Suspect Tenants subletting the living room.

ZENER

We let out a 2 bed apartment to 2 sisters two years ago. All has been fine with them until recently.

The heating stopped working and I called around to have a look. It was simple enough to fix, the pressure in the system went below the set point and the gas boiler refused to start.

While checking the radiators I tried to go into the living room and discovered it locked. The two bedrooms had TVs in them and the original TV and stand from the living room are now in the hallway. Basically, we suspected they have moved someone in and they are staying in the living room which they keep locked to stop other tenants entering (I'm guessing).

Their excuse was that they keep the room locked when they are out but the other sister (not present during my visit) had the key.

Another tenant from an adjoining apartment informed us that they have noticed someone new about the place entering and leaving this apartment.

The lease specifically forbids this and we have issued them with a warning to move the new tenant out asap. That was a week ago but they still maintain that they keep the room locked but can't give us a time that we can come visit so we can satisfy ourselves about the situation. I think they're stalling.

We'll pursue this until we get access but what happens if they do indeed have someone else living there ? The room being locked leads me to suspect that this person is probably renting the room and paying our tenants. The property is let as a 2 bed apartment so this would mean they now have 3 bedrooms.

Anyone any experience of this or any advice / suggestions on what to do next ? Is this a breach of our contract / lease terms ? How much notice to vacate is required in this situation if the need arises ?

Thanks

Ken

newacc2015

You have to ask yourself is this worth pursuing. If there is damage beyond normal wear and tear, you can take it out of their deposit.

Their obligation is to inform you of moving in an additional tenant and you could give them a warning. But it will be difficult to enforce. You have to ask permission to inspect the property by law, so checking on them unannounced is in fact illegal. So it is pretty much unenforceable ensuring there is only 2 living there

I would just evict them when they are coming up to year 4 under part IV. IMO unless they are 17/18 years old, they will want the third person off their sofa pretty quickly. They are living in a two bed with minimal use of the living area. I imagine they will get tired of the third tenant pretty quickly.

GGTrek

newacc2015 wrote: »

You have to ask yourself is this worth pursuing. If there is damage beyond normal wear and tear, you can take it out of their deposit.

Their obligation is to inform you of moving in an additional tenant and you could give them a warning. But it will be difficult to enforce. You have to ask permission to inspect the property by law, so checking on them unannounced is in fact illegal. So it is pretty much unenforceable ensuring there is only 2 living there

I would just evict them when they are coming up to year 4 under part IV. IMO unless they are 17/18 years old, they will want the third person off their sofa pretty quickly. They are living in a two bed with minimal use of the living area. I imagine they will get tired of the third tenant pretty quickly.

All fine suggestions except that with new gov regulations it is not possible to evict tenant at end of part 4 without cause.

Give the tenants a formal 14 days notice of request for inspection: you can find it in the RTB samples of notice of termination under breach of tenants obligations. It is your right by law to inspect. Serve it with witness. If the tenants stall you after 14 days you serve them a 28 days notice of termination. If they let you do the inspection repeat. Warn them that you plan one inspection per month. The person staying inside will not like moving all his stuff out and back in every month.
Good luck

murphaph

And note the numbers of the keys of all internal doors and get copies. You can then just open the doors during your announced inspections.

76544567

If it is a problem then change the front door lock for security upgrade reasons and only have 3 registered keys. Give them two keys.
Have a charge of €200 for a lost key. If they report a lost key change the lock to a different key and give them two keys again.
If they are subletting, then this will make it very awkward for them and it will stop.
Also change the living room door to one without a lock in it. Just a handle.

RHJ

This post has been deleted.

76544567

RHJ wrote: »

What's too stop them from going to a locksmith and getting a another key?

The registered part.
You can get keys now where all copies are recorded in a central dB. The key cutter needs to use the central dB to put the key through the machine.

scamalert

wth owner needs permission from tenants to enter living room ?
simple i need to check radiators and if room is locked just get a screwdriver and take the lock off would been enough of excuse to inspect.

It would be wrong to enter property when tenants aren't around and going trough bedrooms,but if suspecting such case and tenants are present and suspect of breaking contract to subletting should be enough of reason to come in and remove lock from bedroom.

Since can understand motive to sublet given current prices of rent,but believe no LL would want having property being sublet or used for purposes that wasn't in contract,thus not much damage as breaking trust between tenants and LL in this case.

beertons

76544567 wrote: »

The registered part.
You can get keys now where all copies are recorded in a central dB. The key cutter needs to use the central dB to put the key through the machine.

I have Yale locks on my front door, spares can only be ordered from yale.Co dot UK. And at 15 pounds each, you'll mind the ones you have.

newacc2015

76544567 wrote: »

If it is a problem then change the front door lock for security upgrade reasons and only have 3 registered keys. Give them two keys.

I think it is a good idea. But what's stopping them switching the lock to a normal lock where keys be cut other than its time consuming (well I can switch a lock in about 10 mins)? Its not that difficult for them to switch out the registered key lock to a regular €40 lock from any locksmith.

76544567

newacc2015 wrote: »

I think it is a good idea. But what's stopping them switching the lock to a normal lock where keys be cut other than its time consuming (well I can switch a lock in about 10 mins)? Its not that difficult for them to switch out the registered key lock to a regular €40 lock from any locksmith.

Let them. Check the locks every time you go up for an inspection, and then have them out on their ear after you discover it.
Tenants are not entitled to change locks. If they do, evict them.

davindub

76544567 wrote: »

Let them. Check the locks every time you go up for an inspection, and then have them out on their ear after you discover it.
Tenants are not entitled to change locks. If they do, evict them.

Not as easy as that unfortunately. Damages have actually been awarded against a LL who changed a lock that was not broken as it was found to be interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the property.

OP, a lot of suggestions here are not practical when you consider you might have to explain all this to a hearing someday.

You might want to consider reading some of the cases on the RTB website, frequently you will see LL's on the warpath and ending up with damages awarded against them.

76544567

davindub wrote: »

Not as easy as that unfortunately. Damages have actually been awarded against a LL who changed a lock that was not broken as it was found to be interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the property.

OP, a lot of suggestions here are not practical when you consider you might have to explain all this to a hearing someday.

You might want to consider reading some of the cases on the RTB website, frequently you will see LL's on the warpath and ending up with damages awarded against them.

So a landlord changes locks as a security measure and gives out 2 registered keys and its suddenly a crime.
The RTB are great for taking the p1ss, but even they would have trouble nailing you with that one.
Please post a link to the RTB decision you are talking about that prevents that?

davindub

76544567 wrote: »

So a landlord changes locks as a security measure and gives out 2 registered keys and its suddenly a crime.
The RTB are great for taking the p1ss, but even they would have trouble nailing you with that one.
Please post a link to the RTB decision you are talking about that prevents that?

It is not a crime, but it is something that you will pay for in damages.

You sound angry about it? If you have a very valid reason to change the locks and give the tenant a new key, fine. An example might be the property or others with the same system were broken into nearby. It will be unlikely you will be penalised for that.

But do not kid yourself and think the adjudicator will look at changing the locks in isolation, the entire situation will be considered, i.e. have an argument and change the locks = done to annoy tenant; issue a warning about subletting and change locks = done to annoy tenant or prevent subletting, neither of which is a reasonable way to deal with the situation. You clearly proposed changing locks as part of measures to prevent subletting, are you really that surprised it may not be easy to explain this as security measures?

One case...
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports-2013/tr0113-00000182-(0612-01022)-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Turtle_

OP has been told by a neighbour that a male stranger has been seen coming and going. Knowing that his tenants are both female, he's concerned that the security of the apartment has been compromised, be it by a previous tenant or the current mob making unauthorised copies of the keys. To protect the apartment, he installed a higher security lock with registered keys and each of the registered tenants were given a copy.

pillphil

Does their lease forbid taking on their own tenants or subletting specifically?

I'm open to correction on this, but I believe subletting is defined as letting out the whole house.

76544567

davindub wrote: »

It is not a crime, but it is something that you will pay for in damages.

You sound angry about it? If you have a very valid reason to change the locks and give the tenant a new key, fine. An example might be the property or others with the same system were broken into nearby. It will be unlikely you will be penalised for that.

But do not kid yourself and think the adjudicator will look at changing the locks in isolation, the entire situation will be considered, i.e. have an argument and change the locks = done to annoy tenant; issue a warning about subletting and change locks = done to annoy tenant or prevent subletting, neither of which is a reasonable way to deal with the situation. You clearly proposed changing locks as part of measures to prevent subletting, are you really that surprised it may not be easy to explain this as security measures?

One case...
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports-2013/tr0113-00000182-(0612-01022)-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0

As I thought, the link has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
I think you are adding 2+2 and getting 1000 here.

Any more specific links to support your statement?

I dont really think the OP would be so stupid as to not have an innocent reason for changing the locks. It could be as simple as, I lost my copy of the key and decided that now would be an ideal time to look at the security of the property. Its done all the time. As long as you give the tenant keys then all is good as far as the RTB are concerned.

davindub

76544567 wrote: »

As I thought, the link has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
I think you are adding 2+2 and getting 1000 here.

Any more specific links to support your statement?

I dont really think the OP would be so stupid as to not have an innocent reason for changing the locks. It could be as simple as, I lost my copy of the key and decided that now would be an ideal time to look at the security of the property. Its done all the time. As long as you give the tenant keys then all is good as far as the RTB are concerned.

Its as specific as it gets, the tenant was awarded 750 euros because the landlord changed the lock and gave the tenant a key. The lock was not broken.

Anyway, believe what you want but do you honestly think the RTB care what excuse they get? It really boils down to "did the tenants have a issue with it?" and if yes, "Did it impact their peaceful enjoyment of the property and was there really no other course of action"....... there is actually a lot of cases on the RTB website, read a few, you will see a lot of excuses given, few work.

scamalert

So according to some here its perfectly ok for someone to rent house and then sublet any spare rooms,seems like LL doesnt have any rights to his property,anymore without giving weeks of notices in advance to visiting it,quite a gap in many things to go wrong.

Seeing it trough OPs eyes,change locks if someone else is residing there give notice to evict tenants and be done with it,if contract is drawn just for two residents he cant be held responsible for any dangers that might happen due to having third one,which he isn't made aware of.

listermint

scamalert wrote: »

So according to some here its perfectly ok for someone to rent house and then sublet any spare rooms,seems like LL doesnt have any rights to his property,anymore without giving weeks of notices in advance to visiting it,quite a gap in many things to go wrong.

Seeing it trough OPs eyes,change locks if someone else is residing there give notice to evict tenants and be done with it,if contract is drawn just for two residents he cant be held responsible for any dangers that might happen due to having third one,which he isn't made aware of.

Prob a fire hazard too as it's against planning permission and house insurance

davindub

scamalert wrote: »

So according to some here its perfectly ok for someone to rent house and then sublet any spare rooms,seems like LL doesnt have any rights to his property,anymore without giving weeks of notices in advance to visiting it,quite a gap in many things to go wrong.

Seeing it trough OPs eyes,change locks if someone else is residing there give notice to evict tenants and be done with it,if contract is drawn just for two residents he cant be held responsible for any dangers that might happen due to having third one,which he isn't made aware of.

I can't speak for others, but it's not really a case of "according to some", or my preference, it's what has been defined in the Act and what has been in the courts already.

I don't know, if I were in the OP's position, I would really be looking for the option where I still receive rent on time, don't pay damages or fines, the property does not get modified or damaged, that I would not be in and out of the RTB and on the occasions where I need to enter the property, it's as stress free as possible.

If you have a issue with tenants, issue a notice as the OP has done. If it is not corrected, issue another. Then see what can be done about it, changing locks really won't address the issue directly, so why be childish and then make up stories to cover? Simply issue notice of termination that you believe the apartment to overcrowded and no longer suitable with proper notice as per the act and let the tenants appeal. If they do and you can't evict, no damages, no fine. Does this not sound easier?

foggy_lad

davindub wrote: »

Its as specific as it gets, the tenant was awarded 750 euros because the landlord changed the lock and gave the tenant a key. The lock was not broken.

Anyway, believe what you want but do you honestly think the RTB care what excuse they get? It really boils down to "did the tenants have a issue with it?" and if yes, "Did it impact their peaceful enjoyment of the property and was there really no other course of action"....... there is actually a lot of cases on the RTB website, read a few, you will see a lot of excuses given, few work.

http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports-2013/tr0113-00000182-(0612-01022)-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0

The Tribunal finds that the changing of the locks by the Landlord without notification to
the Tenant was unacceptable.

davindub

foggy_lad wrote: »

http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports-2013/tr0113-00000182-(0612-01022)-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Easy enough to break down, the tenant found issue with it under "peaceful enjoyment", the Tribunal agreed. You can substitute any number of things in there, change the couch, etc. Notice is not really the issue, its motive for doing so.

Really the point is, do you think you can defend changing the locks on the basis that you think the tenant is subletting?

If no, do you think you can spin a yarn good enough that the tribunal will think both events unconnected?

Graham

davindub wrote: »

If no, do you think you can spin a yarn good enough that the tribunal will think both events unconnected?

Why spin a yarn?

Any response to a tribunal could be along the lines of;

I had cause to believe people other than the tenants had gained copies of keys to the property. To assure the ongoing security of the property and the tenants, I notified the tenants that the locks would be replaced on dd/mm/yy at hh:mm. At the notified time I attended with a locksmith and provided the tenant with 2 new keys.

GGTrek

davindub wrote: »

foggy_lad wrote: »

http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports-2013/tr0113-00000182-(0612-01022)-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Easy enough to break down, the tenant found issue with it under "peaceful enjoyment", the Tribunal agreed. You can substitute any number of things in there, change the couch, etc. Notice is not really the issue, its motive for doing so.

Really the point is, do you think you can defend changing the locks on the basis that you think the tenant is subletting?

If no, do you think you can spin a yarn good enough that the tribunal will think both events unconnected?

The issue was and I quote the findings "The Tribunal finds that the changing of the locks by the Landlord without notification to the Tenant was unacceptable." If the landlord had notified the tenant about the change and provided the new keys promptly he could have changed the locks with no issues. I have changed several locks of my tenants with security keys providing previous notice. This is a common strategy employed by landlords to make it more difficult for the tenants to have long term "unauthorised guests". Not totally foolproof unfortunately as previous posters have indicated.

foggy_lad

davindub wrote: »

Easy enough to break down, the tenant found issue with it under "peaceful enjoyment", the Tribunal agreed. You can substitute any number of things in there, change the couch, etc. Notice is not really the issue, its motive for doing so.

Really the point is, do you think you can defend changing the locks on the basis that you think the tenant is subletting?

If no, do you think you can spin a yarn good enough that the tribunal will think both events unconnected?

Changing the locks was not the problem according to the Tribunal Findings, they found that the lack of notification for changing the locks was the problem!

The fact that the landlord turned up out of the blue with new locks was the issue, he should have given the tenants a week or two notice of his intention to change the locks for security reasons, that would be seen as reasonable.

davindub

foggy_lad wrote: »

Changing the locks was not the problem according to the Tribunal Findings, they found that the lack of notification for changing the locks was the problem!

The fact that the landlord turned up out of the blue with new locks was the issue, he should have given the tenants a week or two notice of his intention to change the locks for security reasons, that would be seen as reasonable.

The Tribunal finds that the changing of the locks by the Landlord without notification to
the Tenant was unacceptable.
Reasons: The Landlord was in breach of his obligations pursuant to section 12 (1) (a) to
allow the Tenant enjoy peaceful and exclusive occupation of the Dwelling. The sum of
€750.00 is awarded by the Tribunal to the Tenant for the said breach.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

The Tribunal finds that the changing of the locks by the Landlord without notification to
the Tenant was unacceptable.
Reasons: The Landlord was in breach of his obligations pursuant to section 12 (1) (a) to
allow the Tenant enjoy peaceful and exclusive occupation of the Dwelling. The sum of
€750.00 is awarded by the Tribunal to the Tenant for the said breach.

Sorry I'll explain this one last time in case you are not getting the entire picture...

What is being suggested is that a LL can change the locks to prevent sub-letting. Fine if done in isolation of any other event.

The OP has issue a notice that the sub-letting has to cease. Fine.

To subsequently change the locks would be difficult to explain to a tribunal. I contend that the RTB would probably decide that the locks were changed to annoy the tenant. Others claim that you can respond that you weren't and they would accept this. I disagree, I think it is very hard to carry off a good perjury and definitely not something to be attempted by most.

davindub

Graham wrote: »

Why spin a yarn?

Any response to a tribunal could be along the lines of;

I had cause to believe people other than the tenants had gained copies of keys to the property. To assure the ongoing security of the property and the tenants, I notified the tenants that the locks would be replaced on dd/mm/yy at hh:mm. At the notified time I attended with a locksmith and provided the tenant with 2 new keys.

Sure if it works, but would you believe it yourself knowing that some weeks previously you were claiming there was someone sub-letting?

foggy_lad

davindub wrote: »

The Tribunal finds that the changing of the locks by the Landlord without notification to
the Tenant was unacceptable.
Reasons: The Landlord was in breach of his obligations pursuant to section 12 (1) (a) to
allow the Tenant enjoy peaceful and exclusive occupation of the Dwelling. The sum of
€750.00 is awarded by the Tribunal to the Tenant for the said breach.

Yes that is the wording used, but it was the turning up unannounced which was the factor that removed the tenants peaceful enjoyment of the dwelling, making a dwelling more secure would only increase the peaceful enjoyment for any reasonable person!

davindub

foggy_lad wrote: »

Yes that is the wording used, but it was the turning up unannounced which was the factor that removed the tenants peaceful enjoyment of the dwelling, making a dwelling more secure would only increase the peaceful enjoyment for any reasonable person!

But that is taking out of context of the rest of the case? I don't even think the LL was asked his reasons for changing the locks, the tenant complained that it was done to annoy him and given the other events going on, the RTB made that judgement.

But you are right the wording is less important in RTB cases, they do not review their determinations as carefully as the HC. But consider why the damages were awarded, the tenant had his keys immediately so no need for damages for not being able to gain access. But the intent of the LL taken in context of the case is clear, hence the damages for breach of the "peaceful enjoyment".