Landlord refusing to let somebody move in

Graham

Archer Witty Robber wrote: »

Secondly a current tenant cannot take in a licensee without the LL explicit permission or both will be out on their ear.

Mod Note

Let's not get into guessing the contents of tenancy agreement/leases.

Bubbaclaus

Archer Witty Robber wrote: »

Why is this even being discussed. The answer is that of course the LL can refuse someone moving in, it's his property why would a random person be allowed to move in without his consent.

Secondly a current tenant cannot take in a licensee without the LL explicit permission or both will be out on their ear.

So you know the contents of the signed lease agreement then?

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

there are a number of high Court decisions which have overturned the RTB on points of law. Eg. PRTB v Judge Linnane. FLAC sources its material from the RTB. The landlord gains the right from his lease, not from the RTA. Where does the RTA allow a tenant move anyone in, in breach of a requirement of a lease?

Poor Judge Linnane, I'm pretty sure this will be news to her! How on earth could you confuse the respondent with the judge?

I'm now convinced you actually don't know who FLAC are. You might look at some of the cases they have represented clients in. I'm pretty sure they have a old copy of Bunreacht na hEireann for a start and maybe Westlaw or failing that they can use the free resources to look at case law.

The landlords duties are the tenants rights and vice versa.....the RTA is the exact place to find these, skip that part? So the duty to inform the landlord of each occupant becomes the right of the landlord to be informed. You can try to contradict/ limit this, it's not enforceable even if in the lease. Same as those who place terms to allow the landlord to enter the property at any time..unenforceable but you won't find that example stated as clearly in the RTA but you wouldn't argue that is not the case?

I have never actually seen a term in a lease that limits the lessee's right to possession in such a manner, have you got an example? (Actually i have seen one linked here and heralded by the poster as RTA compliant, it was awful stuff, but then you should check these things with a solicitor before using...)

mrslancaster

Rtb today told me a tenant must have the landlord's permission to move a licencee in. If they have no permission they can be in breach of the tenancy agreement.

If tenants could do that it could cause overcrowding or problems with insurance.
I suppose that is why some agents recommend regular inspections.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Poor Judge Linnane, I'm pretty sure this will be news to her! How on earth could you confuse the respondent with the judge?

.)

Judge Linnane was served with the papers and was the Respondent. The judge was Budd J. Shows how much you know.
FLAC is a volunteer group. A copy of Bunreacht n HEireann is not much help to it with the RTA. FLAC does not engage in extensive research unless it is instructing in a case.

The RTA is not a totally self contained statement of the law. The parties are free to contract, unless forbidden by legislation to do so. There is nothing in the RTA forbidding the parties from agreeing that no additional parties may reside in the dwelling. Despite all your comment you have yet to show any clause in the RTA which does. There are standard leases provided by such as the Dublin Solicitors Bar Association which explicitly provide that there is to be no business use and that possession is not to be shared.

Tar.Aldarion

mrslancaster wrote: »

Rtb today told me a tenant must have the landlord's permission to move a licencee in. If they have no permission they can be in breach of the tenancy agreement.

If tenants could do that it could cause overcrowding or problems with insurance.
I suppose that is why some agents recommend regular inspections.

RTB told me it was not under their jurisdiction and to contact threshold and to get legal advice.

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

Judge Linnane was served with the papers and was the Respondent. The judge was Budd J. Shows how much you know.
FLAC is a volunteer group. A copy of Bunreacht n HEireann is not much help to it with the RTA. FLAC does not engage in extensive research unless it is instructing in a case.

The RTA is not a totally self contained statement of the law. The parties are free to contract, unless forbidden by legislation to do so. There is nothing in the RTA forbidding the parties from agreeing that no additional parties may reside in the dwelling. Despite all your comment you have yet to show any clause in the RTA which does. There are standard leases provided by such as the Dublin Solicitors Bar Association which explicitly provide that there is to be no business use and that possession is not to be shared.

Even worse than getting the respondent wrong, you are referring to a judicial review of a circuit court decision rather than an RTB decision, there are plenty of cases where the RTB have been corrected, why pick one that one?

FLAC do take volunteer solicitors, but research is research and is conducted properly, you have failed to establish any instance where they have been found wrong and continue to refer to the RTB decisions...

Re: Bunreacht na hEireann: This was your post earlier???

4ensic15 wrote: »

The landlord has a constitutional right to freedom of association. He can't be forced to contract with a re-constituted group, not of his choosing.

Bunreacht na hEireann in any case is always relevant to all legislation.

Again I refer you to this
"The landlords duties are the tenants rights and vice versa.....the RTA is the exact place to find these, skip that part? So the duty to inform the landlord of each occupant becomes the right of the landlord to be informed."

As the term to "inform" the landlord of each occupant, your assertion will effectively remove this from the RTA and replace with "get permission".......that could never be upheld. Again you have 14 years of cases to find an example of where this term has been upheld.

The Dublin Bar Association sell templates.....I have a copy, there is no term there to what you state, there is a blank space for special letting provisions, if your term is in there, it has been placed there by whomever provided the lease, not by the Dublin Bar Association.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Even worse than getting the respondent wrong, you are referring to a judicial review of a circuit court decision rather than an RTB decision, there are plenty of cases where the RTB have been corrected, why pick one that one?

I did not get the respondent wrong. maybe you think there was a different respondent than Judge Linnane? It was a case where the PRTB's own interpretation was found to be wrong but I am glad to see that you now acknowledge that there were several others.

davindub wrote: »

FLAC do take volunteer solicitors, but research is research and is conducted properly, you have failed to establish any instance where they have been found wrong and continue to refer to the RTB decisions...

FLAC has published no research on the RTA that I am aware of and anything published by FLAC is sourced from the RTB.

davindub wrote: »

Again I refer you to this
"The landlords duties are the tenants rights and vice versa.....the RTA is the exact place to find these, skip that part? So the duty to inform the landlord of each occupant becomes the right of the landlord to be informed."

The RTA is not a complete or self contained statement of the applicable legislation and doesn't override conditions in contracts.

[/QUOTE]

The Dublin Bar Association sell templates.....I have a copy, there is no term there to what you state, there is a blank space for special letting provisions, if your term is in there, it has been placed there by whomever provided the lease, not by the Dublin Bar Association.[/QUOTE]

Any I have seen forbid the sharing and parting with possession and well as demanding the dwelling be used as the sole residence of the tenant and also that the tenant does not engage in any business activity in the dwelling.

davindub

"The RTA is not a complete or self contained statement of the applicable legislation and doesn't override conditions in contracts."

Are you crazy?

Anyway, I suppose what is reassuring regarding FLAC is that they are legal professionals......I can't say that each solicitor reads a book that states "look at all relevant law" when making any argument, but I'm 100% sure you wouldn't pass a single FE1 not knowing that. You don't even have a single caselaw or legislative reference to question the accuracy of that leaflet or FLAC, yet here you are doing so....

Graham

mrslancaster wrote: »

Rtb today told me a tenant must have the landlord's permission to move a licencee in. If they have no permission they can be in breach of the tenancy agreement.

That advice appears to contradict itself (emphasis mine).

4ensic15 wrote: »

FLAC has published no research on the RTA that I am aware of and anything published by FLAC is sourced from the RTB.

The fact that no research has been published is not evidence that no research has been done nor is it evidence that advice given is incorrect or un-researched.

4ensic15 wrote: »

Any I have seen forbid the sharing and parting with possession and well as demanding the dwelling be used as the sole residence of the tenant and also that the tenant does not engage in any business activity in the dwelling.

There are rental/lease agreements that specify the number of occupants and/or specific named occupants, and there are those that don't. There are a huge number of tenancies with no formal tenancy/lease agreement.

There are landlords that insist an vetting any replacement/additional tenants, and others that don't.

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

The fact that no research has been published is not evidence that no research has been done nor is it evidence that advice given is incorrect or un-researched.

Maybe not, but the suggestion that a thinly resourced body staffed by volunteers is carrying out research, into what is a minority area, not requiring court attendance, which it doesn't publish, but distils into its advice sheets, which other bodies with more expertise than it has, also produce advice leaflets is absurd.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

Maybe not, but the suggestion that a thinly resourced body staffed by volunteers is carrying out research, into what is a minority area, not requiring court attendance, which it doesn't publish, but distils into its advice sheets, which other bodies with more expertise than it has, also produce advice leaflets is absurd.

Volunteer does not equate with unqualified or incorrect.

Lack of research or otherwise does not equate with a qualified legal opinion being incorrect.

Your other arguments appear to be centred around "I've never seen" or "I've never heard of", legally speaking, neither are compelling.

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

Lack of research or otherwise does not equate with a qualified legal opinion being incorrect.

.

It does not mean that it is invariably correct either. Qualified lawyers get things wrong all the time. FLAC lists its priority areas on its website. Residential tenancy law is not one of them. In the absence of any body of decided cases on any issue with the RTA, commentary by any individual or body cannot be the last word, contrary to what has been suggested on this forum.
As things happen, no landlord has gone to the High Court on a point of law from the RTB whereas many tenants have. As a result, many plausible interpretations of the legislation are not argued.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

It does not mean that it is invariably correct either. Qualified lawyers get things wrong all the time.

You're saying it might be incorrect because lawyers have got things wrong in the past.

Again, not a compelling legal argument.

GGTrek

I am totally with 4ensic15 on this thread. The 2017 template of the DSBA incudes the following special provision:
"11. No other persons may live in this dwelling without consent, this includes family, friends, Au Pairs, Nannies etc.."

"SPECIAL LETTING PROVISIONS WARNING Any Special Letting Provisions must comply with the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 "

You can find the template here: www.leinsterlettings.ie › BLANKLease-2

davindub

GGTrek wrote: »

I am totally with 4ensic15 on this thread. The 2017 template of the DSBA incudes the following special provision:
"11. No other persons may live in this dwelling without consent, this includes family, friends, Au Pairs, Nannies etc.."

"SPECIAL LETTING PROVISIONS WARNING Any Special Letting Provisions must comply with the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 "

You can find the template here: www.leinsterlettings.ie › BLANKLease-2

Yes that is the blank part of the template, there is no content on that page except the warning that comes on the top of the page....which you have posted also.

Tar.Aldarion

GGTrek wrote: »

I am totally with 4ensic15 on this thread. The 2017 template of the DSBA incudes the following special provision:
"11. No other persons may live in this dwelling without consent, this includes family, friends, Au Pairs, Nannies etc.."

"SPECIAL LETTING PROVISIONS WARNING Any Special Letting Provisions must comply with the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 "

You can find the template here: www.leinsterlettings.ie › BLANKLease-2

My current lease doesn't have any of that. One of mine forbade subletting and that was all, another forbade everything, some places I've had no lease, it varies and I've never seen two leases that were very similar in wording (apart from the same letting agencies) let alone have them all come from one template source. I guess the point is, it depends. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot were worded defensively and a lot were not.

Graham

GGTrek wrote: »

I am totally with 4ensic15 on this thread. The 2017 template of the DSBA incudes the following special provision:
"11. No other persons may live in this dwelling without consent, this includes family, friends, Au Pairs, Nannies etc.."

That's one template lease.

It would be a mistake to assume every tenancy is subject to such a lease.

It would be ill advised to give advice based on the assumption that a tenancy is subject to that specific (or similar) leases.

beauf

I don't have much faith in professionals or any of these bodies to get everything correct. Too many times I've been given information that subsequently turns out to be wrong.

This thread, if nothing else suggests that the legislation is unnecessarily torturous, and ambiguous.

I think it's the cause of a lot of unnecessary conflict and misery in the sector.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

I don't have much faith in professionals or any of these bodies to get everything correct. Too many times I've been given information that subsequently turns out to be wrong.

This thread, if nothing else suggests that the legislation is unnecessarily torturous, and ambiguous.

I think it's the cause of a lot of unnecessary conflict and misery in the sector.

I think this is actually one of the areas where there is little legislative interference.

Landlord and tenant are free to negotiate how/when/if replacement tenants require prior approval.

beauf

That's not entirely clear.

Even if it was what can the Landlord do about in real terms of he finds troublesome people have replaced the the tenants they thought they had.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

That's not entirely clear.

Even if it was what can the Landlord do about in real terms of he finds troublesome people have replaced the the tenants they thought they had.

Assuming the lease/tenancy agreement prohibits such replacement without approval the next step would be to issue a warning to give the tenant the opportunity to remedy the breach of their tenancy/lease agreement otherwise risk the tenancy being terminated.

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

You're saying it might be incorrect because lawyers have got things wrong in the past.

Again, not a compelling legal argument.

It is a perfectly reasonable argument. A set of guidelines which does not purport to be a legal interpretation says something. The legislation itself does not support the interpretation offered. Just because it was compiled by legal professionals does not mean it can be accepted without question.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is a perfectly reasonable argument. A set of guidelines which does not purport to be a legal interpretation says something. The legislation itself does not support the interpretation offered. Just because it was compiled by legal professionals does not mean it can be accepted without question.

Who suggested you accept anything without question?

I refuted your assertion that the guidelines must be wrong because:

- it was written by volunteers
- you hadn't heard of .....
- you weren't aware of .....
- it hasn't been tested in the high court
- obscure references to the constitution

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

Who suggested you accept anything without question?

I refuted your assertion that the guidelines must be wrong because:

- it was written by volunteers
- you hadn't heard of .....
- you weren't aware of .....
- it hasn't been tested in the high court
- obscure references to the constitution

I didn't say they were wrong because of that. I said they can't be considered as correct because of the above, given that there is no legislative support for the interpretation which is sought to be justified by them. With regard to refusing an assignment, the RTA specifically deals with a contrary clause in a lease. It is entirely silent on permission to introduce a licensee. It is quite clear that if there is a clause in a lease forbidding allowing persons other than the named tenant residing in the dwelling it is not contrary to the RTA and is enforceable by the landlord.

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

I didn't say they were wrong because of that. I said they can't be considered as correct because of the above, given that there is no legislative support for the interpretation which is sought to be justified by them. With regard to refusing an assignment, the RTA specifically deals with a contrary clause in a lease. It is entirely silent on permission to introduce a licensee. It is quite clear that if there is a clause in a lease forbidding allowing persons other than the named tenant residing in the dwelling it is not contrary to the RTA and is enforceable by the landlord.

I see where you get it from now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14

beauf

davindub wrote: »

I see where you get it from now...

You've lost me anyway.

Your interpretation would make references and any other checks completely pointless. They are toothless enough as is. It would be chaos.

davindub

beauf wrote: »

You've lost me anyway.

Your interpretation would make references and any other checks completely pointless. They are toothless enough as is. It would be chaos.

It's not an interpretation, it's the exact situation in this jurisdiction at the moment...you might not like it, but it's commonplace.

But mind you presumably the tenants would get rid of a troublemaker there on a license, whereas you couldn't remove 1 tenant yourself.....so there are some advantages to this.

Tar.Aldarion

So I guess it all depends on whether a contract forbids licencee's and then is that legal to forbid (I'd guess it is), which I don't think anybody can answer :P
However I still think that in court somebody coercing somebody out of their part IV rights in my case from the OP wouldn't go down well.

beauf

I don't think any of what you are saying is workable or practical in the real world. Not to anyone who has to pay for this lunacy.