Tenants in house share want room left empty and impact of taking in new tenant after 1st March behind my back.

bipped said:
If an assignee needs 6 months occupancy before gaining their own P4 rights, could a landlord issue an NoT to that individual without affecting the other co-tenants?
Click to expand...

The licensee is a guest of the tenant(s) when having that status. The tenants remain in the house and have to pay the rent (not the licensee).

In theory, the licensee should pay the tenants and they use that money towards the actual rent.

They could get market rent from the licensee while paying controlled rent to the landlord for the whole house.

If the licensee is paying the landlord directly, then that could be implicit agreement by the landlord that the licensee is actually a tenant.

bipped said:
If a replacement was a licensee of the tenants for 6 or more months, and are then accepted as a tenant by the landlord, is the P4 rights counted from their first day or does it start when they become a tenant.
Click to expand...
They get added as new tenants to the existing lease.

I assume they get any rights from the date of becoming a tenant, but the start of lease date doesn't change.

Previous to that the other tenants could kick them out at any time, since they weren't tenants.

Bronte said:
the latter is what a landlord has to do when a current tenant is replaced by a new tenant, which crucially does not legally create a new tenancy.
Click to expand...
Yes, but when describing the update process, they say the registration update is only possible when there are still some "original" tenants remaining.

It looks like the law requires the new tenants to have equal status, so by "original", they may not mean the original ones who signed the lease, but any existing tenants at the time the licensee is upgraded.
 
I will never understand the situation where a landlord has multiple tenancies in the house.

I lived in many house shares outside of Ireland and the rule was was always one tenant and then they can have people on a license.

When I was the tenant I could choose what I wanted to charge others even though I had rent control, but I was the one who paid the landlord. I certainly chose who I lived with and of if I wanted could leave a room empty.

Do some landlords choose who moves into wash room? It must cause issues between tenants.

The difference I see is that the place usually comes furnished here so those on a license are just using the main tenants sofa, TV etc.
 
@faketales I think that is where we are going to end up now - all new leases will have to be structured that way as otherwise the 6-year reset/eviction point for small landlords is meaningless. If the named tenant goes they all will have to go.
 
faketales said:
I will never understand the situation where a landlord has multiple tenancies in the house.

I lived in many house shares outside of Ireland and the rule was was always one tenant and then they can have people on a license.

When I was the tenant I could choose what I wanted to charge others even though I had rent control, but I was the one who paid the landlord. I certainly chose who I lived with and of if I wanted could leave a room empty.

Do some landlords choose who moves into wash room? It must cause issues between tenants.

The difference I see is that the place usually comes furnished here so those on a license are just using the main tenants sofa, TV etc.
Click to expand...
faketales thats the basis I always shared rooms too. I never had a problem at all paying the main tenant, even though sometimes other people in the shares would be moaning that the main tenant was making a profit. The way I looked at it I could swan in and out of shares with ease, but the main tenant had a lot of responsibility and organizing to do so I never begrudged them anything extra they might make, as long as I was paying what I thought was a fair rent for the room.

The new rules though are making even that type of casual arrangement dodgy ground. Things are just too complicated nowadays.

I was reading on another forum about companies in the UK that rent apartments from landlords on a year contract and then they airbnb them or rent them out to someone else themselves under a contract. So the landlord has nothing at all to do with any regulations. Dont know how that would work out here, but im sure if it was easy companies would already be popping up and advertising for properties that they want to lease from landlords who want to get out.
 
JamieB_ said:
The way I looked at it I could swan in and out of shares with ease, but the main tenant had a lot of responsibility and organizing to do so I never begrudged them anything extra they might make, as long as I was paying what I thought was a fair rent for the room.
Click to expand...

Ya. I have been in both positions. I didn’t charge extra it was generally friends of friends who moved in but in retrospect I should have as I was carrying the risk if someone was late paying me rent.

From a landlord’s perspective it’s probably more like a family renting who may move in or out adult family members. All they insisted on was the names of who is living there once decided.

I just struggle to understand who a landlord could choose who gets to live in “my” house. It’s seems like a huge invasion of my life. Although I can see some advantages too I suppose, basically less responsibility.

it all feeds into the casual nature of renting in Ireland I guess.
 
faketales said:
I just struggle to understand who a landlord could choose who gets to live in “my” house. It’s seems like a huge invasion of my life. Although I can see some advantages too I suppose, basically less responsibility.
Click to expand...

Ive seen this too, one house I was in where the original tenant didnt want to be responsible for the whole rent of the house while a couple we were sharing with moved out, so asked that we pay only 2/3 of the rent pay rent minus the room that was vacant while we got somebody in. That went on 2 months and the landlord said he was going to get someone himself at that point. We didnt get a choice then on who moved in with us and I ended up moving out as she just annoyed me too many times.
 
JamieB_ said:
Dont know how [sub-letting] that would work out here
Click to expand...

I think residential sub-letting is very unclear even under the current rules.

For example, let's say a landlord lets out a house and allows sub-letting.

The tenant sub-lets to another tenant.

If the original tenant is evicted, does that cancel all sub-lets. In principle, the tenant has a duty to allow their tenant to stay in the house, but doesn't have the right to do it.
 
JamieB_ said:
I know someone renting a 1 bed apartment to a couple. They split up and the remaining tenant is paying the full rent. Even if they move out he is going to have it on any new leases that only one person is on it and nobody else is to ever to be living there but that person. When that person moves out, tenancy is done. He doesnt really care it they move someone in but if he is told about them he will respond with a simple "That is not allowed under the lease". He will never acknowledge that he doesnt mind if they share with another person just so nobody else comes in and gets tenancy rights.
Click to expand...
Back in the old days you had a "lead tenant" whose name was on the lease and if their boyfriend or girlfriend moved in, or if there was a room to let, the lead tenant looked after that. Different landlords had different views but most places worked off the basis of a lead tenant scenario and they just paid the rent and looked after bills. Obviously laws have changed. It depends on what agreement you currently have on the lease.
 
Pmc365 said:
Should I get the tenants to sign a new lease. I think two tenants were there for many many years and signed the original lease about 7 years ago.
Click to expand...
It would not have validity. Their rights would be those given to them by the law that stands, and trying to overwrite that in a lease would probably not be valid, even if they did sign it unwittingly.
 
Without reading every post, I suspect that they see an opportunity of renting the room themselves at market price and thus decreasing their net rent.

If they are genuine, then create a side letter, signed by all, that the room cannot be let out for monetary gain in any circumstances without your permission.

It is possible that they want a room where visiting friends can stay and see a value in that.
 
Thanks very much for the suggestions.
As regards this property how could I regularise it.

The downstairs dining room is a 4th bedroom. There are two doors off it into dining room and kitchen respecively. I'm not sure if this breaches fire safety as no " protective corridor " off bedroom.
I was thinking of asking one to vacate this dining room and move to the vacant bedroom upstairs. And buying a dining table and chairs They won't like it as its a smaller room upstairs.

I was thinking of drafting a letter and getting them to sign it to state they have been advised that the dining room is no longer to be used as a bedroom based on fire safety and that there are to be no other tenants or Licencees taking occupation without my express approval in writing.

I think they are taking advantage of the fact I was so easygoing and have given it to them at a knock down rent - half market rent. I'm certain they will take somebody else in behind my back.


I'm going to send them a text to say I will be calling up . I rarely visit only to cut grass.
 
peemac said:
If they are genuine, then create a side letter, signed by all, that the room cannot be let out for monetary gain in any circumstances without your permission
Click to expand...
Is that not a sublet, and usually terms do not permit sublets.
(There is actually a massive problem with subletting here, but it tends to be disregarded by the media).
 
lff12 said:
(There is actually a massive problem with subletting here, but it tends to be disregarded by the media).
Click to expand...
You are 100% correct there. I had a bad experience with one, turned out my head tenant was living practically rent free in the property. We only found out by accident.

It is a very common problem. I've let on individual leases by bedroom since then to prevent it from happening.
 
Should I serve all occupants with a notice of termination as 1.the property is currently only achieving half of market rent and 2. I think the tenants are going to sublet a room behind my back as all of a sudden after all these years they dont want it rented out.
 
Pmc365 said:
Should I serve all occupants with a notice of termination as 1.the property is currently only achieving half of market rent and 2. I think the tenants are going to sublet a room behind my back as all of a sudden after all these years they dont want it rented out.
Click to expand...
@DannyBoyD is correct 4 pages back.

It is achieving half its rent and the tenancy situation is a mess.

You are better off out of this.
 
I think I will draft a notice of termination on the basis if one of the existing tenants sneak in a new tenant I may be unable to evict for 6 years. If this is the correct interpretation of the law it's grossly unfair. The Government have interfered with Constitutional property rights in my humble opinion. Although the "head" tenant is very cordial it annoys me that they are trying to pull a fast one by saying they want a room left vacant for the first time since taking occupation many years ago despite half market rent.
I have always been fully tax compliant as I have a fear of the Revenue but I never registered the tenancy with RTB. I wonder could I register it now as if new tenancy and once registered draft the notice of Termination in duplicate and serve on tenants and send a copy to the RTB?
I wonder if the notice of termination should be addressed to the original tenant on the written Lease or to all occupants. Each occupant pays me separately by bank transfer which might be construed as an implicit agreement of them as tenants.
 
Last edited:
Pmc365 said:
I think I will draft a notice of termination on the basis if one of the existing tenants sneak in a new tenant I may be unable to evict for 6 years. If this is the correct interpretation of the law its grossly unfair.
Click to expand...
The laws at this stage are grossly unfair to us, for example, it is a criminal offence for a landlord to make a mistake with a rent setting document but tenants can wilfully not pay rent and destroy a property and nothing happens.

It is only going to get worse.

You trying to stay on with an uneconomic rent and misbehaving tenants is a recipe for disaster. If you challenge them on this sub-letting, you'll be at fault. You are better off out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top