Landlords - can letting agents issue a new tenancy agreement to the tenant without your knowledge or permission?

[DancingOnTheTable]

I'll try to keep this a simple as possible.

I own a house that is very far away (other end of the country, in England) we specifically wanted a long term tenant that would look after the house well so we were very involved with the process of selecting a tenant but left all the formalities to the estate agents as they would be handling the day to say running or the letting.

It's been several years and we have found out completely by accident that the tenant is no longer in the situation she was in before, she has moved a partner in and had another child, she has several dogs and cats and is running a business out of the house.
Some of it I don't mind about, but others I'm less happy about.

I contacted the EA to see if they knew about any of it and they confirmed that they did, and that they had given the tenant a new tenancy agreement which names her partner as a joint tenant and also mentions her being allowed the pets and to run her business in the house, the tenancy is also for substantially longer than the original one (which was initially supposed to with be renewed annually or go onto a rolling monthly contract)

I'm very unhappy. The EA have said they think I'm over reacting.

Can they really issue a new tenancy agreement, particularly to a new person with clauses that I did not approve?

The EA have said that I basically have to like it or lump it because I can't ask the tenant to leave until the TA is up.

Ultimately, if you want them out, you will need a court order.

Whether a judge would issue one for pets and running a business is anyone's guess. I would think not but I am no housing law expert, just know my basic tenancy stuff.

No there is no break clause.
It's a ridiculous TA.

They have used the original one but just deleted and changed sections, so there are parts of it that no longer make sense.

I don't want to evict the tenant. But I don't want her repurposing half the ground floor to run her business from there and I don't want to be tied into this excessively long term.
I initially wanted a 6 month rolling ast but compromised and agreed to the 12 month agreement for her, id be happy with a rolling 12 month contract but I am not happy with this TA at all.

I'm going to tell the EA that I want her to cease running her business from the house, I want everything put back to the way it was, I want the pets gone and I want the TA on a 12 monthly basis otherwise I want her to leave.

This TA basically just gives her the house to do with as she pleases and I'm not happy with it.

I really do understand why you are annoyed but that's asking her to give up her source of income, asking her to 'get rid' of the pets too.

She won't be able to get rid of them that easily and she has children.

Tenants are meant to be able to live in it as their home, this seems incredibly harsh.

Up to you of course, I would rather have long term tenants who pay on time and avoid empty periods.

You can't have six or twelve month 'rolling' contracts. These exist when a fixed period ends and you have to give two months notice or the tenant one month.

Whilst I understand your concerns, I think you'd be cutting your nose off to spite your face. If so far she has looked after the house and paid the rent.

Is it at a market level? 10% a year is a lot. Just because it doesn't specify an amount to raise by doesn't mean you can't increase it at all?
How long is the term?

You said you wanted a hassle free tenant for the long term. As you didn't know of these changes I'd say you haven't checked in with either the tenant or the agency. I'd leave it. Maybe asked for a further deposit if you can. But don't evict her. You'd have to go through the courts with the agency and it will cost you a fortune.

How long is the lease? Is the tenant a friend of the letting agent? It seems strange they would do all this for the tenant without consulting with you

I didn't right the law. It's not my fault the law isn't on your side.
But you don't have much of a case.

I am happy for her to live in it as if it her home, as she did for the first three years of the tenancy.

I am not happy with her doing whatever she likes to the property.

She asked early in the tenancy if she could get a dog, I said no due to the floor (original floorboards which would not be easy to repair/replace.)
She asked if she could have a cat instead, I said no, for the same reason but did agree she could have a rabbit.

So she fully knows that she is not allowed cats/dogs.

I didn't mean a 'rolling contract' I meant a renewable lease.

I get monthly statement emails from the EA, I speak to them every 6 months about the inspection, more frequently if anything needs doing in the property.
I have no contact with the tenant, I haven't had any at all since she moved in.

I live hundreds of miles away, I can't just pop round to check on the house, these are the thing I pay the EA to do.

10% a year is standard for the area, But as I was more interested in a decent tenant I made it clear i was willing to let it for less to a decent tenant. The house is massively below market level, even if it was increased by 10% every year it would still not meet the current market level by the time this TA ends.

I'm not asking her to give up her source of income, there is no reason she can't do it elsewhere.
She also had a completely different career (professionally qualified) when she initially rented the house, she must have retrained to do this new business.

I know it seems like I'm been awful to the tenant but she would have known I wouldn't be happy with any of this so I don't believe she is blameless.

I wouldn't care how much it cost, I'd have them out, ASAP. Piss takers.

You need to check your insurance asap OP. If this new set up means the current tenancy contravenes your insurance I think you should consult a lawyer. The agents will have very seriously compromised your property and it is possible the TA will be void or voidable.

Doubtless you are bring dismissed by the agents as a precious idiot who should be grateful for the income. They may change their tune is you advise you are going to sue them.

Is anyone at the agency friends with the tenant or her partner do you know?

You can't evict her and you can't tell her to stop running her business or get rid of the pets as she has a valid tenancy agreement stating she can have them.
You would have to go to court to get her out and since she has a tenancy agreement she signed in good faith I seriously doubt you will win.
Also if she's a long term tenant you probably won't get much back from her deposit if anything at all. Why don't you just focus on the capital she's paying off and accept that you will have to spend money at the end of her tenancy to restore the house to the condition you want it in.

I wouldn't care how much it cost, I'd have them out, ASAP. Piss takers

They asked permission and were granted it. It's the agents who are pisstakers.

They asked permission and were granted it. It's the agents who are pisstakers.

I'd still have them out. They can take it up with the agent.

This is all down to the agents and it is the agents who should have to deal with the fallout. If it is more than clerical admin in a residential property then the OP's insurance for the property may be void. Meaning that if it were seriously damaged the insurance wouldn't pay out. There's also the potential issue of the tenant not having planning permission to run her business from the property.

Sadly inept lettings agents are not rare.

Waterytart the P.O. cannot have them out. She doesn't have that right in law. It may be unjust, but she's stuck with that tenancy agreement, like it or not. Her only remedy is to sue the agents, but since she hasn't got much of a damages claim it probably isn't worth the hassle of going to court.

She can get them out at the end of the tenancy, if not before. If the new contract is illegal she can get them out sooner, I'd have thought.

The op said they have been given a long tenancy agreement so she can't get them out for some time. The tenancy agreement is legally binding until the landlord takes either the tenant or the letting agent to court (they need legal advice as to which) and apples for a judge to rule on whether it's valid or not. Just because the op didn't approve it doesn't automatically invalidate it. I think it's really unlikely that a judge would rule in the op's favour. The tenants have done nothing wrong. Judges don't make decent honest tenants homeless if they can help it. The op would have to have a very compelling reason why she wants the property back and she doesn't have one.

"The op would have to have a very compelling reason why she wants the property back and she doesn't have one."

I'm sure a good lawyer can help her find one.

Agent is wrong IMO. They have made substantial and significant changes to the TA which you should have agreed in advance. Sounds to me if agent knows it and is trying to cover her back.

Oh, by the way the fact tenant is running a business may impact any insurances you have on the property and also any mortgages. Suggest you check.

But probably not worth kicking out tenant. Nor suing agent but if any damage at property you can not get back as part of deposit take it out of her fee!

I can see that I've upset some people so I am sorry.

I strongly suspect PPs may be correct that she or her partner may have some connection to someone at the letting agents and that's why she was given this ridiculous tenancy agreement in such a hush hush way.
I've been back through my emails from them over and before the last two years and I can definitely see a change in the way the I have been kept up to date about everything.

I went to visit a friend after work, we reread through everything together and she pointed out a few bits in the TA that make little sense.
I have emailed the EA to query them.
The contract I signed with the EA clearly states that any changes to the TA must me authorised in writing by myself.
It also states that my contract with them is directly related to the tenancy agreement of Mrs A for the property X dated Y date, so I'm pretty certain they don't have a contract with me for the property to be relet to anyone on a new TA (I had a separate contract with them to advertisers it to let and do all the checks as I wasn't originally planning on using them to manage the let, that service was paid for separately)
I believe it means that when that TA ended so did my contract with them.
I've booked a telephone apt with a solicitor for tomorrow to see where I stand legally.

If you can OP, scan the agreement with the agents and the old and new TAs then you can quickly and easily email them to the solicitor. Do check your insurance policy and terms of any mortgage before you speak to them.

"tenancy agreement is legally binding"

Several posters have stated this but I'm not convinced it's correct. Both parties need to sign the document for it to be binding. The OP has indicated that the agents do not have the delegated authority to sign on their behalf.

Tenancy law doesn't quite work like that though. For example if you let someone live in your property and they pay you rent then they take on the legal protection and duties of a tenancy agreement even if nothing is ever written down, let alone signed.
These tenants legally reside in this house. The landlord willingly let to them and they have what they believe to be a fully in order tenancy agreement.
The fact that the letting agents acted outside of their jurisdiction doesn't change the fact that these tenants have lived there for years, paid rent and have a tenancy agreement. If it was taken to court the judge would almost definitely find in their favour.

This sounds very dodgy.

I let property in both London and outside, and have been surprised by the different approaches. Outside London agents have said casually that "they can sign the agreement for me". I still insisted they send the paperwork to me, and discovered at least four substantial errors.

In your position I would run the paperwork by a lawyer (which I see you are doing). What you want to achieve probably is:

1. Knowing where you stand. Are the agreements watertight.
2. How you can break your relationship with the agent. Or at least stop them from signing on your behalf.
3. Knowing when and how you can sort out a new agreement, or give notice.
4. What are the risks associated with them running a business from the property. This one rings alarm bells for me. In London leases often have clauses preventing the use of a residential property as a business premises as this can apparently create, de facto, a new, non residential sort of tenancy.

The very important thing is to keep on good terms with the tenants until a point where you want to take action. And then serve any notice in a professional manner.

I had this happen to me a few months back. I was unnerved by a tenant who charming, was also near impossible to contact, paid late and in cash. I asked the agent to serve notice in line with the contract break clause, and then, in case I was going to be faced with a lengthy eviction battle got a local lawyer to review. It turned out that the Agent had served the wrong notice. It all worked out in the end, though my instincts about the tenant were pretty spot on. It was useful to have a lawyer who was up to speed and commercially minded to handhold through the rest of the saga, as the tenant did a flit which meant I needed advice on when I could change locks, dispose of possessions and relet.

Your row, in the first instance, is not with the tenant but with the agent. But the most important thing is to keep your property secure.

Please tell me it is still an AST.

To me it would appear that the agent is acting outside its authority and although I believe the court would find there is a tenancy I think they would find for it to be on the same terms as the original TA.

I would be telling the agent that any damage done to the property due to pets/business use would be damages you would be seeking from them and they should notify their insurers of a potential claim for acting outside their authority actual, implied or assumed as their are material changes to the terms of the TA and the parties to the TA.

There are changes not their - autocorrect fail!!!