Page 14 - Lettings Revolution
P. 14
Property Ombudsman
One of the key tests the Primary Tenancy™ business model had to pass was
its acceptance by the Property Ombudsman. During the past five years the pilot
business has had numerous Ombudsman cases to deal with that have involved
the Primary Tenancy™, without any problems or issues being raised. Rather,
every aspect of the Primary Tenancy™ has been upheld, including the option to
pay rent on a non-guaranteed basis.
Case Review
by the Property Ombudsman
The complainant went to the Property Ombudsman with 7 specific complaints
against ‘the company’. The response of the Property Ombudsman:
‘The complainant entered into a Primary Tenancy™ agreement with
‘the company’ in which the complainant let the property to ‘the company’ as the
(Head) tenant and which granted them permission to sub-let the property to a
sub-tenant (the Tenant).’ ‘I have seen nothing to suggest that any financial
disadvantage was caused or exacerbated by the fact that ‘the company’ was
the landlord and the tenant the sub-tenant. Indeed, it would appear that the sub
tenancy offered advantages in this particular case in that, as ‘the company’ were
acting as the landlord, it was they who proceeded with and went on to manage
the court claim.’
‘I have not supported any of the complaints that have been made and I am not
prepared to make any award of compensation.’ ‘It would be unproductive for the
complainant to pursue the complaints further through this office.’
‘I shall point out that the Primary Tenancy™ Agreement prescribed that ‘the
company’ would not be liable for any rent arrears accrued by the (sub) tenant,
any costs or damages involved in the recovery of the rent from the (sub) tenant
except if the complainant took out ‘the company’s’ rent guarantee and any
legal costs or any damage caused to the property as a result of the (sub) tenant’s
actions.’.
One of the key tests the Primary Tenancy™ business model had to pass was
its acceptance by the Property Ombudsman. During the past five years the pilot
business has had numerous Ombudsman cases to deal with that have involved
the Primary Tenancy™, without any problems or issues being raised. Rather,
every aspect of the Primary Tenancy™ has been upheld, including the option to
pay rent on a non-guaranteed basis.
Case Review
by the Property Ombudsman
The complainant went to the Property Ombudsman with 7 specific complaints
against ‘the company’. The response of the Property Ombudsman:
‘The complainant entered into a Primary Tenancy™ agreement with
‘the company’ in which the complainant let the property to ‘the company’ as the
(Head) tenant and which granted them permission to sub-let the property to a
sub-tenant (the Tenant).’ ‘I have seen nothing to suggest that any financial
disadvantage was caused or exacerbated by the fact that ‘the company’ was
the landlord and the tenant the sub-tenant. Indeed, it would appear that the sub
tenancy offered advantages in this particular case in that, as ‘the company’ were
acting as the landlord, it was they who proceeded with and went on to manage
the court claim.’
‘I have not supported any of the complaints that have been made and I am not
prepared to make any award of compensation.’ ‘It would be unproductive for the
complainant to pursue the complaints further through this office.’
‘I shall point out that the Primary Tenancy™ Agreement prescribed that ‘the
company’ would not be liable for any rent arrears accrued by the (sub) tenant,
any costs or damages involved in the recovery of the rent from the (sub) tenant
except if the complainant took out ‘the company’s’ rent guarantee and any
legal costs or any damage caused to the property as a result of the (sub) tenant’s
actions.’.
