Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Landlord refusing to let somebody move in

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    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.

    Depends who you ask....FLAC, Solicitors = more likely to give a qualified opinion, internet = high risk....:D

    Anyway lodge a claim with the RTB, it costs very little...


  • Options
    #63
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Hard to know what the prtb will decide. They seem to stick to the letter of the regulations. Have they ever overruled the regulations due to the housing crisis?


  • Options
    #64
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    beauf wrote: »
    Hard to know what the prtb will decide. They seem to stick to the letter of the regulations. Have they ever overruled the regulations due to the housing crisis?

    In the actual case being discussed- I can't see how/why the RTB would accept jurisdiction- as contrary to the initial suggestion of the OP- the person who is leaving the dwelling- is terminating the tenancy of their own volition, and is not being cooerced in any manner. The complainant here- is another tenant- who is seeking to assert a right to the tenancy that the other person who has vacated their rights/obligations, voluntarily, on the basis that it affects their rights.

    I can't see that the RTB would accept jurisdiction in this case- I can easily see it being referred as a civil matter between the complainants- and dealt with wholly outside of tenancy law.

    What I'd view as key here- is do the tenants have a common lease together- where they are jointly and severally liable for the property- or do they have separate leases with the landlord- and how/why did the second tenant see it as acceptable for the first tenant to terminate their tenancy obligations (and indeed- was that termination valid at all- if it goes to the RTB- they have form in arguing that any tenancy termination on the part of a tenant where the tenant voluntarily vacates the property- is valid).........

    It may very well be the case that an effort to protect the rights of tenant 1- who has vacated the tenancy- may impinge on the rights of tenant 2- who doesn't wish to do so.

    One way or the other- they would both be well advised to get proper advice- and their argument may very well be with each other- rather than with the landlord.


  • Options
    #65
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    In the actual case being discussed- I can't see how/why the RTB would accept jurisdiction- as contrary to the initial suggestion of the OP- the person who is leaving the dwelling- is terminating the tenancy of their own volition, and is not being cooerced in any manner. The complainant here- is another tenant- who is seeking to assert a right to the tenancy that the other person who has vacated their rights/obligations, voluntarily, on the basis that it affects their rights.

    I can't see that the RTB would accept jurisdiction in this case- I can easily see it being referred as a civil matter between the complainants- and dealt with wholly outside of tenancy law.

    What I'd view as key here- is do the tenants have a common lease together- where they are jointly and severally liable for the property- or do they have separate leases with the landlord- and how/why did the second tenant see it as acceptable for the first tenant to terminate their tenancy obligations (and indeed- was that termination valid at all- if it goes to the RTB- they have form in arguing that any tenancy termination on the part of a tenant where the tenant voluntarily vacates the property- is valid).........

    It may very well be the case that an effort to protect the rights of tenant 1- who has vacated the tenancy- may impinge on the rights of tenant 2- who doesn't wish to do so.

    One way or the other- they would both be well advised to get proper advice- and their argument may very well be with each other- rather than with the landlord.

    I agree with you tbh.


  • Options
    #66
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    The RTB will likely accept that the person left behind is a tenant if the landlord knew they were there and paying rent. After that, it would turn on the lease agreement. Is the remaining person entitled to move anyone else in? They will also insist that the person left behind pays the full rent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    The RTB will likely accept that the person left behind is a tenant if the landlord knew they were there and paying rent. After that, it would turn on the lease agreement. Is the remaining person entitled to move anyone else in? They will also insist that the person left behind pays the full rent.

    The opening post suggests the landlord has already accepted the person left behind is a tenant who must pay full rent if they continue the tenancy alone.

    It also suggests there is nothing in the lease agreement which would permit another tenant without the landlords consent, and that consent will not be given.


  • Options
    #68
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Graham wrote: »
    The opening post suggests the landlord has already accepted the person left behind is a tenant who must pay full rent if they continue the tenancy alone.

    It also suggests there is nothing in the lease agreement which would permit another tenant without the landlords consent, and that consent will not be given.

    There is nothing about the contents of the lease in the o/p.


  • Options
    #69
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    There is nothing about the contents of the lease in the o/p.

    I'll explain the logic behind my awesome powers of deduction :D

    If the lease mentioned in the OP allowed for replacement tenants without requiring the landlords consent, this thread wouldn't be here.


  • Options
    #70
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Graham wrote: »
    I'll explain the logic behind my awesome powers of deduction :D

    If the lease mentioned in the OP allowed for replacement tenants without requiring the landlords consent, this thread wouldn't be here.

    What if the lease was silent on replacement tenants? It has been suggested by some posters that it is not standard for leases to contain a clause forbidding the introduction of a new tenant, or if there is such a clause, the provisions of the RTA override it.


  • Options
    #71
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    What if the lease was silent on replacement tenants?

    I would have expected the OP to mention it when you initially brought it up.
    4ensic15 wrote: »
    There is usually a clause in the lease stating that the tenant cannot assign, sub-let or share possession of the property without the consent of the landlord
    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    How does that work when the lease runs out though, there are then no rules from the lease in place.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Graham wrote: »
    I would have expected the OP to mention it when you initially brought it up.

    The o/p made no mention of the lease and didn't enlighten us after the point was brought up.


  • Options
    #73
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    This bit made me smile though
    4ensic15 wrote: »
    It has been suggested by some posters that it is not standard for leases to contain a clause forbidding the introduction of a new tenant

    Those pesky posters.....
    4ensic15 wrote: »
    without reading the lease you can't discern whether or not a tenant can introduce a new resident into a dwelling without the consent of the landlord.

    Ohhhhhh

    :D


  • Options
    #74
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Graham wrote: »
    This bit made me smile though



    Those pesky posters.....



    Ohhhhhh

    :D

    Your point being?


  • Options
    #75
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Graham wrote: »
    I'll explain the logic behind my awesome powers of deduction :D

    If the lease mentioned in the OP allowed for replacement tenants without requiring the landlords consent, this thread wouldn't be here.

    What if the lease was silent on replacement tenants? It has been suggested by some posters that it is not standard for leases to contain a clause forbidding the introduction of a new tenant, or if there is such a clause, the provisions of the RTA override it.

    He did actually clarify there was no such term.

    You would think you would leave it off now after the nonsense you have posted here, from the freedom of association (note no such right to dissassociate nor does a licensee contract with the LL), alleging FLAC don't have access to HC rulings, research is not conducted by FLAC because they are poorly funded, using the Dublin bar template as an example where a term exists to limit occupation to named persons only which does not contain the term you mentioned, stating contracts can override legislation, stating you didn't say FLAC were wrong but not considered correct, FLAC are incorrect proved by a HC case not involving a decision of the RTB but the circuit court, going off on a tangent to the subject matter........etc, etc.

    I even came across a post elsewhere where you stated Westlaw and justis are only used for legal research and small firms don't conduct legal research...
    .....surely you realise that these sites exist because they have completed the research and indexation of common material, not to enable research. Any student of law has access to these sites now and can tell you that.

    All the above and you haven't even come close to discovering why the RTA contains the terms regarding inform the landlord of occupants, right to terminate if the accommodation is no longer suitable for the number of people living there, conversion from licensee to tenant.

    Do you have a clue how ridiculous you appear to anyone who has any sort of legal experience?


  • Options
    #76
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,096 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    I don't know what's in the lease at all, I know he asked to for a new housemate, to sublet and now for a licencee and the landlord said no each time (more money getting him out). Pretty sure he would say no no matter what the lease said. I'm sure if this stuff wasn't in the lease the guy would have told me.

    It's an odd situation, you can't force somebody to stay in the apartment after their lease is up but it may get you kicked out of your part IV since they can leave (if all replacement tenants/licencees are banned in the lease).


  • Options
    #77
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    davindub wrote: »
    He did actually clarify there was no such term.
    He has now clarified he doesn't know what is in the lease so he couldn't have clarified there was no such term.


    You would think you would leave it off now after the nonsense you have posted here, from the freedom of association (note the right to dissassociate was confirmed in Meskell v CIE, and a licensee becomes entitked to contract with the the LL), alleging that I said that FLAC don't have access to HC rulings. That I said research is not conducted by FLAC because they are poorly funded. Claiming the Dublin bar template as an example where a term exists to limit occupation to named persons which does not contain the term i mentioned, when it has been shown to be mentioned by another poster, alleging that I stated contracts can override legislation, when I satated that the leglislation did not forbid clauses of the type I say are standard, stating that Judge Linnane was not a Respondent in a case taken by the PRTB disproved by a HC case involving a submission of the RTB going off on a tangent to the subject matter........etc, etc.

    Your interpretation of the legislation is wrong. Do you seriously think that solicitors in small firms trawl through Justis and Westlaw to find the law? Do you think that because something has been published by a body which avails of the services of solicitors that it is invariably correct?

    Do you have a clue how ridiculous you appear to anyone who has any sort of legal experience?


  • Options
    #78
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Guys- no more legalese, at all, please.

    Wholly aside from any other reason- you're risking any discussion of the Residential Tenancies Act and the functional discussion of the RTB and people's experiences- at all- in future in this forum- if you insist on going down this rabbit hole.

    We are very close- on the basis of a few posters- to having to ban *all* discussion outright. If you can't keep it strictly related to the RTA- and the functional operation of the RTB- thats it- we're not going to have any option whatsoever- and it won't be at the discretion of forum moderators- any related discussion- that is *any at all* will be verbotten.

    We allow a lot more leeway in this forum- than pretty much any other forum on this website allows- and this leeway has not gone unnoticed.

    This is going to be a one off warning- seriously- don't go there- if you do- you are going to get all reasonable discussion closed down- not just whatever it is that you happen to be discussing on a given day.

    No more legal discussion. Use generalities by all means- but if you offer anything that resembles legal advice- it will be nuked, and the poster will face sanctions.


  • Options
    #79
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    ....
    It's an odd situation, you can't force somebody to stay in the apartment after their lease is up but it may get you kicked out of your part IV since they can leave (if all replacement tenants/licencees are banned in the lease)...

    There's two sides to this. One is people moving out before their lease was up, so they moved someone in to cover the shortfall in rent. The only issue with this the person moving in was unsuitable. The it leaves the LL with a huge problem. The only solution to that is a new tenancy each time, as its just easier and simpler for everyone.

    However in the middle of a housing crisis, this now doesn't work for the tenant as pushes their rent up. This is what this LL wants to do, and the tenant doesn't. I can only assume because its below market rent.

    We can't give practical advice on this forum, its not allowed. I've been in-fracted before for something a mod thought I implied. But didn't. So I can only suggest you haggle with the LL into some new arrangement. That maybe a rent increase but a lower one that will hapen if the LL re-rents the place and you move.


  • Options
    #80
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,096 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    It's not below market rent, they actually pay quite a lot but have lived there a long time so he would like to stay and it's a good area. The rent can't compare with what they will get with short term leasing which is what they will do. They know because they have other apartments they rent out via https://www.thekeycollection.ie/ which I presume do well and they can instead get 200 a night.
    If they were just rerenting it they couldn't increase it any more due to the rent restrictions. Since it's not clear cut it will end up being a case of legal advice for him.


  • Options
    #81
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Are they near the end of their part IV? If they are there a long time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,096 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Not sure what phase of their part IV they are in, they are there a long time. They usually sign a lease each year, they are coming to the end of one of those. I'm in my second cycle of a part IV myself, the 4 year cycles still apply to us not the 6.


  • Options
    #83
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    If they are near the end of term can the LL not just wait for the end of that to start over with new tenants.


Advertisement