Landlord forfeiture for sub-tenancy

[halo123]

My landlord (through the estate agency) has decided to forfeit our joint tenancy because of sub-letting (there is a forfeiture clause in the tenancy agreement). The landlord has a given us a notice (which doesn't appear to be legal, had the words 'without prejudice' on it) asking us to move out within 14 days (which would be early May). The landlord has also said that he will not return our May rent (which has already been paid) and will keep it as compensation.

a. Is he allowed to do that?

b. If I don't move out within the 14 days, the landlord is likely going to get a s.146 notice and is going to ask me to pay for his legal costs in doing so. How much are these legal costs going to be?

c. Should I wait till they serve a formal s.146 notice or should I just move out and accept my losses (one month's rent).

[Crazy council]

Hi

totaly depenmds on the wording of the TC, but generaly

a. Is he allowed to do that?

Its not enforcable from him without a court order, ie, he cant give you notice then just get baillifs in

also, what was the wording on the letterhe sent. ? did it offer any alternatives/remidys , the s.146 notice should i think.

How much are these legal costs going to be?

theres no way of knowing that at this stage.

This is interesting though

which doesn't appear to be legal, had the words 'without prejudice' on it

becuase, i dont think a notice to quit can be Without predjudice, i maybe wrong, there are a number of solisitors and legal officers post on here, i will ask one of them if it comes up

c. Should I wait till they serve a formal s.146 notice or should I just move out and accept my losses (one month's rent).

all depends on what you want, if you think your LLs going to be funny anyhow, maybe movings better, but i would move at the end of the molnth, when the rents paid up till.

[jaguarsuk]

becuase, i dont think a notice to quit can be Without predjudice, i maybe wrong, there are a number of solisitors and legal officers post on here, i will ask one of them if it comes up

When used in a document or letter, without prejudice means that what follows (a) cannot be used as evidence in a court case, (b) cannot be taken as the signatory's last word on the subject matter, and (c) cannot be used as a precedent. Contents of such documents normally cannot be disclosed to the courts but, when a party proposes to settle a dispute out-of-court, it is the genuineness of the effort that determines whether the proposal can disclosed or not, and not whether the words without prejudice were used.

Because this notice would form a cause of action to serve a further notice if not complied with it cannot be Without Prejudice as it would have to be presented to the court to show the cause of action existed and they are entitled to seek a possession order.

I'd hazard it's included to look scary and legal.

all depends on what you want, if you think your LLs going to be funny anyhow, maybe movings better, but i would move at the end of the molnth, when the rents paid up till.

I would write back informing them you have paid rent for the month of May and you will be leaving on 31st May 2018. You do not give permission for them to enter the property before 1st June 2018 and that you expect quiet enjoyment of the property per the tenancy agreement.

[Diana M]

My landlord (through the estate agency) has decided to forfeit our joint tenancy because of sub-letting (there is a forfeiture clause in the tenancy agreement). The landlord has a given us a notice (which doesn't appear to be legal, had the words 'without prejudice' on it) asking us to move out within 14 days (which would be early May). The landlord has also said that he will not return our May rent (which has already been paid) and will keep it as compensation.

Can you clarify if the property is an AST (rental) and not a Leasehold where the "Landlord" is the Freeholder? Section 146 of the Law and Property Act 1925 generally relates to leasehold property > https://www.lease-advice.org/faq/section-146-notice/

Are you subletting the property in breach of the tenancy/lease? What evidence does he have of you subletting?

If this is a rental property (AST) did you pay a deposit and was that placed in a Government backed scheme?

If it's an AST has the initial fixed term expired so you remain in the property as Statutory Periodic Tenants?

Di

[halo123]

Hi

totaly depenmds on the wording of the TC, but generaly

Its not enforcable from him without a court order, ie, he cant give you notice then just get baillifs in

also, what was the wording on the letterhe sent. ? did it offer any alternatives/remidys , the s.146 notice should i think.

The notice didn't contain any alternatives or remedies. It only asked me to vacate the property within 14 days.

theres no way of knowing that at this stage.

This is interesting though



becuase, i dont think a notice to quit can be Without predjudice, i maybe wrong, there are a number of solisitors and legal officers post on here, i will ask one of them if it comes up



all depends on what you want, if you think your LLs going to be funny anyhow, maybe movings better, but i would move at the end of the molnth, when the rents paid up till.

I would prefer to do that, but if I don't move out within the date on the notice then surely the LL would begin taking legal action which I would be responsible for paying for. These costs are likely to be more than my one month's rent...

[halo123]

Can you clarify if the property is an AST (rental) and not a Leasehold where the "Landlord" is the Freeholder? Section 146 of the Law and Property Act 1925 generally relates to leasehold property > https://www.lease-advice.org/faq/section-146-notice/

It is an AST. My "Landlord" doesn't appear to be freeholder. They claim that the sub-letting puts them in an 'untenable situation' with the insurers and freeholder.

Are you subletting the property in breach of the tenancy/lease? What evidence does he have of you subletting?

Yes the sub-letting is a breach of the tenancy. They found an ad online.

If this is a rental property (AST) did you pay a deposit and was that placed in a Government backed scheme?

I did pay a deposit and it was secured using a Government backed scheme?

If it's an AST has the initial fixed term expired so you remain in the property as Statutory Periodic Tenants?

The initial fixed term period has not expired.

[halo123]

They (the estate agency) claim that the sub-letting may cause the landlord's insurance premiums to increased and that the mortgage lender would impose fines on them. If I choose not to leave, is there anyway I could be made to pay for these increase in premiums and fines?

Thank you for all your help!

[Diana M]

I would prefer to do that, but if I don't move out within the date on the notice then surely the LL would begin taking legal action which I would be responsible for paying for. These costs are likely to be more than my one month's rent...

If the Landlord is claiming that you’ve been subletting the property in breach of the lease then why would you move out if you are not currently occupying the property which is sublet to a tenant according to your Landlord?

Can you answer my questions in relation to Section 146 which relates to Leashold issues not AST issues.

Do you live in Scotland where things are different?

Di

[Diana M]

They (the estate agency) claim that the sub-letting may cause the landlord's insurance premiums to increased and that the mortgage lender would impose fines on them. If I choose not to leave, is there anyway I could be made to pay for these increase in premiums !

Is your Landlord renting the property without permission from his mortgage lender?

Does he have a residential mortgage or a Buy To Let Commercial loan?

Di

[halo123]

If the Landlord is claiming that you’ve been subletting the property in breach of the lease then why would you move out if you are not currently occupying the property which is sublet to a tenant according to your Landlord?

It was a joint tenancy comprising of two people. One of the rooms (not occupied by me) was sub-let, which the landlord found out about. They decided to forfeit the whole tenancy and as it was a joint tenancy I've also been asked to move out.

Can you answer my questions in relation to Section 146 which relates to Leashold issues not AST issues.

It is not a leasehold where the "Landlord" is the Freeholder. It is an AST and says so on the contract.

Do you live in Scotland where things are different?

No, in England.

Di

[/QUOTE]

[halo123]

Is your Landlord renting the property without permission from his mortgage lender?

I'm not sure.

Does he have a residential mortgage or a Buy To Let Commercial loan?

Again, I'm not sure.

[Diana M]

It was a joint tenancy comprising of two people. One of the rooms (not occupied by me) was sub-let, which the landlord found out about. They decided to forfeit the whole tenancy and as it was a joint tenancy I've also been asked to move out.

It is not a leasehold where the "Landlord" is the Freeholder. It is an AST and says so on the contract.

[/QUOTE]

In which case your Landlord has to seek possession through the courts before you can be evicted from the property. The agent should know that!

Perhaps the Landlord's insurance premium would increase because there's a condition that the property can only be let to vetted/referenced tenants which the sub-let Tenant wasn't. (Just a guess.)

If you like the property and want to stay see if there's a remedy to the problem such as the 'unofficial' Tenant moving out (so no sub-letting issues) or the Tenant undergoing a reference etc.

Forgive my cynicism but perhaps the Letting Agent sees an opportunity to replace the Tenants and then charge fees for the next lot. Do you know or are you in touch with the Landlord?

Di

[halo123]

In which case your Landlord has to seek possession through the courts before you can be evicted from the property. The agent should know that!

Perhaps the Landlord's insurance premium would increase because there's a condition that the property can only be let to vetted/referenced tenants which the sub-let Tenant wasn't. (Just a guess.)

If you like the property and want to stay see if there's a remedy to the problem such as the 'unofficial' Tenant moving out (so no sub-letting issues) or the Tenant undergoing a reference etc.

Forgive my cynicism but perhaps the Letting Agent sees an opportunity to replace the Tenants and then charge fees for the next lot. Do you know or are you in touch with the Landlord?

Di[/QUOTE]

Hi Diana, I agree I think the Letting Agent just sees an opportunity to make more money. But this issue has been bothering me for two weeks and is now impacting my ability to concentrate on my studies (exams comping up) and so I would rather just move out even if I lose one month's rent.

[halo123]

So me and the Landlord (once again through the estate agency) have decided to enter into a surrender agreement. However, there are certain clauses in the surrender agreement that seem unclear and I need advice on those.

The surrender agreement contains the following clauses:

1. The Tenant hereby promises to return the property to the Landlord on the date of Surrender in the same condition as it was at the start of the tenancy, as confirmed by the Inventory. The Tenant agrees that if the Property is not left in satisfactory condition upon the date of Surrender and requires cleaning, repairs effected or items replaced, the Landlord (or his Agent) will instruct the works to be done and the costs will be deducted from any monies held by the Landlord that are lawfully due to the Tenant, including the deposit, without contest.

This clause makes it seem like I cannot argue against improper deductions from my deposit. The deposit is protected under a Deposit Scheme. Does this clause mean that I cannot refer disputes to the Deposit Scheme and I just have to accept whatever deductions my Landlord makes?


2. Subject to the Tenant fully complying with all of the above terms, both parties release and discharge each other from all liabilities arising under ‘the Tenancy’ or (other than as set out in this agreement) any other document or any variation of the terms of the tenancy EXCEPT the obligation on the part of The Tenant to pay the rent reserved in the tenancy agreement.

The original fixed term for the tenancy (it is an AST) was supposed to run till until the end of August. The Landlord and I agreed that as part of the surrender I will forfeit my May rent, which has already been paid. However, does this clause mean that my Landlord can still pursue me for the rest of the rent due from June-August?


Thank you for any help provided, it is greatly appreciated!