Renting a room out in a rented apartment

scrow

1.

JustAThought

Breech of contract - evict you and keep your deposit. Repirt your fraud to recenue and put the taxman on you. For starters.

10pennymixup

JustAThought wrote: »

Breech of contract - evict you and keep your deposit. Repirt your fraud to recenue and put the taxman on you. For starters.

Breach not breech, terminate the tenancy not evict. What fraud? Taxman not really interested unless it goes over a certain amount and not declared when due (rent a room).

Op, the LL has rented to you, a single occupant. They could give you notice of your breach of contract and if you don't fix it, terminate your tenancy, or as a compromise look for more rent. There would be valid reasons for doing this. Insurance, wear and tear, your licensee having the right to ask for full tenancy rights after 6 months (AFAIK) etc.

JustAThought

JustAThought wrote: »

Breech of contract - evict you and keep your deposit. Repirt your fraud to recenue and put the taxman on you. For starters.

Im not saying I agree with what the op is doing and he could and should be evicted but there is no way on earth it would be considered fraud and the suggestion would be laughed at. Also the taxman will have no interest as the op would be entitled to receive 14k per year tax free under the rent a room scheme.

Bob24

scrow wrote: »

Hi,

I am renting out a spare room in an apartment I rent, what can the landlord do if he finds out?

I still live in the apartment, just renting the spare room.

Unless your tenancy agreement allows you to sublet (unlikely and I assume you know it doesn’t as you mention “finds out”) -> breach of contract and breach of trust, the landlord will have the legal means and a personal reason to want you out of the property.

Bob24

Ellis Straight Rosebud wrote: »

Also the taxman will have no interest as the op would be entitled to receive 14k per year tax free under the rent a room scheme.

Does the rent-a-room relief apply if you’re not legally/contractually allowed to rent that room? (which seems to be the case of the OP)

I have no idea and Revenue is probably unlikely to bother with that in practice, but it’s a genuine question: should a tax relief apply if your are unduly doing what is meant to trigger that relief?

The_Conductor

Bob24 wrote: »

Does the rent-a-room relief apply if you’re not legally/contractually allowed to rent that room? (which seems to be the case of the OP)

I have no idea and Revenue is probably unlikely to bother with that in practice, but it’s a genuine question: should a tax relief apply if your are unduly doing what is meant to trigger that relief?

Revenue would view the lack of permission to houseshare- as an issue between the tenant and the landlord- and nothing whatsoever to do with them. The tenant- can legally claim the 14k rent-a-room relief for letting a room in the property. Whether he/she has permission to do so- is an entirely different matter- and is an issue that Revenue have zero interest in.

Claw Hammer

All the landlord can do when he finds out, serve a notice on you telling you to get rid of your subtenant within a reasonable time. He can only begin the eviction process if you fail to remove the subtenant. You are obliged to tell a subtenant that they are in fact a subtenant. The occupant of your spare room may be a licensee, in which case the licensee can demand to become a tenant after 6 months. You would be better to keep throwing out your licensees every few months to avoid trouble.

Browney7

Wouldn't the LL have to conclusively prove the person is living there to claim breach of obligations?

If tenant doesn't admit they have a licensee living there permanently, how can the LL prove they are living there without breaching tenant's quiet enjoyment rights or staking out the apartment for hours on end?

LL realistically won't give two preverbials if there is no trouble and rent is being paid and won't risk the tenant going native and causing more problems.

10pennymixup

Browney7 wrote: »

Wouldn't the LL have to conclusively prove the person is living there to claim breach of obligations?

If tenant doesn't admit they have a licensee living there permanently, how can the LL prove they are living there without breaching tenant's quiet enjoyment rights or staking out the apartment for hours on end?

LL realistically won't give two preverbials if there is no trouble and rent is being paid and won't risk the tenant going native and causing more problems.

A LL that has a rented property insured as being let to family or individual would give more than "two preverbials (sic)".

Claw Hammer

Browney7 wrote: »

Wouldn't the LL have to conclusively prove the person is living there to claim breach of obligations?

If tenant doesn't admit they have a licensee living there permanently, how can the LL prove they are living there without breaching tenant's quiet enjoyment rights or staking out the apartment for hours on end?

LL realistically won't give two preverbials if there is no trouble and rent is being paid and won't risk the tenant going native and causing more problems.

A lot of landlords like to know who was living in their property, particularly when a licensee, can seek to be made a tenant after 6 months in residence. The Landlord can then find himself stuck with someone they haven't vetted, as a tenant. This could well be a disaster.

JustAThought

Ellis Straight Rosebud wrote: »

Im not saying I agree with what the op is doing and he could and should be evicted but there is no way on earth it would be considered fraud and the suggestion would be laughed at. Also the taxman will have no interest as the op would be entitled to receive 14k per year tax free under the rent a room scheme.

If the landlord is registered and paying tax under the PTRB then the real landlord is compliant - you cannot get twice the tax adjustments and deductions on the same premises under two different schemes for the same room. Second 'landlord' will also be liable for renting without being registered as a landlord under the PTRB and be liable for any fines and levies due if his illegal tenant decides to act up or complain that HIS LL is not registered with the PRRB or that he dosnt have anything solid on paper.. Most likely at best s/he will lose his deposit from the offical LL for all any damages to the second room as well as additional wear and tear . Does s/he think his LL dosnt have ex neighbours/ friends on the floor who wont tell him what is going on?

Extremely risky business. And thats before you go down the road of if the renter is doing a fraud scam on the social welfare too - or if his tenant is or might need to sign on with them in the future - or squats and refuses to pay or decides s/he dosnt want to go when the first guys contract is up. A huge can of cokroaches clambering beneath the lid there .

Mooooo

You are basically using someone else asset to make an undeclared profit. Besides it being a dick move you are allowing yourself to be at the risk of an eviction notice and if the landlord follows correct procedure may well succeed. Is the 14k rent a room not only for owner occupiers?

The_Conductor

Mooooo wrote: »

Is the 14k rent a room not only for owner occupiers?

No- it just has to be your Principle Private Residence- you can be renting it- or an owner, it makes no odds to the Revenue Commissioners- you do however have to do an annual tax return and declare the income (even if there is no tax due on it). Also- its 14k gross- inclusive of *all* cash received- so in a rental property- this would include all bill shares for electricity, heating, internet, tv etc etc- they are not separate.

4ensic15

Mooooo wrote: »

You are basically using someone else asset to make an undeclared profit. Besides it being a dick move you are allowing yourself to be at the risk of an eviction notice and if the landlord follows correct procedure may well succeed. Is the 14k rent a room not only for owner occupiers?

The o/p can declare the income tax free. The landlord can only terminate the lease if the o/p refuses to stop. The o/p might be in breach of the RTA and his lease but that doesn't mean he is going to be ousted automatically.

10pennymixup

JustAThought wrote: »

you cannot get twice the tax adjustments and deductions on the same premises under two different schemes for the same room. Two separate people under two different "schemes" can.
Second 'landlord' will also be liable for renting without being registered as a landlord under the PTRB and be liable for any fines and levies due if his illegal tenant decides to act up or complain that HIS LL is not registered with the PRRB The "second LL" is a licensor sharing his principle private residence with a licencee and does not have to register with the PRTB
.

.

Ginger83

scrow wrote: »

Hi,

I am renting out a spare room in an apartment I rent, what can the landlord do if he finds out?

I still live in the apartment, just renting the spare room.

The LL will ask you to remove the person, if you don't you could be given 7-28 days to leave........a dangerous move OP.

4ensic15

Ginger83 wrote: »

The LL will ask you to remove the person, if you don't you could be given 7-28 days to leave........a dangerous move OP.

All the o/p has to do is wait for notice, then act on it.

Ginger83

4ensic15 wrote: »

All the o/p has to do is wait for notice, then act on it.

Unless LL continued with eviction anyway.

4ensic15

Ginger83 wrote: »

Unless LL continued with eviction anyway.

The LL has no basis to do so.

Ginger83

4ensic15 wrote: »

The LL has no basis to do so.

Breach of contract?

Browney7

Ginger83 wrote: »

Breach of contract?

The op tells the LL the other person has been removed - what does the LL do then?

Ginger83

Browney7 wrote: »

The op tells the LL the other person has been removed - what does the LL do then?

Does that mean any tenant can sublet until caught then?

10pennymixup

Ginger83 wrote: »

Does that mean any tenant can sublet until caught then?

If you mean take on a licencee, then yes, basically. A LL must first inform their tenant of a breach and allow them rectify it.

A risk though if the licencee refuses to go in the allotted time frame allowed to rectify the breach. If they don't leave in time, the LL can proceed with issuing a notice of termination to their tenant.

Ginger83

10pennymixup wrote: »

If you mean take on a licencee, then yes, basically. A LL must first inform their tenant of a breach and allow them rectify it.

A risk though if the licencee refuses to go in the allotted time frame allowed to rectify the breach. If they don't leave in time, the LL can proceed with issuing a notice of termination to their tenant.

What effects would this have on LL insurance or in the event the tenant leaves but licencee won't?

10pennymixup

Ginger83 wrote: »

What effects would this have on LL insurance or in the event the tenant leaves but licencee won't?

Short answer: I don't know.

Any LL insurance policy I'm familiar with is loaded dependent on the insurance companies' classification of tenant E.g. single occupant, family unit, multiple occupants etc. If the LL has insured the accommodation with a single occupant in situ and an event occurs when there are multiple occupants, there is a possibility that the insurance company may not pay out.

As to how the LL would be impacted if the tenant terminated whilst leaving in place their licencee that would not leave? I have no idea, that's one for the solicitors. I would like to think that the licencee has no tenants rights under the legislation and could be removed by the AGS, but in reality I haven't a clue. Would the AGS consider it a civil matter or not?

A legal minefield, that probably would cost the LL a significant amount to sort out. All thanks to a tenant that presumed that a LL should have no issue with them taking in a lodger.

IIRC somewhere in the depths of the tenancy acts, it is a obligation of the tenant to inform the LL of any persons normally resident at the accommodation. So if there is no mention of lodgers/licencees in any tenancy agreement,or if there is no tenancy agreement in place, the tenant still has a legal obligation to inform the LL of their presence.

IMO the best way to deal with all of this is for the tenant to talk to the LL first. Most LL's, I believe, would have no problem with this scenario if informed in advance.

the_syco

Browney7 wrote: »

LL realistically won't give two preverbials if there is no trouble and rent is being paid and won't risk the tenant going native and causing more problems.

After 6 months, they can apply to become a tenant. If the OP moves out, their landlord will have a tenant who didn't agree to the terms of the landlords's lease, whom the landlord didn't vet, and may not have a deposit for, but who may have paid a deposit to the OP.

Or, consider that the person the OP gets turns out to be a complete scumbag, makes the OP's life hell until the OP moves out, and their landlord suddenly has a squatter who's not paying rent, but has a lease of some sort to live there.

Actually; if the OP moves out and leaves the subletter there; are they considered a squatter, as they don't pay the landlord rent, nor does the landlord know about them?

JustAThought

JustAThought wrote: »

If the landlord is registered and paying tax under the PTRB then the real landlord is compliant - you cannot get twice the tax adjustments and deductions on the same premises under two different schemes for the same room. Second 'landlord' will also be liable for renting without being registered as a landlord under the PTRB and be liable for any fines and levies due if his illegal tenant decides to act up or complain that HIS LL is not registered with the PRRB or that he dosnt have anything solid on paper.. Most likely at best s/he will lose his deposit from the offical LL for all any damages to the second room as well as additional wear and tear . Does s/he think his LL dosnt have ex neighbours/ friends on the floor who wont tell him what is going on?

Extremely risky business. And thats before you go down the road of if the renter is doing a fraud scam on the social welfare too - or if his tenant is or might need to sign on with them in the future - or squats and refuses to pay or decides s/he dosnt want to go when the first guys contract is up. A huge can of cokroaches clambering beneath the lid there .

There is no issue whatsoever with the op using rent a room tax relief and the LL also paying his tax and claiming his deductions etc. The two scenarios are unrelated and can run side by side. The op is also entitled to claim 14k per year tax free.

The person renting the room is also a licensee so there is no requirement to register with the RTB etc. The op is responsible for any damage done etc but the the op is breaking no rules in relation to having a licensee as far as the authorities are concerned he is breaching his lease.

Sleeper12

Rylee Handsome Hive wrote:

Im not saying I agree with what the op is doing and he could and should be evicted but there is no way on earth it would be considered fraud and the suggestion would be laughed at. Also the taxman will have no interest as the op would be entitled to receive 14k per year tax free under the rent a room scheme.

To qualify for the rent a room scheme you have to own & live in the property.

4ensic15

Ginger83 wrote: »

Breach of contract?

That is not sufficient.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

To qualify for the rent a room scheme you have to own & live in the property.

You don’t have to own the property you just have to live in it. Despite most likely breaching his lease and risking eviction the op is fully entitled to avail of the rent a room scheme.