Sub-leaser and their rights

Tigger

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

For a lease to be legally enforceable it must be in writing.

I'm far from convinced that there is any lease here but even if there were its unenforceable as its not in writing and the tenants are in breach as they haven't paid the rent.

There is a verbal agreement to lease the place
The start date and end date are defined as is the deposit the rate of rent and most likely a brief overview of the terms ( no smoking/wolves etc)

Call the Garda or throw the tenants out but they will probably wil if they take action

odds_on

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

For a lease to be legally enforceable it must be in writing.

I'm far from convinced that there is any lease here but even if there were its unenforceable as its not in writing and the tenants are in breach as they haven't paid the rent.

In the commercial world , yes, a written lease may be required. However, in the Residential renting, a verbal lease is sufficient.

RTA 2004 Section 1 clause 4
‘‘tenancy agreement’’ includes an oral tenancy agreement;

Ignore 'signed'/'unsigned' point; even an oral Letting Agreement can be valid.
The question is whether Landlord and Tenant have entered into a binding contract. Are there the three basic requirements present? They comprise:
1. Offer.
2. Acceptance.
3. Intention to create legal relationship- usually evidenced by contractual consideration passing.

Grandpa Hassan

odds_on wrote: »

In the commercial world , yes, a written lease is required. However, in the Residential renting, a verbal lease is sufficient.

RTA 2004 Section 1 clause 4
‘‘tenancy agreement’’ includes an oral tenancy agreement;

So theoretically, to take it to an extreme, I could go into someones house (whilst they are still there), sit myself down on their sofa, go for a sleep in their bed, and when the Guards come I could just say that I had verbally entered into a tenancy agreement with the owner / leaseholder?

And the Guards couldnt throw me out on my ear as it would be my word against theirs? Surely that can't be right....

valleyoftheunos

odds_on wrote: »

In the commercial world , yes, a written lease may be required. However, in the Residential renting, a verbal lease is sufficient.

RTA 2004 Section 1 clause 4
‘‘tenancy agreement’’ includes an oral tenancy agreement;

Ignore 'signed'/'unsigned' point; even an oral Letting Agreement can be valid.
The question is whether Landlord and Tenant have entered into a binding contract. Are there the three basic requirements present? They comprise:
1. Offer.
2. Acceptance.
3. Intention to create legal relationship- usually evidenced by contractual consideration passing.

Thanks for the contract law lesson. You failed to mention that a contract can't exist without consideration and it's unenforceable if the consideration doesn't pass from the promisee.

The OP is in a sticky situation, he may still be on the hook for rent and any damage done to the property. He needs to make sure that either these guys pay up or get out.

djimi

odds_on wrote: »

In the commercial world , yes, a written lease may be required. However, in the Residential renting, a verbal lease is sufficient.

RTA 2004 Section 1 clause 4
‘‘tenancy agreement’’ includes an oral tenancy agreement;

Ignore 'signed'/'unsigned' point; even an oral Letting Agreement can be valid.
The question is whether Landlord and Tenant have entered into a binding contract. Are there the three basic requirements present? They comprise:
1. Offer.
2. Acceptance.
3. Intention to create legal relationship- usually evidenced by contractual consideration passing.

A verbal lease may technically be valid, but realistically a tenant wouldnt have a hope in hell of proving it unless they had recorded the conversation. Would any witness be likely to be seen as impartial, given that they would most likely be on one side or the other (most likely friend/family of landlord or tenant).

Where no money has changed hands (or where there is no proof of money changing hands) Id say it would be near impossible for these "tenants" to prove any kind of arrangement.

Pawwed Rig

djimi wrote: »

Where no money has changed hands (or where there is no proof of money changing hands) Id say it would be near impossible for these "tenants" to prove any kind of arrangement.

There is no contract where one side does not provide consideration ie payment.

odds_on

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There is no contract where one side does not provide consideration ie payment.

And therein lies a dilemma for the OP.

Does the OP now refuse any payment and try to remove the "squatters" without the help of the PRTB (irrespective of how useful they maybe), because, if there is no tenancy it is outside the remit of the PRTB.
or
Does the OP accept late payment (in full) thus making a binding contract and comply with all the RTA terms and conditions. If the OP accepts the consideration, will the tenants then leave if a Notice of Termination is served on them?

Glad I'm not the OP!

Pawwed Rig

As was said if he is living there he can just show them the door or change the locks however by the sounds of it he has actually moved out already (whether officially or unofficially whatever that means).
The Gardai are not going to help nor should they if the Op is in fact a landlord. The PRTB may help but it won't be a quick process. In the meanwhile the OP needs to keep paying his landlord as there is a valid contract in existence.
I wonder does the OP realise that they will need to register the tenancy with the PRTB at a cost of €90? Also they will have to file a tax return based on their rental income albeit with a deduction for rent paid, the act of filing a return for someone who doesn't know their way around the tax rules can be a pain.
To advise the OP I would keep things as sweet as possible. Get some cash off the guys as soon as possible. Get them to sign a fixed term lease for the time they will be in the house and hope that they move out when they are meant to. Be prepared to have a long drawn out battle on your hands.

odds_on wrote: »

Glad I'm not the OP!

That's the truth

djimi

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I wonder does the OP realise that they will need to register the tenancy with the PRTB at a cost of €90?

Would the tenancy not already be registered? Or does it have to be registered again? Can a tenancy be registered twice at the same time?

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

Would the tenancy not already be registered? Or does it have to be registered again? Can a tenancy be registered twice at the same time?

It must be a new tenancy and requires registration.

Two tenancies exist
- the head tenancy - first tenant with an agreement with the owner-landlord.

- sub-tenancy - first tenant (head tenant) with an agreement with new sublet tenants.

The current tenants have no agreement with the owner-landlord; their agreement is with the tenant who has vacated to let them reside there.

The current tenants could not make a claim against the owner-landlord, only against the vacating tenant/new landlord. What information is given in PRTB registration? landlord's name - vacating tenant; tenants' names - new tenants. There is no mention of the owner-landlord