Does a tenant have the right to let a friend stay over?

DaisyD2

I am surprised in 4pages nobody has mentioned your cousin is perfectly within her rights to have someone housesit whilst away.

The only reason in this case the landlord has been made aware of you is because his son stuck his nose in. For all he knows you are there to feed the cat or the budgy but unless its a house share rather than house flats basically its none of his business.

Your cousins holiday is now ruined & your relationship fraught because of his interference and I think you should both be prepared for fallout on her return. Personally if I were your cousin I would be straight on to PRTB & Threshold on my return but I suspect she won't & will still end up being kicked out.

Grandpa Hassan

DaisyD2 wrote: »

I am surprised in 4pages nobody has mentioned your cousin is perfectly within her rights to have someone housesit whilst away.

For a few days, a fortnight holiday, all the parties would likely be pragmatic and leave it well alone. The LL would probably appreciate someone looking after the place. What about for a month? Or if the tenant on the lease goes backpacking for 6 months? Another person can't just move in without getting the LL's permission, in this case, the LL doesn't know what is going on. You aren't allowed to sublet, and to the LL that might appear to be a sublet.

I don't deny that the LL and his agent has acted petulantly, but a bit of communication goes a long way. Tenants often forget that

Grolschevik

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

in this case, the LL doesn't know what is going on.

In this case the landlord's son was told very clearly what was going on, albeit not in advance and not by the tenant herself.

DaisyD2

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

For a few days, a fortnight holiday, all the parties would likely be pragmatic and leave it well alone. The LL would probably appreciate someone looking after the place. What about for a month? Or if the tenant on the lease goes backpacking for 6 months? Another person can't just move in without getting the LL's permission, in this case, the LL doesn't know what is going on. You aren't allowed to sublet, and to the LL that might appear to be a sublet.

I don't deny that the LL and his agent has acted petulantly, but a bit of communication goes a long way. Tenants often forget that

We're talking 3nights here.....


If it was for any longer than a week I would have myself when renting informed (not asked permission of) my landlord that somebody was staying, for security/peace of mind etc, whilst I was away however given the short timeframe here it wouldn't of dawned on me to.

The landlord is clearly out of bounds

drumswan

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I don't deny that the LL and his agent has acted petulantly, but a bit of communication goes a long way. Tenants often forget that

There is zero obligation for a tenant to notify a landlord of someone house-sitting for a couple of days. None.

EMTFlynn

Has the land lords son got a girlfriend? Any chance he fancies your cousin and isn't too happy to see a male in her apartment, maybe he doesn't believe you are her cousin!

He sounds like a Norman Bates to me and i would advise her to move out of there! :eek:

syklops

EMTFlynn wrote: »

Has the land lords son got a girlfriend? Any chance he fancies your cousin and isn't too happy to see a male in her apartment, maybe he doesn't believe you are her cousin!

He sounds like a Norman Bates to me and i would advise her to move out of there! :eek:

The OP is a very lovely female.

Merch

drumswan wrote: »

You suspect it do you? When someone rents a property it becomes their home and they are entitled to have guests, regardless to whether they are there or not, the same as any other home. End of story.

This notion that a rental agreement is like appointing your landlord as your new Mammy or Daddy that seems to go on in Ireland is amusing. It must be because actual tenancy rights are a relatively new phenomenon here.

I dont have time to peruse the act but it would be a common sense to inform them they would be away and a common courtesy to let them know they intended someone to house sit, the tenants failure to do this
may have led the landlord to believe this was going on for much longer.

It seems to me to be a common thing where people rent (or own) a property and believe they can then do what they want.

drumswan wrote: »

There is zero obligation for a tenant to notify a landlord of someone house-sitting for a couple of days. None.

How do we know the landlord knows how long this is going on? the OP stated that they had previous issues with subletters unpermitted, so it must have been mentioned to the tenant, in that case to allay an concerns, it would have been a good idea to say it to the Landlord as a courtesy.

drumswan

Merch wrote: »

How do we know the landlord knows how long this is going on? the OP stated that they had previous issues with subletters unpermitted, so it must have been mentioned to the tenant, in that case to allay an concerns, it would have been a good idea to say it to the Landlord as a courtesy.

Previous tenancies are not relevant. Its none of the landlords business if someone housesits for the tenant.

It seems to me to be a common thing where people rent (or own) a property and believe they can then do what they want.

There are a list of obligations for tenants in the RTA, outside that and any other agreed clauses in a lease, they CAN do what they want. You seem to think that a tenant is somehow answerable to landlord for their personal business just because a business contract exists betweeen them.

Whats next, begging permission from Vodafone to let someone borrow your phone?

Merch

drumswan wrote: »

Previous tenancies are not relevant. Its none of the landlords business if someone housesits for the tenant.


There are a list of obligations for tenants in the RTA, outside that and any other agreed clauses in a lease, they CAN do what they want. You seem to think that a tenant is somehow answerable to landlord for their personal business just because a business contract exists betweeen them.

I disagree, the tenant is not present, how does the visitor gain access?
The landlord has made an agreement with the tenant about having the use of the property, not someone else.

Have you got something to back that up or do you just shove your opinion down peoples throats?

There are a list of obligations for tenants and landlords, assigning or subletting is not allowed unless agreed to by the landlord, for all the landlord or we know this has been going on more than 3 days, hence the sense in letting them know someone will be around if the tenant is not present, otherwise it begins to look suspect.

If the tenant isnt away, then its very easy to say, he/she just went out to the shops or wherever they are,
otherwise it could look suspiciously like someone is subletting.

If the tenant let the landlord know they were away they could if possible keep an eye open , but if they are aware someone is there, they know there are no concerns.
That small bit of communication is courtesy, not doing so makes it look suspicious when caught out.

Gormal

Op Sounds to me like crossed wires.

Firstly your cousin should have (although not necessarily) informed (not asked)the landlord that she was going to have some one house sit (look after the place)while she was away. Just out of common courtesy.

Next when you met the landlords son, you should've said that you were just looking after the place while your cousin was away. I suspect since you said you were "staying" there, he took this to mean living there and this is where the whole thing stems from...... and blown out of proportion. Of course the LL son was out of order in the way he behaved. I doubt ignoring him helped, but I can understand why you did.

your cousin sounds like she needs to learn to stand her ground where her rights are concerned. But I'm sure if she just explains the situation (not mentioning the guards at all) that you were house sitting while she was away to ensure that not damage came to the property or her possessions etc. It could defuse the whole situation and all will be well again (unless the LL is totally unreasonable). Apart from the falling out you two had, I doubt you'll do it again for her.

Grandpa Hassan

drumswan wrote: »

There is zero obligation for a tenant to notify a landlord of someone house-sitting for a couple of days. None.

No, a couple of days should have been fine. But it might have avoided the misunderstanding and made everyone's life easier. And the parties to this little saga wouldnt be where they are now.

As a general point, I am a LL, having had to move with my work, and I would be concerned if I the tenant was away on holiday, someone else was staying, and I didn't know. I'd assume there was sub letting going on.

Even if you arent obligated to, a little communication can make the LL/tenant relationship better

djimi

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

No, a couple of days should have been fine. But it might have avoided the misunderstanding and made everyone's life easier. And the parties to this little saga wouldnt be where they are now.

As a general point, I am a LL, having had to move with my work, and I would be concerned if I the tenant was away on holiday, someone else was staying, and I didn't know. I'd assume there was sub letting going on.

Even if you arent obligated to, a little communication can make the LL/tenant relationship better

This is basically how I see it. Not seek permission, but simply inform of the arrangement. Ordinarily I wouldnt bother (as the landlord almost certainly wouldnt know either way), but in this case the landlords agent is living next door, so there was always a danger of this mixup occuring. A knock on the next door and a two minute conversation to inform of the arrangement (Hi, dont be surprised if you see x in my apartment over the next couple of days, she is looking after the place while Im away for the week) and none of this would have occured. As I said, prevention is better than cure.

drumswan

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

No, a couple of days should have been fine. But it might have avoided the misunderstanding and made everyone's life easier. And the parties to this little saga wouldnt be where they are now.

As a general point, I am a LL, having had to move with my work, and I would be concerned if I the tenant was away on holiday, someone else was staying, and I didn't know. I'd assume there was sub letting going on.

Even if you arent obligated to, a little communication can make the LL/tenant relationship better

Seems fair enough in the case where the landlord would be so local.

starling

RachWatch wrote: »

Did you think about giving Threshold a quick call? They give advice to tenants. The landlord's son/agent is acting completely over the top. I'm a landlord myself and tenants are indeed entitled to "quiet enjoyment" - ok yes if I saw a stranger in my apartment and there was no sign of the tenant I'd be a bit concerned - but I'd either pick up the phone to the tenant and ask what was going on or ask (not yell at) the 'stranger'. If this situation was explained to me I'd have no problem whatsoever with a friend staying over for a few days. Especially as you explained right up front what you were doing there and why...

Thanks, it's good to have a (sane) landlord's take on the situation! I had originally planned on ringing Threshold this morning, but by the time I woke up (I sleep a lot cause of reasons) there didn't seem to be much point, since the LL had already called my cousin and she wanted me to go. I don't think she actually cares if he's legally wrong because she really wants to stay there so she's more concerned with keeping him happy. (Personally I would have told him to f off but it's her call)

RachWatch wrote: »

The main thing is - don't let get this in the way of your undouted friendship with your cousin! Don't let him do that to either of you!!

Thankyou, you're right, that is the important thing. I don't think this will cause any serious trouble between us - or at least I hope not. She was snippy on the phone with me, but I think it's just because she was stressed, which I can understand. I'm hoping that after she's calmed down a bit she'll realise that it isn't my fault and that I did what I could to avoid making things any worse..

starling

Emme wrote: »

OP, the landlord's son is out of order. It's up to your cousin to contact PRTB and/or Threshold but she seems like a quiet unconfrontational sort. Perhaps that's why the landlord rented the apartment to her in the first place.

Just from my own impression I think he probably saw her as someone unthreatening and possibly inexperienced, and knew he could get away with a bit more if he rented to her. I mean I know bullies tend to be very astute when it comes to picking victims who they can push around. And although my cousin has lived abroad for years, this is her first time renting in Ireland so she's relatively inexperienced and doesn't know as much about the legalities as she should. It wouldn't surprise me if he picked up on that from talking to her while she viewed the place. It doesn't help that she was so desperate for a place of her own that she went into it thinking "How can I make sure he will rent this place to me" rather than "Is this flat acceptable to me and does he seem like a fair landlord?" but I guess she just needs to learn these things in her own time.

Emme wrote: »

However, I don't think she should let it go. The more idiots like that are allowed to bully tenants the worse they will get. Years ago people fought and died in this country so tenants could have rights. Some tenants would go to the PRTB for a lot less. If your cousin is in a Part 4 tenancy there is very little the landlord can do.

I agree 100% the number of asshat landlords I and my friends have rented from over the years is ridiculous; one of my mates said his landlord used to come in and poke around when they weren't there on a regular basis, and didn't even pretend otherwise. He'd meet them on the stairs and say "That cheese in the fridge is gone off" I swear to god. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit if my cousins LL took other liberties with her rights, nor would I be surprised if the son just decided one day to drop his "nice guy" act over something trivial. It's another reason I would've told him to f off - to insist on my legal right to have a guest not just for the sake of it, but to stop him from thinking he could mess me around about anything else. But meh, she's got to handle it in her own way, I'm not going to start telling her what to do. I'm sure the LL knows some tenants would go to the PRTB for a lot less, he's been renting a long time and she has to be on the less troublesome end of the scale. Unfortunately she's not there that long and it's a weekly tenancy so she doesn't have quite as much protection; she feels if he wants her out he can find a way to do it without too much trouble and she's very afraid of it getting to that stage anyway.

Emme wrote: »

I wonder if the little scumbag wants to get rid of your cousin so he can let the apartment to one of his mates.

Hehe no, She hasn't been there all that long, a couple of months, so if one of his mates wanted a place I'm sure he would have just got his dad to rent it to them in the first place.

starling

MIRMIR82 wrote: »

starling, just leave when you can and forget about it, its your cousins problem now, it doesnt sound like she has any b@lls at all!!!

To be fair she is very brave in other areas of life and she's done things that would scare the pants off me, but she has social anxiety and really really hates confrontation even when it's something trivial or she's never going to see the person again. She's very intelligent and has been seeing a counsellor and working on this issue, she has made a lot of progress but in this case the stakes are pretty high for her because she spent a lot of time looking for an affordable flat that wasn't a complete sh1thole.
It can be very hard to find a decent flat especially in the lower end of the market; she's on the dole because she just finished a college course and hasn't found a job yet, which limits her even more. Aside from the money issue a lot of landlords won't even rent to someone who isn't in full time work. So she feels it's worth putting up with a lot to avoid having to start looking for a flat all over again, and I can understand where she's coming from.

starling

Merch wrote: »

Well, given the previous history the OP mentioned regarding the property
I think it would have made sense to inform the landlord. That may have prevented this, they may be up in arms as they are unaware and suddenly see or hear (if its right beside?) someone at the property when they know the Tenant is not around.

That's not what happened here though, I told the guy who I was and what I was doing, and he accepted it as the truth - he never suggested that he thought I was subletting, or doing anything shady. His problem was that she didn't ask his permission because he thinks he has the right to say yes or no to her having someone stay overnight.

Merch wrote: »

The RTA says a person can have guests and Im not going to look at it in detail to see what it says, I dont have the time.
But I suspect the meaning of that is have guests to stay when you are present, not allow people to stay when you are not present, but more so if the tenant is specifically gone on holiday/away. In that circumstance the tenant would have to give a key/s to some other person, that the landlord has not entered into an agreement to allow access the property.

The tenant is allowed to have someone look after their flat while they are away, the RTA only prohibits subletting. I quoted the relevant clause earlier in the thread. They are also legally allowed to give copies of their keys to other people (unless specifically prohibited in the lease) It's generally regarded as good sense to make sure a person you trust has a key to your home for various reasons eg. you lock yourself out. Incidentally when I had the accident that ended up rendering me disabled, I was alone in my flat, and one of the reasons I didn't call an ambulance was the fact that they would have had to break down the door and I didn't want to cause trouble. There were other reasons too but my point is if you have an accident or medical emergency while you are in your flat it helps if someone can let the paramedics in. If time is a factor it becomes even more important.

Merch wrote: »

Lets just say if I was renting with someone else (as I have done in the past), (I know its seems the tenant in this case rents on their own) Id be a bit suprised if a fellow tenant went on a holiday and allowed someone to stay in their absence, especially if they never told me about it and the first I know of it is bumping into them in the place.

I would be livid, that's well out of order, but that's not the situation here, it's a bedsit. My cousin lives there alone.

Merch wrote: »

thing is tenants and landlords have rights and obligations, they cant just do as they please. That'd be like saying its the tenants home, the tenant can start knocking walls down or redecorating
or the landlord could let themself in when the tenant isnt there, or midway through dinner.

It actually is legally considered the tenant's home. On account of how they live there. It's not their property, and they're not allowed to make structural changes to the property, and they have the responsibility to do certain things to ensure the property doesn't get damaged. But it is their home and there are certain legal protections based on that. The right to have guests is one of them.
You'd be surprised how many landlords think they can let themselves in when the tenant isn't there.:(

Lemming

starling wrote: »

Unfortunately she's not there that long and it's a weekly tenancy so she doesn't have quite as much protection;

Assuming it's not a curious take on the rent-a-room scheme (which by the sounds of it it doesn't), is that scenario even legal? What are a tenants rights with regards notice to vacate inside the six-month Part IV tenancy acquisition window when not in receipt of a lease? Barring any extreme anti-social behaviour, etc.

starling

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

No. But you go on holiday for a few days and he is.

No he isn't.

fasttalkerchat

Absolutely disgusted at what has happened. I'm sure the LL will have no problem taking the rent from your cousin when she wasn't there but won't let her get any use from it!
Hopefully she will contact Threshold and follow up with the Gardai. Unfortunately she can't change the locks without giving the LL a copy but I would definitely tell her to go to the Gards and make a harassment complaint.

fasttalkerchat

Merch wrote: »

I disagree, the tenant is not present, how does the visitor gain access?

Can a tenant not give a copy of the key to a friend? As long as they keep the original locks and have paid for the copy themselves, I don't see how that could be an issue.

starling

Merch wrote: »

I dont have time to peruse the act but it would be a common sense to inform them they would be away and a common courtesy to let them know they intended someone to house sit, the tenants failure to do this
may have led the landlord to believe this was going on for much longer.

I was literally in the place ten minutes when I talked to the guy. I told him I was going to be there until Wednesday morning. He didn't claim to think I was subletting.
I know "common sense" has a different meaning for different people, but given the fact that it was 3 nights I'm not sure I agree that common sense would dictate telling the LL anything. No-one could have reasonably foreseen the son's objection.

Merch wrote: »

How do we know the landlord knows how long this is going on?

Cause I told him.

starling

Gormal wrote: »

Next when you met the landlords son, you should've said that you were just looking after the place while your cousin was away. I suspect since you said you were "staying" there, he took this to mean living there and this is where the whole thing stems from......

I did tell him that I was looking after the place while she was away for a long weekend. I told him I'd be there till Wednesday morning. He didn't dispute any of that, he was annoyed she hadn't asked his permission.

Gormal wrote: »

I doubt ignoring him helped, but I can understand why you did.

Yeah he definitely didn't like being ignored, but I don't think anything would have made him happy except me grovelling profusely, begging his forgiveness and leaving immediately. Maybe. He was angry because she'd done this without asking his permission, and wanted someone to take it out on, since she wasn't there he wanted to take it out on me. I've had far more experience dealing with people like that than I would have liked; one thing I've learned is that if you can't or won't give them whatever it is they claim to want (whatever that is doesn't matter because what they really want is to throw a tantrum, and they can't do that if they're being ignored) then the best thing to do is remove yourself from their company.
In any case I really didn't have any other option. The first thing you have to consider is your own safety; unfortunately this is what life is like for women. It may sound like I'm exaggerating but here's me, a disabled woman, in an isolated place, where a man I don't know, who is clearly not 100%, is suddenly being aggressive towards me for no good reason. Of course I'm going to put a locked door between us. Besides which I knew that any further discussion was going to make him angrier, because once someone like that (a bully I mean) gets started, they'll often keep going and wind themselves up even more, without you even saying a word. I once had a boss who used to keep going until he was literally purple.

Gormal wrote: »

Okay
your cousin sounds like she needs to learn to stand her ground where her rights are concerned. But I'm sure if she just explains the situation (not mentioning the guards at all) that you were house sitting while she was away to ensure that not damage came to the property or her possessions etc. It could defuse the whole situation and all will be well again (unless the LL is totally unreasonable). Apart from the falling out you two had, I doubt you'll do it again for her.

She ought to stand her ground, but in this case she won't. She'll apologise and act like she's in the wrong for the sake of keeping the flat, and while I think that's a bad idea for various reasons, it's up to her. I don't think the LL will actually kick her out over this, because she'll be so apologetic and he'll know he can push her around, but then again I didn't think his son was going to have a problem with me being there, so who knows? As for me I'll never set foot in the place again.

starling

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

No, a couple of days should have been fine. But it might have avoided the misunderstanding and made everyone's life easier. And the parties to this little saga wouldnt be where they are now.

Hindsight is 20/20. I don't see what difference it makes that I told him rather than her telling him, since he was informed of the situation. Granted not in advance but so what? I still maintain that nobody could have foreseen him having this problem because how would you know he understood "staying for 3 nights" to mean "living" at the place?

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

As a general point, I am a LL, having had to move with my work, and I would be concerned if I the tenant was away on holiday, someone else was staying, and I didn't know. I'd assume there was sub letting going on.

I can see how you'd assume that if nobody told you, but what if they did tell you? Wouldn't that suggest to you that everything was above board?

starling

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Absolutely disgusted at what has happened. I'm sure the LL will have no problem taking the rent from your cousin when she wasn't there but won't let her get any use from it!

Oh you know it, man.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Hopefully she will contact Threshold and follow up with the Gardai. Unfortunately she can't change the locks without giving the LL a copy but I would definitely tell her to go to the Gards and make a harassment complaint.

I wish she would, but she won't. She'll apologise, try to smooth things over, and as far as the threatening behaviour goes, she didn't witness it and I don't know if she really understands how aggressive the guy was. She thinks he's a nice guy and when I talked to her she was so concerned about getting kicked out that I don't think I was really getting through to her about his behaviour. Her apologising might calm him down for now, but the danger is that he might change his mind over something tiny in the future and become the asshat-neighbour-from-hell-who-not-only-makes-your-life-a-misery-but-also-has-all-day-to-sit-around-waiting-for-you-to-slip-up-so-he-can-tell-his-dad-to-evict-you. Hopefully I'm just being over-cautious about that.






*that ended up being so long it probably doesn't need to be hyphenated but I'm buggered if I'm going back to delete them all now

starling

Lemming wrote: »

Assuming it's not a curious take on the rent-a-room scheme (which by the sounds of it it doesn't), is that scenario even legal? What are a tenants rights with regards notice to vacate inside the six-month Part IV tenancy acquisition window when not in receipt of a lease? Barring any extreme anti-social behaviour, etc.

I'm not sure how long she's been there but it's definitely less than six months, so apparently her landlord can ask her to leave during the six months without giving a reason, and he has to give her 28 days notice or 7 days in the case of extreme anti-social behaviour. I'm going by this http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html
but it says it was last updated in 2010, so I suppose it's possible it could be out of date. I would definitely try to get it confirmed eg. by checking it with Threshold or the PRTB if I were in a situation of needing to know.

Personally thanks to my disability & consequent lack of money I'm stuck at home with my mother, who is the worst landlady on the planet, but that's a whole different subject

starling

Cedrus wrote: »

I was once offered a tenancy where I would have had to sign away any rights, I declined.

Speaking of which, while looking into this further I stumbled on this

"Leases or other tenancy agreements cannot take away from your rights under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, but you and your landlord can agree on matters that are not dealt with in the Act."
(http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/tenants_rights_and_obligations.html)

and this

"a lease cannot contain terms that contradict the legal rights of tenants and landlords. If this happens, your legal rights as a landlord or tenant supersede the terms in the lease. For example, landlords cannot enter the property at any time without seeking your permission. This is the case even where their right to enter the property at any time is stated in your lease."
(http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html)

I hadn't known that before, and I'm betting a lot of people don't.

(though in the case you're talking about, you were probably just as well turning it down, because what are the chances of that landlord not being a total dick?)

starling

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Can a tenant not give a copy of the key to a friend? As long as they keep the original locks and have paid for the copy themselves, I don't see how that could be an issue.

Not only not an issue but I'd say an extremely sensible thing to do. What if the tenant accidentally lock themselves out and the cooker is on or something? In that case you don't want them waiting for the landlord to travel to them with a spare, or waiting for a locksmith to show up. They're going to have to break in or risk a fire.
Plus the whole medical emergency thing I was talking about. I'm sure there are other instances where a landlord might be glad the tenant had the sense to give a copy of the key to a trusted friend.

I once lived across the road from a landlady and locked myself out. I had to get her to open the door for me and she was well pissed off at having to come all that way. She told me I should get a spare cut and hide it somewhere.

FanadMan

starling wrote: »

Not only not an issue but I'd say an extremely sensible thing to do. What if the tenant accidentally lock themselves out and the cooker is on or something? In that case you don't want them waiting for the landlord to travel to them with a spare, or waiting for a locksmith to show up. They're going to have to break in or risk a fire.
Plus the whole medical emergency thing I was talking about. I'm sure there are other instances where a landlord might be glad the tenant had the sense to give a copy of the key to a trusted friend.

I once lived across the road from a landlady and locked myself out. I had to get her to open the door for me and she was well pissed off at having to come all that way. She told me I should get a spare cut and hide it somewhere.

I've only just read through the whole thread and am totally disgusted at the treatment you got. You've gone through and posted all the legalities relating to guests staying and have to agree 100% that the LLs son acted like a complete twonk!

I used to rent an apartment and my girlfriend at the time used to have a key for my place. As we worked totally different hours and lived a long distance apart, she was able to let herself in. Was also sharing with another tenant - he didn't care in the least that she was there. In fact, he was happy that there was someone there at the weekends when he went home and I was working late. Mind you, I told the building manager all about it and that I was also giving a key to my parents just in case. Again, he was happy enough with the situation.

Chin up Starling - there are strange and twisted people in the world and you were unlucky to find one of the more twisted ones. Hope that this whole thing hasn't totally soured your relationship with your cousin......who really needs to grow a pair of balls - difficult as she's a woman lol.

Hope that when you are leaving, you see the son and land a decent shot to his nuts.......joking But would be nice to see lol.

valleyoftheunos

I think the LL is entirely out of order here, the OP wasn't subletting or living there so there is no breach of the RTA. Possibly the rental agreement is different but there is no indication of that.

Unless this a room in a rented house this is exceptionally unreasonable behaviour by the LL and his son throughout, there are times when Ts should stand up to LLs and this is one of them.

Grandpa Hassan

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I think the LL is entirely out of order here, the OP wasn't subletting or living there so there is no breach of the RTA. Possibly the rental agreement is different but there is no indication of that.

Unless this a room in a rented house this is exceptionally unreasonable behaviour by the LL and his son throughout, there are times when Ts should stand up to LLs and this is one of them.

OK. The LL sounds like a nut. And is bankg out of order. But the fact is that you cannot share possession without getting permission from the LL. No-one else can go and live at the property without the LL's knowledge. That is standard in any lease.

In this case, a 2 day stay is clearly not 'living' at the property, or sharing possession. The tenant and the guest know that, but how does the LL? Sure, the LL was way too agressive, but how does the LL know that the place hasn't been sublet without his knowledge.

A LL living away from the property would never know, unless it had been going on for a long time, but in this case, with the LL's agent living next door, it would make sense to mention it. A bit of communication would have solved the problem/

All the LL knows is that someone he doesn't know is staying in the property, and the tenant who signed the lease is on 'holiday'. Put yourself in the LL's shoes for a minute

I am a LL. It is my house. I have agreed who can live there. And if it appears to me that anyone else is living there as well (or instead of) the named tenant, I would be concerned, and would challenge the tenant (albeit in a much more constructive way than this LL did). If it is clear that someone else has moved in, I would request references, credit searches, and would add their name to the lease. If they do not want to do that, or they fail the references but stay anyway, the tenant is in breach and I would serve an eviction notice.

But would do it all by the book, and would approach it in a constructive manner, and ask the tenant nicely what the situation was

valleyoftheunos

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

OK. The LL sounds like a nut. And is bankg out of order. But the fact is that you cannot share possession without getting permission from the LL. No-one else can go and live at the property without the LL's knowledge. That is standard in any lease.

In this case, a 2 day stay is clearly not 'living' at the property, or sharing possession. The tenant and the guest know that, but how does the LL? Sure, the LL was way too agressive, but how does the LL know that the place hasn't been sublet without his knowledge.

A LL living away from the property would never know, unless it had been going on for a long time, but in this case, with the LL's agent living next door, it would make sense to mention it. A bit of communication would have solved the problem/

All the LL knows is that someone he doesn't know is staying in the property, and the tenant who signed the lease is on 'holiday'. Put yourself in the LL's shoes for a minute

I am a LL. It is my house. I have agreed who can live there. And if it appears to me that anyone else is living there as well (or instead of) the named tenant, I would be concerned, and would challenge the tenant (albeit in a much more constructive way than this LL did). If it is clear that someone else has moved in, I would request references, credit searches, and would add their name to the lease. If they do not want to do that, or they fail the references but stay anyway, the tenant is in breach and I would serve an eviction notice.

But would do it all by the book, and would approach it in a constructive manner, and ask the tenant nicely what the situation was

I don't think there is any need to inform the LL of the OPs plans. Having said that there was communication, the OP told the LL's son she would be leaving on Wednesday, their behaviour after that beggar's belief frankly. LLS like the one described give lie to the popularly held belief that all LLs are cheats, unreasonable not to be trusted and out to shaft the Tenant. Something you I both know isn't true.

LittleBook

starling wrote: »

Hey I'd really appreciate some advice here.
My cousin is renting a flat; I live at home cause I'm disabled. My cousin went away for the weekend, and offered to let me "housesit" ie just stay in her flat for three nights while she's gone.
Her next-door neighbour is the landlord's son, and i met him, and introduced myself.
He threw a mickey fit and said I had no right to be there, that my cousin legally had to ask his permission if she wanted to let a guest stay in her flat, and told me to feck off.

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

But the fact is that you cannot share possession without getting permission from the LL. No-one else can go and live at the property without the LL's knowledge. That is standard in any lease.

But what has that got to do with this thread. The OP clearly explained that she was a guest for three nights. There is no "shared possession". The landlord's son is referring to the RTA, not a lease.

Whatever about the nutcase the OP's cousin is living next to, I'm more surprised at the number of people who ... in the cold light of day, disconnected from the situation ... think he has a point and can still make excuses for him.

I live next door to my landlord and they would never, ever have a problem with someone house-sitting while I was away. If anything they see the sense in not leaving the property vacant for a few days if avoidable.

djimi

LittleBook wrote: »

I live next door to my landlord and they would never, ever have a problem with someone house-sitting while I was away. If anything they see the sense in not leaving the property vacant for a few days if avoidable.

Would you think to mention it to your landlord that there will be a stranger in your house in your absence, or would you let them find out for themselves?

Grandpa Hassan

LittleBook wrote: »

But what has that got to do with this thread. The OP clearly explained that she was a guest for three nights. There is no "shared possession". The landlord's son is referring to the RTA, not a lease.

Whatever about the nutcase the OP's cousin is living next to, I'm more surprised at the number of people who ... in the cold light of day, disconnected from the situation ... think he has a point and can still make excuses for him.

I live next door to my landlord and they would never, ever have a problem with someone house-sitting while I was away. If anything they see the sense in not leaving the property vacant for a few days if avoidable.

Because the LL didn't know. All he knew was that there was a stranger in the house and was told that the tenant was 'on holiday'. Could have been there for a day, could have been there for a month, for all the LL knew.

The response was disproportionate, I agree. You have a sensible LL....but what if you weren't there for a month? Your LL would be quite within his rights to find you in breach of your tenancy agreement.

drumswan

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Because the LL didn't know.

How is that relevant? Weve already established that there is no obligation to tell the landlord if you are having guests.

If the landlord suspects you have breached the tenancy agreement by assigning or subletting or having someone not on the lease living there they can go through the PRTB process. That has nothing to do with this thread.

jmayo

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Because the LL didn't know. All he knew was that there was a stranger in the house and was told that the tenant was 'on holiday'. Could have been there for a day, could have been there for a month, for all the LL knew.

The response was disproportionate, I agree. You have a sensible LL....but what if you weren't there for a month? Your LL would be quite within his rights to find you in breach of your tenancy agreement.

But didn't the OP tell the landlord's agent, i.e. the spanner of a son, when she saw him.
And staying over for three days is not living there.
All thre landlord or son had to do was check after the three days or after a week to allow some leeway.
If the person was still there then they could have a bit of a rant.

You are trying to equate the situation with someone being discovered living there for over a month.
You are trying to equate someone quiet canditly telling the landlord (or their agent) that they were staying over a few days "housesitting so to speak" with someone being caugh or discovered living in a place after a month.

With your attitude it could lead one to believe you would have acted similarly to the landlord's son.
BTW are you a landlord ?

About the only point in your post that makes senses is the word "disproportionate".

Grandpa Hassan

jmayo wrote: »

But didn't the OP tell the landlord's agent, i.e. the spanner of a son, when she saw him.
And staying over for three days is not living there.
All thre landlord or son had to do was check after the three days or after a week to allow some leeway.
If the person was still there then they could have a bit of a rant.

You are trying to equate the situation with someone being discovered living there for over a month.
You are trying to equate someone quiet canditly telling the landlord (or their agent) that they were staying over a few days "housesitting so to speak" with someone being caugh or discovered living in a place after a month.

With your attitude it could lead one to believe you would have acted similarly to the landlord's son.
BTW are you a landlord ?

About the only point in your post that makes senses is the word "disproportionate".

Yes, I am a LL, and I have clearly said what I would do in this situation in a previous post.

The LL in this case only knew as the OP had met the LL's son, presumably randonly outside the house one day. So how was the LL supposed to know it was a 3 day house-sit.

All the LL knows is that there is someone else staying in the house, and the tenant is 'on holiday'. How does he know how long it has been for?

The LL in this case overreacted, I agree, given that he subsequently found out that is was for 3 days. I would have tried to get hold of the tenant as soon as possible to clarify the situation.

Moral of the story....tell your LL rather than him finding out for himself, especially if he / she is local

khurshah

you can stay as a guest, landlord or his son have no right in particular to meddle in your personal matter of staying in the premises as long as your friend is paying rent and keep all rental documentation abiding by the law and legalities. ask your friend to warn that neighbor and stop him meddling in your personal issue.

LittleBook

djimi wrote: »

Would you think to mention it to your landlord that there will be a stranger in your house in your absence, or would you let them find out for themselves?

Wouldn't have even dawned on me until I read this thread and, knowing them as I do, I'm sure it wouldn't have dawned on my landlords either. My home, I can have who I like in it as long as I pay my rent and I'm not in breach of the law or the lease.

I remember now the time I had a friend stay with me for a few weeks because she was moving back from abroad and looking for a new place. Different landlord, her daughter in the flat next door ... again, no problem at all.

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Because the LL didn't know. All he knew was that there was a stranger in the house and was told that the tenant was 'on holiday'. Could have been there for a day, could have been there for a month, for all the LL knew.

The response was disproportionate, I agree. You have a sensible LL....but what if you weren't there for a month? Your LL would be quite within his rights to find you in breach of your tenancy agreement.

He did know. He had more information than most landlords would about who is staying in his property and he still lost the rag ... ringing the tenant on holidays, unbelievable!

Do landlords really expect to know who is in the property they're renting at all times and for how long? Is illegal sub-letting really that big of an issue that landlords need to be constantly on the watch for it?

I've seen a lot of landlord bashing and never participated because I've no experience of dodgy landlords like this guy ... but maybe I HAVE been lucky.

djimi

LittleBook wrote: »

Wouldn't have even dawned on me until I read this thread and, knowing them as I do, I'm sure it wouldn't have dawned on my landlords either. My home, I can have who I like in it as long as I pay my rent and I'm not in breach of the law or the lease.

I remember now the time I had a friend stay with me for a few weeks because she was moving back from abroad and looking for a new place. Different landlord, her daughter in the flat next door ... again, no problem at all.

Thats not the same thing though. If you were going away and letting someone stay in your property in your absence, would you not think to let the landlord know, rather than have them wonder who the stranger is in your property while you were gone?

scarymoon1

yes they do have a right - they are paying rent. The owner would let a friend stay over so why not the tenant. The son sounds like an idiot

Dublinstiofán

Quick one for the OP.

I agree that your well within your rights to be in the apartment. But why did you cousin want you to house sit for her at all?
Is she really that afraid that something will happen to the house while she is away for a single weekend?


Also you mention she was "doing you" a favour above. What favour is she doing you exactly? Putting you in a position where
you have to deal with this lunatic for the weekend?

Honey-ec

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

Quick one for the OP.

I agree that your well within your rights to be in the apartment. But why did you cousin want you to house sit for her at all?
Is she really that afraid that something will happen to the house while she is away for a single weekend?

What difference does that make???

starling

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Yes, I am a LL, and I have clearly said what I would do in this situation in a previous post.
 
The LL in this case only knew as the OP had met the LL's son, presumably randonly outside the house one day.  So how was the LL supposed to know it was a 3 day house-sit.  
 
All the LL knows is that there is someone else staying in the house, and the tenant is 'on holiday'.  How does he know how long it has been for?
 
The LL in this case overreacted, I agree, given that he subsequently found out that is was for 3 days.  I would have tried to get hold of the tenant as soon as possible to clarify the situation. 
 
Moral of the story....tell your LL rather than him finding out for himself, especially if he / she is local

GH, just to clarify, it wasn't random. I knocked on his door and introduced myself and told him the situation, partly to avoid just the situation you're talking about. I didn't want him seeing me coming and going and thinking there was anything untoward happening. I wasn't slow about it either, I had only been in the door ten minutes.

My cousin didn't mention it to him in advance and it didn't occur to her that this would be a problem. We can all say "this would have been avoided if the tenant had communicated in advance" but prior to this incident nobody had any reason to believe he would object, and neither of us was aware of his anger issues, apparently he has been quite nice to her in their dealings. In any case I didn't ask "how could this have been avoided?" I asked "Is he right? And why should I do now?" 

I've already clearly said that he had no reason to believe I was staying there any longer than three nights, and that he  did not dispute my story in any way. His objection was that she didn't ask him for permission in advance. 

My cousin's LL has had trouble with a tenant subletting in the past, so IMO it would be understandable (though unfair) if he was paranoid about it happening again and jumped to conclusions on seeing a person other than my cousin going in and out with their own set of keys. But in this case he did not believe I was subletting. 

Likewise since you are a landlord who is not living next door to your tenant(s) I can understand how it might be easier for your tenant to sublet and how this would be a concern for you, but in this case nobody accused or suspected anyone of subletting.
Here's the relevant sentence from the RTA. I've underlined the part which the LL's son underlined, which I think makes it clear that his problem was not subletting.
"[the tenant is obliged] not to assign or sublet, part with possession of the property, or let or allow any other person live at the property without the landlord's written consent."

The issue was whether "staying for three nights" constitutes "living" at the property.

Dublinstiofán

Honey-ec wrote: »

What difference does that make???

The difference is between having his head wrecked by this gob****e for the
whole weekend or being content at home

LittleBook

djimi wrote: »

Thats not the same thing though. If you were going away and letting someone stay in your property in your absence, would you not think to let the landlord know, rather than have them wonder who the stranger is in your property while you were gone?

I would not and have not, certainly not for three nights as is the case with the OP. As a courtesy I'd probably mention it if I was going away for a few weeks.

I only mention the friend staying for weeks because it's closer to a suspected sub-let than the OP and there was still no problem.

I still can't believe that this is even up for discussion ... if someone has a friend house-sit for a few nights, 99% of landlords will not know (because they or their son don't live next door) and/or will not care because it is a completely reasonable situation and none of their business.

starling

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

Quick one for the OP.

I agree that your well within your rights to be in the apartment. But why did you cousin want you to house sit for her at all?
Is she really that afraid that something will happen to the house while she is away for a single weekend?


Also you mention she was "doing you" a favour above. What favour is she doing you exactly? Putting you in a position where
you have to deal with this lunatic for the weekend?

You might be sorry you asked, TMI in 5,..4..3..2...1
She wasn't worried about the flat, she offered to let me use it because of my situation. It was all for my benefit, any side benefits of having someone in the place were just a bonus.
The background is this: I ended up being unable to work because of my disability. Consequently I lost my flat because the rent was higher than the ceiling for rent allowance. (incidentally I left on very good terms with my landlord who was a very lovely man) I had two options, move back to my mother's house or live on the street. Now for most people, going back to Mammy is a bit of an indignity, it's not ideal but it's not that awful.
The problem is my mum and I have never really got on, ever since I was two she's been what you might call emotionally abusive. I'm not trying to demonise her. She had an awful upbringing and she's doing her best. But she has some emotional issues of her own, random mood swings, a tendency to lose her temper over the most ridiculous things, and various other issues that I don't have time to go into.
The point is that living with her is sometimes very difficult, and takes a toll on my emotional health. The stress doesn't help with my disability either.
My cousin has a better relationship with her parents, but when she came home from living abroad she had to move in with them, and she stayed there while she retrained in a new field. Moving into her own place was a huge improvement in her life as she really wanted more independence. This is the first time she's had place she didn't have to share with anyone, and she's really loving it, which btw is partly why she's so reluctant to have any bad vibes with the LL. A friend of hers has a house in Bray and she once housesat for her for a week. She found it wonderful just to have a bit of space to herself, even for a short time; she rightly guessed that given my situation and the fact that I'd spent nine years living alone and loving it, I would also benefit from having a place to myself for a few days.
Also from a practical point of view: The flat is in Rathmines, where I had lived for nine years. My mother's house is further out in the suburbs and my cousins parents live around the corner. So we were both in a position to compare living in Rathmines with living in this suburb and we both really appreciated the benefits of Rathmines: being within walking distance of the city centre, being able to nip to the Spar at 1am because you have a sudden craving for a bag of Tayto, and - this is a big one for both of us - the abundance of charity shops. I once found a pair of 100% silk pyjamas, never worn, in the SVDP in Rathmines. Having searched for the "perfect" pair of jeans for months, my cousin finally happened on a pair in the same shop that fit her perfectly. So we are both devoted rummagers.:)
In my case particularly, the easier access to town was an even bigger deal. My disability means that going to town from my mums house is a bit of a trial. I have to stand around waiting for a bus (painful) and then sit on the bus all the way to town (more painful). Walking to town and back to Rathmines is not only not painful, but has a positive effect on my condition. I have things to do in town this week and being based in Rathmines would have really helped.

As for the fool next door, my cousin had no idea he had this aggressive side. She didn't know she was going to be putting me in that situation. I think she knew he had some kind of mental health issues, but she has a background in psychology and is well aware, as am I, that having mental health issues doesn't automatically mean a person is aggressive, or potentially violent. I get the sense from how she's talked about him that he's actually been overly nice in their interactions.

Alles klar?


ETA: So yeah, "content at home".....not so much. Let me put it this way, the main difference between me and the first Mrs Rochester is that her attic had heating. (Okay probably not the greatest thing to bring up since she did burn the house down, but you get my meaning)

starling

Fun fact : I left something behind at my cousins flat when I was leaving. So now I have to go back and get it.
Yes, I am a spa *sigh* though in my defence, I had to leave in a hurry, throw all my crap back into the bag, make sure I hadn't left a milk carton open on the counter or left anything plugged in or the immersion on, plus I was fairly stressed at the time.

ETA: f*ck it, not worth the hassle.