Do I need a lease?

NoRegretsCoyote said:
Assignment of a lease is not the same as taking in a lodger as licensee.

I try to avoid hominem almost always but you don’t know what you are talking about and are misleading people now.
Click to expand...
If you have a tenancy you can issue a lease. Most places do. Its recommended.
I never said a lease was the same as taking in a lodger so dont tell me my post is incorrect.
Where is it incorrect?
 
DannyBoyD said:
Putting clauses into your lease is one thing, enforcing them is a whole other ball-game.

It takes near enough two years to evict a tenant for not paying rent and / or overholding - you believe you'll start that process because the windows aren't cleaned once a month?

If you can't enforce your conditions, its useless.

You can't prevent sub-letting from happening; you'll likely only find out about it post the event. If your tenant A has done a bunk; are you really going to track them down & sue for breaking a clause in your lease?

Tenants can avail of rent-a-room; Revenue guidelines are quite clear. You'll find a thread here on exactly this subject from another property owner.

As I've already stated, twice now; property owners must provide either a lease or a rent book.

leglislation will trump every time & rtb will be very unlikely to be helpful with enforcing your cat ban or window cleaning.

don't do social media, can't help you there.
Click to expand...
You can enforce tenants to not do rebt a room. Its expressly not allowed. Whether on lease or not.

Subletting and Assignment | Residential Tenancies Board

RTB operates Ireland's National Tenancy Register and resolving disputes between Landlords, tenants and third parties. Governed by residential Tenancies Act 2004. View more information on landlords and tenancies.
www.rtb.ie www.rtb.ie
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
Your tenant taking in a lodger under the RaR scheme is not a sub let.

Not in common parlance, not in law. Not a sub let. The lodger is a licensee.

I repeat: there is no blanket legal prohibition on a tenant having a lodger.
Click to expand...
Your tenant taking in a lodger under the RaR scheme is not a sub let. - Never said it was.
Click to expand...
Not in common parlance, not in law. Not a sub let. The lodger is a licensee. - Correct. I have rent a room in operation in my own home so I am aware of this and differences between leases and licences.

I repeat: there is no blanket legal prohibition on a tenant having a lodger. Thats correct but if its in the lease then that precludes anybody from subletting, rent a room or having long term guests. Hence the need for a lease. If you sign a lease then you agree to the terms, break the terms and you get a notice to quit.
 
ThisisMax said:
Id say the lease says no pets so you either remove it or I serve notice.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The only enforcement available to you is eviction.

Given that it can take 2 years to remove a tenant who is not paying rent - an egregious breach of the rental agreement - I don't believe that RTB would uphold your complaint re a pet cat and notice to quit on those grounds, all other things being equal.
 
ThisisMax said:
...if its in the lease then that precludes anybody from subletting
Click to expand...
Again in practical terms, if your Tenant A does a bunk, leaving Subletter B in place and paying the rent etc., by the time you find out about it the 'sub-letting' has already taken place.

You can't evict Tenant A, they have already gone.

You can certainly issue a notice to quit against Subletter B as they are not your tenant; but you have no recourse against the person who signed the lease. Unless you are prepared to pay money to track them down & even then what are you going to do?
 
Last edited:
DannyBoyD said:
Given that it can take 2 years to remove a tenant who is not paying rent - an egregious breach of the rental agreement - I don't believe that RTB would uphold your complaint re a pet cat and notice to quit on those grounds, all other things being equal.
Click to expand...
Your beliefs are irrelevant.

Breach of a tenant’s obligations - including a contractual obligation not to have pets in a property - is a ground for termination. The RTB must uphold the notice in this regard where it is properly issued.
 
DannyBoyD said:
Exactly. The only enforcement available to you is eviction.

Given that it can take 2 years to remove a tenant who is not paying rent - an egregious breach of the rental agreement - I don't believe that RTB would uphold your complaint re a pet cat and notice to quit on those grounds, all other things being equal.
Click to expand...
Dont be silly. Its breach of lease. Plain and simple. They can raise a complaint but unlikely it will go anywhere as its a breach. No infirngement of their rights.
 
DannyBoyD said:
Again in practical terms, if your Tenant A does a bunk, leaving Subletter B in place and paying the rent etc., by the time you find out about it the 'sub-letting' has already taken place.

You can't evict Tenant A, they have already gone.

You can certainly issue a notice to quit against Subletter B as they are not your tenant; but you have no recourse against the person who signed the lease. Unless you are prepared to pay money to track them down & even then what are you going to do?
Click to expand...
Subletter B has no rights. Not allowed to be there by law or by lease. Therefore removeable. No contract with landlord, no permission, no tenancy. They are essentially squatting. No notice to quit needed - not my tenant - therefore removed. They have no rights. The contract was with Tenant A.
 
ThisisMax said:
Subletter B has no rights. Not allowed to be there by law or by lease. Therefore removeable. No contract with landlord, no permission, no tenancy. They are essentially squatting. No notice to quit needed - not my tenant - therefore removed. They have no rights. The contract was with Tenant A.
Click to expand...
I believe that is exactly the point I was making.

Your sub letting clause was ignored and it makes no difference to the outcome anyway.
 
Sarenco said:
Breach of a tenant’s obligations - including a contractual obligation not to have pets in a property - is a ground for termination. The RTB must uphold the notice in this regard where it is properly issued.
Click to expand...
Good luck.
 
DannyBoyD said:
I believe that is exactly the point I was making.

Your sub letting clause was ignored and it makes no difference to the outcome anyway.
Click to expand...
Huh! Did you ever consider going into (Irish) Politics? You are certainly wasted here....Thats not the point you made. Better to just say you are realy not sure of what you said.
 
Right Winger said:
Absolutely not! Residential Tenancies Act provisions must be complied with and the Act specifically prevents landlords and tenants from contracting out of these provisions.
But the Act is silent on many issues (pets, smoking, payment by standing order, standard of cleaning, garden maintenance to name a few) and landlords are perfectly free to include clauses dealing with these in rental contracts.
In my opinion and experience, landlords would be mad not to address these issues in written agreements. And at the very least, for your own protection, you should have an inventory of contents, and a signed statement verifying the condition of the property at the beginning of a lease.
Click to expand...
That’s all very well in theory but it won’t be worth a hill of beans if you try and evict a tenant who becomes belligerent , that’s unless you take great heart in pyrrhic victories ?, an RTB hearing might technically ( on a point of principle) side with the landlord over a pet being kept or a room being painted ( without prior permission) but neither are smoking guns which will ultimately close out an eviction
 
Last edited:
galway_blow_in said:
That’s all very well in theory but it won’t be worth a hill of beans if you try and evict a tenant who becomes belligerent , that’s unless you take great heart in pyrrhic victories ?, an RTB hearing might technically ( on a point of principle) side with the landlord over a pet being kept or a room being painted ( without prior permission) but neither are smoking guns which will ultimately close out an eviction
Click to expand...
More nonsense.

If the RTB uphold a notice of termination for breach of a tenant’s obligations, then a landlord can seek an eviction order through the Courts.

That’s in the unlikely event that if it even gets to that point. Most tenants will comply with the terms of their lease once the provisions are pointed out to them.

The OP asked whether he needed to put a lease in place. Well, “need” is a strong word but he would be very unwise not to put a lease in place.
 
DannyBoyD said:
Here's your challenge for today! Find me one for a pet, where that is the only issue. :)
Click to expand...
The RTB determination orders don’t go into that level of detail. Why would they?

The notice of termination is either valid or it isn’t - it’s binary.

You seem to under the mistaken impression that the RTB has some sort of discretion to invalidate a notice of termination where they subjectively consider a breach of tenant obligations to be minor or inconsequential.

That’s not how it works.
 
Sarenco said:
You seem to under the mistaken impression that the RTB has some sort of discretion to invalidate a notice of termination where they subjectively consider a breach of tenant obligations to be minor or inconsequential.
Click to expand...
For sake of argument suppose I was a tenant and my contract obliged me to forward him post. Could my landlord issue a notice to quit for breach of tenant obligations if I failed to do so consistently?

This is not trivial but not very serious either. Would the RTB really issue a determination order in landlord’s favour. There must be some threshold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top