Problem with tenant in shared house

[saffron28]

Hi, I hope someone can give me advice on this.

I have a tenant in a shared house (there are two others sharing). Each tenant arrived separately. I don't have a lease with any of them. I have one tenant who has been in the house for just over two years. He is difficult and has been from day one, always needing things. Two examples are
1. he wanted a dog which I gave into against my better judgement as he promised to build a dog run in the back for it. He never did and I got into trouble with the neighbours. He refused to discuss the matter calmly and it caused me a lot of stress until he decided to get rid of the dog as he was going abroad for a few months. This went on for a couple of months and he was angry with me over it as if it was my fault.
2. he is separated and he asked me if his teenage daughter could use the box room for sleepovers. He was quite persistent. I used to rent this room but I wanted to keep the current tenants happy and I agreed.

One of the tenants who has been in the house for six years was recently made redundant and he moved out. I have been trying to rent the room. I got a call today from a prospective tenant and I texted the two occupants to say that I'd be calling in an hour to show the house. He rang me was was really abusive and angry on the phone that I hadn't given more notice. The thing is its not really possible to give a lot of notice as the market is very quiet where I am and if someone wants to view I usually accomodate.

I now want to get him out because he causes me so much stress but is it difficult considering he's been there over 2 years? He is also consistently late with rent though it is always paid.

Thank you for any advice.

 

[mercman]

Saffron, you are really looking for trouble !! Nobody rents a property out to multi tenants without a tenancy agreement. IMO you would be best calling the tenancy of those there now to an end and try starting again, the correct way.

 

[facetious]

Youn don't have to have a tenancy agreement - agreements can be verbal. However, written agreements (whether fixed term, Part 4 or Periodic) often have other stipulations such as no pets.

All your tenants are covered by a Part 4 tenancy and as such, you could only evict them on the six grounds as stated in the 2004 Act, plus breach of obligations for which you must give the tenant written warning to remedy the breach.

By wanting a viewing within several hours notice would be classed as a landlord's breach of obligations - not allowing the tenant/s peaceful exclusive enjoyment of the property and if a claim was brought to the PRTB for such breach, it could cost you into the thousands of euros. I assume you have registered the tenancies with the PRTB.

You are required to give a tenant at least 24 hours notice and at a time that is suitable to both tenant and landlord. If a tenant does not accept you time, you are out of luck.

I suggest, if you haven't already done so, that you download, read and inwardly digest the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 from the PRTB website, paying special attention to Landlord's Obligations, Tenant's obligations and the section on terminating a tenancy.

 

[saffron28]

Thank you both for your replies. It's quite difficult to have a contract as the tenants move in at different times - they are not connected to each other except for the fact that they become tenants in the house.


I have never had this problem before with any tenant. I always let them know in advance when I have a viewing and sometimes they show the room to the prospective tenant for me. The tenant in question has done this also in the past so being suddenly so irrate is shocking to me.


I know its not easy to terminate the tenancy so I'm not going to do anything about it for a while but in a shared house when a room is vacant its surely not always possible to give 24 hours notice?

 

[facetious]

I know its not easy to terminate the tenancy so I'm not going to do anything about it for a while but in a shared house when a room is vacant its surely not always possible to give 24 hours notice?

I'm sure that if you explain to the prospective tenant that an appointment has to be made with the current tenants, or you may be infringing on their peaceful enjoyment of the property, the prospective will understand and, if you put it well, the prospective will see that you, as landlord take your responsibilities and obligations seriously.

When wanting to view properties to purchase recently, I had the same problem of appointments being necessary.

 

[oldnick]

facetious - I'm a bit confused on the following..

If Saffron's tenants have no connection with each other and have different starting dates of tenancy are you sure that the laws and rules that you mention apply to them in exactly the same way as if they had jointly rented the property on one common tenancy agreement. ?

Have not each of Saffron's tenants basically only rented a bedroom plus use of common areas such as kitchen and bathroom. They did not agreednor were asked to pay for the whole property as opposed to normal tenancy agreements where , regardless of the failure of one tenant to pay, the landlord is still legally entitled to the whole rent. The two remaining persons in Saffron's property are not entitled to exclusive use of the common areas or the empty bedroom.

The "peaceful enjoyment" of their property therefore must therefore be looked at in a different light from a group who have together rented a property and are obliged to pay for it.

As each individual is seperate from the other, is only paying for exclusive occupation of a bedroom , knows full well that other unconnected individuals can use the common areas and also knows that three persons are expected to use the premises why should they raise an objection to a third person entering peacefully at any time, with or without notice ?

 

[oldnick]

-as an extra note. Just recalling an old thread on shared accommodation and the need to register with PRTB

Does Saffron have to register with PRTB ?
The Act mentions "self-contained dwellings".
Saffron is letting bedrooms only - not self-contained units.

I'm unsure if PRTB have any role in the letting of rooms only, regardless that room renters have use of other facilities.

(PRTB Tribunal decision TR10/DR532 589/2006 seems to support this argument. The tribunal ruled that an individual renter who objected to the LL coming in the house and changing locks could not seek redress from PRTB because he was not renting a self contained unit but was a sharer with disparate other people)

 

[greengrass]

I texted the two occupants to say that I'd be calling in an hour to show the house.

This is very short notice..

 

[facetious]

facetious - I'm a bit confused on the following..

If Saffron's tenants have no connection with each other and have different starting dates of tenancy are you sure that the laws and rules that you mention apply to them in exactly the same way as if they had jointly rented the property on one common tenancy agreement. ?

Have not each of Saffron's tenants basically only rented a bedroom plus use of common areas such as kitchen and bathroom. They did not agreednor were asked to pay for the whole property as opposed to normal tenancy agreements where , regardless of the failure of one tenant to pay, the landlord is still legally entitled to the whole rent. The two remaining persons in Saffron's property are not entitled to exclusive use of the common areas or the empty bedroom.

The "peaceful enjoyment" of their property therefore must therefore be looked at in a different light from a group who have together rented a property and are obliged to pay for it.

As each individual is seperate from the other, is only paying for exclusive occupation of a bedroom , knows full well that other unconnected individuals can use the common areas and also knows that three persons are expected to use the premises why should they raise an objection to a third person entering peacefully at any time, with or without notice ?

Over-ruling of PRTB decision "Tribunal Reference Number TR10/DR532&589/2006 which was posted on their own website.

Where shared occupation was deemed as outside the remit of the PRTB; a tribunal decision of 2011 determined the opposite and explains the exclusive occupation in Report of Tribunal Reference No: TR168/2011/DR92/2011. Case Ref No: DR92/2011

Therefore, these tenancies must be registered with the PRTB and, as each tenant has their own tenancy agreement. I also believe it means that there should be two registrations - one for each tenant - as it is a tenancy that is registered and not the property. However, on this point I am willing to accept correction.

 

[oldnick]

Gosh, you know your stuff, Facetious.

Actually, I was quite confused on the aspect of registration and you've cleared it up .I didn't know about the reversal of the original weird decision.

What do you reckon on my feelings (not facts, just suspicion) that the two tenants who are only responsible for their part of the rent should not complain about a LL showing a potential third person ?
I'm pretty sure if they were legally liable to pay the whole rent they'd be damn happy to get a third person in asap.

Anyway, Facetious -admit it -you're the head of PRTB working undercover !

 

[facetious]

Gosh, you know your stuff, Facetious.

Actually, I was quite confused on the aspect of registration and you've cleared it up .I didn't know about the reversal of the original weird decision.

What do you reckon on my feelings (not facts, just suspicion) that the two tenants who are only responsible for their part of the rent should not complain about a LL showing a potential third person ?
I'm pretty sure if they were legally liable to pay the whole rent they'd be damn happy to get a third person in asap.

Anyway, Facetious -admit it -you're the head of PRTB working undercover !

Many thanks for the compliment.

Having read many PRTB disputes and tribunal decisions, I believe that a landlord is in breach of his obligations by bring a prospective tenant for a viewing without the express permission of the other resident tenants. It would be a breach of the tenants' right to peaceful and exclusive enjoyment of the property.

To add to this, in the Act, it also states that a landlord may enter a property without permission, if there is an emergency. Viewings is not classed as an emergency. Another possible way may be to use an inspection but this also falls down due to the fact that the tenant must be advised at least 24 hours beforehand (at at the convenience of the tenant (who might not be at the property at that time and wishes to be there). Furthermore, only the landlord and/or his agent may do inspections and not prospective tenants.

Renting rooms on an individual basis, therefore, has some difficulties that do not come with renting a property as a unit. Here, the resident tenants will, as you suggest, be more willing to accommodate viewings and may even help the landlord in doing so.

Furthermore, any clause in a lease agreement to allow viewings either at short notice or without the tenants' permission would be invalid as it would take away a tenants' right to peaceful enjoyment. However, a tenant could not refuse the right to viewings at mutually prearranged times - maybe one or two evenings a week (say between 6pm and 7 pm) until the room is let.

 

[Troy McClure]

What if the landlord keeps a room in the house for occasion use for themselves and rents out other rooms on a share basis with bills in landlords name? If for example they live in another part of the country?

Whose names are the bills in at the rental poster?

 

[facetious]

What if the landlord keeps a room in the house for occasion use for themselves and rents out other rooms on a share basis with bills in landlords name? If for example they live in another part of the country?

Whose names are the bills in at the rental poster?

When the landlord rents out a room or rooms in his own house under the rent-a-room scheme is a clear-cut licensee agreement.

However, for an owner/landlord to have licensee and not tenants in a property in which he does not normally reside is a different matter.

In this situation, a landlord/owner of a property must have a licensee agreement with the occupants and the following conditions are met and should be defined in the licensee agreement.

Some of the main points to have in a licensee agreement include:
1. It is a formal licensee agreement between the owner and the occupant/s,
2. the owner has continuing access to the entire property.
3. the owner can move around or change the occupants.
4. the occupant/s do not have exclusive use of their bedrooms.
5. the occupant/s do not have exclusive use of the any part of the property.

It is usual that a set of house rules are included for the observance of the occupants and should be shown to any prospective licensees.

Once there is a tenancy agreement in place with even one tenant in a shared house situation, a landlord cannot commence having a licensee agreement with any other occupants as by the tenancy agreement he does not have continuing access to any part of the property.
For the avoidance of any doubt, a clause should be included in the licensee agreement, stating that the occupants are not tenants but licensees and that the RTA2004 tenancy laws and the services of the PRTB are not applicable to them.

Whether the utility bills are in the landlord's name or the occupant/ name/s does not affect the licensee situation. However, if the landlord is not living in the property on a permanent basis or seldom visits the property, then it may be better if the utilities were in the occupants name. Otherwise, he may end up with excessive bills for which he is liable. Again, in many licensee agreements, the "rent" payment often includes utilities.

 

[Troy McClure]

Once there is a tenancy agreement in place with even one tenant in a shared house situation, a landlord cannot commence having a licensee agreement with any other occupants as by the tenancy agreement he does not have continuing access to any part of the property.

RTA2004 tenancy laws and the services of the PRTB are not applicable to them.

Great reply.. Can you explain the first para above as I cant grasp it.

Is this second part true? Do you not need to register for the PRTB in such an instance? or only if there is an agreement?

Where could one find a copy of such an agreement?