Landlord forcing me into arrears

BraveInca

The_Conductor wrote: »

Note- paying rent for the whole property- is not a punitive measure- whether the tenant likes it or not- they signed up to rent the property in its entirety.

If OP is paying rent for the whole property then how is the LL able to stipulate that certain rooms have to remain locked (as described in the first post)? LL can't have it both ways.

runawaybishop

BraveInca wrote: »

If OP is paying rent for the whole property then how is the LL able to stipulate that certain rooms have to remain locked (as described in the first post)? LL can't have it both ways.

OP cant sublet or introduce new people to the lease.

OP, reassign the lease.

Also, threshold are a joke.

Browney7

runawaybishop wrote: »

OP cant sublet or introduce new people to the lease.

OP, reassign the lease.

Also, threshold are a joke.

Is the lease not expired and now needs to reassign the tenancy? If OP finds two people and says to the landlord, wish to reassign tenancy from existing people A and B to new people X and Y and the op seems them equivalent.
If landlord refuses can op raise a dispute that the landlord is unreasonably not allowing a reassignment (effectively meaning the OP has to leave) before having to seek accommodation elsewhere?

listermint

runawaybishop wrote: »

OP cant sublet or introduce new people to the lease.

OP, reassign the lease.

Also, threshold are a joke.

That didn't answer the question that you responded to....

The_Conductor

Browney7 wrote: »

Is the lease not expired and now needs to reassign the tenancy? If OP finds two people and says to the landlord, wish to reassign tenancy from existing people A and B to new people X and Y and the op seems them equivalent.
If landlord refuses can op raise a dispute that the landlord is unreasonably not allowing a reassignment (effectively meaning the OP has to leave) before having to seek accommodation elsewhere?

The OP can assign the lease, with the landlord's permission, to another party.
They are then assigning the lease, as a whole- to the other party- and have to find alternate accommodation.

The lease is for the whole property- and if you assign the lease (its an assignment- not a reassignment)- you are assigning a tenancy for the whole property- to another party.

There is a specific clause stating the OP cannot sublet- which is entirely normal, very few landlords allow subletting.

In this instance- given the other two signatories to the lease have left- the OP has the choice of also leaving- or staying and paying for the property.

Next time- read the lease and if you only want to rent a room- make sure you are only renting a room- not an entire property.

Browney7

The_Conductor wrote: »

The OP can assign the lease, with the landlord's permission, to another party.
They are then assigning the lease, as a whole- to the other party- and have to find alternate accommodation.

The lease is for the whole property- and if you assign the lease (its an assignment- not a reassignment)- you are assigning a tenancy for the whole property- to another party.

There is a specific clause stating the OP cannot sublet- which is entirely normal, very few landlords allow subletting.

In this instance- given the other two signatories to the lease have left- the OP has the choice of also leaving- or staying and paying for the property.

Next time- read the lease and if you only want to rent a room- make sure you are only renting a room- not an entire property.

So once people are named on a lease which then becomes a part 4 tenancy, the names of people responsible for fulfilling tenant obligations can't be changed? Ie Op, tenant A and tenant B wish to assign lease to OP, tenant x and tenant Y can't be done?

The_Conductor

Browney7 wrote: »

So once people are named on a lease which then becomes a part 4 tenancy, the names of people responsible for fulfilling tenant obligations can't be changed? Ie Op, tenant A and tenant B wish to assign lease to OP, tenant x and tenant Y can't be done?

Correct.
All signatures to the lease are jointly and severally liable for the lease.
They are not entitled to assign their interest to another party without the permission of the landlord- however, if the landlord does not give them permission, this can be used as justification by the tenant for terminating the tenancy.

I.e. the OP can leave- or if he/she chooses to stay- they are renting the whole of the property and have no right to sublet.

If they only intended to rent a room- they should have made damn sure this was what the lease said- unfortunately- all 3 of the signatories to the lease signed for the whole of the property- making them all jointly and severally liable for the whole of the property.

Browney7

The_Conductor wrote: »

Correct.
All signatures to the lease are jointly and severally liable for the lease.
They are not entitled to assign their interest to another party without the permission of the landlord- however, if the landlord does not give them permission, this can be used as justification by the tenant for terminating the tenancy.

I.e. the OP can leave- or if he/she chooses to stay- they are renting the whole of the property and have no right to sublet.

If they only intended to rent a room- they should have made damn sure this was what the lease said- unfortunately- all 3 of the signatories to the lease signed for the whole of the property- making them all jointly and severally liable for the whole of the property.

But is there any way to dispute a landlord refusing assignment? If new tenants have jobs, incomes greater than if not equal to existing guys and good references and a landlord refuses (not picked up two bums off the street) and in turn will be letting out property again anyways - how could he defend that in front of RTB or is his right of refusal absolute?

runawaybishop

listermint wrote: »

That didn't answer the question that you responded to....

It did, the op cant sublet.

"how is the LL able to stipulate that certain rooms have to remain locked"

.........

Browney7 - the OP has to reassign the lease in totality. They cant just assign new extra people to it.

runawaybishop

Browney7 wrote: »

But is there any way to dispute a landlord refusing assignment? If new tenants have jobs, incomes greater than if not equal to existing guys and good references and a landlord refuses (not picked up two bums off the street) and in turn will be letting out property again anyways - how could he defend that in front of RTB or is his right of refusal absolute?

OP signed a contract which is enforceable so he is liable for all teh rent and cannot sublet. He needs to reassign the lease, which the LL cant really refuse unless the potential new tenants are really unsuitable. If the LL refuses to allow the op to reassign then he is in breech and the OP can leave without penalty.

The_Conductor

Browney7 wrote: »

But is there any way to dispute a landlord refusing assignment? If new tenants have jobs, incomes greater than if not equal to existing guys and good references and a landlord refuses (not picked up two bums off the street) and in turn will be letting out property again anyways - how could he defend that in front of RTB or is his right of refusal absolute?

What do you mean by disputing a landlord refusing assignment?
The lease is for the whole property- it is not for individual rooms in the property- its for the property as a whole.
If the tenant wants to stay- he is renting the property (as a whole) and has no right to sublet.
If the tenant doesn't want to stay- he assigns the lease to a new tenant- who in turn- is letting the entirety of the property.
If the landlord refuses to countenance the tenant assigning the lease to another party- the tenant has a get-out-of-jail free card, and can walk from the property without consequence.

In this case- it sounds like the OP signed for the entire property (with his two mates)- the two mates have walked- and the tenant is left in a property which he can't afford on his own- but he has no right to bring third parties into.........

He/she should have sat down and discussed this properly with his two mates- before letting them walk, leaving him holding the baby and the bathwater..........

The people in the wrong here- are the two tenants who were let leave the property without consequence- alongside the remaining tenant- who mistakenly signed for renting the house in its entirety- when all they wanted was a room and a houseshare.........

Only solution that I see is the remaining tenant terminates the tenancy- and negotiates with the landlord vis-à-vis the rent for the duration of their remaining stay there......... (and of course they go and find somewhere else to live).

runawaybishop

The_Conductor wrote: »

Only solution that I see is the remaining tenant terminates the tenancy- and negotiates with the landlord vis-?-vis the rent for the duration of their remaining stay there......... (and of course they go and find somewhere else to live).

Yeah, tbh it is unlikely a single tenant would agree to take on the lease for a full house. OP might be better off just leaving.

Browney7

Seeing as the op has nothing to lose, if it was me I'd frame it that it's regrettable that we can't come to a mutually beneficial agreement and I'll leave no problem but might pop round in a few months when you've new tenants in and provide them with evidence of previous rent paid and give them a crash course in the new RPZ legislation (provided this applies).

If landlord calls your bluff, nothing lost, if he flinches he might let you stay with a new lease

The_Conductor

Browney7 wrote: »

Seeing as the op has nothing to lose, if it was me I'd frame it that it's regrettable that we can't come to a mutually beneficial agreement and I'll leave no problem but might pop round in a few months when you've new tenants in and provide them with evidence of previous rent paid and give them a crash course in the new RPZ legislation (provided this applies).

If landlord calls your bluff, nothing lost, if he flinches he might let you stay with a new lease

Blackmail is illegal- you do know that- right?

listermint

runawaybishop wrote: »

It did, the op cant sublet.

"how is the LL able to stipulate that certain rooms have to remain locked"

.........

Browney7 - the OP has to reassign the lease in totality. They cant just assign new extra people to it.

It didnt,

The question was if the LL wants the tenant to take the entire property how can he ask him to lock rooms if he is taking the entire property.....

BraveInca

listermint wrote: »

It didnt,

The question was if the LL wants the tenant to take the entire property how can he ask him to lock rooms if he is taking the entire property.....

Yeah, how can the LL exclude him from certain parts of the property if he's renting the whole property? This doesn't have anything to do with the subletting question.

GGTrek

BraveInca wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

It didnt,

The question was if the LL wants the tenant to take the entire property how can he ask him to lock rooms if he is taking the entire property.....

Yeah, how can the LL exclude him from certain parts of the property if he's renting the whole property? This doesn't have anything to do with the subletting question.

He cannot exclude the OP from any part of the property.

The only advantage of requesting assignment in such case is that the termination notice for the tenant goes down to the minimum 28 days. The OP does not specify when the original lease started, so it is not possible to define what the OP notice period is.

On a practical level if the OP is a working tenant his/her best way of action right now is to negotiate an exit date with the landlord, while reducing the amount of rent paid and getting a good reference.

Previous flatmates left the OP high and dry, and in the current statutory environment I can understand why the landlord would not wish to reassign and continue to provide part 4 rights to new tenants. Another unintended consequence of the lack of forward thinking of the current and past Irish govvies.

runawaybishop

listermint wrote: »

It didnt,

The question was if the LL wants the tenant to take the entire property how can he ask him to lock rooms if he is taking the entire property.....

You are correct, i didn't read the bit about locking the rooms properly - i took it to mean he wasn't allowed to rent out the rooms.

Tiddlypeeps

The terms of the lease the OP signed were renting the property with 2 other people. They signed up to pay one third of the rent. Those terms cannot change for the OP without their permission. From a legal perspective it sounds like the other 2 tenants are still responsible for their share of the rent as long as the OP refuses to leave. They can reassign their position on the lease, but they can't just walk away from it without the agreement of both the landlord AND the OP. I don't believe the landlord can legally just let the other 2 tenants off the lease leaving the OP as the sole tenant without their agreement.

GGTrek

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

The terms of the lease the OP signed were renting the property with 2 other people. They signed up to pay one third of the rent. Those terms cannot change for the OP without their permission. From a legal perspective it sounds like the other 2 tenants are still responsible for their share of the rent as long as the OP refuses to leave. They can reassign their position on the lease, but they can't just walk away from it without the agreement of both the landlord AND the OP. I don't believe the landlord can legally just let the other 2 tenants off the lease leaving the OP as the sole tenant without their agreement.

Of course he can: a tenancy is not a prison. The fixed lease term had expired and any joint tenant can provide a termination notice (given proper notice period) with absolutely no reason at all.
There is an ethical issue among the joint tenants responsibilities and a legal one where the landlord can pursue all three tenants for rent and damages even the ones who left. I never returned deposit to joint tenants until they have all left exactly to avoid the situation the OP is. Negotiating the deposit among themselves forces the tenants to think about their joint responsibilties. You would be surprised how many adult children are currently renting in Ireland.

GGTrek

In a joint lease landlord has the option to pursue just one tenant, which usually is the tenant who is left.

I am always surprised at the people posting in this forum making wild assumptions that the landlord has all responsibilities (for example giving moral and legal advice to Tenants as the poster seems to imply) and the tenants go off scott free once they paid rent on time.

Mr. Incognito

GGTrek wrote: »

In a joint lease landlord has the option to pursue just one tenant, which usually is the tenant who is left.

Not when he has accepted the termination of the other two.

In those circumstances he has waived his right to collect their share.

The_Conductor

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Not when he has accepted the termination of the other two.

In those circumstances he has waived his right to collect their share.

Its a single lease- not 3 separate leases- there is still a leaseholder present- QED the lease is still in effect. All 3 signatories are jointly and severally liable for the rent- the landlord could in theory chase the other two- or- as has been pointed out- simply chase the remaining tenant. However- the lease is still in place- its not valid to argue that its not.

Tiddlypeeps

GGTrek wrote: »

Of course he can: a tenancy is not a prison. The fixed lease term had expired and any joint tenant can provide a termination notice (given proper notice period) with absolutely no reason at all.
There is an ethical issue among the joint tenants responsibilities and a legal one where the landlord can pursue all three tenants for rent and damages even the ones who left. I never returned deposit to joint tenants until they have all left exactly to avoid the situation the OP is. Negotiating the deposit among themselves forces the tenants to think about their joint responsibilties. You would be surprised how many adult children are currently renting in Ireland.

The other tenants did not leave at the end of the fixed term lease. The OP said they signed that 8 months ago, which means they left 2 months after the end of the fixed term. Don't fixed term leases just default to a standard part 4 when the tenant stays on past the end of the fixed term?

The second part of your post contradicts the first. If the landlord can pursue the other two tenants for rent then it follows that they are still responsible for their share of the rent as long as OP remains in the property.

GGTrek

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

In a joint lease landlord has the option to pursue just one tenant, which usually is the tenant who is left.

Not when he has accepted the termination of the other two.

In those circumstances he has waived his right to collect their share.

Well pointed, especially by returning deposit voluntarily.

GGTrek

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

Of course he can: a tenancy is not a prison. The fixed lease term had expired and any joint tenant can provide a termination notice  (given proper notice period) with absolutely no reason at all.
There is an ethical issue among the joint tenants responsibilities and a legal one where the landlord can pursue all three tenants for rent and damages even the ones who left. I never returned deposit to joint tenants until they have all left exactly to avoid the situation the OP is. Negotiating the deposit among themselves forces the tenants to think about their joint responsibilties. You would be surprised how many adult children are currently renting in Ireland.

The other tenants did not leave at the end of the fixed term lease. The OP said they signed that 8 months ago, which means they left 2 months after the end of the fixed term. Don't fixed term leases just default to a standard part 4 when the tenant stays on past the end of the fixed term?

The second part of your post contradicts the first. If the landlord can pursue the other two tenants for rent then it follows that they are still responsible for their share of the rent as long as OP remains in the property.

Other very well informed poster pointed to the correct fact that by returning deposit to the old tenants the landlord has explicitly accepted the termination of the tenancy of the other two tenants terminating their responsibilities with respect to the tenancy. So as of now the only person responsible for the full rent is unfortunately the OP, who, as stated before, is in a legal bad predicament. Suggestions provided above should be followed: look for alternative accommodation and negotiate a reduced rent for the (short) period it takes to find it, given that landlord does not wish to allow re-assigning or subletting and the OP has not got the financial resources to sustain the full monthly rent

GGTrek

I am investigating because this is something that is touching me closely as of now: Section 186(2) of the RTA 2004-2016 states that if a Landlord refuses consent to assign the lease, the Tenant may then terminate the tenancy and (3) The period of notice to be given by that notice of termination is—   
(a) that specified in section 66 , or
(b) such lesser period of notice as may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant in accordance with section 69.

Since the OP initial fixed term lease has terminated, there is no advantage at all for the OP in terms of notice to try to re-assign the lease, the notice period would be the same (35 days or more).

Tiddlypeeps

GGTrek wrote: »

Other very well informed poster pointed to the correct fact that by returning deposit to the old tenants the landlord has explicitly accepted the termination of the tenancy of the other two tenants terminating their responsibilities with respect to the tenancy. So as of now the only person responsible for the full rent is unfortunately the OP, who, as stated before, is in a legal bad predicament. Suggestions provided above should be followed: look for alternative accommodation and negotiate a reduced rent for the (short) period it takes to find it, given that landlord does not wish to allow reassignign or subletting and the OP has not got the financial resources to sustain the full monthly rent

I refuse to believe that somebody can just change the terms of a contract to leave one party solely responsible for the debts they were previously jointly responsible for, without that persons permission.

I am totally open to being wrong, and if someone can show me examples or rulings to this effect in the past i will humbly appologise. But at the moment that just doesn't seem right and doesn't make any sense to me.

Mr. Incognito

GGTrek wrote: »

Other very well informed poster pointed to the correct fact that by returning deposit to the old tenants the landlord has explicitly accepted the termination of the tenancy of the other two tenants terminating their responsibilities with respect to the tenancy. So as of now the only person responsible for the full rent is unfortunately the OP, who, as stated before, is in a legal bad predicament. Suggestions provided above should be followed: look for alternative accommodation and negotiate a reduced rent for the (short) period it takes to find it, given that landlord does not wish to allow re-assigning or subletting and the OP has not got the financial resources to sustain the full monthly rent

Your understanding is wrong in law.

Three people are jointly liable. Fine.

Landlord has waived the liability of two of them.

Thus the third cannot be responsible for their liability which has been waived.

This supercedes the terms of the lease.

I've pointed this out three times in this thread.

That's the position. If you want to research it yourself feel free.

jimmycrackcorm

It looks like an interesting way to bypass part 4 legislation. The OP had part 4 rights by virtue of being allowed to stay pat the initial 6 months.

However he has no rights to sublet the rooms and can only pay the whole rent to stay. The landlord cannot insist on the other rooms be locked either as it's either a full property lease or room only.