One tenant in our house moving out - Is our lease void?

ZappaMan

Hello,

I have a question which I hope you can answer. Have lived in the same 2 bed apartment for the last 3 years with a friend of mine. Our current lease is up at the end of October and our rent was increased last November. My flatmate now has to move home for personal reasons at the end of this month. He just rang the landlord to tell him & the landlord is calling me later

Once he leaves, is the lease effectively "broken", and can the landlord draw up a new one for me, increasing the price (inside the 2 year rent freeze limit)?

Thank you.

Baby01032012

Rent for the apartment can not be increased until November 2017.

However if you signed a lease for the whole apartment you both are liable for the whole rent until end of lease or you find a replacement for your friend or both of ye.

ZappaMan

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Rent for the apartment can not be increased until November 2017.

However if you signed a lease for the whole apartment you both are liable for the whole rent until end of lease or you find a replacement for your friend or both of ye.

Even if a new lease is signed with me and a new tenant in the apartment, the rent cannot be increased until November 2017?

endacl

ZappaMan wrote: »

Even if a new lease is signed with me and a new tenant in the apartment, the rent cannot be increased until November 2017?

The old lease is still in effect. Even if you both move out and the lease wasn't reassigned, you'd both be jointly an severally responsible to fulfill the terms.

Edit: Sorry, forgot to say, unless the lease is reassigned, the new tenant won't be on the lease. You and your ex-flat mate will be subletting to a licensee.

ZappaMan

endacl wrote: »

The old lease is still in effect. Even if you both move out and the lease wasn't reassigned, you'd both be jointly an severally responsible to fulfill the terms.

Edit: Sorry, forgot to say, unless the lease is reassigned, the new tenant won't be on the lease. You and your ex-flat mate will be subletting to a licensee.

Assume it is reassigned - I'm right in saying it still can't be increased until Nov 2017?

endacl

ZappaMan wrote: »

Assume it is reassigned - I'm right in saying it still can't be increased until Nov 2017?

Yes. It'll still be the same lease.

murphaph

Yeah you can go with reassigning the lease to you and a.n. other so that's the same lease so no rent increase. Or you ask if the LL is ok for you to take a licensee in (a lodger with effectively no rights as a tenant). As a LL I would always prefer a "head tenant" like this as I only have to deal with one tenant. Some LLs prefer that everyone is on the lease. The advantage to you of taking a lodger is that if the person is "difficult" you can get rid of them easily.

ZappaMan

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah you can go with reassigning the lease to you and a.n. other so that's the same lease so no rent increase. Or you ask if the LL is ok for you to take a licensee in (a lodger with effectively no rights as a tenant). As a LL I would always prefer a "head tenant" like this as I only have to deal with one tenant. Some LLs prefer that everyone is on the lease. The advantage to you of taking a lodger is that if the person is "difficult" you can get rid of them easily.

I'm a little confused here. My lease ends in Oct but I have lived here for 3 years. If a new tenant/licensee arrives and a new lease is agreed with landlord, is this a new lease or a reassignment? I thought it would be new?

Also, my fellow tenant is leaving, but I assume I still have security of tenure (as I have been resident here for so long)?

Thank you for your help so far.

salamanca22

ZappaMan wrote: »

I'm a little confused here. My lease ends in Oct but I have lived here for 3 years. If a new tenant/licensee arrives and a new lease is agreed with landlord, is this a new lease or a reassignment? I thought it would be new?

Also, my fellow tenant is leaving, but I assume I still have security of tenure (as I have been resident here for so long)?

Thank you for your help so far.

The tenancy will still exist either by reassigning the lease or as you being the main tenant and you subletting (With permission) to another secondary tenant. In this case the original people who signed the lease will still be liable towards the landlord meaning if your licensee were to renege and leave you would have to pay the entire rent due (Your original flatmate would be liable too but I doubt it would work out that way practically, easier to go after the sitting tenant.)

The second way is to reassign the lease which essentially will take both names off the lease and then put yours and the new tenants name on it. This would mean your old flatmate would have no more liability but you would still be liable as would your new flatmate. If you flatmate reneges both of you would be responsible for paying the rent, usually it is easier to get that rent from the sitting tenant, i.e. you.

In both cases the original tenancy is still in place which means that rent cannot be increased for until 2 years after the previous increase.

This can be as messy or as easy as you make it. Make sure the new tenant is vetted and has references. The last thing you need is to owe 2x the rent you usually do.

ZappaMan

Following on from my post on Friday, had a chat with the landlord that evening regarding the end of my lease. He was happy for me to stay on and that my share of the rent would stay the same. He said that if a new tenant was coming into the other room, that they would have to pay the current market rate (he's talking approx 40% more than I am currently paying).

Is this legal (thought 2 year rent freeze applied to whole apartment and would prohibit this or does it apply to a new tenant)? It doesn't really affect me but it might make it harder to attract tenants if the price is sky high. Don't want to see anyone screwed over either.

I also had a list of jobs that really need to be done/need a couple of appliances replaced but he wants to wait until my flatmate has moved out and new tenant is in - a month from now. What is the position on this? Do repairs need to be carried out within a reasonable amount of time?

endacl

Sounds a little ... unorthodox...?

ZappaMan

endacl wrote: »

Sounds a little ... unorthodox...?

Yeah, I'm just not sure if he's entitled to do this

salamanca22

ZappaMan wrote: »

Yeah, I'm just not sure if he's entitled to do this

It sounds like he is wanting to rent rooms separately instead of the whole apartment on a single lease.

To be kosher it would require a new lease to be written up for each new tenant which would then be signed solely by them making you only responsible for the rent for your room and not anyone else.

endacl

endacl wrote: »

Sounds a little ... unorthodox...?

Nothing out of the ordinary about renting rooms seperately, it's very common. In fact it's the only way I've ever rented in a number of different houses. It's the best way of doing it for both the LL and tenants perspective imo.

salamanca22 wrote: »

It sounds like he is wanting to rent rooms separately instead of the whole apartment on a single lease.

To be kosher it would require a new lease to be written up for each new tenant which would then be signed solely by them making you only responsible for the rent for your room and not anyone else.

Rooms let seperately is usually a much more informal setup, in all my years doing it I've never signed a thing, in fact leases etc were never even mentioned.

salamanca22

Raiden Sharp Actor wrote: »

Rooms let seperately is usually a much more informal setup, in all my years doing it I've never signed a thing, in fact leases etc were never even mentioned.

yes, but in this case there is already a lease in place which needs to be voided in order to make it valid if the landlord wants to move to renting rooms instead of the entire house.

In the end of the day it depends on how casual you want to be about it. Technically OP right now is responsible for the rent of the entire dwelling and that will continue of the current lease is still in place when new tenants move in if it is not ended. However, if that means much to the OP and their landlord is up to them.

Personally I would make sure everything is right and new leases are drawn up while the old on is ended. The LL is being a good guy right now for sure but that is no guarantee that next year he won't change. In the end of the day the LL and Tenant relationship should be strictly business and formal and things really should be done by the book, for both the tenant and landlords sake.

davo10

I think the op should realise that the LL should quite rightly be charging him/her for the full amount of the monthly rental and that it is up to the tenant to find a new house mate if there is a single lease in both his/her name and the tenant who is moving out. The fact that the LL is only charging the op his/her share of the rent is a huge bonus so I wouldn't start shouting about the new tenant getting screwed.

Op, did you actually sign your current lease? It wasn't just your friend who signed it and then you moved in with him/her?

The_Conductor

I'd be inclined to agree with Davo on this- normally, tenants and jointly and severally liable for the rent. I.e. if one leaves- the remaining tenants are liable to pay for the whole building, until such time as they sublet to a third party.

The landlord is offering you an out- and only charging rent on a per-room basis.
You have security of tenure (as per your lease).

Does the lease state that you are renting the entire dwelling- or simply a room in the dwelling (this is an important bit- and may determine whether, or not, you have security under the Residential Tenancies Act).

All-in-all, its unusual to handle renting separate rooms via a formal lease- however, the flipside of the coin- is you don't appear to be liable for the whole of the rent while another house mate is sourced.

Pros and cons really- but at the end of the day, it depends on what you're actually renting- a room, or the whole dwelling.......

murphaph

Slightly off topic but what is the legal difference between renting rooms individually in a 3 bed, 1 bath, 1 kitchen house in the suburbs with (now outlawed) bedsits?

I thought (correct me if I'm wrong) that what defined the bedsit was that you had a communal toilet, which is obviously the case in the house share (with individual leases).

Michael D Not Higgins

murphaph wrote: »

Slightly off topic but what is the legal difference between renting rooms individually in a 3 bed, 1 bath, 1 kitchen house in the suburbs with (now outlawed) bedsits?

I thought (correct me if I'm wrong) that what defined the bedsit was that you had a communal toilet, which is obviously the case in the house share (with individual leases).

A shared house is different because the bedroom is private while all other areas are common. A bedsit involves having a kitchen within the unit and toilet facilities in common.

Basically, bedsits were sold as self contained so the law was changed to make them fully self contained and require their own bathroom facilities. Also in some cases there weren't full kitchens and there was a lack of laundry facilities. The other issue was the how bad most bedsits were. They were truly awful in some cases.

These problems didn't extend to shared houses so there was no need to implement any additional regulation.

Clampdown

So because he can't increase the rent on the flat for another year he's going to rent the recently vacated room separate and put the entire rent increase on the new tenant? And you have to find the person who you know is going to be paying more?

Cute.

Anyway, as to the original question, your lease is not void and your housemate who is moving is responsible for his share of rent up to the end of the lease.