Assignment of an AST - can anyone explain the ins and outs please?

[chickpea]

I understand the right of a tenant to assign their tenancy is common law, but what exactly are the ins and outs when it's written in a clause in an AST?

Is it a standard clause found in all ASTs?

Is there case law where the right has been upheld, ie where a LL has denied it and been found in breach of contract?

I have dug around the internet and found conflicting info. I did find something on a legal blog that said assignment can only take place if the tenant is still resident at the property - if they leave first, they cannot request assignment.

Is assignment defined as the tenant finding a new tenant - or does it include the LA/LL finding a new tenant?

If assignment takes place, does the new tenant sign a new AST, or continue the term of the original AST?

[Richlist]

Is it a standard clause found in all ASTs?

No.

Subletting is NOT recommended. Do you really want somebody else choosing your tenants for you ?

The Assignment of Tenancy Agreement is typically used to sub-let the property to another tenant or where the landlord is selling the property. If the current tenant wants to sublet the property to another tenant, an Assignment of Tenancy is needed. The tenant may decide that they want to leave the Tenancy Agreement before the end of its term but instead of cancelling the agreement they find someone else to replace them. The original tenant is still named on the lease but the Assignment of Tenancy Agreement transfers the obligations, such as the payment of rent, to the subletting party. The landlord's permission is normally needed to sub-let the tenancy in this way. Some landlords are comfortable with this if the original tenant only plans on subletting the property for a few months and then returning to complete the tenancy. On the other hand, landlords may be unwilling to enter into this type of agreement because of the potential risks involved in securing the payment of the rent.

Full details here :

http://www.legalcentre.co.uk/tenancy-agreements/assignment-of-tenancy-agreement/

[chickpea]

Is it a standard clause found in all ASTs?

No.

Subletting is NOT recommended. Do you really want somebody else choosing your tenants for you ?

The Assignment of Tenancy Agreement is typically used to sub-let the property to another tenant or where the landlord is selling the property. If the current tenant wants to sublet the property to another tenant, an Assignment of Tenancy is needed. The tenant may decide that they want to leave the Tenancy Agreement before the end of its term but instead of cancelling the agreement they find someone else to replace them. The original tenant is still named on the lease but the Assignment of Tenancy Agreement transfers the obligations, such as the payment of rent, to the subletting party. The landlord's permission is normally needed to sub-let the tenancy in this way. Some landlords are comfortable with this if the original tenant only plans on subletting the property for a few months and then returning to complete the tenancy. On the other hand, landlords may be unwilling to enter into this type of agreement because of the potential risks involved in securing the payment of the rent.

Full details here :

http://www.legalcentre.co.uk/tenancy-agreements/assignment-of-tenancy-agreement/

Thank you, Richlist - once again, your info is invaluable.

You are absolutely spot on - I DON'T want to assign the tenancy; but as a way of trying to cover his tracks, the LA has pointed out the clause in our AST concerning assignment. Aside from dispensing with his services, we are writing a formal letter of complaint so I am gathering together as much info and evidence as I can to include in our case.

I don't even think assignment is what he means - I believe he's using the clause to show that we legally have to mitigate losses by re-letting, in particular the part that says a LL cannot turn down a T's request to assign unreasonably.

[Richlist]

I don't even think assignment is what he means - I believe he's using the clause to show that we legally have to mitigate losses by re-letting, in particular the part that says a LL cannot turn down a T's request to assign unreasonably.

The sooner you ditch your tenants and this agent the better for everyone.

I'd almost want to play him (or her) at their own game. The part that says the 'LL cannot turn down a T's request to assign unreasonably'....its just so easy to find a reason to turn an appplicant down, its almost childs play.

No..... smokers, pets, children, unemployed, benefits claimants, part time, shift workers, young, old, those that fail to meet criteria for RGI, those that cannot produce a home owning guarantor, those that can't pay 2 months deposit or 6 months rent in advance, those that want to run a business from the property, those that want company lets etc etc. If they want furnished you make the place unfurnished & vice versa. I don't think I have ever had an applicant that I couldn't find a legitimate reason to refuse.

[chickpea]

We're we're planning to play him at his own game by making him sweat - he told the T he'd sort a letting asap and is emailing daily to try to persuade us to put the property back on Right move. He thinks he can pressurise us by quoting clauses etc - of course, if we refuse, he's going to start sweating - he knows the T won't pay any more rent because that's what they've agreed, but he also knows that we're expecting rent at the end of the month because we're not meant to know anything about their cosy arrangement.

However, maybe it would serve the LA right if he had to do viewing after viewing, with us saying no to every tenant he offers - we've already cheesed him off by turning 3 down because they had pets or a baby.

[Carryon Regardless]

If you're planning on claiming losses from this LA my guess is it will go to court, 'games' won't look good there.

I question why this pillock of an LA still has keys to 'your' property, Without doubt I would have changed the locks by now and mad the offer of the key availability to the 'ex' T's.

I'm not usually so wtf but if you write tomorrow asking what to do about the crap T's that the LA has given possession to I wouldn't be demonstrating sympathy to you.

[chickpea]

If you're planning on claiming losses from this LA my guess is it will go to court, 'games' won't look good there.

I question why this pillock of an LA still has keys to 'your' property, Without doubt I would have changed the locks by now and mad the offer of the key availability to the 'ex' T's.

I'm not usually so wtf but if you write tomorrow asking what to do about the crap T's that the LA has given possession to I wouldn't be demonstrating sympathy to you.

We're not playing games for the fun of it (though I can't deny I like the idea of the LA feeling the pressure a bit) - we feel that we need to let the situation run until the end of this rental month, because only then will it become obvious to all that the LA has been dishonest. We have keys to the property and we are in direct contact with the T - we've been to the house today to check on it and it's in a pleasantly surprising condition.

Our biggest concern is to not do what the LA wants us to do - which is to re-let through them. However, clearly we need to get the property on the books of another LA asap, so need to sort out a proper check out, return of deposit etc - all of which we can do at the end of the rental month in a couple of weeks.

To date and as far as we're concerned, the T hasn't requested a surrender and has paid rent until the end of the month. We've asked the LA whether he agreed a surrender - he categorically says no. Therefore, we have replied to him that we have no need to do anything immediately. Of course, he knows the clock is ticking because he has told the T he's only liable for the rent until the end of the month, and the proverbial will hit the fan when no rent is forthcoming. In the meantime, we're going through the CHP and taking legal advice as to what exactly the LA is liable for.