UK Landlord Forum / Life

Hi

Tenant was sub-letting without my knowledge and went bankrupt. So I terminated the contract for breach and then made a direct agreement with the sub tenant.  Now the letting agent that introduced me to the original tenant is chasing me for introduction fee for indirectly introducing the sub-tenant to the property even though the contract does not mention the sub-tenant details.

The terms and conditions of my agreement states "in regards to extensions, replacements tenancies or a fresh tenancy of another property owned by you granted to the tenant or occupier, commission is payable to us of 9% of the total rent reserved under the terms of the tenant agreement plus VAT, whether or not negotiated by us."

Can they do this..

Any advice would be appreciated.....

Regards RP

Tell them that they have no leg to stand on and that you'll be happy to see them in court. I'm not a solicitor, but that's what I would do. I think they're just trying it on and will not actually pursue you to court with this.

I tend to think Armin is probably right, although I am not a legal brain either.

You cancelled the original contract (in writing I assume), so surely it is no longer in force.  The agent did not introduce the current tenant to you.  You made a private agreement there, as you are fully entitled to do.

Thanks for the advice.

I checked my T&C's with the letting agent and there is a another clause that says."in event of third party associated with the tenant entering into a subsequent tenancy agreement without there any intervening tenancy commission shall be payable."

Surely this is a unfair clause....

To me the word associated is very vague...would you agree..??

Hello RP,

Topseyt and Armin are right.  And you're right be be suspicious of the clause you just pointed out.

The reason they can not claim the fee is because they did not do any work towards the sub-tenant being present.  If they claim they did, then you can "do" them (i.e. counter-claim) because they induced the tenant to behave against the contract they draw up when acting in your favour.

There is no tight legal definition of "associated party".  For example the tenant and sub-tenant are "associated" because they live in the same town.  It would be unfair for a clause to say that if anyone from the same town moved into your house then you'd have to pay the agents.  And contra-preferendum means the poorly worded clause can be ignored in the contract.

In short tell them to stick it!