(edit title) Tenants' rights in Sweden Specifically: first-hand contract "black market" Options

[elk200]

Apparently, in Stockholm, there is some sort of black market in which tenants that "own" first-hand rental contracts sell them for a profit. As I understand they are not supposed to, but rather give up their contract so that someone else has a chance of getting the flat. (I would assume that works through the bostadskö, although that is not the point of this thread.)

According to jagvillhabostad.nu, selling first-hand contracts is illegal. Buying them, on the other hand, is not. This I find logical.

Then again, I read on some other websites that, if the landlord finds out, he has the right to throw the new tenant out of the flat. This brings up a few questions for me:

1. Perhaps I misunderstood what selling a contract means, but how can such a thing happen without the landlord noticing in the first place? If I were offered a first-hand contract by the current tenant for a price, what would happen if I agreed? It surely can't be that the tenant informs the landlord that another tenant will now meet the other end of the contract, no? In which way do rights and liabilities actually transfer from the old to the new tenant?

2. If the two parties are "caught" with this "black market" transaction, why on earth does the landlord have the right to throw him out? Perhaps I am spoiled by tenant-friendly legal systems in other countries, but it really seems all the more unfair, and a bit inconsistent, as the new tenant did not break any laws. (If it is actually correct that he did not.)

3. It also seems to be the case that any payment made for such a contract is basically completely lost, if the parties are found out. Or would the new tenant have any claim against the former tenant?

It would really be great if someone could help me understand this, and if you would know reliable online sources - both in English and Swedish.

[Yorkshireman]

Apparently, in Stockholm, there is some sort of black market in which tenants that "own" first-hand rental contracts sell them for a profit.

Let's clear this straight away ... the tenant does not own anything. They have a contract, agreement, with the owner of the apartment that gives them the right to rent that apartment. There actually is not anything owned by the tenant, nor anything to sell.

1. Perhaps I misunderstood what selling a contract means, but how can such a thing happen without the landlord noticing in the first place?

There are many ways to skin a cat, so to speak:
- Sometimes it is the owner of the building that is selling the contract! (YES!, it does happen)
- You normally have the right to swap apartments under certain conditions, eg. moving in with a sambo, so here what happens is 1 party pretends it is one of those reasons, you pay them a sum of money, and they swap apartments with You. The one moving out will probably never use the other apartment, maybe sell that contract or rent it out second hand.
- Your name does not go on the 1st hand contract ... dangerous.
- some, often the smaller private companies, will accept a fee (off-the-books) to change name on contract.
etc...

If I were offered a first-hand contract by the current tenant for a price, what would happen if I agreed? It surely can't be that the tenant informs the landlord that anot ... (show full quote)

If I were offered a first-hand contract by the current tenant for a price, what would happen if I agreed? It surely can't be that the tenant informs the landlord that another tenant will now meet the other end of the contract, no? In which way do rights and liabilities actually transfer from the old to the new tenant? ... (hide full quote)

In most cases, if the landlord finds out You will lose the apartment. The contract cannot be sold, unless it specifically states so in the terms and conditions. An apartment exchange might be possible, then it will be OK with the landlord.

2. If the two parties are "caught" with this "black market" transaction, why on earth does the landlord have the right to throw him out?

Because the only person that has the right to rent the apartment is the one whos name is on the contract. That person has no right to sell it, unless terms and conditions state that they can. You bought nothing! as there was nothing to sell. Landlord has the right to decide who they give a contract to.
eg. It is hard to rent an apartment if You have Betalningsanmärkning, the landlords only want tenants that do not/have not recently had debt/payment problems ... they want to be sure the tenant pays the rent. If they could not throw You out for buying a contract, that cannot be sold, they cannot control who rents their apartments!

Perhaps I am spoiled by tenant-friendly legal systems in other countries, but it really seems all the more unfair, and a bit inconsistent, as the new tenant did not break any ... (show full quote)

Perhaps I am spoiled by tenant-friendly legal systems in other countries, but it really seems all the more unfair, and a bit inconsistent, as the new tenant did not break any laws. (If it is actually correct that he did not.) ... (hide full quote)

And in many cases, if they find out after some time, they will even change the name on the contract and let You stay. The landlord is more concerned about receiving rent every month. Whilst the law states it is not illegal to buy the contract, what they mean is You commit no offence. However, You did take part in an illegal transaction, since the contract could not be sold in the 1st place.

Please Remember ... There is nothing wrong with buying and selling the right to rent apartments. The problem is the broken contract. If the 1st hand contract specifically stated in the Terms and Conditions a right to sell the "right to rent" to another party, then it would be perfectly legal.

Sweden is a very tenant friendly country, what You need to understand is that buying the 1st hand contract does not make you the tenant! Because it couldnt be sold in the 1st place. So you have no tenant rights.

3. It also seems to be the case that any payment made for such a contract is basically completely lost, if the parties are found out. Or would the new tenant have any claim against the former tenant?

Yes. It is a risk, You can lose both money and apartment.

The basic thing to remember is ... unless it is agreed either in the terms and conditions of the renting contract or with the landlord, then the person whos name is on the 1st hand contract does not have anything to sell!

If You buy the 1st hand contract, Unless Your name is on the 1st hand contract itself .. You are not legally the tenant, so you do not have tenants rights.

[elk200]

A very helpful reply, thanks!

What I did not understand - and that is why I implied Sweden might not be tenant-friendly: By pretending to swap apartments or so on, the landlord would accept the new tenant as the new contract party, i.e. the new tenant's name would be on the contract. But if they later found out there was no swap in the first place, why does the landlord have the right to throw the new tenant out? The landlord had agreed to accept the new tenant, so on what grounds / for what reason are they allowed to throw them out? (Of course the new tenant had lied, but as long as they pay on time and are quiet and clean, I don't see why there should be a reason to throw them out.)

Another issue that came up which I wondered about: If a new tenant agrees with the current tenant to "buy" the contract from him in such a potentially illegal transaction, does not the new tenant make himself accusable, as he knows that the former tenant committed a crime by selling the contract in the first place?

A similar issue arises, in my eyes, with any "cash" transactions - be it the money a new tenant pays for the first-hand contract, or any money paid on top for second-hand contracts, as long as those payments are not done via bank transfers. Because with any such cash transaction, the new tenant would have to safely assume that the former / first-hand tenant is trying to evade the tax. Or is having knowledge of a crime but not telling the authorities not an issue in Sweden?

(By the way, I myself am not planning to "buy" a first-hand contract in the black market, although I was offered one. I am merely trying to understand the perversity of the rental market in Stockholm in detail. )

[Yorkshireman]

I implied Sweden might not be tenant-friendly: By pretending to swap apartments or so on, the landlord would accept the new tenant as the new contract party, i.e. the new tena ... (show full quote)

I implied Sweden might not be tenant-friendly: By pretending to swap apartments or so on, the landlord would accept the new tenant as the new contract party, i.e. the new tenant's name would be on the contract... ... (hide full quote)

If the exchange is agreed with the landlords, according to contract, and Your name goes on the new apartment contract, then You are the legal tenant, I doubt the landlord can throw You out easily. It would be difficult for the new landlord to prove that the exchange was not real.

Most common is to be thrown out when Your name is not on the 1st hand contract. Only the landlord can put Your name on the contract. ie. You are not the legal tenant.

Another issue that came up which I wondered about: If a new tenant agrees with the current tenant to "buy" the contract from him in such a potentially illegal transa ... (show full quote)

Another issue that came up which I wondered about: If a new tenant agrees with the current tenant to "buy" the contract from him in such a potentially illegal transaction, does not the new tenant make himself accusable, as he knows that the former tenant committed a crime by selling the contract in the first place? ... (hide full quote)

No. Look at it in 2 ways. (1) The law does not state it is illegal to buy it. (2) There was nothing to sell, so there was nothing to buy!.

Because with any such cash transaction, the new tenant would have to safely assume that the former / first-hand tenant is trying to evade the tax. Or is having knowledge of a ... (show full quote)

Because with any such cash transaction, the new tenant would have to safely assume that the former / first-hand tenant is trying to evade the tax. Or is having knowledge of a crime but not telling the authorities not an issue in Sweden? ... (hide full quote)

It does not matter if it was a credit card transaction, bank transfer or cash ... One cannot make the assumption, (who knows what Your thoughts were at that time!) that the intention of the other is to evade tax. That is for the tax authorities to prove they did.

[elk200]

No. Look at it in 2 ways. (1) The law does not state it is illegal to buy it. (2) There was nothing to sell, so there was nothing to buy!.

Whether you call it "selling a contract" or anything else: If I understand it correctly, the former tenant is performing an illegal action by taking money for letting someone stay at the apartment if it was not agreed upon with the landlord. That's how I read it on jagvillhabostad.nu; the paragprah from Hyreslagen is quoted there. What I meant was, while it is not illegal for the new tenant to pay anything to the former tenant, it is illegal for the former tenant to accept it, and hence the new tenant has knowledge of a crime - and in my eyes, could be accused of not reporting a crime he knows about. Perhaps this is neglected in practice, but that's how I see it. I feel it's like seeing someone being beaten up and not calling the police, if you will.

Your point about the tax evasion may, however, be correct, as the new tenant could still with good will assume that even cash transactions will be reported to Skatteverket properly.