Took in a cat, landlord's wife causing trouble

Michael D Not Higgins

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

As above, can you provide an example of someone being evicted because of a pet? Because it sounds like you're saying a landlord can come up with any reason they like to kick out a tenant, which is obviously not true.

If a lease is silent on the subject of painting I don't see any reason a landlord could evict a tenant over painting, as long as they undo it before they move out so that they return the property in the same condition they received it then it should be irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

The onus is on the landlord to provide a lease covering any extra rules they want enforced that aren't already covered by the law.

A hearsay anecdote is not going to prove anything. Nonetheless the term from the RTA 2004 say they can only issue a notice of termination if the tenant hasn't rectified the breach within a reasonable time limit. A written lease will be used as a reference in any dispute, however there is no written lease in this instance. If this went to a dispute with the RTB (if this even is a tenancy under their remit, something that's yet to be established), they would have no base document to reference.

The landlord could easily claim they stated no pets in the ad and the fact never came up because the tenants moved in without pets. It would come down to who followed the process correctly and who the RTB believed.

Even without this, where do you draw the line on the unwritten lease being non-specific? Can they sublet without permission since the lease doesn't forbid it? Can they open up an AirBnB and have anyone they want stay?

Ms Doubtfire1

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

A hearsay anecdote is not going to prove anything. A written lease will be used as a reference in any dispute, however there is no written lease in this instance. If this went to a dispute with the RTB (if this even is a tenancy under their remit, something that's yet to be established), they would have no base document to reference.

The landlord could easily claim they stated no pets in the ad and the fact never came up because the tenants moved in without pets. It would come down to who followed the process correctly and who the RTB believed.

Even without this, where do you draw the line on the unwritten lease being non-specific? Can they sublet without permission since the lease doesn't forbid it? Can they open up an AirBnB and have anyone they want stay?

The LL has NO rights to make any kinds of disputes to the tenancy board.There's no lease, so tenancy ( and I am at the moment simply presuming we are talking tenancy and not licensing) is not regsitered.As such, LL is
1) in breach of the law
2) open to fines.

http://www.prtb.ie/landlords/not-registered-or-have-received-a-notice-
What happens if I don't register a tenancy?
Landlords are legally obliged to register all tenancies to which the Act applies. Failure to register a tenancy may result in a criminal conviction.
Please click here to go to Court Decisions
What are the penalties under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004?
A person, if convicted under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 for failing to comply with a notice, faces a fine and/or imprisonment, along with a daily fine of €250 for a continuing offence, the current fine is up to €4,000 and or 6 months imprisonment.
Where prosecution proceedings have been instituted and on conviction the PRTB will at least seek reimbursement of costs.


http://www.threshold.ie/advice/seeking-private-rented-accommodation/does-my-tenancy-have-to-be-registered/


and, last but not least:
http://www.threshold.ie/advice/seeking-private-rented-accommodation/do-i-have-to-sign-a-lease/

Do I have to sign a lease?

What you need to know before you sign a lease

There is no legal requirement for a landlord to provide you with a lease (otherwise known as a contract or fixed term agreement) neither is there an obligation on you to sign a leae if you do not wish to do so. It is important to note that you will have legal rights under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015.

If you sign a lease it cannot take away from your rights under the Equal Status Acts 2004-2015 and the terms of the tenancy cannot be changed during the lease period unless both you and your landlord agree to this at the time.

If you are offered a lease you should read it carefully and get a second opinion before signing. A lease is legally binding and usually for a fixed period of time often one year. Once you sign a lease there is no 'cooling off period' and it is important to know that normally notice cannot be given during the lease by either the landlord or you unless:

There is a break clause
The other party is in breach
Both you and the landlord agree at the time to end the lease.
You can make a request to assign or sublet the tenancy to another person. If your landlord agrees you will have to agree with the landlord the arrangements for replacing yourself. If your landlord refuses, the Residential Tenancies Acts 2004 and 2015 has a provision that allows you to give written notice of termination even if you have a lease.

Should you break the lease with no grounds or do not give proper notice, it does not give your landlord automatic entitlement to keep your deposit or make deductions from it. They may however seek to cover costs incurred such as re advertising, re-letting costs or lost rent. You should seek evidence of this. A landlord has a responsibility to mitigate their losses for example re-letting the property as soon as possible.

If you are coming to the end of the lease and wish to remain, under the Part 4 rights you have acquired, you should notify your landlord in writing between three months and one month before the end of the lease of your intention to remain.

Michael D Not Higgins

What? A written lease isn't required for a tenancy, you know. And there's nothing to say it isn't registered. And if it isn't, they can register it late anyway.

Ms Doubtfire1

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

What? A written lease isn't required for a tenancy, you know.

thats correct. if there is no written lease, there are no further additional clauses re pets or any other articles outside the law.I might have made a presumption in regards the tenancy not being registered.But OP can easily check that out online

Ms Doubtfire1

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

thats correct. if there is no written lease, there are no further additional clauses re pets or any other articles outside the law.I might have made a presumption in regards the tenancy not being registered.But OP can easily check that out online

The additional clauses do not need to be written down, they can be verbal. As was said above even if its in the lease that's only used as a reference, if it goes to the RTB the LL can just say he said at the start of the tenancy that no pets were allowed and as the tenant moved in without pets they were essentially agreeing to this. The tenant has no way of proving otherwise. As no pets is pretty much the default position of all LL's the RTB would find it difficult to argue with this.

Michael D Not Higgins

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

thats correct. if there is no written lease, there are no further additional clauses re pets or any other articles outside the law.I might have made a presumption in regards the tenancy not being registered.But OP can easily check that out online

That's true, but keep in mind the RTB database is notoriously badly updated and riddled with errors. And again, the only penalty would be a late registration fee. This doesn't prevent the landlord doing anything.

A lease needn't be written to be enforceable. If there was a dispute with the RTB, and they had agreed on no pets, there needn't be written confirmation of this. An oral agreement is just as legally binding as a written one, if just harder to prove.

Ms Doubtfire1

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

A lease needn't be written to be enforceable. If there was a dispute with the RTB, and they had agreed on no pets, there needn't be written confirmation of this. An oral agreement is just as legally binding as a written one, if just harder to prove.

and that cuts both ways.It will be a he said/she said kind of issue in which case the bare law will be applied and that doesn't cover pets etc.And, looking at the nature of this threat, wouldn't you agree that there was no prior agreement in regards to pets..? >interesting discussion this<

Michael D Not Higgins

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

and that cuts both ways.It will be a he said/she said kind of issue in which case the bare law will be applied and that doesn't cover pets etc.And, looking at the nature of this threat, wouldn't you agree that there was no prior agreement in regards to pets..? >interesting discussion this<

Honestly, I don't think it will get as far as a dispute. Firstly, because I have a feeling it's a licence rather than a tenancy. Secondly, if it's a tenancy they'll probably come to some agreement with the landlord/landlady before it gets to notice of termination stage.

However, as I mentioned above, it would come down to who the RTB believed, but more likely come down to arbitration where they would work out a compromise along the lines of what people are already suggesting here, i.e. higher deposit.

Ms Doubtfire1

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Honestly, I don't think it will get as far as a dispute. Firstly, because I have a feeling it's a licence rather than a tenancy. Secondly, if it's a tenancy they'll probably come to some agreement with the landlord/landlady before it gets to notice of termination stage.

However, as I mentioned above, it would come down to who the RTB believed, but more likely come down to arbitration where they would work out a compromise along the lines of what people are already suggesting here, i.e. higher deposit.

Not sure about the licensee feeling, but would generally agree with you.Lets hope it gets resolved and a little life saved.

Tiddlypeeps

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

A hearsay anecdote is not going to prove anything. Nonetheless the term from the RTA 2004 say they can only issue a notice of termination if the tenant hasn't rectified the breach within a reasonable time limit. A written lease will be used as a reference in any dispute, however there is no written lease in this instance. If this went to a dispute with the RTB (if this even is a tenancy under their remit, something that's yet to be established), they would have no base document to reference.

The landlord could easily claim they stated no pets in the ad and the fact never came up because the tenants moved in without pets. It would come down to who followed the process correctly and who the RTB believed.

Even without this, where do you draw the line on the unwritten lease being non-specific? Can they sublet without permission since the lease doesn't forbid it? Can they open up an AirBnB and have anyone they want stay?

I'm not looking for a hearsay anecdote, I'm looking for a case law example.

So you are now moving from it being "common sense" that pets aren't allowed by default to the landlord needs to commit fraud and lie about there being an agreement in the first place in order to enforce a no pets rule? Obviously in the real world there would be no way to prove the landlord is lying, but that you think it necessary that they would need to resort to that puts a pretty big question mark over your previous assertion that it is obviously commons sense that pets are not allowed by default.

Either way I have a very hard time believing the RTB would approve an eviction notice based on a landlords claims that they made a rule verbally and a tenant denies it. Especially when putting that rule in writing would have been such a trivial thing to do. Of course if you have examples of this happening in the real world I would it would be great if you could share them.

Gumbo

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

Not sure about the licensee feeling, but would generally agree with you.Lets hope it gets resolved and a little life saved.

It has to be a licenee. The OP is living in a shed/granny flat to the back of the LL's house.

percy212

As mentioned before, nobody knows what the landlord said to the tenant when he saw the cat. Perhaps he verbally agreed to the keeping of a pet in what seems to be a strange living arrangement. There are also situations where a pet is considered a emotional support animal to it's owner. I wonder what a judge would say about that situation. Honestly I can't understand renters buckling to every whim of a landlord. A rented property is your home. Negotiate or fight.

Claw Hammer

kceire wrote: »

It has to be a licenee. The OP is living in a shed/granny flat to the back of the LL's house.

It is not a licencee situation. It is a self contained flat. The owner does not live in the same dwelling as the o/p. It might, from a tax point of view qualify for rent a room relief but whether it does or not, the o/p is a tenant.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote:

Regardless, the landlord owns the property and him and his wife are entitled to say the cat should not be there. Regardless of what people think of cats, you can always smell cat in a house where a cat lives, always. Cat owners can't smell it but the rest of us can. A house where a cat lives will at minimum require a professional clean afterwards, usually curtains and other fabrics replaced too.

That's only true of lazy pet owners. You can train a cat to do all the things necessary including only use the scratching post and little tray. If it's a short or medium hair cat it's easy to hoover the house every other day and use those sticky rollers on curtains. Its UK to the owner to keep the litter fresh and disinfect the tray as often as necessary to avoid a smell. Given the poor standard of dog training you see, it's fair to assume that cats are also poorly trained so it could well be a problem for some people.

With a kitten you're starting from scratch (pardon the pun) so it would take time and effort to make sure it is trained quickly and kept in a room where it can't cause damage while you're not there.

That's beside the point anyway. The landlord has said they don't want a pet in their house. That's the bottom line. You can try to negotiate but all this Talking out of windows and tutting over walls is the opposite of good communication.

Prepare for talking to them and research animal sanctuaries at the same time because it doesn't look good.

Ms Doubtfire1

Talk to threshold and tenancy board first and foremost.Have your ducks in a row before even talking to the landlady.KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!! LL these days in many cases try to get away with murder.Mine did and I took him to the tenancy board. He backed off very very quickly. The fines these days are not mild anymore...

Michael D Not Higgins

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I'm not looking for a hearsay anecdote, I'm looking for a case law example.

So you are now moving from it being "common sense" that pets aren't allowed by default to the landlord needs to commit fraud and lie about there being an agreement in the first place in order to enforce a no pets rule? Obviously in the real world there would be no way to prove the landlord is lying, but that you think it necessary that they would need to resort to that puts a pretty big question mark over your previous assertion that it is obviously commons sense that pets are not allowed by default.

Either way I have a very hard time believing the RTB would approve an eviction notice based on a landlords claims that they made a rule verbally and a tenant denies it. Especially when putting that rule in writing would have been such a trivial thing to do. Of course if you have examples of this happening in the real world I would it would be great if you could share them.

I doubt you'll find a case law example, purely for the fact like I outlined above, it's very unlikely to end up at an RTB dispute.

Of course there's still common sense to apply, but if it came down to pure law in front of an RTB tribunal, it's he said she said and you can be certain both sides will bend the truth. Even this thread is one sided. We don't know what was agreed or actually said. I'm sure the landlord/landlady would have a very different story to tell.

I already said I would expect even if the landlord did enforce a notice of termination that the arbitration process would probably allow the cat to stay with concessions as already detailed in the thread, e.g. higher deposit.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is not a licencee situation. It is a self contained flat. The owner does not live in the same dwelling as the o/p. It might, from a tax point of view qualify for rent a room relief but whether it does or not, the o/p is a tenant.

Incorrect, a self contained unit with direct and permenant access between it and the main house (such as a door even if it's always locked) makes the person living there a licensee. It's no different to renting a room. The house owner simply allows them to use their own kitchen etc but he can enter at anytime through the door which separates them. There is no way a person living in an area of a house with direct access can be considered at tenant.

If the op is living in a seperate building with no interior access between his dwelling and the his LL's then it is a very different scenario and he could go down the road of claiming tenants rights.

Claw Hammer

Santana Orange Photography wrote: »

Incorrect, a self contained unit with direct and permenant access between it and the main house (such as a door even if it's always locked) makes the person living there a licensee. It's no different to renting a room. The house owner simply allows them to use their own kitchen etc but he can enter at anytime through the door which separates them. There is no way a person living in an area of a house with direct access can be considered at tenant.

If the op is living in a seperate building with no interior access between his dwelling and the his LL's then it is a very different scenario and he could go down the road of claiming tenants rights.

It is completely different. There are 2 kitchens and electrical systems thus 2 dwellings. The RTA specifically provides for a building split into 2 dwellings where the landlord resides in 1. Read the RTB decisions on this.

Michael D Not Higgins

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is completely different. There are 2 kitchens and electrical systems thus 2 dwellings. The RTA specifically provides for a building split into 2 dwellings where the landlord resides in 1. Read the RTB decisions on this.

We haven't had clarification from the OP on the exact living situation. You would be correct in that if it was self contained it could be considered a tenancy under RTA 2004.

Mcnaggins

The OP has 4 posts.

I've bolded things that could help us figure out their situation

Mcnaggins wrote: »

I've been living in my flat for about a year and a half now, and we took in a very ill kitten recently, my landlord has seen this kitten and even commented on how cute she was, however three days ago his wife cornered my boyfriend and asked if we had a cat, he obviously answered yes, and very matter of factly said "yeah well no, you can't have it get rid of it". The whole atmosphere has changed here now, it's awkward and uncomfortable, they expect us to just let her wander off into the streets and my cat is like my baby so there is no way that is happening. All the wife does now though is sit outside our bathroom window (our flat is at the back of their property) and listen to us and make smug noises at the heartbreak trying to find a temporary home for cat is causing.. What should I do?

Mcnaggins wrote: »

When we moved in there was no rules against pets, when we confirmed after the one year mark that we were staying there was still no rules against it.

Mcnaggins wrote: »

I see the landlord often as both my boyfriend and I do because they have to pass our front door to get to the bins, that and my boyfriend runs into him almost every morning on his way to work

Mcnaggins wrote: »

We didn't do a lease, it was a verbal thing since the beginning and its always been pleasant up until now

Nothing about kitchens, electrical systems, joining doors or otherwise.

Any extrapolation beyond what we have here is just speculating. This could easily be a tenant, this could easily be a licensee.

Rules and advice pertaining to each of these situations are vastly different.

Sad Professor

As pet lover and a tenant, my sympathies lie with the OP. But even if the law is on the OP's side, as I suspect it is, I'm still inclined to agree with the landlords in the thread that if the OP wants to stay in their flat then mostly likely either the cat goes or they both do. Security of tenure and rent control in Ireland are just too weak and tenants can't afford to be falling out with or inconveniencing their landlord unless they want to be slapped with a rent increase or a notice of termination because the landlord's brother wants to move in. Even if the OP is in the right, it's simply not in their interest to fall out with their landlord, especially when they are living next door to them.

Regardless of whether you are a tenant or licensee, OP, my advice would be to try and negotiate with your landlord as already suggested and if that fails start looking for a new place where you can keep the cat.

Claw Hammer

Deleted User wrote: »

The OP has 4 posts.

I've bolded things that could help us figure out their situation









Nothing about kitchens, electrical systems, joining doors or otherwise.

Any extrapolation beyond what we have here is just speculating. This could easily be a tenant, this could easily be a licensee.

Rules and advice pertaining to each of these situations are vastly different.

What is clear is that the o/p only meets the landlord outside, never inside the dwelling. The landlord does not live in the same dwelling so they are tenants.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What is clear is that the o/p only meets the landlord outside, never inside the dwelling. The landlord does not live in the same dwelling so they are tenants.

If there was a locked internal door between where they live they would never meet each other inside but they would still be licensees.

Henry Ford III

The cat goes and the problem ceases to exist.

Henry Ford III

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The cat goes and the problem ceases to exist.

It's such a simple solution I've have no idea how it's ended up in pages and pages of debate and talk about it.

Chijj

the info provided would make me think the landlord is not above board in relation to tax liabilities.

If you want to keep the cat ask them for your prtb number and advise them you will be making contact with them who can launch a full investigation. I'm sure that may get them to re-think if their rouse will be found out.

This forum is notoriously full of Landlords so they will of course be on her side

Turtle_

OP, you need to consider the safety of the cat.

<mod snip: senationalist scaremongering is not welcome here. You don't know the individual concerned>

Either you move with the kitten or the kitten has to go. It's not a safe environment with her around.

athtrasna

Chijj wrote: »

the info provided would make me think the landlord is not above board in relation to tax liabilities.

If you want to keep the cat ask them for your prtb number and advise them you will be making contact with them who can launch a full investigation. I'm sure that may get them to re-think if their rouse will be found out.

This forum is notoriously full of Landlords so they will of course be on her side

Mod note Sweeping generalisations and suggesting a them v us scenario are both contrary to the forum charter. Making assumptions about the landlord's tax status is also unhelpful.

Turtle_

The lady sits outside laughing about you having to get rid of the cat.

Do you like that behaviour?

Do you trust that behaviour?

the_syco

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

Talk to threshold and tenancy board first and foremost.Have your ducks in a row before even talking to the landlady.KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!!

Going in guns blazing will only ensure the OP loses out.