Tenant having boyfriend to stay

Sea Filly

shoes34 wrote: »

I don't want to be horrible and say I don't want him there every weekend as this is the only time I have in my own home and I don't want to be uncomfortable and feel like I am playing gooseberry in my own home. But at the same time I don't want him there every weekend, I don't mind if its like once a month - does this sound terribly unfair

In a word, yes it's unfair, two weekends per month is not excessive. Just because it's your home, doesn't mean she's not allowed to have a life. Think about it, if ye were both renters, you wouldn't have any right to say anything, so why would you in your situation? I would be really pissed off in her shoes if told I couldn't have my boyfriend to stay every other weekend. Once a month is not enough, IMO.

Sea Filly

mewriti exam wrote: »

Are they renting a room, or paying to share a house? i.e Do they have use of the kitchen, living room etc or is their agreement based on some sort of reduced rent to limit their access? When you decided to have them pay part of the mortgage, you lost the right to call it "your house" for the duration of their tenancy. I'm sorry that this isn't how you want it to be, but at least you get to keep the house afterwards - they get nothing but a rent book showing them how much of your mortgage they paid.

Yup, this. It's not just your home, it's theirs too while they pay rent.

Stuff like this is why I would never rent in an owner-occupied place again, it never feels even or homely. Your landlord wants/needs your money but doesn't want you to encroach. Tough titties, IMO.

Sea Filly

cant log in right now wrote: »

Actually they don't get a rent book if the OP doesn't want to give them one. They are a licensee or lodger and not a tenant. They are not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and as such have few rights.




They don't have rights. They have no contract with the OP as they are not a tenant, they are renting under the rent a room scheme and are not protected by the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. The OP can ask them to leave at any time and does not need to give them any reason nor any notice. I'm not saying the OP should do this but just pointing out that it's misinformation to claim the lodger has rights that they don't have. OP go check the citizens information page on the rent a room scheme. As you can't go via the PRTB as your not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 they rec you should try discussing the situation with them and attempt to resolve any issues between you. If you can't then you have to make the choice of either living with it or asking her to leave.

They have the right to find alternative accommodation.

Sea Filly

djimi wrote: »

Whether or not the place is registered with the PRTB does not change the fact that a licensee has very few rights and can be asked to leave without reason.

Or the fact that a tenant can leave at short notice if they dislike strict controls being put on their life. And it would harder to find a new tenant in an owner-occupied place.

riclad

If a young woman wants her boyfriend to stay 2days every week,
should should get a small flat,theres flats of various different sizes avaidable.if you are staying in a house ,with a landlord, ,theres compromises to be made,
you have no legal right to have people staying overnight ,You want more privacy,freedom, get a flat.
if a landlord wants 3 people staying in a house,he,ll advertise for 3tenants and at least get paid fairly for the inconvenience .
if i go to a cafe ,and buy a cup of coffee ,that doesnt mean i have the right to watch some horror film on a 17inch laptop ,there for the next 3 hours ,while eating 3 large sandwitches i made at home earlier.
And the landlord should say something if a tenant is bringing in too many people ,making too much noise,disturbing the neighbours,
whens shes,s away.
ITS not strict control to say ,you can have your bf staying here ,
3days ,per month.

Idbatterim

Op I totally see where you are coming from, most couples are a complete pain in the ass to be around often and in small spaces. I take it you rent the rooms out of necessity?

djimi

Sea Filly wrote: »

In a word, yes it's unfair, two weekends per month is not excessive. Just because it's your home, doesn't mean she's not allowed to have a life. Think about it, if ye were both renters, you wouldn't have any right to say anything, so why would you in your situation? I would be really pissed off in her shoes if told I couldn't have my boyfriend to stay every other weekend. Once a month is not enough, IMO.

But theyre not both renters. The OP is the owner of the house; this girl is only a licensee in the house. If the OP wanted to let her have her bf over every week or every other night or whatever then more power to them, and you might think its unfair if they dont, but the bottom line is that in this arrangement the owner/landlord sets the rules and the licensee either abides by them or finds somewhere else to live. Thems the laws of renting a room from an owner-occupier, and anyone who doesnt like them is free to rent their own apartment where they can get up to whatever they like, with whoever they like, and whenever they feel like it!

Sea Filly wrote: »

Or the fact that a tenant can leave at short notice if they dislike strict controls being put on their life. And it would harder to find a new tenant in an owner-occupied place.

Of course they can, and thats the other side of being a licensee in this situation. There are plenty of people who are looking to rent rooms, and the majority of them are quite happy to live by the rules. Just because this girl has the right to leave whenever she wants doesnt mean that the OP can let her do whatever she wants because of it.

OldNotWIse

If they are staying in her room that she is paying you for then I dont see the problem. It can cause a lot of bad feeling if you start laying down the law about who can and cannot stay, like living with parents again. This happened to me where my girlfriends flatmate actually banned me from the apartment, and I winded up creeping around like some piece of dirt, and being unable to go to the bathroom etc if I stayed with her after a night out. If they are keeping to themselves I would leave it be. of course if they are sitting up in your face every evening then that is not on.

odds_on

OldNotWIse wrote: »

If they are staying in her room that she is paying you for then I dont see the problem. It can cause a lot of bad feeling if you start laying down the law about who can and cannot stay, like living with parents again. This happened to me where my girlfriends flatmate actually banned me from the apartment, and I winded up creeping around like some piece of dirt, and being unable to go to the bathroom etc if I stayed with her after a night out. If they are keeping to themselves I would leave it be. of course if they are sitting up in your face every evening then that is not on.

The room is being rented to the licensee/lodger, one person. By having her b/f stay overnight she is not abiding by the rules. If she wants her b/f to stay let her find somewhere that allows that - a tenancy of some kind and all the consequences, responsibilities etc that go with a tenancy.

djimi

The OPs lodger should count herself lucky; I used to go out with a girls whos landlord (in an owner-occupier house) tried to charge me €50 a night to stay there...! He was quickly told where to go with himself!

riclad

its better to state from the start rule, re people staying over ,Before tenant moves in.
IF she wants to spend every weekend with boyfriend,she should find a new flat.

OldNotWIse

odds_on wrote: »

The room is being rented to the licensee/lodger, one person. By having her b/f stay overnight she is not abiding by the rules. If she wants her b/f to stay let her find somewhere that allows that - a tenancy of some kind and all the consequences, responsibilities etc that go with a tenancy.

I'm aware of that. But I think most landlords would be reasonable provided the tenant is not taking the proverbial. Maybe not.

If I want to be told I cannot bring anyone into my room I can live with mammy and at least get a free dinner every night and a lift to the bus in the morning haha (actually my mother doesnt mind me bringing my gf home, they even changed my single for a double when we'd been going out for a while - solely for sleeping puposes of course!)

Bluefoam

cant log in right now wrote: »

Actually they don't get a rent book if the OP doesn't want to give them one. They are a licensee or lodger and not a tenant. They are not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and as such have few rights.




They don't have rights. They have no contract with the OP as they are not a tenant, they are renting under the rent a room scheme and are not protected by the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. The OP can ask them to leave at any time and does not need to give them any reason nor any notice. I'm not saying the OP should do this but just pointing out that it's misinformation to claim the lodger has rights that they don't have. OP go check the citizens information page on the rent a room scheme. As you can't go via the PRTB as your not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 they rec you should try discussing the situation with them and attempt to resolve any issues between you. If you can't then you have to make the choice of either living with it or asking her to leave.

The rent a room scheme only applies to renting out one room. In this scebario the owner is a Landlord and needs to pay tax on the rental income.

+ if you are renting facilities to anyone, you need to be respectful of them. The OP sounds very selfish in this instance.

Sea Filly

djimi wrote: »

But theyre not both renters. The OP is the owner of the house; this girl is only a licensee in the house. If the OP wanted to let her have her bf over every week or every other night or whatever then more power to them, and you might think its unfair if they dont, but the bottom line is that in this arrangement the owner/landlord sets the rules and the licensee either abides by them or finds somewhere else to live. Thems the laws of renting a room from an owner-occupier, and anyone who doesnt like them is free to rent their own apartment where they can get up to whatever they like, with whoever they like, and whenever they feel like it!

Yes, I know, the law has been mentioned many times in this thread, but IMO, the tenant DOES have a bit of power here too, as if she leaves, it might take a while for the room to be filled. Btw, a lot of people can't afford to rent an apartment alone. But many people, me included, avoid owner-occupied places like the plague as it's never feels like you are on even footing. The choices aren't just live in an owner-occupied place or rent by yourself, you know!

djimi wrote: »

Of course they can, and thats the other side of being a licensee in this situation. There are plenty of people who are looking to rent rooms, and the majority of them are quite happy to live by the rules. Just because this girl has the right to leave whenever she wants doesnt mean that the OP can let her do whatever she wants because of it.

Living in an owner-occupied place is a much less desirable prospect for renters than living in a house-share where everyone is on equal footing. So, IMO, there is a certain power in that that should ensure the lodger is treated like an adult, as MANY new tenants would be equally unimpressed by such restrictive rules.

shoes34

I understand lots of people have issues living with owner occupiers - but in all honesty I have never made her feel like the place isn't her own. I just feel that having him there every Friday till Monday is getting a bit much for me. I have lived with other people when I've been dating and I wouldn't have them there every weekend out of consideration for others.

She also knew me when she moved in, she works with a friend of mine and I wasn't looking for someone to move in was quite happy with the one tenant but she wanted to move out of the place she was living in becuase the person she was living with had a dog and asked my friend to ask me would I rent out the room to her and because I can be a push over I didn't want to see her living somewhere she wasn't happy.

Its not in Dublin and the town we live in there wouldn't be lots of rental accomodation on the market she's have to travel about 30 minutes whereas she only has less than 1 minute from my house to her work place at the moment.

helen1

Bluefoam wrote: »

The rent a room scheme only applies to renting out one room. In this scebario the owner is a Landlord and needs to pay tax on the rental income.

+ if you are renting facilities to anyone, you need to be respectful of them. The OP sounds very selfish in this instance.

They only have to pay tax if the rent exceeds €10,000, you can rent as many rooms as long as you dont go over this.

djimi

Sea Filly wrote: »

Yes, I know, the law has been mentioned many times in this thread, but IMO, the tenant DOES have a bit of power here too, as if she leaves, it might take a while for the room to be filled. Btw, a lot of people can't afford to rent an apartment alone. But many people, me included, avoid owner-occupied places like the plague as it's never feels like you are on even footing. The choices aren't just live in an owner-occupied place or rent by yourself, you know!

Living in an owner-occupied place is a much less desirable prospect for renters than living in a house-share where everyone is on equal footing. So, IMO, there is a certain power in that that should ensure the lodger is treated like an adult, as MANY new tenants would be equally unimpressed by such restrictive rules.

Its up to the owner to decide how much they are prepared to put up with in return for having the room filled. I dont think a lodger has much power tbh; obviously depends on the area but if the room is priced right then I dont see it sitting empty for long periods. In this case the OP has obviously decided that the lodgers behaviour is unacceptable to them, therefore they hold the cards as to how they want to handle it. The lodger has no power in this case; if the OP wants them out then they will be leaving.

Sea Filly

djimi wrote: »

Its up to the owner to decide how much they are prepared to put up with in return for having the room filled. I dont think a lodger has much power tbh; obviously depends on the area but if the room is priced right then I dont see it sitting empty for long periods. In this case the OP has obviously decided that the lodgers behaviour is unacceptable to them, therefore they hold the cards as to how they want to handle it. The lodger has no power in this case; if the OP wants them out then they will be leaving.

Seriously, you keep repeating yourself! I KNOW a lodger lacks legal rights, but on a human level, most people would object to not being allowed have their boyfriend over every other weekend. One weekend a month is completely taking the piss. Yeah, it depends on the area but non owner-occupied places will still fill faster. I know personally I would never again go for a room in an owner-occupied place no matter where the area, and I know plenty of others like that too.

The OP has said she doesn't really need a second lodger, so that's grand, she can ask her to leave without much worry, but as for in general "holding the cards"? Not really, the landlord will often lose out too.

P. Breathnach

Sea Filly wrote: »

Seriously, you keep repeating yourself!...

No sense of irony, then?

djimi

Sea Filly wrote: »

Seriously, you keep repeating yourself! I KNOW a lodger lacks legal rights, but on a human level, most people would object to not being allowed have their boyfriend over every other weekend. One weekend a month is completely taking the piss. Yeah, it depends on the area but non owner-occupied places will still fill faster. I know personally I would never again go for a room in an owner-occupied place no matter where the area, and I know plenty of others like that too.

The OP has said she doesn't really need a second lodger, so that's grand, she can ask her to leave without much worry, but as for in general "holding the cards"? Not really, the landlord will often lose out too.

Im repeating myself because you seem to be basing you point on a "human level" rather than on from a legal standpoint. All the OP needs to know in this case is that if they are not happy with the tenants behaviour then they are free to ask them to leave, and that seeing as how it is their house they are free to set the rules and expect their tenant to live by them. In that regard what they "should" be going from a fairness/human point of view is irrelevant; its up to them to decide if they can afford to be stricter with the rules even if it means they risk a high turnover of tenant and possible periods of the room being empty. All the OP needs to know is where they stand legally; they can make up their own mind after that as to how they "should" be treating their tenants.

christmas2012

as long as they are not getting in the way in communal areas i dont see what the problem is really

djimi

christmas2012 wrote: »

as long as they are not getting in the way in communal areas i dont see what the problem is really

It seems to me that the issue of her having loads of friends around when the OP is not there is what is bothering the OP more than the boyfriend staying over. Although they have a right to monitor that also. I dont see the problem with allowing the boyfriend to stay over even one night a weekend or whatever, but if its not monitored properly then one night becomes every other night very quickly (I know guys who all but move in with their girlfriends when they move into their own place), and you end up with two lodgers paying the rent/bills of one person. Personally I would agree that its best to air on the side of lenience as at the end of the day everyone has to live there together and leniency makes for a more relaxed living environment, but bottom line is that its the OPs house so its their rules and all that.

dillo2k10

I would wait until you are ready for her to leave before I told her if I were you.

I personally would not even give you 30 days notice before I left. I would move out as soon as possible without even telling you until I'm walking out the door.

Sea Filly

djimi wrote: »

Im repeating myself because you seem to be basing you point on a "human level" rather than on from a legal standpoint. All the OP needs to know in this case is that if they are not happy with the tenants behaviour then they are free to ask them to leave, and that seeing as how it is their house they are free to set the rules and expect their tenant to live by them. In that regard what they "should" be going from a fairness/human point of view is irrelevant; its up to them to decide if they can afford to be stricter with the rules even if it means they risk a high turnover of tenant and possible periods of the room being empty. All the OP needs to know is where they stand legally; they can make up their own mind after that as to how they "should" be treating their tenants.

Just pointing that the landlord's legal rights aren't necessarily the boon they seem.

I love the notion that someone should exploit their rights to the full, forgetting about human decency in the process. But whatever floats your boat!

shoes34

dillo2k10 wrote: »

I personally would not even give you 30 days notice before I left. I would move out as soon as possible without even telling you until I'm walking out the door.

I have never done or said anything to her I was just looking for advice on here. So if she did what you say you would do wouldn't I be entitled to keep her deposit.

OldNotWIse

shoes34 wrote: »

I have never done or said anything to her I was just looking for advice on here. So if she did what you say you would do wouldn't I be entitled to keep her deposit.

I'd withhold a months rent (would take a lot longer than that to get someone evicted) and then tell you to keep the deposit in lieu lol

djimi

shoes34 wrote: »

I have never done or said anything to her I was just looking for advice on here. So if she did what you say you would do wouldn't I be entitled to keep her deposit.

I dont think so.

djimi

Sea Filly wrote: »

Just pointing that the landlord's legal rights aren't necessarily the boon they seem.

I love the notion that someone should exploit their rights to the full, forgetting about human decency in the process. But whatever floats your boat!

Nowhere did I say she should exploit anything. All Im saying is that she is within her rights to set the rules she wants her tenants to live by. Im not offering the OP advice one way or another as to how they should handle their tenants; what rules they set are their own business.

iguana

shoes34 wrote: »

I have never done or said anything to her I was just looking for advice on here. So if she did what you say you would do wouldn't I be entitled to keep her deposit.

No absolutely not! Just as you have the right to lay down whatever rules you like and evict her at a moments notice, she has the exact same right to leave the instant she chooses. If she does this she is acting within her rights and as such you have no right whatsoever to hold onto her deposit for that reason.

That is why, despite your legal rights, it's not realistic for you to decide to exercise them however you want. Nobody is going to keep paying rent for a home where they have the same/less freedoms than a teenager living with their parents. You can say you don't want her having friends over and her boyfriend is restricted to one weekend a month and she can say stuff that she's off, and you will have to give her the deposit back unless she has caused damage.

If your neighbours have made complaints about what is happening while you are gone I would talk to her about that. I'd also tell her how unhappy you are about the open door situation. But it all depends on how much you are willing to put up with versus how much you rely on her rent and how easy you will find it to get a new tenant who will live by the rules that you want in place.

shoes34

iguana wrote: »

No absolutely not! Just as you have the right to lay down whatever rules you like and evict her at a moments notice, she has the exact same right to leave the instant she chooses. If she does this she is acting within her rights and as such you have no right whatsoever to hold onto her deposit for that reason.

That is why, despite your legal rights, it's not realistic for you to decide to exercise them however you want. Nobody is going to keep paying rent for a home where they have the same/less freedoms than a teenager living with their parents. You can say you don't want her having friends over and her boyfriend is restricted to one weekend a month and she can say stuff that she's off, and you will have to give her the deposit back unless she has caused damage.

If your neighbours have made complaints about what is happening while you are gone I would talk to her about that. I'd also tell her how unhappy you are about the open door situation. But it all depends on how much you are willing to put up with versus how much you rely on her rent and how easy you will find it to get a new tenant who will live by the rules that you want in place.

I actually don't have a deposit for her - I was just querying would you be able to keep it if there was one.

Also I wouldn't be looking for a new tenant as she is only there because of a mutual friend.