Roomie - right or wrong?

Mrs OBumble

Radiosonde wrote: »

But if people are to seek to make money by renting out rooms, then is it really reasonable to forbid overnight visitors?

If rent a room in a hotel or BnB for one person, then I will guarantee that the business will not agree that you have any "right" to have overnight guests to stay as well as yourself.

No different here.

The homeowner has rented to one person, not two. If she'd wanted a couple, she would have rented to one in the first place.

testaccount123

While I agree that the homeowner should allow the op have a guest one night a week the homeowner is perfectly entitled to make the rule of no guests if they choose. I think if I were a homeowner renting a room I would limit it to one possibly two night per week and also no taking over common areas with coupley stuff.

testaccount123 wrote: »

No 30 year old should be a lodger, she should rent somewhere properly with a lease.

I don't see why a 30 year old shouldn't avail of rooms being let by owner occupiers, its not that different to a house share in reality and especially in the op case he/she is only renting 5 days a week which means they are getting it at a cheaper rate than the equivalent houseshare which is obviously another appealing aspect. Why pay for 7 nights a week if you only need 5.

Graham

testaccount123 wrote: »

No 30 year old should be a lodger, she should rent somewhere properly with a lease.

What an absurd statement. There could be any number of reasons why a lease or longer-term arrangement would not be appropriate.

testaccount123

Kenny Flat Redhead wrote: »

I don't see why a 30 year old shouldn't avail of rooms being let by owner occupiers, its not that different to a house share in reality

Its completely different to a house share in that the OP has no rights or security of tenure. Its a completely inappropriate arrangement for anyone requiring security in their living arrangements, its only suitable where these are not required.

testaccount123

testaccount123 wrote: »

Its completely different to a house share in that the OP has no rights or security of tenure. Its a completely inappropriate arrangement for anyone requiring security in their living arrangements, its only suitable where these are not required.

Maybe he is happy with the level of security, its having guests that's the issue. As I said before he obviously only needs a 5 day rental though as that's what he is in now and you will not have this option in a houseshare thus he will have to pay more which could be a waste of money if he never stays weekends.

Remember it also means the op can leave when he wants which also might be suitable, maybe he is only temporarily working in his location etc.

testaccount123

Kenny Flat Redhead wrote: »

Maybe he is happy with the level of security, its having guests that's the issue

So rights are an issue. OP will need to secure appropriate accommodation if she wants to have guests. End of.

the_syco

Radiosonde wrote: »

Note I'm disputing that the OP has no right to have guests over. But if people are to seek to make money by renting out rooms, then is it really reasonable to forbid overnight visitors?

She can forbid guests, and can limit the licensee to only her room, if she wanted to!

Radiosonde wrote: »

A lodger should be as much at "home" in their rented accommodation as any tenant.

Most people choose to be a lodger for the cheaper rent. Cheaper rent comes with restrictions.

Tarzana2

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

This is just one of many thing that make renting a room in an owner occupied house a bad idea in general.

Yup, living with an owner-occupier truly sucks.

Hanaconn

As I said I am saving for a deposit for a house so atm this is the cheapest option for me- Dublin properties are expensive!

This is a short term arrangement. My boyfriend does not live near by hence why it would only be every once in a blue moon when he would be around (and I spend my weekends at his).

I have never heard anything worse than a owner of a property confining you to your bedroom- this is not student digs!

I know I was silly that I didn't mention himself staying over the VERY odd time and I will have that conversation with my landlord very soon.

And I don't think it's fair or reasonable for anyone in any circumstance to ban visitors or guests outright. It would be totally different if it was random men or every night of the week. When you need to rent out a room (for whatever reason- I won't be presumptuous like a few other commenters...) you should be expecting that an adult may have a partner and that they can stay over within reason. Obviously you wouldn't want them taking over the place or making you uncomfortable in your own home but that goes without saying for me. So just like the view that you should put up with it because it is their house, the owner needs to remember it's my money that they are getting each month too.

I think it comes down to a matter of reasonableness and respect.

And yes renting a room in owner occupied house does suck. Thankfully it's not a long term thing for me.

DivingDuck

Hanaconn wrote: »

As I said I am saving for a deposit for a house so atm this is the cheapest option for me- Dublin properties are expensive!

The reason it's cheaper is because you have fewer responsibilities than a tenant in a fully-rented property, and therefore fewer rights.

I see nothing unreasonable about a single woman wanting to prevent the presence of a strange man in her home while she sleeps at night-- and while your boyfriend is a trusted loved one to you, he is and will likely remain simply "a strange man" to your landlady.

I would suggest you take a look at what alternative accommodation is available to you before bringing this up with your landlady unless the situation is entirely untenable for you. Chances are, she can replace you more easily than you can replace her. Dublin is full of single women without boyfriends who would make a more attractive option for her than somebody who is insistent their partner be allowed to stay overnight. She can also ask you to leave with very little notice if you push the issue.

It's entirely your call, but regardless of where you stand on whether or not she is being fair, she is unquestionably holding all the cards.

pow wow

I know there is a clear legal distinction but I think people aren't always aware of it and in the OP's situation where they're both adults (the property owner and the OP) I can see why she would think it's a bit much that the property owner doesn't want guests staying over. Legal issues aside it's one of expectations and there's a mismatch between the OP and the property owner in that regard. It's not really anyone's fault but if nothing else it will encourage people to ask these questions upfront in the future.

Legally the property owner can lay down the rules and I respect that. However there are plenty of long-term 'lodgers' out there these days, so there's often more of an element of it becoming the lodger's home also (in so much as it's the place they live on a reasonably permanent basis). Having rented and been a lodger for years myself I'd never have a lodger - because I feel they should have the freedom to have guests etc. and I wouldn't want effective strangers in my house. So...I simply don't take in lodgers.

The law and plenty of opinions here are very black and white but life isn't always like that.

Tarzana2

DivingDuck wrote: »

I see nothing unreasonable about a single woman wanting to prevent the presence of a strange man in her home while she sleeps at night-- and while your boyfriend is a trusted loved one to you, he is and will likely remain simply "a strange man" to your landlady.

If it's the boyfriend of the lodger, the only time he'd be a strange man is the first time the owner meets him.

DivingDuck

Tarzana2 wrote: »

If it's the boyfriend of the lodger, the only time he'd be a strange man is the first time the owner meet him.

I wouldn't consider a person to be someone I know after one meeting, especially if it was a brief meeting simply along the lines of "Hi, this my boyfriend, Ted". To me, this essentially a stranger whose name I know.

campingcarist

testaccount123 wrote: »

The OP is a lodger not a tenant, there are pretty good protections for actual tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act. No 30 year old should be a lodger, she should rent somewhere properly with a lease.

Until less than 2 years ago, I was a lodger and I'm over 65 years old. Personally, I prefer being a lodger the landlord keeps the house in better condition than many shared properties. There is no issue with leases or assignments.

I was quite happy with the house rules of the landlord which were presented to me and any questions I had were answered before I moved in. If I wasn't happy with everything I would have looked elsewhere. I only moved out when I had the opportunity to purchase my own place.

Tarzana2

DivingDuck wrote: »

I wouldn't consider a person to be someone I know after one meeting, especially if it was a brief meeting simply along the lines of "Hi, this my boyfriend, Ted". To me, this essentially a stranger whose name I know.

Sigh, OK, a few meetings. It probably wouldn't be a brief meeting every single time. In any kind of house I've lived in, from owner-occupier to houseshare, you get to know boyfriends or girlfriends a bit and sometimes quite well. They simply wouldn't remain a stranger, unless you are determined for them to for some strange reason.

As pow wow said, people are being very black and white in their thinking on this.

the_syco

Tarzana2 wrote: »

As pow wow said, people are being very black and white in their thinking on this.

Because it is a very black and white issue.

OP rented a cheap place. Said place was cheap due to conditions. OP doesn't like these conditions, and now wants more favourable conditions. If OP doesn't like these conditions, OP should move out.

DivingDuck

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Sigh, OK, a few meetings. It probably wouldn't be a brief meeting every single time. In any kind of house I've lived in, from owner-occupier to houseshare, you get to know boyfriends or girlfriends a bit and sometimes quite well. They simply wouldn't remain a stranger, unless you are determined for them to for some strange reason.

But the point is that the OP's landlady does seem to have some reason, however strange you might think it, to not want to get to know this guy. If she were open to getting to know him, she would not be uncomfortable with him staying the night. Perhaps the possibility that it wouldn't be a brief meeting is the reason the landlady has refused this. She rented a room to a single female, not a couple, since that was what she was comfortable with having in her home. Perhaps she doesn't want to have to come home from work to be a third wheel in her own house...?

Like you, I have experience of living both as a lodger and as a tenant. As a lodger, there was no question of having overnight guests. As a tenant in a houseshare, people often had their partners and conquests to stay... But it sometimes made for uncomfortable tension in the house. I preferred the no-partners situation, but obviously it isn't for everyone. It doesn't have to be.

The OP's original question was whether or not the rule was unreasonable. It seems that like most issues, some people will agree that it is unreasonable, while others see nothing wrong with it. I don't think anyone's going to sell anyone on their argument here, as it seems to be something people feel pretty passionately about. You can call the people agreeing with the rule having "black and white thinking", but to do so is basically painting that side as wrong and the side of your argument as right, which is equally black and white in my view.

Peregrinus

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Sigh, OK, a few meetings. It probably wouldn't be a brief meeting every single time. In any kind of house I've lived in, from owner-occupier to houseshare, you get to know boyfriends or girlfriends a bit and sometimes quite well. They simply wouldn't remain a stranger, unless you are determined for them to for some strange reason.

As pow wow said, people are being very black and white in their thinking on this.

It's not enough that you come to know him somewhat; it's reasonable to expect that you come to know him sufficiently to decide that he is someone you are comfortable to have staying in your home. It's possible that when you come to know him you'll decide, on the basis of your knowledge, that you're not comfortable having him stay in your house.

In other words, the lodger gets to have guests stay over if the householder is happy for those guests to stay in his house. Some householders will be more relaxed about this than others, which will make the negotiation of overnight guests easier. But it always has to be negotiated. As a lodger, you don't have a right to bring people to stay in the house you are lodging in, regardless of the wishes of the householder, and I really don't see any case for arguing that you should have that right.

There's nothing "black and white" about the idea that guests in the house need to be negotiated. As far as I can see, the opposite position - that a lodger may bring in guests regardless of how this affects the householder or other lodgers - is a much more black-and-white stance.

Tarzana2

the_syco wrote: »

Because it is a very black and white issue.

OP rented a cheap place. Said place was cheap due to conditions. OP doesn't like these conditions, and now wants more favourable conditions. If OP doesn't like these conditions, OP should move out.

There's no harm at all having to chat to the owner about it. The OP may need to move out if they reach an impasse but the OP might as well try to negotiate. There's nothing at all to lose, seeing as the options are 1) Move out or 2) Negotiate and if no agreement can be reached, move out. There is the legal side of what the owner can allow but that doesn't mean the owner will stick rigidly to it.

The boyfriend might remain a stranger but that would be the exception rather than the norm in my own experience of many different house-sharing situations. The OP has less rights than in a house-share, but that doesn't mean the boyfriend will be any more of a stranger than in house-share situations. This is still people we're talking about here. The different legal status doesn't alter the social interactions that will usually occur.

From my experience of being a lodger, there was no problem having overnight guests. I've never lived in any kind of arrangement where grown adults weren't allowed to have gfs/bfs/whatever over. I hated living with an owner-occupier for the generally unequal situation. (only her pictures on the wall, her expecting us to socialise with her all the time and being a bit moody if we didn't etc. etc.) but overnight guests were never an issue.

The black and white thinking, as first mentioned by pow wow, was referring to people sticking rigidly to the legal status in their advice, not whether which side was right or wrong. That's not good advice, IMO, as the OP might as well negotiate with nothing to lose.

DivingDuck

Tarzana2 wrote: »

The black and white thinking, as first mentioned by pow wow, was referring to people sticking rigidly to the legal status in their advice, not whether which side was right or wrong. That's not good advice, IMO, as the OP might as well negotiate with nothing to lose.

That's not strictly true. Currently, the OP has accommodation she can afford and in, boyfriend issue aside, a place she's happy to live. The landlady can put her out on the road at the end of the week if the conversation should turn sour, which is why I suggested the OP examine alternative options before mentioning anything to be sure she will be able to find something if asked to leave.

It is possible that if she pushes the issue, the landlady might feel the atmosphere or relationship between them has deteriorated, and ask her to leave. It's likely what I would do if I had said I wasn't comfortable with such-and-such happening in my house, and the lodger continued to press the issue.

I would be concerned that the lodger was not prepared to respect the rules I had instituted for my home, and would be at best disgruntled and liable to leave as soon as possible and without bothering to give me much notice, and would at worst be inclined to break those rules at any time they thought they wouldn't be caught.

If the OP can line up an alternative place to live should that conversation go south, then by all means: give it a go. If not, I would hold my tongue and put up with the situation for the short period she indicated she'd be living there.

The fact that the landlady has instituted such a rule implies to me that she's the kind of person who is very choosy about who is in her home, so I wouldn't want to rock the boat without knowing I had a lifejacket on hand. As I said before, the situation is currently such that lodgers are fairly replaceable, whereas affordable accommodation isn't.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I mentioned the legal situation was to make the OP (and others) aware that even if every single poster in this thread agreed that the landlady's rules were mental, it still wouldn't detract from her right to enforce them. It's important for the OP to figure this into her decision on whether or not to press the issue with the landlady, as you can be certain that the landlady is very much aware of this.

Legality aside, I firmly believe the landlady has the moral as well as legal right to make that rule, and I would be making the same one if I had to rent a room. The only part I find even remotely unreasonable is that this wasn't made clear to the OP when she inquired about the room initially, though it might have been assumed.

When you rent a room in someone's home, you can't expect to have the same rights as they do, because you don't have the same responsibilities as they do. What's truly unreasonable, in my opinion, is to compare the situation to shared rental situations where everyone has the same responsibilities and rights when this is very clearly not the case.

Peregrinus

Tarzana2 wrote: »

There's no harm at all having to chat to the owner about it . . .

Everyone in this thread has told the OP that she should talk to the owner, and has explained why she needs to. Most of the ensuing discussion has revolved around the question of whether it is is reasonable that she should have to talk to the owner; I myself think it is perfectly reasonable.

A separate question is whether it would be reasonable of the owner to say "no, absolutely not". That's a hypothetical question since (a) the discussion with the owner hasn't happened yet, and (b) it seems unlikely the owner will say that, since she has already agreed to an overnight stay on at least one occasion.

It's possible, of course, that an owner could adopt an unreasonable position, but "unreasonable" is a fairly flexible standard. I could see a single female owner taking the view that "I chose a female roommate for a reason. I really don't want to be sharing my home with a man that I don't know very well. The occasional overnight is not a problem, but I'm not comfortable with a regular arrangement." I'd say that was disappointing if I was the roommate, but I wouldn't say that it was unreasonable. But another roommate might think it was monstrously unreasonable.

Ursus Horribilis

What's also worth bearing in mind is that a lot of people don't want to share accommodation with couples. Another thing that can cause problems is partners staying over. Sometimes these things start with one night, then before you know it they're there three nights or four nights. You may be paying the price for past sins. I've shared with people who had someone stay over and I had to listen to hours of them talking, giggling and shâgging through the walls. You're always aware too that there's a stranger on your floor somewhere. So unreasonable and all as it may be, I understand where the house owner is coming from.

Tarzana2

Odus fell down wrote: »

What's also worth bearing in mind is that a lot of people don't want to share accommodation with couples. Another thing that can cause problems is partners staying over.

Of course, but I've never lived somewhere were a couple of evenings a week wasn't fine.

Magicmatilda

reasonable or not reasonable does not come into it.

Under law the OP is a licensee and as such has no rights, well she has the right to reasonable notice but that (reasonable notice) is not defined in law.

The landlady may decide to ask her to leave tomorrow, giving her a weeks notice and that would be OK (legally speaking)

For that reason the OP is beholden to the whim of her landlady and therefore if the landlady decides no visitors then that mean no visitors.

If I were a landlady would I stop her having the boyfriend over the odd time, no I wouldn't but I am not the landlady.

Also the landlady has not actually stopped her, she merely indicated that it was OK on this occasion. So it might be that she didn't want it becoming a regular thing. Who knows how the landlady will respond if she approaces the subject and asks her. It really is as simple as having a conversation.

campingcarist

Some house shares specifically specify "females only" (whether legal or not). The landlady may be one of those people, for whatever reason, has decided that she only wants females in the house.
Quote understandable, especially if she is an elderly lady and may also have "old values".

campingcarist

campingcarist wrote: »

"old values".

This may also be the case, some of the older generations will be very much against unmarried people sleeping in the same bed.

A friend of mine and his gf were refused a house a few years ago (renting out the house not sharing with the owner) as the landlady didn't agree with unmarried couples living together and refused to allow it happen in a house she owned. They had the place secured until she realised they were an unmarried coupe and immediately refused them then.