Tenant Has Sub Letted

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Tenant Has Sub Letted

    Hi all
    The police recently contacted us to say there as been problems at a flat we own and they have had to serve them an Anti Social order( not sure exactly what the order is but its mainly relating to noise ) . We then found out our tenant doesn't live there anymore and as sub let the property . We don't know where our tenant is and cant contact him. We want to serve an eviction order but who do we serve it to, the tenant we cant contact or the people living there now ? We want them out ASAP but want to make sure we get everything right. The tenancy agreement as obviously been breached so do we still have to give 2 months notice and to who ?

    Thanks for any replies

    #2
    You evict the tenant, using the last address you have for them (whether they receive the documents is their problem).
    When you use bailiffs, they'll remove anyone in the property.

    If you are still in the fixed term of a contract, you will need to use s8 notice and persuade a court to agree to evict based on a breach of tenancy agreement terms.
    If you are outside the fixed term, you can use s21 as long as you have complied with all the legal necessities.
    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #3
      I would have thought that the tenant had lost their security of tenure, because the property is no longer their primary residence.

      Comment


        #4
        As tenant no longer lives there the tenancy cannot be (may not be, legally impossible to be..) an AST so no s8 or s21. But they & judge may not realise this.

        For safety, serve ASAP s21, s8 & an NTQ in line with the tenancy wording, then proceed to court. If possible agree surrender deed with your tenants, after perhaps letting them know if they agree to this you won;t be reporting their extra income to HMRC & DWP. (But do so anyway..).

        Bleedin' tenants, coming over here, setting up as landlords...

        Problem is, strictly, assuming the current occupants have AST or AT from your tenant with your tenant as landlord then when you re-possess from your tenant the occupants become YOUR tenants under s18 of HA 1988....

        http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/18
        I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

        Comment


          #5
          Section 8 Ground 14?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
            I would have thought that the tenant had lost their security of tenure, because the property is no longer their primary residence.
            It raises the question of whether its an AST or not - but there's no hard and fast rules about when such a change should and does happen.


            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
              It raises the question of whether its an AST or not - but there's no hard and fast rules about when such a change should and does happen.

              Think it is clear, s1 of HA 1988
              http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/1
              1 Assured tenancies.

              (1) A tenancy under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling is for the purposes of this Act an assured tenancy if and so long as—

              (a) the tenant or, as the case may be, each of the joint tenants is an individual; and

              (b) the tenant or, as the case may be, at least one of the joint tenants occupies the dwelling-house as his only or principal home; and

              (c) the tenancy is not one which, by virtue of subsection (2) or subsection (6) below, cannot be an assured tenancy.
              Problem is, if tenant moves back in....
              I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

              Comment


                #8
                Or if tenant denies moving out in the first place? Who's to prove who the clothes in the wardrobe belong to?

                Comment


                  #9
                  The point is more that tenancies don't change in an instant.
                  Legal time scales are different than human time scales.

                  It's more likely (in my opinion) that a judge would decide that, rather than having a tenancy in different states at different times, a tenancy was type x throughout.

                  The idea that an AST begins and then phases in and out of being depending on who lives there when is probably theoretically right, but I've never encountered it in the real world cases or experience.

                  Which could be because it doesn't really matter that much in practice - if the notice is headed section 21 but it isn't an AST the notice is still probably valid as a notice to quit.

                  The tenant subletting to someone could easily regard the property as their principal home and that the subletting arrangement is a temporary state of affairs. They could be subletting while in prison or while on a belated gap year, for example. They could have decided to live with someone else in the someone else's home without ever considering that place their own home.

                  It's the same in a situation where a lodgers landlord isn't currently resident - there's obviously a point in time where they are no longer a lodger, but I don't think it's the second the landlord steps out of the door. Again, the landlord's opinion of where they "live" and/or a courts similar or opposing views are relevant. After a couple of years, I'd suggest it would be hard to say they're still a lodger, but when that change occurs is far from clear to me.
                  When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                  Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X