Unusual sublet: criminal or civil?
Discussion
My partner is in the middle of what is becoming an acrimonious divorce. In an effort to remove her husband from the matrimonial home she allowed him to live in another house she owns solely at a reduced rent to cover the mortgage payment. There is no formal tenancy agreement.
She has discovered that in the last couple of weeks he has moved out of the house and sublet it to a couple with a small child. They don't have a formal tenancy agreement either.
As he does not own the house and is not the mortgagee, is his sublet a criminal offence? Or is it a civil matter?
She has discovered that in the last couple of weeks he has moved out of the house and sublet it to a couple with a small child. They don't have a formal tenancy agreement either.
As he does not own the house and is not the mortgagee, is his sublet a criminal offence? Or is it a civil matter?
Cider Andy said:
My partner is in the middle of what is becoming an acrimonious divorce. In an effort to remove her husband from the matrimonial home she allowed him to live in another house she owns solely at a reduced rent to cover the mortgage payment. There is no formal tenancy agreement.
She has discovered that in the last couple of weeks he has moved out of the house and sublet it to a couple with a small child. They don't have a formal tenancy agreement either.
As he does not own the house and is not the mortgagee, is his sublet a criminal offence? Or is it a civil matter?
so she rented her house out without a tenancy agreement. The tenant is likely to have an AST as its automatically presumed to be one unless clearly otherwise.She has discovered that in the last couple of weeks he has moved out of the house and sublet it to a couple with a small child. They don't have a formal tenancy agreement either.
As he does not own the house and is not the mortgagee, is his sublet a criminal offence? Or is it a civil matter?
Most AST will say no sub-letting. Hers does not as there is no formal TA.
Did she take a deposit?
Most likely she will have to issue notice to the tenant to recover the property and solicitors would "add" on all other names known or give a general notice to include them if not know. It will need solicitors to recover if an AST because of the others living there.
If its an AST - sounds like it is. Doesn't have to be a TA to be one.
May be an argument as to who actually owns it.
Yipper said:
Illegal subletting is rife now across major cities and the authorities are not especially bothered to do much about it (for political reasons). You can squeal, but it is unlikely much will be seriously done about it.
its not illegal. It may be a breach of a contract but if there is no such clause then there is no breach. There is no formal TA hence no breach for sub-letting may be argued.superlightr said:
so she rented her house out without a tenancy agreement. The tenant is likely to have an AST as its automatically presumed to be one unless clearly otherwise.
Most AST will say no sub-letting. Hers does not as there is no formal TA.
Did she take a deposit?
No deposit was taken, no.Most AST will say no sub-letting. Hers does not as there is no formal TA.
Did she take a deposit?
superlightr said:
Most likely she will have to issue notice to the tenant to recover the property and solicitors would "add" on all other names known or give a general notice to include them if not know. It will need solicitors to recover if an AST because of the others living there.
She has issued the current tenants with a Notice Requiring Possession, which they have signed receipt of.superlightr said:
May be an argument as to who actually owns it.
There is no argument about ownership - it's hers, solely.superlightr said:
its not illegal. It may be a breach of a contract but if there is no such clause then there is no breach. There is no formal TA hence no breach for sub-letting may be argued.
Is this not akin to me, say, taking possession of an empty house that I do not own and letting it to someone? Would that not be criminal? Or does the fact he was allowed to occupy it himself have a bearing on the matter?Cider Andy said:
Is this not akin to me, say, taking possession of an empty house that I do not own and letting it to someone? Would that not be criminal? Or does the fact he was allowed to occupy it himself have a bearing on the matter?
Trespass is rarely criminal.And the fact that he was allowed to occupy the premises does have a baring on the matter.
A criminal angle could arise if he has taken money off the sub-tenants under false pretences, but as I said earlier I really can't see anyone being very interested in it.
Cider Andy said:
This is the crux of the matter. Right now what she really needs to know is whether she can report what he's done to the police.
Anyone can report anything they like.As she isn't the victim surely it would be best to work with the sub-tenants to sort the mess out and support them should they believe they have been victims of a crime?
desolate said:
Anyone can report anything they like.
As she isn't the victim surely it would be best to work with the sub-tenants to sort the mess out and support them should they believe they have been victims of a crime?
If what he has done is criminal, she IS the victim!As she isn't the victim surely it would be best to work with the sub-tenants to sort the mess out and support them should they believe they have been victims of a crime?
She's offered the current tenants an AST as this would be a satisfactory outcome for them and for her. Not unnaturally though, in the circumstances, they're struggling to know who to believe (her visit came as a complete surprise to them).
Cider Andy said:
If what he has done is criminal, she IS the victim!
If he has taken money from the sub tenants they are the victims, not your partner.He hasn't even trespassed, as he was allowed on to the property. The agreement to use the property was unwritten so I can't see how any of his actions to your partner could possibly be seen as criminal, especially as there is no written contract between them meaning it will be almost impossible to prove what was agreed.
Cider Andy said:
superlightr said:
so she rented her house out without a tenancy agreement. The tenant is likely to have an AST as its automatically presumed to be one unless clearly otherwise.
Most AST will say no sub-letting. Hers does not as there is no formal TA.
Did she take a deposit?
No deposit was taken, no.Most AST will say no sub-letting. Hers does not as there is no formal TA.
Did she take a deposit?
superlightr said:
Most likely she will have to issue notice to the tenant to recover the property and solicitors would "add" on all other names known or give a general notice to include them if not know. It will need solicitors to recover if an AST because of the others living there.
She has issued the current tenants with a Notice Requiring Possession, which they have signed receipt of.superlightr said:
May be an argument as to who actually owns it.
There is no argument about ownership - it's hers, solely.Did your partner issue an EPC - energy performance certificate? If not that is a £200 fine and she cant validly give a s21 notice to the tenant until its done.
Gas safety certificate if there is gas? it is a Criminal offence of the owner to let a property without one with a fine upto £6000 and upto 6 months imprisonment.
Smoke and CO alarms? Are these installed? again fines of upto £5000 can be imposed.
What docs has you partner issues?
Edited by superlightr on Monday 25th September 13:09
Cider Andy said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Without a tenancy agreement there is no prohibition for sub letting.
The terms of the sub let would be between the tenant and the sub tenant.
This is how I imagined it to be, it seems no crime has been committed. Thank you.The terms of the sub let would be between the tenant and the sub tenant.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff