Hi Alex, good to meet you.
I would assume so, though not having seen the original lease, I cannot be sure. The “loss” of the lease benefits the landlord either way, though in the event the previous leaseholder would not have been liable its “loss” would solely benefit the landlord, which makes me assume that both parties had something to gain by losing it.
I do not - however, given the circumstances, I find it unlikely that it could have been coincidental. What are the chances of the landlord, tenant and both their solicitors being unable to locate a lease - or a copy - which had only been drawn up two years previously?
The landlord agreed to a surrender and regrant, meaning a new lease was drawn up for me when purchasing the property.
There is a clause which states that a condition of the landlord giving his consent to assign is that I must enter an authorised guarantee agreement which places principal debtor liability on me. This is the relevant section:
"1.1 The Tenant shall not assign the whole of this lease without the consent of the Landlord, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
No - the lease is 40 pages long, I'm not a solicitor, and I'd never heard of an authorised guarantee agreement. I looked over the lease but didn't pore over all 46 clauses in detail (and even if I had done, there's plenty I wouldn't have understood). I would not knowingly have signed such a contract.
Yes, I did.
No, he didn't. When my landlord informed me that I'd be responsible for paying the rent if the assignee failed to do so, I rang him and enquired about the matter. He said that such clauses were common with new leases and that I could take out insurance.
Thank you for your help - there's nothing which needs clarifying.
I think I will start looking into insurance and claim the sum from my solicitor.