We have been in a commercial sub-letting situation for the past 18 months. The sub-let was paid through us paying the lessee a percentage of our commission. This was organised by us writing a letter to the organisation paying the commission to give permission for the payment to happen because it was not a normal arrangement.
A few months ago I asked for a reverse invoice for the rent for our company taxes. He was extremely angry at this. At the time to appease him I offered that we could move out of the office and work from home. I asked him several times if he wanted the office space back and he reassured us that he didn't.
This was a verbal agreement and we had taken him on his word. 18 months down the track from the original arrangement the lessee now denies this money was for rent despite us having a conversation about a reverse tax invoice. He told us a couple of days prior to Christmas that he wanted to refurbish the office, including our space, in March and asked us to leave the premises by the time the refurbishments start but has said the 'fees stay'. This effectively gave us approximately 2 and bit months notice and we are of course out of pocket if we were to continue to stay in the arrangement. His argument was that I had offered to work from home several months earlier therefore he was only taking us up on this, despite the fact he repeatedly said he did not want the space back.
We could seek copies of the letter and financial statements between the organisation and his business, however we decided to move out, organise our own premises and to cease the business arrangement as we no longer trust him. In hindsight we can now see that he prefers to operate with verbal agreements because he can change his mind and argue that there was no such arrangement.
I would like to check my understanding for my own benefit. If you are sub-letting and there is nothing in writing then there would be an effective minimum term and that technically we had the right to refuse to leave, irregardless of how we were paying the rent. Is this correct? Or have I misunderstood?
A few months ago I asked for a reverse invoice for the rent for our company taxes. He was extremely angry at this. At the time to appease him I offered that we could move out of the office and work from home. I asked him several times if he wanted the office space back and he reassured us that he didn't.
This was a verbal agreement and we had taken him on his word. 18 months down the track from the original arrangement the lessee now denies this money was for rent despite us having a conversation about a reverse tax invoice. He told us a couple of days prior to Christmas that he wanted to refurbish the office, including our space, in March and asked us to leave the premises by the time the refurbishments start but has said the 'fees stay'. This effectively gave us approximately 2 and bit months notice and we are of course out of pocket if we were to continue to stay in the arrangement. His argument was that I had offered to work from home several months earlier therefore he was only taking us up on this, despite the fact he repeatedly said he did not want the space back.
We could seek copies of the letter and financial statements between the organisation and his business, however we decided to move out, organise our own premises and to cease the business arrangement as we no longer trust him. In hindsight we can now see that he prefers to operate with verbal agreements because he can change his mind and argue that there was no such arrangement.
I would like to check my understanding for my own benefit. If you are sub-letting and there is nothing in writing then there would be an effective minimum term and that technically we had the right to refuse to leave, irregardless of how we were paying the rent. Is this correct? Or have I misunderstood?
