Landlord wants to raise rent

[Trish2006]

I know people who rent houses, if one person moves out they get someone else to move in. The landlords never seek to meet this new person. The rent is usually a unit price, when have you ever seen an ad saying rent 1000pm (for 2 people, add 300 for each additional person)?? If the couple split up and one moved out would the landlord reduce the rent?? If they had a child 6 mths later could he up the rent for the baby? If a friend of the couple needed somewhere to live for a couple of months, could they not say 'we have a spare room if you chip in with the rent'? I understand the argument for wear and tear, but 4 quiet people will cause a lot less than 2 very social people who have dinner parties every night.
I think the key issue is that the landlord didn't seem bothered by the extra people, just by the fact that he could make more money 'because he could' (or at least that's how the situation seems to be portrayed...)

 

[MrMan]

Well the landlord does own the house and he is entitled to think that the rent is for his gain and not the tenants.

If they had a child 6 mths later could he up the rent for the baby?

A small bit of an exaggeration perhaps? The point is the current tenants are not being wronged by the landlord. They agreed a price with him for the apartment. They then tried to cut their rent by taking in another couple. Surely it can be seen that in this scenario a certain increase in rent is due.

I suppose this is a classic example of why proper tenancy agreements, laying out clearly all the terms, are a good idea.

I guess thats the moral of this story anyways

 

[Afuera]

Well the landlord does own the house and he is entitled to think that the rent is for his gain and not the tenants.

He's entitled to think whatever he likes... He's not allowed to rewrite the rules whenever he feels like it though.

The point is the current tenants are not being wronged by the landlord. They agreed a price with him for the apartment.

They agreed a price for the apartment and the landlord tries to raise it a week later. I'm sure the PTRB would have lots of sympathy for the poor landlord in this case

They then tried to cut their rent by taking in another couple. Surely it can be seen that in this scenario a certain increase in rent is due.

The landlord was quite happy to rent the appartment out at a certain price. Nothing was in place to indicate that this price depended on the amount of people residing there. I can't see why the landlord is due more money.

 

[MrMan]

[/QUOTE]He's entitled to think whatever he likes... He's not allowed to rewrite the rules whenever he feels like it though.[/QUOTE]

Except he didn't initiate the re-writing of the rules; the tenant did.

They agreed a price for the apartment and the landlord tries to raise it a week later. I'm sure the PRTB would have lots of sympathy for the poor landlord in this case

The landlord was quite happy to rent the appartment out at a certain price. Nothing was in place to indicate that this price depended on the amount of people residing there. I can't see why the landlord is due more money.

The indication was that he was renting it out to two people. TBH unless we know how the conversation initially went we can't know who is totally in the wrong here, only that the landlord was definitely naive in the first instance

Like I've already said the prtb will be interested in dealing with the registered tenants which are persons 1 & 2. the other two wont even be on their radar.

 

[gonk]

Like I've already said the prtb will be interested in dealing with the registered tenants which are persons 1 & 2. the other two wont even be on their radar.

Not so.

From the "Quick Guide to the Residential Tenancies Act":

· Licensees (i.e. additional occupants brought in by a resident tenant who are not tenants themselves) may request the landlord to become tenant and the landlord may not unreasonably withhold written consent.

[broken link removed]

 

[MrMan]

Not so.

From the "Quick Guide to the Residential Tenancies Act":

· Licensees (i.e. additional occupants brought in by a resident tenant who are not tenants themselves) may request the landlord to become tenant and the landlord may not unreasonably withhold written consent.

http

that is the same for any assignment or sub-let, and the common bond would be that the tenant asks the landlord, not turn up looking for another set of keys because he has already sub-let a room in the apartment. There was no permission sought therefore my reading of it is that they cannot be adjudged to be rightfully sub-letting.

An aside to this is the landlord may refuse them as tenants if he feels it is in the interest of good estate management i.e for the good of his asset.

 

[Afuera]

Except he didn't initiate the re-writing of the rules; the tenant did.

As far as we know, there were no rules dictating the amount of tenants allowed in the property.

the landlord was definitely naive in the first instance

Agreed. A simple lease dictating what was and wasn't acceptable to the landlord would have avoided this whole Pandora's box.

 

[MrMan]

I think it is the landlords intersts to take a cheap lesson and end their tenancy and learn from this mistake. I don't see how the tenants can win out in this instance as it is only a week into their occupancy anyway.

 

[Afuera]

I think it is the landlords intersts to take a cheap lesson and end their tenancy and learn from this mistake. I don't see how the tenants can win out in this instance as it is only a week into their occupancy anyway.

I don't agree with following this action straight away. I think that it could leave him open to penalties (he did try to raise the rent on them illegally). IMHO his best bet would be to get a lease together ASAP which specifies a maximum number of tenants in it. The price should be left as it was agreed upon originally and the tenants can choose to sign this or not. If they sign it then the landlord should be happy as he has achieved what he thought he had last week. If they do not sign, then he can evict them.

If the tenants have already notified the PRTB of the landlord's illegal attempt to raise the rent then it could turn into a very expensive lesson for the landlord. Should the landlord attempt to evict them after they've done this, they will be able to file another dispute with the PRTB, since it's quite possible they are being penalized by him for originally going to the PTRB. If by "winning out", you mean "stop themselves getting evicted", then this action may help them.

 

[Purple]

Although the Landlord was stupid to ask for more rent it is the tenants that have behaved badly. The Landlord should get rid of them and look for tenants with some integrity.

 

[Cityliving]

Afuera I am at a complete loss in trying to understand your position (and please correct me if I am wrong)

You seem to think that its ok for these people to have done what they have done - is that the case. now you havent so much said this as attacked the manner in which the landlord has acted so I felt it was inferred. If I have misunderstood you then sorry and this is not directed at you and this is just my opinion on the matter.

Rather then arguing the fine points (should he be allowed to raise the rent, PRTB involvement etc) the simple facts are:

The landlord met and agreed to let to people he clearly approved of.

He (he for arguments sake) agreed a price with these people.

The tenants who agreed to stay then decided to sublet (and yes it IS a sublet if they are not on the original lease and if no lease for some reason well at least there was an understanding that it was just those two people) a room. These new tenants are not registered with the PRTB, cannot take out contents insurance at that property and are not protected under the landlords property owners policy unless they lie and say they were overnight guests.

This is completely unacceptable. The landlord remember (and I know it seems completely unimportant to some people) actually owns the apt and it is an enormous investment of their time and money. These people have misrepresented themselves and the landlord does not know these people who will be entering his property as a tenant without his permission. They were due to sign an agreement from my understanding so the issues of subletting, overnight guests are outlined in any standard agreement.


I would not have even discussed the matter with them (or as you seem to have such a strong feeling on raise the rent, I accept lower rent myself for less tenants or good tenants its his right to do this) and have given them the min notice and be rid of them. There actions are nothing if not ignorant and demonstrating a complete lack of fair play and taking someone at their word.

You seem to react like he`s been terribly unfair raising the rent but they LIED to him about the numbers they would have their then had the gaul to ask for more keys. He was being nice to even consider keeping people demonstrating such bad faith. The only plus on their side is mabe they were indeed naiive enough to actually assume that it was ok and thats why they asked him for keys and he still said they could stay.

What is it about people nowadays who seem to hold this incredible animosity and sense of entitlement towards renting and landlords. When I rented I was treated fairly and I acted in good faith back. Now I treat my tenants fairly and have been very lucky so far. The reason why I feel I have been fortunate though is that I have interviewed all my potential tenants and any I have found with this attitude of unreasonable entitlement I havent touched with a bargepole - buy your own bloody apt if you want to do as you please. I provide a service and my tenants pay for that service but in return I expect them to play by the rules too.

This is not much to ask.

 

[Cityliving]

oh and when i say its his right I mean its his right to accept lower rent when there will be less wear and tear equally at the beginning of a price negotiation it should be his right to know who will be staying there so that if he feels that there will be too many he can say that he does not want 4 people as it will cost too much to repair in the long run.

 

[z106]

The bottom line is the tenants knowingly misrepresented themselves.

The landlord should be allowed decide how many tenats he wants in his house - this number should not be dictated to him by his tenants.
From a landlords viewpoint it's a bigger hassle trying to get money out of 4 different individuals than it is 2 different individuals.More chance of late payments etc. with more people involved.
The less tenants the better from a landlods viewpoint.

Unquestionably the original tenants were out of order.

It's the landlords house - the tenants broke the original agreement (I accept it was not a written agreement but if they have any morals they should know there was a common understanding - if they are trying to uise the line that the agreement wasn't in writing then it doesn't say much for them as people where quite clearly their word counts for nothing i.e. people that should not be trusted)).
THe tenants knowingly acted against this common understanding and then kick up a fuss here when the landlord retailates by also shifting the goalposts.
If the original tenants had played by teh original rules there would be no problems here.
Teh original tenants are to blame here - simple as that.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Sorry, I forgot one important detail here. After the original tennants moved in (and after a "verbal contract" was agreed), they sought, and were given verbal permission to rent the other room to at most two more people. At the time, the landlord didn't mention anything about an extra cost being involved. It was only a week later when keys for the sub-tenants were required that he decided he wanted more money.

Since the original incident occured, the landlord has actually entered the property without requesting permission from the tenants. To date, the tenants are fully paid up.

 

[Raskolnikov]

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 ?? Landlord has to have rights also !!!!

The property is listed on prtb.ie as having space for 4 beds.

I am not sure this informationis legally binding and could be used in a case for us. Anyone?

 

[Raskolnikov]

I think the key issue is that the landlord didn't seem bothered by the extra people, just by the fact that he could make more money 'because he could' (or at least that's how the situation seems to be portrayed...)

That's what is seemed like to me. Initially he asked for an extra €200p/m, then he decided €100p/m "would do".

 

[Raskolnikov]

Apologies for the delay in posting back, I'll explain why here.

The landlord insisted that if all four of us were to remain in the apartment for the 28 days period of notice, that we must pay the extra rent. We were already stretched enough, so this wasn't an option and we have all decided to leave (I know technically I'm not actually a resident). As you can imagine, it was a hectic few days trying to get a place sorted out on such short notice.

 

[Afuera]

The landlord insisted that if all four of us were to remain in the apartment for the 28 days period of notice, that we must pay the extra rent. We were already stretched enough, so this wasn't an option and we have all decided to leave (I know technically I'm not actually a resident). As you can imagine, it was a hectic few days trying to get a place sorted out on such short notice.

You must be given 28 days notice in writing before the landlord can raise the rent. Take this to the PTRB. I still think you have a legal status in the property as a licensee.

 

[Afuera]

The bottom line is the tenants knowingly misrepresented themselves.

The landlord should be allowed decide how many tenats he wants in his house - this number should not be dictated to him by his tenants.

The only misrepresentation in this case was the landlord who decided to introduce a variable rate rent. The landlord is perfectly within his rights to dictate how many he wants in the property but he needs to have a lease in place to dictate this, otherwise it's at the tenants discretion to allow licensees on the property.

 

[Afuera]

Afuera I am at a complete loss in trying to understand your position (and please correct me if I am wrong)

You seem to think that its ok for these people to have done what they have done - is that the case. now you havent so much said this as attacked the manner in which the landlord has acted so I felt it was inferred. If I have misunderstood you then sorry and this is not directed at you and this is just my opinion on the matter.

I'm coming from a position of fairness. Only one party in this dispute has acted illegally.

The tenants who agreed to stay then decided to sublet (and yes it IS a sublet if they are not on the original lease and if no lease for some reason well at least there was an understanding that it was just those two people) a room.

There was no attempt to sublet in this case. The original tenants were not trying to assume the role of a landlord on the sub-tenants. They were attempting to introduce more licensees (which as it turns out the landlord had already agreed to).

What is it about people nowadays who seem to hold this incredible animosity and sense of entitlement towards renting and landlords. When I rented I was treated fairly and I acted in good faith back. Now I treat my tenants fairly and have been very lucky so far. The reason why I feel I have been fortunate though is that I have interviewed all my potential tenants and any I have found with this attitude of unreasonable entitlement I havent touched with a bargepole - buy your own bloody apt if you want to do as you please. I provide a service and my tenants pay for that service but in return I expect them to play by the rules too.

The tenants were not treated fairly here and they did play by the rules. As tenants they are entitled to some basic rights which were completely trampled over here.