shared rent question

alwald

I was offered to rent a room in a flat, no contract is signed, there is a fixed fee that includes rent and bills that will be sent by bank transfer every month to the landlord.
1- Is there such thing as a verbal agreement?
2- is this legal?
3- will I be protected as a tenant from a law point of view?

First time tenant and I couldn't find anything about verbal rent agreement on the prtb website!

Its fairly common in houseshares to have no contract, I've never had one myself always just month to month.

If you have the rights of a tenant is up for debate. It is possible you will be considered a licensee not a tenant but this is still not really clear the PRTB have ruled people rening rooms individually to be licensees in a case in the past but that's not a definite rule to go by either.

I wouldn't worry too much about it really if the place is nice and the rent price good go for it.

alwald

I just want to add that the landlord doesn't live in the property, will I still be considered a licensee?

CIARAN_BOYLE

alwald wrote: »

I just want to add that the landlord doesn't live in the property, will I still be considered a licensee?

usually if your agreement is you sharing the let of the house and it is with the landlord and not a head tenant then you are a tenant if your access is restricted or the landlord retains any access in any way or your contract is with a head tenant you are a licensee. Bear in mind its not hard and fast.

campingcarist

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

usually if your agreement is you sharing the let of the house and it is with the landlord and not a head tenant then you are a tenant if your access is restricted or the landlord retains any access in any way or your contract is with a head tenant you are a licensee. Bear in mind its not hard and fast.

Surely, because there is already a tenant in the house, then the landlord cannot have access without prior agreement of that tenant; though I stand to be corrected.

CIARAN_BOYLE

campingcarist wrote: »

Surely, because there is already a tenant in the house, then the landlord cannot have access without prior agreement of that tenant; though I stand to be corrected.

Is the existing person a tenant or a licensee. Did the landlord rent out a house (tenants) or did the landlord rent out rooms in a house and access to common areas (licensee)

alwald

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote:

Is the existing person a tenant or a licensee. Did the landlord rent out a house (tenants) or did the landlord rent out rooms in a house and access to common areas (licensee)

The landlord is renting out rooms, one of the guys is in "charge", he helps advertising and finding people but that's it, the verbal agreement is with the landlord and the money goes to him.

RossieMan

With no lease signed you'll have very little rights. Bigger chance is landlord is not registered with ptrb. If you joined through the "head guy" id have you under the licensee category .

Baby01032012

RossieMan wrote: »

With no lease signed you'll have very little rights. Bigger chance is landlord is not registered with ptrb. If you joined through the "head guy" id have you under the licensee category .

Lease doesn't give rights...part Iv rights a tenant is entitled to with or without a lease...a lease can only add to those rights. Also landlord not being registered does not affect the tenant if a scenario arises that they need to take a case against him.

However as you said the question is whether the op is a licensee or a tenant in the first place

RossieMan

A lease with give us an idea if he is a tenant of a licensee. Its very hard to prove either at this point.