Is this A.S.T valid

[essexlandlord]

Hello all

I own a property which I allowed my daughter to rent out.

Although I am on the land registry as the owner I allowed my daughter to appear as the landlord on the agreement so that she could gain experience in the business. She and the tenant have both signed the agreement.

Due to an oversite on my part the tenant recieved two peices of correspondance regarding the property, one which showed me as landlord and another that showed my daughter. He has paid for a land registry search and has discovered that my daughter is not the owner and is demanding to know what the situation is.

My argument is that I am the owner so I can allow whoever I wish to act as landlord, therefore he is still liable to pay my daughter as per the A.S.T. Is this correct?

Thank you in advance,

[Poppy]

My argument is that I am the owner so I can allow whoever I wish to act as landlord
You mean you can appoint someone to act as your agent, but you remain the true landlord.

If I were your tenant I would think that you are dishonest and probably trying some sort of tax dodge. Are you?

[Surrey]

You mean you can appoint someone to act as your agent, but you remain the true landlord.

If I were your tenant I would think that you are dishonest and probably trying some sort of tax dodge. Are you?

Sounds like your daughter has been acting as your undisclosed agent, but now she is your agent. You should check up on the law of agency but at first glance it doesn't appear to me you've done anything you shouldn't have done. You should check carefully the wording on the tenancy agreement that your daughter and the tenants signed, as there may be something in there that states that whoever signed as the landlord is definitely the landlord.

Is there any reason you didn't just say that you were the landlord and your daughter has authority to act as your agent?

As for whether he's liable to pay, if he's living in the property and getting the benefit of it he'd be hard-pressed to prove in court that he doesn't have to pay for it! Surely he hasn't suggested not paying?!

[Paul_f]

The answer is fairly straightforward. The AST you have drawn up is almost certainly invalid as the landlord's name must be on the tenancy agreement.

What you now have I would say is a parol (oral) periodic AST which runs from month-to-month. You will not be able to impose anything other than basic covenants on your tenant, and you would have to explain his legal rights to him (i.e. refer him to a solicitor, housing officer or CAB) beforehand if you want to replace it with a properly drawn-up written agreement.