Do I need a lease?

NoRegretsCoyote said:
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?
Click to expand...
Define “consistently”.

There’s no subjective threshold - you’re either in breach or you’re not.

However, a vague requirement to forward post will always be interpreted against the party that drafted the lease (i.e. the landlord).

Contractual obligations have to be clear.
 
Sarenco said:
Define “consistently”.
Click to expand...
Say only six times out of ten and the lease categorically obliged tenant to forward all post to a specified address.

I mean it seems there’s scope for a landlord to put in lots of little clauses that a tenant could trip up on. Things like forwarding post, garden maintenance, prohibition on hanging clothes outside, etc, and landlord could use these on spurious grounds to terminate the tenancy.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
Say only six times out of ten and the lease categorically obliged tenant to forward all post to a specified address.
Click to expand...
Ok, the lease (very unusually) says post addressed to the landlord has to be forwarded to a specific address.

When? Immediately upon receipt? Within a prescribed number of days? What if the tenant is on holidays?

Again, contractual provisions have to be clear - this one is completely vague.
NoRegretsCoyote said:
prohibition on hanging clothes outside, etc,
Click to expand...
That would be quite common - lots of apartment developments prohibit hanging clothes on balconies.

If a tenant continues to hang out clothes, notwithstanding it being pointed out that is in breach of their lease, I don’t see why you think that is a spurious ground to issue a termination notice.
 
Sarenco said:
I don’t see why you think that is a spurious ground
Click to expand...
My point is that a landlord could:
a) insist on very specific clauses that are easy to slip up on;
b) use them as grounds to terminate tenancy on a whim.

My question is more whether the RTB has a materiality threshold for accepting attempts to terminate by landlords due to breach of contractual obligations.
 
But why would a landlord want to terminate a lease on a whim?

In any event, there is no “materiality threshold” applied by the RTB in determining whether or not a notice of termination has been validly issued in accordance with the applicable legislation.
 
It's not a question of a one-off trip up "gotcha" clause being used to ground a termination. The tenant must also be given an opportunity to rectify the breach. So, rent arrears, for example, which is a breach of tenant obligations, can be rectified by paying off the outstanding rent.

Likewise, with our canine friends, a landlord will first write pointing out the breach and demanding removal of the offending mutts. It's only when the breach goes unrectified that a notice of termination is served.
 
Sarenco said:
Really?

Have you got a reference for that?
Click to expand...
there is pressure to force landlords to permit pets to be allowed.
But counterintuitively there is no legislation in tow for it from my understanding.
But really its more dictated by the general terms of "house rules" which are required when setting Owners Management Companies in multi unit developments, and many of these explicitly ban pets to be allowed to roam free in shared areas and may even ban them entirely. Since many rentals are apartments this often ends up as the de facto decider.
 
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...
You probably need to take into account house rules for MUDs and list them. In practice tho, you cannot force tenants to sign away their rights.
With regard to pets, however, its technically landlords discretion but house rules in the development might override any choice the landlord has.
 
Is the following understanding of the different terms correct?

Subletting - where a tenant vacates but does not relinquish the tenancy and a second tenant moves in & pays rent to the first tenant. First tenant is still liable to the owner for rent etc. but acts as landlord to the subletter. If the first tenant wants to return to the property, they issue the relevant notice. The second tenant has no contract with the owner. Needs owner permission and is usually prohibited in a lease.

Assignment - where the entire tenancy is transferred to someone else. Can happen in a fixed term lease if tenant/s need to move out for whatever reason. Needs owner permission and is usually prohibited in a lease.

Licensee - where a tenant has a non-tenant to stay in the dwelling. This category can be several types:
1. occasional visitors
2. spouse/partner & kids who live with the tenant
3. lodger such as RaR who pays rent and shares with the tenant
4. paying guest such as airbnb who stays with the tenant
5. person in a house share paying rent and taking the place of a tenant who left

# 1 visitors - usually covered in a term of the lease
# 2 family - needs owner permission where individuals are not named on the lease
# 3 lodger - needs permission because extra occupant is not on the lease and only a tenant has a right to occupy
# 4 short let - needs permission because it could affect owner's insurance or may need PP
# 5 replacement - would not need permission to replace a share tenant who moved out

If a licensee can't be prohibited in the lease as posted earlier in the thread, can a lease specify a fixed number of occupants and prohibit paying guests? Would that resolve 2, 3 & 4 ?
 
#1. Always allowed. Tenant has right to "peaceful occupation" - includes right to have visitors/guests.

#2&3 Landlord permission NOT required (same reason as #1) but tenant required to notify landlord of residents. Required by Residential Tenancies Act and usually by lease agreement also. Arguably possible to include term to prevent RaR in lease.

#4. Usually prohibited by lease. May also breach planning law.

#5. A bit murky. Who was party to initial lease agreement? Shared tenancy with joint and several liability? Or was it (eg) three/four separate rooms rented separately in a shared house? If the former, landlord's agreement to replace (or add) a tenant is required. The RTA says that the landlord can't unreasonably refuse consent. If the latter, it's entirely landlord's discretion.
Landlords should be very clear about what they put in a lease agreement to avoid problems down the road. You also need to be vigilant about what scenarios you allow to develop, or you may create an unintended defacto / de jure tenancy, imposing unwanted obligations on yourself.
 
Last edited:
Right Winger said:
#1. Always allowed. Tenant has right to "peaceful occupation" - includes right to have visitors/guests.

#2&3 Landlord permission NOT required (same reason as #1) but tenant required to notify landlord of residents. Required by Residential Tenancies Act and usually by lease agreement also. Arguably possible to include term to prevent RaR in lease.

#4. Usually prohibited by lease. May also breach planning law.

#5. A bit murky. Who was party to initial lease agreement? Shared tenancy with joint and several liability? Or was it (eg) three/four separate rooms rented separately in a shared house? If the former, landlord's agreement to replace (or add) a tenant is required. The RTA says that the landlord can't unreasonably refuse consent. If the latter, it's entirely landlord's discretion.
Landlords should be very clear about what they put in a lease agreement to avoid problems down the road. You also need to be vigilant about what scenarios you allow to develop, or you may create an unintended defacto / de jure tenancy, imposing unwanted obligations on yourself.
Click to expand...

About #3 and RaR in particular.
How can a tenant decide to take in a licensee/lodger to live in the property and pay rent if only a tenant has a right of occupancy ?

The tenant is changing the tenancy terms.

The lease grants named persons the right to live in the property, they pay for that entitlement, but as named tenants and they must be RTB registered. Those named tenants are the persons that the RTB will deal with if there is a dispute.

Yet somehow if the named tenant takes in a licensee with no right of occupancy in the property, that licensee can magically become a named tenant just by request, and the owner can't refuse, ie, the licensee can force the owner's hand to change the lease terms and grant them all the rights a tenant holds.

Its a strange rule for sure if true.

It seems more reasonable that the part about a licensee requesting to become a tenant applies to #5 as you said, ie. the section of the rta that deals with multi-occupants. That makes sense and there used to be a leaflet on the RTB site that outlined how that could happen but cant see it now.
 
bipped said:
Yet somehow if the named tenant takes in a licensee with no right of occupancy in the property, that licensee can magically become a named tenant just by request, and the owner can't refuse, ie, the licensee can force the owner's hand to change the lease terms and grant them all the rights a tenant holds.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting this from?!

It’s complete nonsense.
 
Sarenco said:
Where are you getting this from?!

It’s complete nonsense.
Click to expand...
I've read it many times and always thought it was nonsense then I read this IT article last week:

www.irishtimes.com

I’m subletting a room in an apartment. Do I have any tenant rights?

Property Clinic: ‘I’m not sure if the private landlord knows I’m living in the property’
www.irishtimes.com www.irishtimes.com

The person enquiring says they are subletting but then adds that the tenant is still living in the apartment so it looks like they are a licensee. Expert saying they are a tenant and entitled to be registered with the RTB.

Also says on the Threshold site that if a licensee is renting from an existing tenant, they are entitled to request to become a tenant after six months. Most renters check the Threshold site for information so is it incorrect?

Am I a tenant? - Threshold

threshold.ie threshold.ie
 
Last edited:
bipped said:
Fair enough but the information in the IT is widely read and taken on board and also the Threshold site which has similar information.
Click to expand...
I’ve no issue with Threshold’s note.

The Residential Tenancies Act includes a provision to the effect that a person (including a licensee) who has occupied a property for six months or more can request the landlord to be treated as a tenant and a landlord cannot unreasonably refuse such a request.

That’s not what you said above.

Nor is what the “expert” advised in the IT.
 
Threhold says if a person is renting from an existing tenant ie a licensee, they can request to become a tenant and if the landlord refuses, they can take a case to the RTB. The 'expert' said something similar and I have read it from many posters on this and other sites.

Afaik, the only thing that happens after six months is that a named tenant gains part4 rights but they first need to be a tenant and included/registered on the tenancy agreement for that to happen.
 
That scenario seems bizarre. The licencee is a guest of the tenant named on the lease. They pay an amount of rent to the tenant. The property owner should not be compelled to add the licencew to the lease. If they can, it's FUBAR.

Going by the ads for shared accommodation, I could imagine a scenario where a licencee is paying more to the tenant than the monthly rent stipulated by the lease.
 
Last edited:
Luternau said:
The property owner should not be compelled to add the licencew to the lease.
Click to expand...
The landlord is not “compelled” to treat a licensee as a tenant - he simply cannot unreasonably refuse a request in this regard. Big difference.

Bear in mind that a licensee would be on the hook for the rent and all other tenant obligations if added as a (co-)tenant.

In practice, I suspect the number of licencees that would willingly take on these obligations in circumstances where the tenant remains in occupation is close to zero.
 
after the big debate on pets in this thread;

From today's Independent

"In another case, a landlord who evicted tenants after they moved two dogs into the house was ordered to pay €2,000 in damages.

The landlord said it was a term of the agreement that there would be no pets allowed, but two weeks after moving in there were two dogs living in the house"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top