Landlord made strange comment

Stealthfins

Juan Gigantic Officer wrote:

As an example I know a number of people who have moved apartment/were looking at moving apartment recently and many two bed apartments had occupancy limited to two people, either one couple or two single people despite having two large double rooms and plenty of space.

Sure sign of greed isn't it....

pilly

juno10353 wrote: »

As the LL is in the process of doing maintenance and upgrades to property, could it be that he was hoping to make a case to increase rent.

Good point, could very well be.

Special Circumstances

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Tag team rules if someone has a friend over? One in, one out?

It was referring to permanent tenants not guests.

Stealthfins wrote: »

Sure sign of greed isn't it....

I would disagree, a LL can rent his property as he wants once its within the law and limiting how many permanent tenants live there is perfectly legal as far as I'm aware. More people mean more wear and tear which is a consideration for many LLs.

childsplay

Kings Inns or bust wrote:

While I'd have an opinion on whether such a clause in a lease was enforceable I'll express it only if requested over in Legal Discussions. If the lease is silent on the issue Section 16(n) of the RTA 2004 seems to imply only notification is required and only then if the person is ordinarily resident.

testaccount123 wrote:

Where are you getting this guff? Its no business of the landlord if the tenant has guests in her home.

If the house burned down with extra people in it the the landlord would be screwed. You'd care what he thought then.

Elliott S

L1011 wrote: »

They're in basically every boilerplate lease so I suspect that vast quantities of people have signed them.

I've read every lease presented to me before signing it and I've never come across a house guest stipulation.

In any case, even if a lease did carry such a stipulation, it doesn't seem to be very enforceable unless the landlord is surveilling the property and that's a murky area.

Stealthfins

childsplay wrote:

If the house burned down with extra people in it the the landlord would be screwed. You'd care what he thought then.

That would only happen if chucky was around.

Stealthfins

Juan Gigantic Officer wrote:

I would disagree, a LL can rent his property as he wants once its within the law and limiting how many permanent tenants live there is perfectly legal as far as I'm aware. More people mean more wear and tear which is a consideration for many LLs.

Back in the 90's Tennant's had the upper hand on landlords,now it seems a ruthless dynamic is creeping back into the renting scene.

I blame it on the egotism and insecurity.

hawkwind23

My God , how pathetic we have become as a nation
Never mind the crucifying rents now we are accepting being treated like petulant children when we don't give total control of our personal lives to a landlord.
CRAZY!
Some of the comments on her defy belief , what happened to people?

Speedwell

Stealthfins wrote: »

Sure sign of greed isn't it....

You know, come to think of it, that "a single person or a couple" thing is a clear way of discriminating against children. Is that allowed in Ireland?

Elliott S

Stealthfins wrote: »

Back in the 90's Tennant's had the upper hand on landlords,now it seems a ruthless dynamic is creeping back into the renting scene.

I blame it on the egotism and insecurity.

This is a bit daft.

I think it was you who posted before about the 90s being a renter's utopia where people could have their OHs over to stay all the time. I started renting in the early 00s and it was never OK.

In the 90s, landlords had much more power than they have now so I don't know how you could think tenants had the upper hand back then.

Having said that, I don't see how a tenant can practically be prevented by a landlord from having a guest over more than three times a week, no matter the lease says. And forbidding people from visiting for a few hours more than three times a week is ludicous.

pilly

childsplay wrote: »

If the house burned down with extra people in it the the landlord would be screwed. You'd care what he thought then.

And how exactly would the amount of people in the house when it burned down have any effect on the landlord?

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

You know, come to think of it, that "a single person or a couple" thing is a clear way of discriminating against children. Is that allowed in Ireland?

As none of the people in question had or would be close to having children I can't comment on whether this rule was in relation to children as it was in relation to two couples living there when it was brought up by one place and the other just made them aware from the start that it was two people per apartment.

Not sure if you can directly say no to someone with children but you can always say the place is unsuitable for children due to a balcony, steps inside etc etc. Pets and children both significantly increase wear and tear and cause damage so I would see any LL as being justified for refusing to rent to people with either.

Speedwell

Levi Eager Vector wrote: »

Not sure if you can directly say no to someone with children ... so I wouldn't blame any LL for refusing to rent to people with either.

But is it something that is allowed here? I have lived in places where it was literally illegal to refuse to rent to families with children unless the property was statutorily too small for the number of residents or the entire complex was designated "adults only" (for example, intended for retirees). Landlords would get in real trouble if their properties didn't meet the criteria for being exempt, and were also unsafe for children.

Ayuntamiento

I just couldn't rent from somebody who had the cheek to look at my laundry basket and comment on the presence of men's clothing. You should have said you were transitioning from female to male and this was part of your new wardrobe..

I don't think it's too much to ask for a bit of common courtesy/respect from a person who receives thousands of euro in rent from you every year.

I know everybody likes to act like the landlord has the upper hand in this market, but realistically for every decent tenant there are several nightmare tenants. If I were a landlord and I was getting my rent paid on time and I knew I had a semi-decent person looking after my home, I'd behave in a reasonable fashion.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

But is it something that is allowed here? I have lived in places where it was literally illegal to refuse to rent to families with children unless the property was statutorily too small for the number of residents or the entire complex was designated "adults only" (for example, intended for retirees). Landlords would get in real trouble if their properties didn't meet the criteria for being exempt, and were also unsafe for children.

It may well be illegal here but much like its illegal to refuse to rent to rent allowance recipients etc there are plenty of ways to refuse people without stating the real reason. The rent allowance situation shows this as making it illegal to use it as a reason has not resulted in any evidence of an increased number of rent allowance tenants being accepted.

Admittedly I've only been involved in finding people for rooms in the houseshares I have lived in but my way was to tell everyone who looked at the room (including the first person to view the room) that I had given someone else first refusal and that I would get back to them. This allowed me to see everyone and and ring the person I liked most and say "the other person pulled out" while telling the others "the other person took the room".

L1011

Speedwell wrote: »

But is it something that is allowed here? I have lived in places where it was literally illegal to refuse to rent to families with children unless the property was statutorily too small for the number of residents or the entire complex was designated "adults only" (for example, intended for retirees). Landlords would get in real trouble if their properties didn't meet the criteria for being exempt, and were also unsafe for children.

With the current demand for rentals, it would be near impossible to prove why you weren't the landlords choice.

Special Circumstances

"No pets, no children, no fornicators* - I'll be watchiiiiiiinnnng you"

*where episodes of fornication exceed 2 nights of the week.

pc7

I know the boyfriend isn't living with her, but if that changes would landlord have to notify the change to RTB? I know you have to specify how many people are living in the house when registering a tenancy.

pc7

pc7 wrote: »

I know the boyfriend isn't living with her, but if that changes would landlord have to notify the change to RTB? I know you have to specify how many people are living in the house when registering a tenancy.

If he isn't on the lease he would only be a licensee of the tenant and therefore the LL would not be required amend the registration.

Ayuntamiento

Just because you put in your lease that you don't allow pets, children, house-guests, fun, breathing, etc etc....doesn't guarantee that you won't end up with horrible tenants who cause you no end of trouble.
I like my Landlord because he doesn't bother us. I'd go out of my way not to be a hassle to him or leave him out of pocket at the end of the tenancy. The OPs landlord is creating a situation where there will be a lot of ill-will between both parties.
I think this is more to do with the particular personality/views of that individual landlord rather than some great business strategy on his behalf.

rawn

I think the LL needs to be gently reminded that he is renting a home, not a hotel room. As long as the OP's partner is not living there he should have no say in the frequencies of his visits, or how often the OP has visitors. It's bizarre that he thinks he has any say in that!

foggy_lad

Shadylou wrote: »

All it says in my lease is that there is a limit in occupation which my landlord has my name and the kids names under, it says I may not sublet but it doesnt say anything about visitors.
He does not occupy the house, he visits maybe 4 times a week for a few hours

Well you are doing nothing wrong there!

If your Landlord brings it up again tell him that you are entitled to peaceful occupation of "your home" and are entitled to have adult visitors during the day and even to stay overnight for up to three nights a week occasionally and that child visitors associated with your child will come and go as you see fit.

Try not to be confrontational about it and maybe tell him that if you were ever planning moving the boyfriend in you would talk to him well in advance.

Special Circumstances

Imagine it, no real expectation in this age to ask the father's permission, but the landlord must give prior approval for any weddings!


"Sure you can marry my tenant... you know about the primae noctis clause yeah?"

Stealthfins

Elliott S wrote:

I think it was you who posted before about the 90s being a renter's utopia where people could have their OHs over to stay all the time. I started renting in the early 00s and it was never OK.

Elliott S wrote:

In the 90s, landlords had much more power than they have now so I don't know how you could think tenants had the upper hand back then.

Elliott S wrote:

I think it was you who posted before about the 90s being a renter's utopia where people could have their OHs over to stay all the time. I started renting in the early 00s and it was never OK.

Elliott S wrote:

This is a bit daft.

Elliott S wrote:

In the 90s, landlords had much more power than they have now so I don't know how you could think tenants had the upper hand back then.

Elliott S wrote:

Having said that, I don't see how a tenant can practically be prevented by a landlord from having a guest over more than three times a week, no matter the lease says. And forbidding people from visiting for a few hours more than three times a week is ludicous.

I'm talking about how landlord's today are ruthless,not the Tennant's

Shadylou

My landlord called this morning and I sat him down with a cup of tea and asked him exactly what he had meant by his comments. He got a bit of a shock that I challenged him on it and kept telling me that at the end of the day it's his house.
For once though I didn't lose my temper and explained my side of things and finally he admitted that he was afraid my boyfriend had moved in, I assured him that I would let him know if that was going to be a possibility (it's not, it would be the other way around, I would move in with him)
BTW....the person who said he was doing up the house to increase the rent..you were right.I have that to look forward to in March lol.

Mrs OBumble

I'm sorry, but people who only visit for a few hours in the daytime wash their clothes, in their own homes.

The LL clearly doesn't belive that they're short non-sleepover visits, and if I'd seen the same evidence I would have come to the same conclusion. Either that, or I'd suspect you were using my property to run a laundry business.

Nb. Daytime vs nighttime is irrelevant, for all we and the LL know, you or your bf may work night shift.

Special Circumstances

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The LL clearly doesn't belive that they're short non-sleepover visits, and if I'd seen the same evidence I would have come to the same conclusion.

childsplay

pilly wrote:

And how exactly would the amount of people in the house when it burned down have any effect on the landlord?

Wouldn't the insurance company need to be aware of the number of people in the house usually. If that number changed without them being made aware could cause problems.

Elliott S

Stealthfins wrote: »

I'm talking about how landlord's today are ruthless,not the Tennant's

That's honestly a bit OTT, the landlord in the OP would be a rarity.

pilly

childsplay wrote: »

Wouldn't the insurance company need to be aware of the number of people in the house usually. If that number changed without them being made aware could cause problems.

No, an insurance company never knows how many people are in a house. It's the house that is insured not the people.