Housemate won't move out!

antoinolachtnai

This has been discussed before, but I cannot see how someone could become a tenant without the consent of the other parties to the lease (i.e., the other tenants).

The landlord would not necessarily need to accept a tenant who didn't have a job.

If there is a dispute between tenants (which is what this would be if the person happened to be a tenant), I can't see how the PRTB could become involved in it.

Where there are a number of people under the same tenancy, the tenants are jointly liable to the landlord for the rent, i.e., if one party doesn't pay or can't pay, the other tenants have to pay that share. The same obviously applies if you bring in a licensee.

marinchik

Hi all, thanks for replies, sorry if that was discussed before and I'm bringing it back up again, but I just desperate to solve it the proper way and try not get anyone hurt. From what I read I decided to contact PRTB myself to see if they can get involved and what will be the situation I also have emailed my agency again to help us resolve this situation. I don't want to just bag his belongings and trow outside, that would be a bit cruel even though he wan't nice to us one bit either

pirelli

Chinafoot wrote: »

You would assume incorrectly. He is a licensee. The agency told the tenants that they were responsible for the person moving in, ie his name is not on any lease and there is no written agreement. Had you actually read the OP's replies you would know that.

I assume nothing. Social welfare recipient's require landlord approval. I did read the OP, more carefully than you did. The agency were reticent to give this approval, however Marinchick convinced them to give approval. That approval was a technically a tenancy.

If not then they are not tenant's and are licencee's to the agency or most likely the agency has them sign a lease and the landlord rubber stamps the lease.This is the part where the agency had doubts i,e putting him on the lease. He would and should automatically become a tenant after 6 mths.

antoinolachtnai

How was it technically a tenancy? It was just the landlord or agent saying it was ok for the tenant to take in a licensee. Depends on the language used in the letter, but i'd be surprised.

The other parties to the tenancy agreement (i.e., the OP) would have to agree to him becoming a tenant. Additionally, the landlord now has cause to refuse to have him as a tenant.

pirelli

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

How was it technically a tenancy? It was just the landlord or agent saying it was ok for the tenant to take in a licensee. Depends on the language used in the letter, but i'd be surprised.

The other parties to the tenancy agreement (i.e., the OP) would have to agree to him becoming a tenant. Additionally, the landlord now has cause to refuse to have him as a tenant.

Technically it was a rubber stamp tenancy. Perhaps he can now be refused tenancy although marinchik hasn't told us how long our friend has been a tenant or licencee so it could be a part IV agreement.

Zambia

Hmm

If he does not want to move out I don't see how you can make him.

Best advice i can give for removing a tenant like this is find something he hates and make it a feature of the house.

If he sleeps in lete thats when you play loud music

If he cooks at two in the morning its probably because he want's some alone time. See if there is a way to spoil that.

All the lawyers, agencys and PRTB in the world wont physically move him as far as i can see. You have to find a way to make him leave and think its his idea.

If the guy is irish refuse to speak engilsh around him if the other HM is latvian. oh and laugh a lot if he asks what you are laughing at say oh nothing and do something else.

Basically you have to freeze him out.

antoinolachtnai

pirelli wrote: »

Technically it was a rubber stamp tenancy. Perhaps he can now be refused tenancy although marinchik hasn't told us how long our friend has been a tenant or licencee so it could be a part IV agreement.

What is a rubber stamp tenancy? You are saying that a tenancy was implied.

This might hold water if the property were vacant when he went in there, or if the OP had never had a written lease agreement in respect of the property. But the OP and his friend already had an exclusive tenancy in relation to the property and that was (presumably) in writing. They had the exclusive right to be there. Their lease could only be varied in writing, but this apparently didn't happen. So it is unlikely he could be considered a tenant.

marinchik

Hi all,

I've spoken to the man last night again, at first he said he won't move, not a chance of it.. but after a long.. looong conversation he agreed to move. Yay!!! Then he said the main reason he didn't want to move that its hard for someone on social welfare allowance find landlord who will agree to take him in and sign papers to let SW to pay for the rent! Said that he understands we are different and its hard for us to live with him and that we need to look for someone as us.
Sooo delighted he'll be moving in a month, we said we will help him to look for a place too and if it might take more than a month will extend it to 2 month and all the deposit will be returned to him immediately.

Thanks all:)

pirelli

I love a happy ending.

blah

pirelli wrote: »

I love a happy ending.

I can't wait for the movie