Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Outstanding rent, landlord contacts me a year later

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Shane.C
    Registered Users Posts: 760 ✭✭✭Shane.C


    Ah Ray, Deary me.

    No contract, no legal obligation to provide monies, using scare tactics.

    Absolutely chancing his arm, flat track bully.


  • Options
    #93
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Shane.C wrote: »
    Ah Ray, Deary me.

    No contract, no legal obligation to provide monies, using scare tactics.

    Absolutely chancing his arm, flat track bully.

    Why are you assuming if there's nothing written there's no contract?

    .. or that if you use a service, you are not obligated to pay for it?


  • Options
    #94
    Shane.C
    Registered Users Posts: 760 ✭✭✭Shane.C


    You are generalizing the term 'service'. Yes, a consumer pays for a service, there is an offer, acceptance and consideration at it's heart. In order for a tenant to be held to ransom by the law, as was pursued by supposedly aggrieved landlord, it must have a standing in law. It does not.

    Now morally, of course paying it would be the right thing to do, if the situation was clarified with the previous landlord and the current tenants. I however, would not transfer funds of €1000 to a landlord to whom I've never dealt with.


  • Options
    #95
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    beauf wrote: »
    Why are you assuming if there's nothing written there's no contract?

    .. or that if you use a service, you are not obligated to pay for it?

    Eh, because you're actually not under any obligation to pay for a service that you have no contract to pay to use. Technically speaking, the OP could have been a house guest.

    It's not as clear cut as that and that isn't how contract law works.


  • Options
    #96
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,380 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Eh, because you're actually not under any obligation to pay for a service that you have no contract to pay to use. Technically speaking, the OP could have been a house guest.
    Do house guests normally pay a deposit?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Eh, because you're actually not under any obligation to pay for a service that you have no contract to pay to use. Technically speaking, the OP could have been a house guest.

    It's not as clear cut as that and that isn't how contract law works.

    Again you are ignoring the fact the OP agreed a verbal contact and has confirmed this (to the new LL or whomever they are) in an email.

    They can't turn around and say they were a house guest for 3 months.


  • Options
    #98
    matrim
    Registered Users Posts: 7,518 ✭✭✭matrim


    beauf wrote: »
    Again you are ignoring the fact the OP agreed a verbal contact and has confirmed this (to the new LL or whomever they are) in an email.

    They can't turn around and say they were a house guest for 3 months.

    The OP agreed that in theory she owes money to someone but not necessarily to that person.


  • Options
    #99
    Engine No.9
    Registered Users Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭Engine No.9


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    The Op was aware they were entering a contract for €500 per month and she acknowledges this. The question is more about who this contract is with.

    Surely this is a clear sublet case and the person she should have been paying rent to is the person who she rented the room of of in the first place???? It would then be up to him to furnish the landlords account with any monies owed on the room?


  • Options
    #100
    elfy4eva
    Registered Users Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭elfy4eva


    The situation was made messy by the landlord, so In my opinion it's his job to clean it up.
    If he's not willing to do so in a professional and civil manner then I would not bother engaging
    with him.

    That's all I've gots to say!!


  • Options
    #101
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 18,480 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    The landlord's really not doing himself any favours by taking such a hostile stance on it if the OP's actually willing to pay anyway!

    Totally counterproductive.

    I mean, there's no dispute at all. She just wants to prove he's not some kind of scam artist.

    It's perfectly reasonable to expect some kind of proof of ownership and identity before paying over that kind of money.

    The landlord knows full well that he hasn't got a leg to stand on. His only option was to act aggressive in the hope that the OP was the type to be easily intimidated and would hand over some money, that is why he took such a hostile stance right from the start.

    After this he has got nothing, and my guess he will just disappear.
    beauf wrote: »
    Again you are ignoring the fact the OP agreed a verbal contact and has confirmed this (to the new LL or whomever they are) in an email.

    They can't turn around and say they were a house guest for 3 months.

    You ignored my question. How can the OP have a verbal contract with somebody she has never met nor spoken to?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    ...You ignored my question. How can the OP have a verbal contract with somebody she has never met nor spoken to?

    Rights and obligations get transferred if the new LL takes over ownership.

    Otherwise the a new owner could simply evict a standing tenant.
    Maria.34 wrote: »
    ...I get an email from the supposedly new landlord,...
    ..saying ....I did not pay any rent during the 60 days I was there.
    ....I told him that this is correct, .....
    ...I told him in the email I am happy to pay, ....

    Theres no confusion here...theres now an email trail to back it up.


  • Options
    #103
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    elfy4eva wrote: »
    The situation was made messy by the landlord, so In my opinion it's his job to clean it up.
    If he's not willing to do so in a professional and civil manner then I would not bother engaging
    with him.

    That's all I've gots to say!!

    I think you are right. The LL and OP have confirmed in email the arrangement.
    The LL just has to provide proof of ownership. There's no good reason for the LL not to do this. Then arrange a payment plan with the OP. Or go to the PRTB for mediation and agree a plan there. The only reason the LL would not want to do this, is they don't want to declare the income or register the property officially. As such this may be bluff as the cost to recover this debt (liable for tax and fines) might be a lot more than they gain by this money.


  • Options
    #104
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Having thought about it, is it not the case here that the OP was subletting? They had no direct contact with the landlord, and dealt only with another tenant. I might be thinking about this the wrong way, but in this situation where you get a chain of tenants taking over from one another in this manner, wouldnt only the first tenant be liable for any unpaid rent, as they technically became the landlord when they subletted to the next tenant, and they would remain responsible for the rent until the tenancy was officially ended by the landlord started a new tenancy with new tenants?

    Or am I overthinking it?


  • Options
    #105
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,380 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    This type of arrangement is complicated alright even though it is fairly common place. It may be the case that these arrangements are in fact illegal in that each person who moves in should be registered with the PRTB because it is a tenancy that is registered rather than a house. Where all of the original tenants have moved out then I would argue that it is an un registered tenancy. I can't see anything in the PRT act that covers this type of arrangement.


  • Options
    #106
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Wouldn't the money had to be paid via another tenant to be a sub let. Also the intention of paying the LL directly was discussed.

    Its a real mess though.

    I don't think the LL will ever give their full details though.


  • Options
    #107
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    beauf wrote: »
    Wouldn't the money had to be paid via another tenant to be a sub let. Also the intention of paying the LL direction was discussed.

    No payment details were forthcoming, and no payments were made. In all other aspects this is a sublet (albeit an unintentional one).


  • Options
    #108
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    No payment details from the LL. If it was sublet, the payment details would be for the tenant who was sub letting. If its a sub let the OP would give the LL the details of the tenant that was sub letting. No? But the email thats already been sent, seems to quite clear that the OP understood it not to be a sublet, but a debt owed to the LL directly.

    TBH I don't think this is complicated. The OP has admitted the debt, its just up to the LL to prove they were the LL at the time the tenant was there. Even a solicitor would have to concede that's a reasonable obligation of the LL.


  • Options
    #109
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    beauf wrote: »
    No payment details from the LL. If it was sublet, the payment details would be for the tenant who was sub letting. If its a sub let the OP would give the LL the details of the tenant that was sub letting. No? But the email thats already been sent, seems to quite clear that the OP understood it not to be a sublet, but a debt owed to the LL directly.

    The landlord was not involved in any part of the OP being there by the sounds of it. There was no payment details given for anyone; tenant or landlord. The OP has rented this room from the existing (and vacating) tenant, and has dealt with them and them alone. As far as I can tell, that is a sublet situation.

    If this has been the case from the start, and at no point has the landlord ever terminated the original tenancy, then each new tenant has been subletting from the last, and if the first tenant didnt terminate the tenancy from their end then surely they are responsible for each sublet tenant after them, and they are the ones who would be responsible for any outstanding rent (as would be the case in a normal sublet situation)?


  • Options
    #110
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    You maybe right. I don't enough about it.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Subletting
    Subletting
    The leasing of part or all of the property held by a tenant, as opposed to a landlord, during a portion of his or her unexpired balance of the term of occupancy.

    A landlord may prohibit a tenant from subletting the leased premises without the land-lord's permission by including such a term in the lease. When subletting is permitted, the original tenant becomes, in effect, the landlord of the sublessee. The sublessee pays the rent to the tenant, not the landlord. The original tenant is not, however, relieved of his or her responsibilities under the original lease with the landlord.

    A sublease is different from an assignment where a tenant assigns all of his or her rights under a lease to another. The assignee takes the place of the tenant and must deal with the landlord provided the landlord permits it. The original tenant is no longer responsible to the landlord who consents to the termination of their landlord-tenant relationship.

    You could probably delay any resolution of this for ages arguing it with the LL.


  • Options
    #111
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Koptain Liverpool wrote: »
    You tell him Ray. Yes OP you're a big thief :p:p

    I love the way Landlord Ray always appears on these threads championing the rights of poor landlords against thieving tenants.

    The fact is the landlord was a complete idiot in not ensuring rent was being paid by tenants. He can't come looking for rent a year later. No court in Europe would back him up. Yopu'd be mad in the head to even consider paying this OP.

    Final warning.
    If you intend to continue posting in this forum- read the charter and abide by it.
    If you disagree with what another person posts- refute the post, without attacking the poster. If you don't feel that you want to reply- use the report post function to bring it to the attention of moderators. We are going to have differing points for view here- its natural- its not impossible to remain civil towards one another though.

    Regards,

    The_Conductor


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,301 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    beauf wrote: »
    Why are you assuming if there's nothing written there's no contract?

    .. or that if you use a service, you are not obligated to pay for it?
    From the sounds of the OP, an old tenant gave them the room. No contact with any landlord.

    I'd actually say that the OP was subletting, and thus owes the landlord nothing?

    =-=

    Unless the "landlord" provides proof of ownership, I'd treat this as a 419 scam.


  • Options
    #113
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Its not uncommon for one tenant to take on all dealings with the LL without actually being a sub letting. Its just logistics in many cases.


  • Options
    #114
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    beauf wrote: »
    Its not uncommon for one tenant to take on all dealings with the LL without actually being a sub letting. Its just logistics in many cases.

    But by definition this is a sublet, where a tenant deals with an incoming tenant and the incoming tenant has no dealings with the landlord.

    Perhaps if the existing tenant is acting as an agent of sorts, a middle man who brings the signed contracts from and to the landlord and the new tenant is given the bank details of the landlord so that they can pay them directly then it would not be considered to be a sublet, however in this situation there was no contact with the landlord, there was no signed lease and no payment details given, and seeing as how the incoming tenant only dealt with an existing tenant and never with the landlord directly then I dont see how this could be anything other than a sublet.


  • Options
    #115
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I'm just saying in my experience, especially if you are sharing, you might all be registered tenants, but you don't all wait around to hand the LL your rent, or meet with them if dealing with an issue. Officially its not sub-let.

    You might claim is the OP had no contact he was squatting as much as sub letting or renting in their own right.

    The only proof of anything are the bills (probably not in OP name) and any emails. Where the OP admitted a debt to a LL. But not necessarily the random person who emailed them. TBH the OP probably should not have replied unto that person correctly proved who they were. Could been a scam.


  • Options
    #116
    needyour help
    Registered Users Posts: 3 ✭needyour help


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    Wouldnt it be the landlords responsibility? They have no lease and never had contact with them.

    if you rent a property its the landlord or a letting agentcys problem to sort out your rent book, they have to get your money from you during your stay, or at an agreed time after. since you never met them or they you, nor have thay an address or bank details i wouldnt bother about it. if he is stupid enough to let you stay for 60 day and not come to you for rent then it his own problem. he wont follow you to another country for such a small sum.


  • Options
    #117
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,865 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Wouldn't give this guy a cent. As best as I can determine when the OP moved in, the house was owned by someone else but in the process of being sold, they (the tenants) were given a letter instructing them not to pay the rent until the sale was complete, by which time the OP had moved out again.

    So the choices are:
    - ignore this guy. The OP responded asking for reasonable information and was threatened with a solicitor in reply
    - pay the €1000 to the previous owner

    This new owner (if that's who he is) is owed nothing by the OP

    Love the predictable responses by the usual suspects though. And then people wonder why renting in this country is such a shambles :rolleyes:


Advertisement