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

My flatmate is moving out

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    yadott wrote: »
    ...

    The landlord said i only can replace him with a friend

    ....

    Can a LL demand this? I've replaced many housemates. I'd have been hard stuck if I was restricted to friends. How many people have friends who are moving within the next 25 days right now


  • Options
    #33
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,513 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Fkall wrote: »
    My understanding there is a written lease - just the OP name is not on it.

    Further there is no requirement, as you claim for a licensee to pay rent to the lead tenant.

    Would a licensee not pay rent to whomever they are renting from?


  • Options
    #34
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,644 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Would a licensee not pay rent to whomever they are renting from?

    Usually yes but obviously in this case the LL wanted to be sure they got full payment.

    Some LL don't mind the original Tennant sub letting as they get paid so happy enough to allow it.


  • Options
    #35
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,513 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    Usually yes but obviously in this case the LL wanted to be sure they got full payment.

    Some LL don't mind the original Tennant sub letting as they get paid so happy enough to allow it.

    I have no idea what this means.


  • Options
    #36
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Would a licensee not pay rent to whomever they are renting from?

    World a lease not normally be in writing?

    Can't play both sides dav. He's a licensee that had never sought to be added to the lease.

    Just because the transfer of money comes from an account means nothing in regards rights. The lack of a lease however, means a lot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Can a LL demand this? I've replaced many housemates. I'd have been hard stuck if I was restricted to friends. How many people have friends who are moving within the next 25 days right now

    Think you have taken it too literally.


  • Options
    #38
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,320 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    World a lease not normally be in writing?

    Can't play both sides dav. He's a licensee that had never sought to be added to the lease.

    Just because the transfer of money comes from an account means nothing in regards rights. The lack of a lease however, means a lot.

    If the landlord has knowingly accepted money directly from him in respect of the occupation of the property ("rent") then under RTA 2004 a "landlord"/"tenant" relationship exists as respect the "tenancy" of the particulur "dwelling". All of the things in inverted commas are defined terms within RTA.


  • Options
    #39
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,513 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    World a lease not normally be in writing?

    Can't play both sides dav. He's a licensee that had never sought to be added to the lease.

    Just because the transfer of money comes from an account means nothing in regards rights. The lack of a lease however, means a lot.

    It certainly is better to have it in writing, but it is not a requirement, the lack of a written lease means nothing in relation to tenancy rights.

    A licensee is there at the invitation of the tenant in the case where the property is not owner/owners family occupied. The licensee is renting from the lead tenant, who is effectively the licensees “landlord”, how you can claim a licensee arrangement, while the op pays rent to the property owner, is not clear.


  • Options
    #40
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,939 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Can a LL demand this? I've replaced many housemates. I'd have been hard stuck if I was restricted to friends. How many people have friends who are moving within the next 25 days right now

    The LL cannot know how long the OP has been friends with the person for. Just advertise for a housemate, and think of the selected person as a new friend!


  • Options
    #41
    Fkall
    Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭Fkall


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Would a licensee not pay rent to whomever they are renting from?

    There is no requirement to do so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,513 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Fkall wrote: »
    There is no requirement to do so.

    Who does a licensee pay rent to?


  • Options
    #43
    Fkall
    Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭Fkall


    Dav010 wrote: »
    It certainly is better to have it in writing, but it is not a requirement, the lack of a written lease means nothing in relation to tenancy rights.

    A licensee is there at the invitation of the tenant in the case where the property is not owner/owners family occupied. The licensee is renting from the lead tenant, who is effectively the licensees “landlord”, how you can claim a licensee arrangement, while the op pays rent to the property owner, is not clear.

    The licensee is settling a liability of the head tenant i.e. paying the rent to a bank account under the instruction of the head tenant. This is commonly referred to as a third party payment.


  • Options
    #44
    Fkall
    Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭Fkall


    Marcusm wrote: »
    If the landlord has knowingly accepted money directly from him in respect of the occupation of the property ("rent") then under RTA 2004 a "landlord"/"tenant" relationship exists as respect the "tenancy" of the particulur "dwelling". All of the things in inverted commas are defined terms within RTA.

    This is not correct.


  • Options
    #45
    Fkall
    Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭Fkall


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Who does a licensee pay rent to?

    Rent would be paid as per instructions - in this case the instruction of the lead tenant.


  • Options
    #46
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    Even if he is a tenant what does that change, would he still not be liable for the whole rent? He could chase the other tenant for his share but if he doesnt pay the whole rent or find someone to share with then he'll be getting an eviction notice due to rent arrears.


  • Options
    #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dav010 wrote: »
    It certainly is better to have it in writing, but it is not a requirement, the lack of a written lease means nothing in relation to tenancy rights.

    A licensee is there at the invitation of the tenant in the case where the property is not owner/owners family occupied. The licensee is renting from the lead tenant, who is effectively the licensees “landlord”, how you can claim a licensee arrangement, while the op pays rent to the property owner, is not clear.

    Well it's pretty clear, he's there on the invitation of the head tenant. Do you deny that? He said it himself.
    Marcusm wrote: »
    If the landlord has knowingly accepted money directly from him in respect of the occupation of the property ("rent") then under RTA 2004 a "landlord"/"tenant" relationship exists as respect the "tenancy" of the particulur "dwelling". All of the things in inverted commas are defined terms within RTA.

    They are, doesn't make your statement correct. To prove your statement, quote the section that you are relying on. Can you even refuse a bank transfer into your account? It's there any proof the landlord ever agreed to this?


  • Options
    #48
    Lux23
    Registered Users Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    Just start looking for someone new and do a bit of due diligence, like looking for a reference and proof they have a job. There isn't anything else you can do. And just because someone is your mate, doesn't mean that they will be any more reliable.


  • Options
    #49
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,515 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    Usually yes but obviously in this case the LL wanted to be sure they got full payment.

    Some LL don't mind the original Tennant sub letting as they get paid so happy enough to allow it.
    If the original tenant is still there, then that’s not sub letting.

    Sub letting requires the tenant to move out.


  • Options
    #50
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,515 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Would a licensee not pay rent to whomever they are renting from?

    After 6 months a licencee can ask to become a tenant. Which cant be unreasonable refused


  • Options
    #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Think you have taken it too literally.

    Fair enough. Not sure how else that sentence can be interpreted


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,320 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Well it's pretty clear, he's there on the invitation of the head tenant. Do you deny that? He said it himself.



    They are, doesn't make your statement correct. To prove your statement, quote the section that you are relying on. Can you even refuse a bank transfer into your account? It's there any proof the landlord ever agreed to this?

    I'm lost? If, by his conduct, the landlord has accepted rent from him with respect to the particular dwelling then the individual is a tenant and thus is entitled to whatever protection the RTA affords affords. That's the nature of the law. A different situation arises where the other tenant intermediates the position between the occupier and the landlord.

    Based on the facts as stated, there are multiple tenants in occupation of the dwelling and the departure of one does not negate the rights of the other(s) (ss48-53 RT 2004).

    Liability for the full rent would have to be established by the landlord in the absence of a written lease. HE would have to establish that the second tenant agreed to such liability. No statute law imposes it. In the absence of a written agreement, I believe it would hard to be enforced. The tenant does not and has never had (or indeed expected to have ) exclusive occupation of the dwelling. I.e. absence security or other concerns, he is not in a position to object to other tenants whom the landlord might seek to introduce.


  • Options
    #53
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,644 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    ted1 wrote: »
    If the original tenant is still there, then that’s not sub letting.

    Sun letting requires the tenant to move out.

    But the original one has left, the op was the Tennant's licencee but that changed when the actual LL/property owner was getting the money for rent straight from the Tennant's licencee.....


  • Options
    #54
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,513 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    But the original one has left, the op was the Tennant's licencee but that changed when the actual LL/property owner was getting the money for rent straight from the Tennant's licencee.....

    My reading of it is the op was paying the LL monthly in cash until Covid, then bank transfer after. Unless I missed it, the op has posted nothing which indicates a licensee arrangement, has the op mentioned anything about renting from the lead tenant?

    If I was the op, I would get the deposit back off the flatmate or contact the LL to ensure his/her deposit is deducted from the flatmate deposit before it is returned.


  • Options
    #55
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,515 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    But the original one has left, the op was the Tennant's licencee but that changed when the actual LL/property owner was getting the money for rent straight from the Tennant's licencee.....

    Your they guy who doesn’t know what subletting is, right?

    If he was paying the landlord he wasn’t a licencee.
    He agreed to move in a place that was advertised as x.
    The landlord needs the other tenant to pay for his notice period till he reassigns the lease or let the tenant go, and takes the hit himself.


  • Options
    #56
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,644 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    ted1 wrote: »
    Your they guy who doesn’t know what subletting is, right?

    If he was paying the landlord he wasn’t a licencee.
    He agreed to move in a place that was advertised as x.
    The landlord needs the other tenant to pay for his notice period till he reassigns the lease or let the tenant go, and takes the hit himself.

    Oh Christ on a bike.

    I know he wasn't a licencee as he was paying the LL hence what I said but they were brought in 1st technically as a licencee but obviously advice mentioned as has others as soon as the LL got payment directly by them then that changed....


  • Options
    #57
    The DayDream
    Registered Users Posts: 513 ✭✭✭The DayDream


    Have you asked the LL if he has your deposit OP?

    Cuz in situations like this you need to be careful that your deposit doesn't go walkies!


  • Options
    #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Marcusm wrote: »
    I'm lost? If, by his conduct, the landlord has accepted rent from him with respect to the particular dwelling then the individual is a tenant and thus is entitled to whatever protection the RTA affords affords. That's the nature of the law. A different situation arises where the other tenant intermediates the position between the occupier and the landlord.

    Based on the facts as stated, there are multiple tenants in occupation of the dwelling and the departure of one does not negate the rights of the other(s) (ss48-53 RT 2004).

    Liability for the full rent would have to be established by the landlord in the absence of a written lease. HE would have to establish that the second tenant agreed to such liability. No statute law imposes it. In the absence of a written agreement, I believe it would hard to be enforced. The tenant does not and has never had (or indeed expected to have ) exclusive occupation of the dwelling. I.e. absence security or other concerns, he is not in a position to object to other tenants whom the landlord might seek to introduce.

    You have taken a massive jump. At no stage has the OP stated he had any form of agreement with the LL. None.

    What he has stated is that he was brought into the property by the tenant and paid him a deposit. Then was paying his rent as cash in hand. We dont know that any formal agreement was ever made regarding the landlord and OP.

    He then states that he paid via bank transfer. Again we dont know that the landlord actually entered into any agreement.

    My licensee at this very moment in time could ask her parents or friend to transfer the rent or part of the rent into my bank account. Does this convey rights upon them? Signify an agreement with myself? No, no it doesnt.

    In order for your assertion to be true, you rely on information not provided and simple assume. Without that assumption, he is a licensee.


  • Options
    #59
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,513 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    You have taken a massive jump. At no stage has the OP stated he had any form of agreement with the LL. None.

    What he has stated is that he was brought into the property by the tenant and paid him a deposit. Then was paying his rent as cash in hand. We dont know that any formal agreement was ever made regarding the landlord and OP.

    He then states that he paid via bank transfer. Again we dont know that the landlord actually entered into any agreement.

    My licensee at this very moment in time could ask her parents or friend to transfer the rent or part of the rent into my bank account. Does this convey rights upon them? Signify an agreement with myself? No, no it doesnt.

    In order for your assertion to be true, you rely on information not provided and simple assume. Without that assumption, he is a licensee.

    Do you live with your licensee?

    The op apparently has been paying rent to the LL from the beginning, cash first, then bank transfer.

    The op has posted nothing about renting from the lead tenant, nothing about being told she was a licensee on moving in, and we know leases don’t have to be written, why are you assuming a license agreement exists? There is nothing to support this.

    My guess is, and it’s only a guess, the flatmate who was there rented by himself and paid the full deposit, when op moved in to share apartment in 2018, he/she gave half deposit to the flatmate, so both now have paid deposits. A quick call to the LL would confirm the situation.


  • Options
    #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Do you live with your licensee?

    The op apparently has been paying rent to the LL from the beginning, cash first, then bank transfer.

    The op has posted nothing about renting from the lead tenant, and we know leases don’t have to be written, why are you assuming a license agreement exists? There is nothing to support this.

    I do, as does the OP who was brought in by the actual tenant and not the landlord. THe OP also, like my licensee, paid a deposit to the person they are renting from.

    Incorrect in the bold section, its in the OP. THe OP is also why its a licensee situation. Asssume nothing and you arrive at licensee.

    Heres the facts as stated by the OP. Dont add anything yourself.
    yadott wrote: »
    The tenant was the one that brought me in
    yadott wrote: »
    I am not in the lease only my actual flatmate is in the lease.
    yadott wrote: »
    I pay the rent to the landlord bank account.
    yadott wrote: »
    I paid half of the rent to the landlord bank account since april 2020 before the coronavirus we paid in cash to the landlord
    yadott wrote: »
    I paid the deposit to the other flatmate

    So we know that
    A, There is a lease and the OP is not mentioned on it
    B, That the OP was brought into the property by the actual tenant
    C, That the deposit was paid directly to the actual tenant
    D, That a cash payment made up by 2 people together was paid to the landlord.
    E, That rent is now paid by bank account

    The OP has NOT stated that he paid his share of the rent in D seperately to the landlord. Yes, to his share or precentage now via bank transfer but thats not binding, at all. The information that we actually have, says licensee. As I said above, if my licensee gets someone to pay her rent this month by bank transfer, is that person now renting the room? No.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,513 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    I do, as does the OP who was brought in by the actual tenant and not the landlord. THe OP also, like my licensee, paid a deposit to the person they are renting from.

    No, we dont know it was cash to the landlord direct from the start. He just said he was paying cash. It could have been cash left on the table for all we know.

    Incorrect in the bold section, its in the OP. THe OP is also why its a licensee situation. Asssume nothing and you arrive at licensee.

    Jesus wept.
    yadott wrote: »
    I paid half of the rent to the landlord bank account since april 2020 before the coronavirus we paid in cash to the landlord
    I paid the deposit to the other flatmate

    Where in the op does it say anything about renting from the tenant?


    Are you the property owner where your licensee lives?


Advertisement