Landlord ends contact with agent, where does it leave tenant

[Macneil]

My mate lives in a purpose built block of flats. He's received a letter form the agent giving 6 months notice, and when he asked the owner of the building about it, he said that he was not using the agent going forward, and that they would have to move out and move straight back in as his direct tenants and there would be no issues. My mate is the last tenant being managed by the agency, the other tenants all pay their rent to the owner and deal with him.

Should he b e worried? Can he signa contract with the owner/landlord now to start from the day after they are "evicted"? ANd if so, why would they have to physically move out? Surely the agent owner and my mate can work together to sign off the ols tenancy and start a new one without the agent?

[Countdown]

It's odd that his Tenancy Agreement is with the Agency rather than with the LL. Even when I've used Letting Agents the TA has been between myself and the Tenant.

Unless the LL has contracted with the Agency and they're subletting.... I suppose if this is the case then the Agency needs the property to be vacated so they can make sure everything is clean and working before they hand it back to the LL.

I'd suggest your mate have a word with the other tenants and ask them if they had to physically move out.

[Macneil]

I don't know who is letting to who...mate has relations with the owner, who I assume is the landlord, over repairs, or the odd issue with another tenant and it's all cordial, but I will find out to whom he pays the rent.

[Cloudy147]

I used to have a few houses that I rented out. When I used a letting agent I had two options. The first was a tenant-find only service. They would find a tenant, do all the background checks and make sure they were suitable, then the management was over to me.

The other was a maintained service, where they would do everything for a monthly fee, so should the tenant need anything they would deal with the agent directly. If any work needed approving, the agent would come to me rather than the tenant. This service had a discounted upfront fee and significantly cheaper than the tenant find service at the start of the deal. However the agent made their money from a monthly fee that I had to pay.

There was a clause in the contract of the maintained service which said that if I decided to end that relationship with the agent, that if I wanted to keep the tenant then I would have to pay the equivalent of the up front tenant find fee.

So... Could it be that evicting the tenant and then re letting to them legally gets the landlord out of paying that fee?

I've no idea at all, it's just a thought. It might be worth your friend having a chat with the landlord to explain why, as there may be other reasons? If he could sign the contract with the landlord before he reaches his end date on the current one at least he has that certainty that he'll still be living there.

Edited by Cloudy147 on Sunday 7th November 07:35

[Tommo87]

What did the owner say, when you mate asked him all of the obvious question?

[recordman]

I let a flat out through an agent (fully managed and the AST is between me and the tenant) and the contract between the agent and me states that the contract will only be terminated when the tenant leaves the property.

Perhaps that's the case here.

[andrebar]

When I wanted to sack a letting agency their contract had clauses that mean’t I couldn’t keep the same tenant without continued liability to agency fees. The workaround was similar to what the OP described, give the tenant notice & sign a new tenancy agreement only after the notice period on the agency agreement.

[Macneil]

Tommo87 said:

What did the owner say, when you mate asked him all of the obvious question?

...that he needs to move out, then back in...it's the uncertainty that is worrying him. I've tried to reassure him that the LL needn't explain anything if he doesn't want to, and that if wanted them out for good, he would just serve notice full stop. They're model tenants as far as I can see so he won't do any better. From a distance it's a straightforward matter but for him it's his home and he's nervous.

[Macneil]

andrebar said:

When I wanted to sack a letting agency their contract had clauses that mean’t I couldn’t keep the same tenant without continued liability to agency fees. The workaround was similar to what the OP described, give the tenant notice & sign a new tenancy agreement only after the notice period on the agency agreement.

Fingers crossed! I can't imagine that the LL wants them to go.

[andrebar]

Macneil said:

Fingers crossed! I can't imagine that the LL wants them to go.

In my case there was absolutely no need for the tenant to move out & back in. Just a little mutual trust while we got rid of a shockingly useless agent. Think your mate deserves a little better reassurance from his LL & would suggest keeping that dialogue open.