Raskolnikov
Registered User
- Messages
- 350
He's definately not entitled to increase the rent after one week anyway. Should the tenants refuse this increase and notify the PRTB about the landlord's illegal attempt to up the rent, it could be held against him. If he subsequently asks them to leave, it could be claimed that they are being penalized for bringing the dispute to the PRTB.Is the landlord entitled to ask for this increase?
I don't think that they're subletting in this case though. They (as the head tenants) are notifying the landlord that there are more tenants staying in his property. As far as I can see, the landlord had nothing in place to prevent this.as far as i was aware you're not allowed to sublet unless you get agreement from landlord.
I don't think that they're subletting in this case though. They (as the head tenants) are notifying the landlord that there are more tenants staying in his property. As far as I can see, the landlord had nothing in place to prevent this.
The tenants obviously did not realise this or they would not have approached the landlord for more keys (or quite possibly even bothered renting the apartment in the first place). It's could be that they can not afford to rent the place on their own and were budgeting to have it shared between four.The rent agreed was for two people renting the property.
With a lease, which unfortunately is not in place in this case.If people feel that two additional tenants are allowed, what's stopping the OP from getting 4 or 6 additional tenants (yes, in theory unlikely) and packing them into the house. Where does this stop ??
The tenants obviously did not realise this or they would not have approached the landlord for more keys (or quite possibly even bothered renting the apartment in the first place). It's could be that they can not afford to rent the place on their own and were budgeting to have it shared between four.
Where does it say that they can not sublet? Most European countries allow this, so they may have assumed it was not necessary to bother the landlord with these details.I find it hard to believe that the tenants might not have realised sub-letting would not be permitted.
If the landlord wished to rent the apartment to four people then he could off-set the hassle and wear and tear against the greater rent (as evidenced by the fact that th OP is charging rent to the two new people).
Why does the OP think she should be allowed to profit from having two tenants in the apartment but the Landlord should bear the cost?
1- The landlord seems to have rented the place on the basis of a price for the apartment, rather than the number of people in it. If he wanted to control the number of people or profit from more people being there, then he should have it a condition that everyone to live there, whether in a couple or not, should sign a lease and charge them individual rent accordingly. There is no lease so there's no real basis to do this.
I would imagine the landlord checked references on the original people, but the sub-letters may not have good references or may have an undesirable reputation, the landlord has a right to agree who lives on his property.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?