Eviction when housemate leaves?

Danimalito

My mate is sharing an 2-bedroom apartment with another fella. One of them is now moving out and has given one month's notice. The landlord now wants to evict my mate, presumably because he sees it as easier to find tenants for the entire apartment, rather than just advertising a room for rent.

Some background:

- no written contract exists

- they've been in the apartment for 9 months

- they've kept the apartment in good condition, always paid the rent on time, no loud parties etc. Basically model tenants.

- rent is paid separately to the landlord, so it's not a sublet

I've adviced my mate that I think he should contact threshold, but personally I don't see how a landlord can evict someone on these grounds. Just wondering if ye have any opinion on the legal aspects of this.

Cantab.

Danimalito wrote: »

My mate is sharing an 2-bedroom apartment with another fella. One of them is now moving out and has given one month's notice. The landlord now wants to evict my mate, presumably because he sees it as easier to find tenants for the entire apartment, rather than just advertising a room for rent.

Some background:

- no written contract exists

- they've been in the apartment for 9 months

- they've kept the apartment in good condition, always paid the rent on time, no loud parties etc. Basically model tenants.

- rent is paid separately to the landlord, so it's not a sublet

I've adviced my mate that I think he should contact threshold, but personally I don't see how a landlord can evict someone on these grounds. Just wondering if ye have any opinion on the legal aspects of this.

No contract implies statutory law AFAIC.

Tell your mate that if he's comfortable where he is, to stay put and tell the landlord outright that he's not leaving his home.

Your mate should tell the landlord he's ringing up PRTB and Threshold first thing in the morning to discuss the details of the tenancy agreement.

antoinolachtnai

Let's get this straight - your mate wants to just pay for and keep one room?

I'd imagine the apartment was originally rented as a single unit from what I am reading. It may not have been, but that's what it sounds like and that is what it is going to look like. The two tenants are on the one leasehold. They don't have two separate leaseholds.

If your mate wants to take on the entire apartment, he should be able to do this and the landlord can't evict him. In the meantime, he is responsible for the entire rent.

If he has evidence to show that he only rented one room, then he might have some case.

Ste.phen

AFAIK once he crosses the 6 month mark he's got a guaranteed run until he's been there 4 years
Check out http://www.prtb.ie/act.htm
A Quick Guide To The Residential Tenancies Act is a good place to start. Your friend has the benefit of what's called a 'part 4 tenancy'

Ste.phen

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Let's get this straight - your mate wants to just pay for and keep one room?

I got the impression that the place was rented as 2 rooms. Though if you're right it's gonna be some awful mess to work out...
I guess it depends on whether the OP thinks the PRTB would see it that way. If so, part 4 it is and he can stay put. If not, he really should be paying rent on the entire apartment and subletting the second room himself.

The_Conductor

A part 4 tenancy can only exist if the tenant enjoys full and exclusive access to the property in question. If the tenant in question is trying to argue that they are in fact not renting the whole apartment, simply a room in it- then tough- its not a Part 4 Tenancy. If they accept that they are renting the whole apartment- and pay the relevant rent without interruption - then the Part 4 Tenancy exists. The fact that the two friends were paying the rent seperately doesn't really enter the equation (unless they specifically have a seperate leases). You can argue it to your hearts content at the PRTB, and if necessary in court thereafter.

Danimalito

Ste.phen wrote: »

I got the impression that the place was rented as 2 rooms. Though if you're right it's gonna be some awful mess to work out...
I guess it depends on whether the OP thinks the PRTB would see it that way. If so, part 4 it is and he can stay put. If not, he really should be paying rent on the entire apartment and subletting the second room himself.

The apartment was let as two separate rooms, and they've been paying rent separately to the landlord, only sharing the household bills between themselves. Unfortunately there have never been any contracts drawn up to spell this out for any of the 2 tenants.

The_Conductor

Danimalito wrote: »

The apartment was let as two separate rooms, and they've been paying rent separately to the landlord, only sharing the household bills between themselves. Unfortunately there have never been any contracts drawn up to spell this out for any of the 2 tenants.

Was this the impression the two tenants had- or is the landlord agreeing that it was in fact two seperate lettings? That is the question. The fact that the rent was getting paid seperately is not entirely relevant- it might be used to argue the case, but isn't really decisive one way or the other.

It might be a lot more clearcut if the two tenants moved into the apartment at totally different stages- if they rented together from the outset- you may forget about it........

Danimalito

smccarrick wrote: »

Was this the impression the two tenants had- or is the landlord agreeing that it was in fact two seperate lettings? That is the question. The fact that the rent was getting paid seperately is not entirely relevant- it might be used to argue the case, but isn't really decisive one way or the other.

It might be a lot more clearcut if the two tenants moved into the apartment at totally different stages- if they rented together from the outset- you may forget about it........

Thanks all for the advice, but apologies - it's a bit of an academic question now anyways, the legal situation seems slightly complex here in regards to house sharing,hence he has started looking for a new place.