Eviction of a tenant??

Muahahaha

Have a friend who is in a bit of a bind. He has been staying in an apartment with two others for the last 8 months. The two others were the original signees on the lease and they sub-let him a room. Im not sure if they got written or verbal permission to do this but the landlord certainly knew about the arrangement at all times as my friend paid rent directly to the landlord. Now the two original tenants have done a bunk and the landlord is screaming and shouting that its my friends fault and that he has to leave, pronto. Landlord has threatened to change the locks within 24 hours and is literally throwing this guy out onto the street.

So wondering has he attained any rights by virtue of the landlord knowing a sub-let was happening and taking the rent directly from him. He is not willing to stay under the bad atmosphere that now exists but neither does he want to be made homeless with 24 hrs notice.

Mrs OBumble

At six months, he had a the right to ask to be put onto the lease. If he had done that, then he would now have rights, but he would also be "jointly and severally" liable for the full rent.

Since he didn't do that, then he has no rights. The best thing is to let the LL calm down, and then negotiate a fast exit as soon as he finds somewhere to go.

Has there been any damage done? If there much rent owing from the two who left? What's the status of utility bills?

Claw Hammer

If he has been paying the LL directly then he is not a sub tenant but a multiple tenant. He should tell the landlord he will go to the RTB and demand an injunction and will also seek damages.

He isn't named on the lease, he was rented the room by the others paying the LL his share rather than going through the others won't make a difference.

Even if it did it would be a bad idea as if he is in fact a tenant then he will be liable for the full rent going forward and the arrears of the people who left. He is actually lucky that he isn't a tenant and should get out while he can.

CIARAN_BOYLE

If he is a tennant he has rights but he is jointly liable for full rent, if he is a sub tennant he is a licensee with no rights.

Landlord feels he is a licensee, say fine and get out as soon as possible.

Ms Doubtfire1

Would advise your friend to call into the PRTB and seek advise.

Claw Hammer

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

If he is a tennant he has rights but he is jointly liable for full rent, if he is a sub tennant he is a licensee with no rights.

Landlord feels he is a licensee, say fine and get out as soon as possible.

What the landlord feels is irrelevant. He may well be seen as a tenant in his own right by the RTB. A sub tenant or licensee pays his rent to the head tenant.
At the very least he should go to Threshold and get them to ring the LL and put manners on him.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What the landlord feels is irrelevant. He may well be seen as a tenant in his own right by the RTB. A sub tenant or licensee pays his rent to the head tenant.
At the very least he should go to Threshold and get them to ring the LL and put manners on him.

Who will then put manners on the "tenant" by asking him for the full rent and arrears. Threashold will put manners on no one (I have no idea why people even suggest them as they are well known for giving illegal advise), all they will do is possibly make the LL change his tune and pursue the person in the op for the a lot of lost rent.

Some people are so fast to shout RTB and threashold they don't actually think that maybe he is far better off being a licensee and not being liable for the full rent in this scenario which could work out at 1000's if he had to pay the arrears and pay rent for the duration of the notice period. The person in the OP is very very lucky the LL is considering him a licensee and the best advise he could get is get out fast before the LL changes his mind.

Claw Hammer

Clyde Whispering Forest wrote: »

Who will then put manners on the "tenant" by asking him for the full rent and arrears. Threashold will put manners on no one (I have no idea why people even suggest them as they are well known for giving illegal advise), all they will do is possibly make the LL change his tune and pursue the person in the op for the a lot of lost rent.

Some people are so fast to shout RTB and threashold they don't actually think that maybe he is far better off being a licensee and not being liable for the full rent in this scenario which could work out at 1000's if he had to pay the arrears and pay rent for the duration of the notice period. The person in the OP is very very lucky the LL is considering him a licensee and the best advise he could get is get out fast before the LL changes his mind.

That LL is never going to get a penny out of the tenant.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That LL is never going to get a penny out of the tenant.

So you want the tenant to have all the rights and none of the responsibilities?

Whether or not the person could be considered a tenant is irrelevant, its a crap situation for the person but the fact is he is much better off not being considered one for his own sake. He might have to move out at very short notice but its much more preferrable than being responsible for the entire rent and being pursued for it

The_Conductor

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That LL is never going to get a penny out of the tenant.

That landlord could pursue a civil case against the one remaining individual- who is dodgy ground to begin with- for full satisfaction of all the rent and any liabilities- if the guy tries to make out that he is a tenant.

If he goes to Threshold and tries to suggest he is a tenant- he may get a shock- his obligations may vastly exceed any rights he may have.........

I'd suggest get the hell out of there as quickly as possible.

Muahahaha

OP here, I got this sorted last night, rang the LL on behalf of my friend and pointed out the proper legal procedure for evicting a tenant where the rent has arrears (14 day letter followed by a 28 day letter). I said chucking him on the street with 24 hours notice was unacceptable as he had paid all his part of the rent. They agreed and I negotiated 2 weeks notice with him allowing viewings of the property in the meantime.
Next time Ill make sure he doesnt end up in such a dodgy arrangement but its all sorted now, thanks for the replies.

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

That landlord could pursue a civil case against the one remaining individual- who is dodgy ground to begin with- for full satisfaction of all the rent and any liabilities- if the guy tries to make out that he is a tenant.

If he goes to Threshold and tries to suggest he is a tenant- he may get a shock- his obligations may vastly exceed any rights he may have.........

I'd suggest get the hell out of there as quickly as possible.

That so a statement of legal advice and has as great a chance of being wrong as being right; the individual has not at any stage acceded to a situation where he acknowledges, in writing or likely orally, that he is I able for the entire rent nor does he have an entitlement to the entire property. As he has been paying rent directly to the landlord it is likely that he is a multiple tenant and has rights of occupation. Conversely, the landlord only has a right to obtain from him the rent which he has agreed to pay plus an implied obligation not to interfere with the landlord reletting the remainder of the property.

Obligations don't simply get foisted upon you; if the landlord wanted to be able to enforce the full rental obligations against a single tenant he would need to establish that in a court/tribunal of competent jurisdiction. That would require some evidence, for it to be accepted most likely written evidence.

There's an awful lot of guff talked on here.

Michael D Not Higgins

Mod: OK, the OP has had the situation resolved amicably. Our speculation on the legal ramifications are just speculations and should never be taken as legal advice or in any way reliable. With that, thread closed.