Landlord forcing me into arrears

rawn

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

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.

If he has full rights to the house can he move in, say, a family member or a partner? Would this be different to subletting as he would not be charging them rent and pay the rent fully himself? I'm not saying OP should dupe the LL, genuinely wondering if that is seen as different than subletting?

beauf

Theres usually conditions in the lease about guests.

beauf

Seems like the tenants is now renting the whole place but with a third of the deposit as well. I'm assuming those that got left get their deposits back.

GGTrek

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

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.

The RTB tribunal is actually very adamant that if a joint tenant leaves without providing a notice of termination he is still fully responsible for rent and damages:
https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports/tr0615-001207approved-by-board-13-nov-2015.docx?sfvrsn=0
I am researching case law to see what responsibilities the other tenants have if a joint tenant leaves by providing a notice of termination, given the fact that a landlord is not allowed to refuse a notice of termination provided by a tenant if it complies with the RTA.

beauf

Natasha Sweet Glob wrote: »

I'd be the opposite (as would many others), I'd rather rent out rooms than a full house. I wouldn't do it like the op though it would be room by room not full house shared. Overall there is less risk to the LL in this setup on many aspects.

Theres pros and cons to both sides of it.

You run the risk of one bad tenant forcing other tenants out you end up with one tenant renting the whole place for the price of a room.

GGTrek

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

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.

After performing research for many hours on RTB Tribunal case law and finding the case below, I stand on my opinion, the OP is fully responsible for the full rent and if he tries to sublet or re-assign without the approval of the landlord, the landlord can terminate due to breach of tenancy obligations:
https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports/tr0315-001079-dr0115-16011-report-approved-by-board-4-september-2015.docx?sfvrsn=0
Obviously I am open to counterarguments based on RTB case law.
This is the background of the case I linked which is very similar to the OP case except that the OP is not anymore in a fixed term lease:

The Appellant Tenant gave evidence that on 24th June 2014 he and two other persons, .... entered in to the tenancy on foot of a written lease agreement for a fixed term of 12 months.
He said that he had paid the security deposit of €1,150 on behalf of all three tenants. He said that in October 2014 his two co-tenants wished to leave the tenancy and that he spoke with the second named Agent on behalf of the Respondent Landlord and that this was conveyed to her. He said that she informed him that under the terms of the agreement he would then be liable to pay the full amount of the monthly rent. He confirmed to the Tribunal that subsequently the full rent of €1,150 was paid on 25th October 2014 and a further €1,150 was paid on 26th November 2014. He further confirmed to the Tribunal that there was no refund of any deposit amount to the two departing co-tenants.

Let me quote important findings of the case that I linked above which support my points:

The OP has no right at all to sublet or re-assign the dwelling without the approval of landlord (whose discretion has no limitations imposed by law):

Finding One:
The Notice of Termination that was served on 4th December 2014 by the Agent on behalf of the Respondent Landlord upon the Appellant Tenant, in respect of the tenancy of the dwelling at ...., is valid.
Reason(s):  The Tribunal notes that at the time of service of the Notice of Termination on 4th December 2014 the tenancy had not attained the status of a Part IV tenancy but notes also that the tenancy was subject to a 12 month fixed term tenancy agreement that commenced on 24th June 2014. The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the evidence adduced at the Tribunal hearing and in the documentation as submitted to the Tribunal by the parties that the Appellant Tenant had at the material time failed to comply with the one or more of his obligations in the tenancy agreement. 
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Agents on behalf of the Respondent Landlord that the Appellant Tenant had sub-let the tenancy and had taken in paying occupants without informing and without the consent of the Respondent Landlord. The Tribunal finds that this constituted a breach of his obligations s.16(k) of the Act. The Tribunal has reviewed the format and content of the said Notice of Termination and is satisfied that it complies with the relevant provisions the Residential Tenancies Act.


The OP is fully responsible for the full rent of the dwelling:

Finding Two:
The Tribunal finds that the Appellant is in rent arrears in the sum of €340.29 in respect of the period from 24th December 2014 to 1st January 2015 inclusive. 
Reason(s): The Tribunal notes and accepts the evidence of the Agents on behalf of the Respondent Landlord that the new tenancy agreement was finalised during January 2015 and was backdated to 1st January 2015. The Appellant Tenant had paid rent to cover the period up to midnight on 23rd December 2014 and rent fell due again on 24th December 2014. Therefore the Tribunal finds that the Appellant Tenant retained occupancy of the dwelling until 1st January 2015 when the Notice of Termination expired is therefore liable for the rent commencing on 24th December 2014 to 1st January 2015 being rent for 9 days and on the basis of the joint and several liability in respect of the obligations of the tenants as at clause 1.3 and clause 1.6 of the written tenancy agreement. 
The Tribunal has calculated that the amount due in this respect is €340.29
The Tribunal has set out below the manner in which the quantum of rent arrears has been assessed:
The Monthly Rental amount is €1,150 (My comment: this is the full amount of rent for the whole dwelling after the two other joint tenants left that has then been pro-rated to the days due and not to the room occupied by the tenant)
The Daily amount of rent has been calculated by multiplying the Monthly rent of €1,150 by 12 to yield an annual rate of rent = €1,150 X 12 = €13,800
This sum has then been divided by 365 to yield the daily rate = €13,800 ÷ 365 = €37.81
For 9 days this Daily rate is multiplied by 9 = €37.81 X 9 = €340.29  
Therefore the Tribunal has determined that the rent arrears in respect of the 9 days = €340.29

Finding No.5 (My comment: tenant tried to claim rent of previous month and even this claim was rejected, since he was held fully responsible for the full rent of the dwelling like the OP would in his current predicament)
The Tribunal finds that the Appellant Tenant’s claim in respect of the return of rental monies paid on 24th November 2014 is not upheld.

davindub

If you actually read the entire case you will see important differences.

1. the LL did not accept the notice of the leaving tenants
2. Part 4 had not been attained.
3. The issues regarding subletting were true the remaining lessee left the property...this is subletting....he sublet it to a lot of people, 12 or more.....

Tiddlypeeps

GGTrek wrote: »

After performing research for many hours on RTB Tribunal case law and finding the case below, I stand on my opinion, the OP is fully responsible for the full rent and if he tries to sublet or re-assign without the approval of the landlord, the landlord can terminate due to breach of tenancy obligations:

The OP claims the landlord has given the other 2 tenants permission to exit the lease. This is pretty important fact of the case. The landlord cannot just evict the 3rd tenant for no reason because they are on part 4 and they cannot just expect them to pick up the tab for the other 2 tenants he left off the hook either because the OP never agreed to be solely responsible for the rent.

It's an unusual case. If I were the OP I would carry on paying my one third share of the rent and put the onus on the landlord to prove they are solely responsible for the full amount of the rent. I think it would be a hard sell from the landlord to the RTB especially considering he won't even let the OP replace the leaving tenants himself.

athtrasna

Mod note

This is not legal discussion and legal advice cannot be given on boards. OP you would be well advised to consult a solicitor.

GGTrek

athtrasna wrote: »

Mod note

This is not legal discussion and legal advice cannot be given on boards. OP you would be well advised to consult a solicitor.

Thank you, I shall stop here then. If the OP or other posters wish, they can move to legal.

The_Conductor

On that note- I am closing the thread- as while there is some very good information on it- there is also information which is liable to cause trouble.

OP- get proper advice. Threshold are *not* proper advice- and it would be a bad idea to rely on them.