Renting to Foreign Goverments (eg Angolan Embassy)

[sid261]

Hi,

I would be really grateful for some advice. A lettings agency has written to me (unsolicited) saying that they can corporate let my property. Apparently the tenant would be the Angolan Embassy/Government.

Having been recently conned by a lettings agent (Google "JMG Residential"), I am naturally very suspicious of anything unusual in the lettings arena.

So my questions are -

1) Does anyone have any experience of letting to foreign governments?

2) Does anyone have experience of letting to the Angolan government?

3) Do you think it matters that Angola is a developing country? Maybe it is not as reliable a let as to a developed country?

4) How does one credit check/get references for this type of corporate let?

5) One concern I have is that in the event of rent arrears, how could one reclaim monies against a foreign government? I am not sure but I bet that County Court Bailiffs do not have authority to enter foreign embassies to seize goods?

6) How do I check if the lettings agency is genuine? It is Moreland (an agent in North London).

Be grateful for any advice.

[Richlist]

I would assume that much of the pro's & con's of letting to a foreign government are the same as those with a corporate let.

As you would be letting to an organisation you will have no control over who resides in your property. Many agents won't handle corporate lets because they can often result in more problems than they are worth.

Ask yourself ......do I really want to have no say in who moves into my property ? You may end up with smokers, pets, young kids, damage, hassle, aggravation and far worse.

The world is full of normal good quality tenants. Do you really need to go down this route ?

[Melboy]

15 years ago I had a corporate let to a major company in my location. Never again!!

A sharp learning curve followed that experience in as much I vowed never to do it again.

The final straw in a long list of tenant problems was the last tenant closing the door and going back to France knowing full well that the roof tank overflow was leaking badly through the ceiling boards and he just totally ignored it and failed to tell anyone.

It ended up with the managing director of this major company visiting the property and apologising to me and paying out some £2000 to have a lot of remedial work carried out AND to continue paying the rent whilst the work was being done.

Live and learn! Melboy's Motto.

[sid261]

Thanks Guys - I guess that's my main point/question -

I accept that a corporate let might result in loss of control over the type of tenant. But my main question was that - if there is damage and/or rent arrears beyond the deposit amount, then surely a corporate let to a company like Starbucks or Amazon or whatever (see Melboy's example - at least he got the company to pay up) is better than a foreign government purely because it will be easier to recover funds?

[Grampa]

Don't do it.

Company/corporate lets can cause a world of problems. Below are couple that spring to mind

1 You need to make sure the person who signs on behalf of the company has the correct authority from the company to do it and if not you wont have any future claim for damages rent arrears etc. How you go about finding out if some one has the correct authority I don't know.

2 If the company is based outside the UK which I guess Starbucks or Amazon are. Imagine the difficulty in trying to recover any costs through the courts,

3 If the company goes bust or ceases trading again you are buggered without at least a personal guarantee from one of the directors

4 A lot of company/corporate lets wont use your (landlords/agents) contracts and want to use their own ones which means anyone would be a fool to use without legal advise and the extra cost that goes with that.