he's facing with Donald.

Yes, absolutely positive. New contract states 'Donald's platinum service' as landlord. 

I assume it overrides the contract with Mickey as it's newer. Also have an email from Donald's agency saying the original agreement is void.

Sounds like Mickey effed up and has entered into some rent to rent contract with Donald.

There wasn't even a need for a new contact when Donald became your landlord.  A change of landlord didn't require a new tenancy agreement. All Donald had to do was comply with s.3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and s.48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, and the original tenancy would have continued albeit with Donald now as the landlord.  Seems like multiple eff ups all round.

Donald becoming insolvent doesn't end your tenancy either although you may wish to stop paying rent to Donald and set the money aside until you get clarification on who your landlord is now and where the rent should be paid.

starting_again_in_the_sun

_Penny_Dreadful said:

starting_again_in_the_sun said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Are you positive that Donald is listed as the landlord on your tenancy agreement and not as Mickey's letting agent?

If Donald really is your landlord then you don't have a contract with Mickey.  No contract means there's nothing for Mickey to sue you for.  Mickey is going to have to sort out whatever mess he's facing with Donald.

Yes, absolutely positive. New contract states 'Donald's platinum service' as landlord. 

I assume it overrides the contract with Mickey as it's newer. Also have an email from Donald's agency saying the original agreement is void.

Sounds like Mickey effed up and has entered into some rent to rent contract with Donald.

There wasn't even a need for a new contact when Donald became your landlord.  A change of landlord didn't require a new tenancy agreement. All Donald had to do was comply with s.3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and s.48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, and the original tenancy would have continued albeit with Donald now as the landlord.  Seems like multiple eff ups all round.

Donald becoming insolvent doesn't end your tenancy either although you may wish to stop paying rent to Donald and set the money aside until you get clarification on who your landlord is now and where the rent should be paid.

Yes,  I think so. I feel quite sorry for Mickey to be honest, as Donald is useless.

Weirdly, I've double checked, and Mickey is still protecting our deposit with Donald protecting a second deposit of exactly the same again. Not sure if that changes anything... maybe I can claim both back 😂.