Rent renewal with new flatmate

adlerhn

I am a few months away from finishing my 1-year lease. My flatmate and I are both in the lease contract. I want to renew the contract to continue the lease, but my flatmate is moving out.
What should be the best way for me to proceed? Should I tell the agency or the landlord that I want to renew but we need to change my flatmate and that I will find a new one? Or maybe ask them to renew and once I get the confirmation find and tell them about the new flatmate?
I am afraid the landlord may take profit of the name change to significantly bump the rent (which is up ~15% in my area compared to last year), or worse yet, decide they want to get me out to put the apartment up for rent again.

Samuel T. Cogley

You're on a Part IV tenancy so you can't be evicted for change of flat-mate. If you're happy to pay the full rent, and sub-let with the LL's permission then crack on. If you're in a Rent Pressure Zone (RPZ), which sounds like you are, then the max they can increase is roughly 4%.

Browney7

Are rooms let individually or did you rent the place together?

Fol20

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You're on a Part IV tenancy so you can't be evicted for change of flat-mate. If you're happy to pay the full rent, and sub-let with the LL's permission then crack on. If you're in a Rent Pressure Zone (RPZ), which sounds like you are, then the max they can increase is roughly 4%.

You are actually not correct. Depending on the contract he may not be able to sublet. In practice the landlord might allow it though

davindub

Fol20 wrote: »

You are actually not correct. Depending on the contract he may not be able to sublet. In practice the landlord might allow it though

Subletting does not include change of shared tennants.

flc37ie6ojwkh8

Subletting is strictly prohibited in most of rent contract.

1874

davindub wrote: »

Subletting does not include change of shared tennants.

What do you mean? the OP could continue on, and the flatmate move out, but that wouldnt necessarily mean the OP could sublet, are you saying otherwise?

If the OP didnt get permission to sublet, I suspect they could be told to rectify that as a breach of contract.

Claw Hammer

davindub wrote: »

Subletting does not include change of shared tennants.

That would be an assignment of an outgoing tenants lease if there was a change of shared tenants. There has to be consent for the assignment in most leases. There also has to be consent for subletting or taking in a licencee.

Browney7

OP, if it was me I'd contact LL and phrase it that your housemate is thinking of moving out in a few months (make up some bull that they would like to be nearer to work/family etc) but that you are very happy there and would like to stay where you are. Ask can you find a replacement for the person you are currently sharing with.

As an aside, would subletting in this instance not constitute the OP moving moving out and being responsible for rent collection from a totally different party and being responsible for the upkeep?

Genuinely curious, why would a LL not allow the OP stay and find a replacement to rent the room to (who OP and LL vet together to ensure covenant of tenant moving in) and assume full responsibility for all the rent payment?

davo10

Op, you say both you and flat mate have a contract, not contracts, plural. If your flatmate moves out then you are both joint and severely liable for the lease. This means, if you are both on the same signed lease, you will have to pay full amount of rent unless you get some new to share with you. You have part 4, if you have someone in mind to take over from your current flatmate, just get the new flatmate to give the guy/gal moving out the deposit and say nothing to the LL. He/she won't care as long as rent is paid in full on time. Even if he/she did care, they can't prevent your flatmate from assigning the lease.

Claw Hammer

davo10 wrote: »

Op, you say both you and flat mate have a contract, not contracts, plural. If your flatmate moves out then you are both joint and severely liable for the lease. This means, if you are both on the same signed lease, you will have to pay full amount of rent unless you get some new to share with you. You have part 4, if you have someone in mind to take over from your current flatmate, just get the new flatmate to give the guy/gal moving out the deposit and say nothing to the LL. He/she won't care as long as rent is paid in full on time. Even if he/she did care, they can't prevent your flatmate from assigning the lease.

The landlord can refuse consent to an assignment and can refuse to allow subletting. The tenant is obliged to tell the landlord of anyone residing in the property. It would be a convenient way for a landlord to get rid of a tenant by refusing assignment or subletting. Practically all leases contain covenants against assigning or subletting without the written consent of the landlord.

1874

what would the rights of a person sub letting a room from the original tenant if the landlord gave permission to sublet, would a new person be a licensee? or do they acquire rights to be honoured by the original tenant? ie does the tenant technically become the new persons landlord?

davindub

1874 wrote: »

What do you mean? the OP could continue on, and the flatmate move out, but that wouldnt necessarily mean the OP could sublet, are you saying otherwise?

If the OP didnt get permission to sublet, I suspect they could be told to rectify that as a breach of contract.

I am specifically saying sublet does not cover replacement of tenants who are the beneficiaries of the tenancy (Only 1 tenancy in place, shared by tenants).

There is a significant history of tenants being allowed to do this and there has never been a case where the landlord has been allowed to terminate a tenancy on the basis that there was a party living there who was not on the original tenancy agreement.

There is a obligation to inform, the landlord cannot reasonably refuse the replacement, or if not informed the new tenant is a licensee. There was a case where that was upheld.

davindub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The landlord can refuse consent to an assignment and can refuse to allow subletting. The tenant is obliged to tell the landlord of anyone residing in the property. It would be a convenient way for a landlord to get rid of a tenant by refusing assignment or subletting. Practically all leases contain covenants against assigning or subletting without the written consent of the landlord.

There is only 1 tenancy in place, but here FLAC has a nice guide to explain:

https://www.flac.ie/download/pdf/landlord_and_tenant2016.pdf

1874

davindub wrote: »

There is only 1 tenancy in place, but here FLAC has a nice guide to explain:

https://www.flac.ie/download/pdf/landlord_and_tenant2016.pdf

From reading that, it looks like neither a subletting nor an assignment is whats happening for the OP, and the only reason I can see that an existing tenant would want to do either of those would be to get out of a lease early, which they'd have the opportunity to do anyway unless it was fixed, and that might seem to be the case in an area where there isnt as much of a demand for places, where the tenant knows a landlord might have difficulty replacing them.
None of that is what the OP is doing and I cannot see why any tenant would want to get involved in an actual subletting anyway, as it means they would be an intermediary and responsible for rent (and maybe other things like a registration or Im wondering even tax?), nor can I see why a landlord would want to as they would have to go through the original tenant, an assignment sounds better for existing tenants that want to end an existing lease, although it isnt clear from that pdf if the person assigned the lease just takes over and gets a full term tenancy or just finishes the existing one. An assignment may suit a landlord, assignee and existing tenant, but in many cases it would seem to be better and simpler for everyone to settle up and start a new lease.

It would seem any new person in this case is a licensee, but may request to be a mutual tenant later anyway, from the OPs perspective they are entitled to keep the lease going so long as they pay/not breach the lease, But unless they know any new person (or even if they do), it may be better that they ask permission to let the soon to be vacant room to a licensee in case the new person doesn't work out, so its easier for the OP to move them on. In that case, it looks like the OP would be liable for the licensees rent if they didnt pay, but assuming they take a deposit and stay on top of collecting the licensees share, there should be no problem.
Id say as long as the rent is paid, no problems and at least one of the original tenants is in place then the OP should be ok,

I was curious what this kind of scenario would mean someone in the OPs situation would be, ie what are their responsibilities generally and to any licensee, can they do it, do they have any other obligations. I think a new person being a licensee of the OP is a good thing for them (at least until the OP can determine if they are ok), as if the new person asks to be a mutual tenant, they have to ask the landlords permission, the landlord could confirm everything is ok with the OP and if the OP says no, they are an a-hole/doing anything wrong, the person could reasonably be denied and asked to leave. Otherwise the OP could end up with a situation, where a new person moves in and they are forced to move out if things don't work out/a new person is difficult in some way.

Claw Hammer

davindub wrote: »

There is only 1 tenancy in place, but here FLAC has a nice guide to explain:

https://www.flac.ie/download/pdf/landlord_and_tenant2016.pdf

There is one tenancy but there are two tenants with joint and several liability for the covenants. If one doesn't pay the other must. If another person is allowed live in the property it must be with the landlord's consent in writing. If not there is a breach of the tenancy agreement. The FLAC note is wrong. If a person is allowed reside without the Landlord's knowledge or consent they can't get rights against the landlord.

adlerhn

Thanks everyone for your responses. My current flatmate and I are both part of the same contract, though it is I who monthly collects my flatmate's rent and pays the consolidated amount to the landlord. All bills are on my name.
As I need to sign the renewal of the lease at the same time as my flatmate is leaving, I guess I have two options:

• I tell the landlord and agency that I am finding a new tenant before signing and sign the renewal with the new flatmate, or
• I sign the renewal of the lease by myself and find a licensee, which I could or could not tell to the landlord about (at least not necessarily immediately). Even though this is not ideal for the new flatmate, it could as mentioned give me time to get to know better the other person and ensure compatibility.

davo10

adlerhn wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your responses. My current flatmate and I are both part of the same contract, though it is I who monthly collects my flatmate's rent and pays the consolidated amount to the landlord. All bills are on my name.
As I need to sign the renewal of the lease at the same time as my flatmate is leaving, I guess I have two options:

• I tell the landlord and agency that I am finding a new tenant before signing and sign the renewal with the new flatmate, or
• I sign the renewal of the lease by myself and find a licensee, which I could or could not tell to the landlord about (at least not necessarily immediately). Even though this is not ideal for the new flatmate, it could as mentioned give me time to get to know better the other person and ensure compatibility.

No, you do not need to sign a new lease, you have part 4 tenancy rights.

In regard to previous posts regarding the LL not allowing the tenant leaving to assign the lease, an important fact here is that the op wants to stay, he does not want to exercise his right to terminate the lease due to the LLs refusal to assign. Op, if the rent is being paid out of your account, just get a new tenant, and stay quiet, the LL won't know.

davindub

adlerhn wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your responses. My current flatmate and I are both part of the same contract, though it is I who monthly collects my flatmate's rent and pays the consolidated amount to the landlord. All bills are on my name.
As I need to sign the renewal of the lease at the same time as my flatmate is leaving, I guess I have two options:

• I tell the landlord and agency that I am finding a new tenant before signing and sign the renewal with the new flatmate, or
• I sign the renewal of the lease by myself and find a licensee, which I could or could not tell to the landlord about (at least not necessarily immediately). Even though this is not ideal for the new flatmate, it could as mentioned give me time to get to know better the other person and ensure compatibility.

I actually don't see the agency/ landlord having an issue with it at all. Happens all the time, most landlords are happy that there is one stable tenant that out lasts everyone else, I am anyway.

davindub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There is one tenancy but there are two tenants with joint and several liability for the covenants. If one doesn't pay the other must. If another person is allowed live in the property it must be with the landlord's consent in writing. If not there is a breach of the tenancy agreement. The FLAC note is wrong. If a person is allowed reside without the Landlord's knowledge or consent they can't get rights against the landlord.

I can't see any issue with the FLAC note.

There is no basis under the RTB act to get consent from the landlord for each person living there, the term you are likely referring to actually just states "inform"?

Samuel T. Cogley

davindub wrote: »

I can't see any issue with the FLAC note.

There is no basis under the RTB act to get consent from the landlord for each person living there, the term you are likely referring to actually just states "inform"?

There is an obligation to inform but sub-lets require authorisation. Interesting whether getting a licencee in is a sub-let for the purposes of the RTA. I would see it more as renting out the entire property, permission for which, if withheld is a reason to terminate the lease.

Sorry hadn't read the FLAC note, which should be stickied IMHO. The sub-let to a licensee can happen without permission but the licensee can request to become a tenant through the LL, so it's not as clear cut on these sort of sub-lets if you get someone who knows their rights.

1874

davo10 wrote: »

No, you do not need to sign a new lease, you have part 4 tenancy rights.

In regard to previous posts regarding the LL not allowing the tenant leaving to assign the lease, an important fact here is that the op wants to stay, he does not want to exercise his right to terminate the lease due to the LLs refusal to assign. Op, if the rent is being paid out of your account, just get a new tenant, and stay quiet, the LL won't know.

There is no assignment occurring, according to the FLAC pdf, that circumstance arise only when no original tenant remains.
There is no mention of what you say by the OP in his post (a LL refusal to assign) it doesnt appear the OP even asked their landlord/agent anything yet, it seems they posted on here for advice to see where they might stand prior to raising anything.

I would say, if the original tenant (the OP) is there, it may be of no harm to say nothing and get someone initially, but I think it'd be advisable for them to raise it at some point and say it has occurred and who the person is etc rather than ignore it outright or ask like its requesting permission. Technically, I can see that a licensee (sublet) would have to be requested, but I think the OP is better off if a replacement person is actually a licensee,that way the OP has more say over whether that person stays in the long run.

I can see more reason why the departing tenant would want things to be official, their name would still be on the lease/paperwork and they would be severally liable for the rent if the OP didnt pay (which doesnt seem like its a thing).
If anything the OP might be better to have things ammended so they are on the lease solely, and if they are in an area they know they can get someone for the room, take a months deposit/rent in advance and if someone doesnt pay, or is somehow difficult, show them the door and say its that or sort any problem.
As they say, the bills are in their name and the rent goes from their account.

Fkall

1) the tennat moving out remains jointly & severely liable under the lease - the only way he can terminate this liability without the landlord’s permission is by terminating the lease. Please note either tennat can terminate the lease - consent from the other tenant is not required.

2) my understanding is that a landlord in a RPZ is allowed to increase the rent by 4% after 24 months has elapsed from the start of a new lease and thereafter 4% p.a. assuming a continuous tenancy.

3) However if the tenancy changes the landlord is allowed to increase the rent immediately by 4%

4) now here’s the rub if a joint tenancy is terminated - any new tenancy is by its nature a new tenancy and the landlord is allowed to increase the rent immediately by 4%

Fkall

5) a landlord in a RPZ in the first 24 months is better off refusing any assignment of a lease as the worst case scenario is that the tenant is allowed to terminate the lease by serving the appropriate notice. Thus allowing the landlord create a new tenancy with 4% increase

Browney7

Fkall wrote: »

5) a landlord in a RPZ in the first 24 months is better off refusing any assignment of a lease as the worst case scenario is that the tenant is allowed to terminate the lease by serving the appropriate notice. Thus allowing the landlord create a new tenancy with 4% increase

I thought the worst case scenario judging by posts on this forum is you get a tenant who wrecks the gaff and pays nothing for years and runs off into the sunset.

Surely a LL would be crazy to risk a scenario like that (getting rid of a hassle free tenant in situ) for 4% extra or is that risk worth 4% (2% after tax)

4ensic15

1874 wrote: »

There is no assignment occurring, according to the FLAC pdf, that circumstance arise only when no original tenant remains.
There is no mention of what you say by the OP in his post (a LL refusal to assign) it doesnt appear the OP even asked their landlord/agent anything yet, it seems they posted on here for advice to see where they might stand prior to raising anything.

I would say, if the original tenant (the OP) is there, it may be of no harm to say nothing and get someone initially, but I think it'd be advisable for them to raise it at some point and say it has occurred and who the person is etc rather than ignore it outright or ask like its requesting permission. Technically, I can see that a licensee (sublet) would have to be requested, but I think the OP is better off if a replacement person is actually a licensee,that way the OP has more say over whether that person stays in the long run.

I can see more reason why the departing tenant would want things to be official, their name would still be on the lease/paperwork and they would be severally liable for the rent if the OP didnt pay (which doesnt seem like its a thing).
If anything the OP might be better to have things ammended so they are on the lease solely, and if they are in an area they know they can get someone for the room, take a months deposit/rent in advance and if someone doesnt pay, or is somehow difficult, show them the door and say its that or sort any problem.
As they say, the bills are in their name and the rent goes from their account.

If a tenant is being replaced there is an assignment of that persons interest or else both are subletting or giving a licence to a new occupant. The landlord has a veto whether or not to allow any of this. Under the terms of standard leases, assignment can't happen without the landlords consent in writing and sub-letting can't happen without the landlords consent in writing. The FLAC advice seems to be based on a casual multi occupant scenario and does not cover the o/p's situation.

Claw Hammer

davindub wrote: »

I can't see any issue with the FLAC note.

There is no basis under the RTB act to get consent from the landlord for each person living there, the term you are likely referring to actually just states "inform"?

Most leases have a clause prohibiting sub-letting, parting with possession or running a business. There will also likely be a covenant that the tenant uses the dwelling for as his residence solely. The tenant has to inform the landlord of a new occupant. It will then turn on the terms of the lease. The landlord can refuse to have the lease amended and serve a notice on the tenant to remove the new occupant if sub/letting or parting with possession is not allowed under the lease.

davindub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Most leases have a clause prohibiting sub-letting, parting with possession or running a business. There will also likely be a covenant that the tenant uses the dwelling for as his residence solely. The tenant has to inform the landlord of a new occupant. It will then turn on the terms of the lease. The landlord can refuse to have the lease amended and serve a notice on the tenant to remove the new occupant if sub/letting or parting with possession is not allowed under the lease.

This makes little sense, you would have to assume those 3 terms are there in the OP's lease, ignore the legal meaning of the terms, and then presume the lease would need to be amended to accommodate a sublease, at which point the landlord can serve a notice of what, to terminate if not rectified?

Just to explain my understanding of the terms you are using:

I have rarely seen "part with possession" used in a Irish residential context, it has the same effect as sublet and does not consider the effect of shared tenancy, so a quick search of UK practical law gives me this:

"Where the tenant allows the demised premises to be possessed by another party. Usually the alienation covenant will prohibit parting with possession and will prevent the tenant from assigning the lease or granting an underlease. A covenant against parting with possession will not be breached merely by the tenant allowing another person to share the use or occupation of the demised premises. Possession cannot, strictly speaking, be shared, although occupation can be. "

In the same way, sublet actually refers to the creation of a sub lease rather than anything else. Lease specifically means property rights, licensee is the term where no rights are passed from the lessor.

Claw Hammer

davindub wrote: »

This makes little sense, you would have to assume those 3 terms are there in the OP's lease, ignore the legal meaning of the terms, and then presume the lease would need to be amended to accommodate a sublease, at which point the landlord can serve a notice of what, to terminate if not rectified?

. "

In the same way, sublet actually refers to the creation of a sub lease rather than anything else. Lease specifically means property rights, licensee is the term where no rights are passed from the lessor.

There are standard leases terms found in most leases which effectively exclude a tenant from allowing another person from residing in the accommodation. The landlord, on discovering a person unknown to him is residing at the accommodation serves a notice of breach of the appropriate condition(s) on the tenant giving a reasonable time for the tenant to comply.
It would be ludicrous if a landlord having carefully vetted 2 tenants found himself after 2 changes of tenant with 2 new tenants about which he knew nothing and had no chance to vet.

davindub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There are standard leases terms found in most leases which effectively exclude a tenant from allowing another person from residing in the accommodation. The landlord, on discovering a person unknown to him is residing at the accommodation serves a notice of breach of the appropriate condition(s) on the tenant giving a reasonable time for the tenant to comply.
It would be ludicrous if a landlord having carefully vetted 2 tenants found himself after 2 changes of tenant with 2 new tenants about which he knew nothing and had no chance to vet.

"effectively" means tested and upheld?

Such a term would conflict with s.50 of the act in my opinion.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

"effectively" means tested and upheld?

Such a term would conflict with s.50 of the act in my opinion.

Section 50 does not conflict with the right of a landlord to refuse assignment or prohibit sharing/sub letting. It deals with a situation where there have been changes, not with how the changes may come about.