Company Let Permitted Occupier

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

  • bertpentax
    replied
    Thanks I understand. I am now told that the company is returning the keys on the basis that the property is vacant and the contract does not allow them to reoccupy with someone else.

    Many thanks again

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    The point that the tenancy ends is when you take control of the property.
    If you have the keys and secure it (which excludes the company), you have arguably retaken control.

    You should simply refuse to accept the surrender (suggest that they collect the keys to make sure the property is secure).
    You might offer them a sum that would make you feel comfortable about ending the tenancy.

    The issue is that what you are strictly speaking entitled to and what common sense dictates happens is different.
    The agreement has come to an end, you have your property back, and the rest is just trying to make some money from the situation.

    You haven't really lost anything, just some income you thought you'd secured.
    If the tenant had, instead of renewing, asked for a two month contract, ending about now, you'd have agreed, who wouldn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • bertpentax
    replied
    Thanks. So I avoid the issue by accepting the keys to secure the property but do not accept them as surrender. Then the tenancy remains with them until I relet the property when it ends.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    But you don't want to leave it empty for 12 months and then fail to collect the rent from the company.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Unless you tell your agent to refuse the keys, you should write to the company and thank them for the return of the keys and confirm that you do not accept them as an offer to surrender.

    The issue will be when you start to relet it, as you'll clearly have possession of the property, so the tenancy will end.

    Leave a comment:


  • bertpentax
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    Yes, so relet it and attempt to recover the missing rent from the company.
    You should win in the end.
    Yes, thanks for the advice to relet. I am wondering as this is common law, and there is 11 months left on the contract, whether I should accept surrender and mitigate losses ... or whether to insist on paying rent till the end of tenancy - on the basis that landlords cannot later recover damages for rent having accepted a surrender?

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Yes, so relet it and attempt to recover the missing rent from the company.
    You should win in the end.

    Leave a comment:


  • bertpentax
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    The company shouldn't have renewed for 12 months without being sure the employee would be there for that amount of time.
    But they can't have stopped their employee leaving the business (which is what I guess is what has happened).

    Which leaves them in breach of their contract.
    I agree. The employee is on a long term contract with the company and has been in the property for over 2 years, I have had no problems there. He hasn't left the business he has rented a larger property where he can house overseas family and nanny. I have offered a new contract with the ability to change the occupier when required, with all of the terms and conditions which go with that. But I have rejected the letter of variation because it does not cover all of the terms and provide the mechanism to change the occupier in future, so does not rewrite the contract sufficiently. Meanwhile the occupier has moved out to the new big house before any agreement has been reached on a new contract.

    "Which leaves them in breach of their contract."

    I am uneasy now at negotiating anything further that will serve effectively for me to be entering into an agreement to rectify their breach.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    I can understand that the company wouldn't have wanted a new 12 month contract for a new employee, because the new employee might not stay that long.

    And you, quite reasonably, wouldn't want to give them the ability to put anyone into the property.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    The company shouldn't have renewed for 12 months without being sure the employee would be there for that amount of time.
    But they can't have stopped their employee leaving the business (which is what I guess is what has happened).

    Which leaves them in breach of their contract.

    Leave a comment:


  • bertpentax
    replied
    I agree that, in hindsight, the contract is too inflexible to work for the Company. There is no mechanism to change the permitted occupier. However that was not required when the contract was signed. That's why I have offered a new contract were this will be possible but they have rejected this. The letter of variation proposed by the company does not add the mechanism required it just allows for them to notify of a new occupier.

    The deal may well come to an end but this deal or any new deal will require a more flexible contract if they want to change the occupier.

    Leave a comment:


  • bertpentax
    replied
    I would have thought that ... any frustration of contract is self-induced as the company has allowed the occupier to vacate the property and this was reasonably foreseen rendering the company at fault?

    Company Let Tenancy Agreement

    VACATION - Not to vacate the Premises except on the expiration of the Tenancy

    PERMITTED OCCUPIER - The Tenant shall not suffer or permit the Permitted Occupier to commit any acts commissions or defaults ... which are or would be in breach of the Tenants obligations

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    That contract is too inflexible to work in real life though,
    The named person is a great mechanism for making sure you're comfortable with whoever's in the property (which is one of the reasons people here don't like this kind of arrangement), but the company can't stop someone leaving to align with the contract periods.

    What you want is the agreement to specify that only the permitted occupier is allowed to reside in the property and then define the permitted occupier as person x.
    Then, when the person needs changing, a simple agreement that from date y the permitted occupier will be a new named person will suffice.
    That doesn't assign the contract.

    I quite agree that you don't want to change the basis of the agreement to the extent the company wanted, but the lack of flexibility seems to have ended quite a sensible deal.

    Leave a comment:


  • bertpentax
    replied
    The current contract names the permitted occupier as a defined term and the contract cannot be assigned or sublet to anyone else. I don't see any terms to allow a new employee to take over the tenancy. I said that I would be happy to consider the company entering into a new agreement so that the new occupier is named. However, this was before the permitted occupier defaulted by moving out of the property. I am also happy to relet. Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by bertpentax View Post
    The tenancy can only be terminated by giving 1 month's notice prior to the end of the 12 month term. There are no break clauses.
    In which case, you should probably relet it and try and recover the rent for the interim period from the company.
    They probably won't pay and could argue that the contract was frustrated by your refusal to allow a new employee to take over the tenancy - which is probably incorrect, but it will make things more complicated.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X