Licensee renting troubles

mrslancaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119684796#Comment_119684796

I always thought a licensee was a paying guest, eg, hotel, b&b, digs etc. which seems to agree with Nos 1-3 on the RTB website. I thought No 4 was included by the RTB to cover guests & visitors eg family or friends in a rented property but not paying guests.

If the RTB wanted to include paying licensees sharing with a tenant in rented accomodation why did they not say "sharing with the owner or the tenant" at No 2 in their list?

From the RTB:

Examples of a licence are a person staying in hotel, hostel or guesthouse or a person sharing a house with the owner.

A licensee is a person who occupies accommodation under license.

Licensees can arise in all sorts of accommodation but most commonly in the following four areas;

1. persons staying in hotels, guesthouses, hostels, etc.,
2. persons sharing a house/apartment with its owner e.g. under the ‘rent a room’ scheme or ‘in digs’,
3. persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal license arrangement with the owner where the occupants are not entitled to its exclusive use and the owner has continuing access to the accommodation and/or can move around or change the occupants,
4. persons staying in rented accommodation at the invitation of the tenant.

What is the difference between a two day airbnb paying guest and a year long paying guest, ie a licensee/lodger, except the duration of the occupancy. Why would one be allowed but not the other?

Does the RTA allow a tenant to run an airbnb/b&b in a rented property? Would that be a business activity? Does the landlord insurance allow that?

Claw Hammer

You are getting booged down in minutiae. Licences to be present in a premises come in may ways. The RTB simply gave examples. Any guest is a licensee whether they pay or not and irrespective of the duration. If I am invited to your house for a party, I am in the house under license for bthe duration of the time I am in the house. The RTb is trying to assist people who might be paying rent and where the ll tries to assert the person is a licensee with no rights under the RTA.

AirBnB is a business and is usually forbidden by most leases and insurers would expect to be told if it was being carried on. The RTA doesn't apply to most business leases and AirBnB is a matter between the tenant and the LL.

mrslancaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119699072#Comment_119699072

The questions about licensees and sub-lets keep coming up so maybe others are as confused as me. I think I get it and then a new thread starts that throws new questions into the mix. Renters and owners need to know how things work but sometimes it's not clear from the information available online and boards posts can be very helpful.

I asked someone who works in this area about sub-lets, licenses and assignments and this is my understanding of how she explained it. She said a typical sub-let situation is where the council lease a property from an owner for 10-25 years, pay the owner even if the property is empty and sub-lets to a council tenant. Another situation is when tenants want to leave a fixed term lease early, they move out and sub-let with owners permission. If the owner refuses, they just give the correct notice for their time in occupation. Another is a part4 tenant who wants to sub-let the entire place for a few months while travelling or working abroad. She mentioned this section that I wasn't aware of and hadn't seen discussed on boards; it says sub-letting part of a dwelling is prohibited:

Further special case (sub-letting of Part 4 tenancy).

32.—(1) F1[Schedule 1] to this Act has effect for the purpose of affording protection in relation to a sub-tenancy created out of a Part4 tenancy or a further Part4 tenancy.

(2) The creation of a sub-tenancy in respect of part only of the dwelling, the subject of a Part 4 tenancy or a further Part 4 tenancy, is prohibited.

(3) Any such sub-tenancy purported to be created is void.

An assignment is when a tenant transfers their interest to another person who takes on the original lease with the same T&Cs. This happens when some tenant in a joint lease wants to leave but some don't. With owner permission, the tenant leaving assigns their interest and the replacement can be added as a tenant immediately or have a trial period as a licensee of the original tenants. If the licensee requests to be a tenant, the owner can't refuse as they already agreed to the replacement. The licensee gains part4 rights after 6 months occupation after they're added as a tenant. They don't have to become a tenant and the original tenants left on the lease are liable for the full rent. She said it is usually one in/one out in line with the lease agreement.

She said a licensee who is airbnb or a lodger only arises when it is with an owner. Also, a licensee of a tenant is usually a visitor or guest and arrangements to move in additional occupants would be very unusual and she never heard of a tenant taking in additional renters without the owners permission. Also, residental leases should be stamped with Revenue and the fee is E12.50 - wasn't aware of that.

Posters who know a lot about the RTA are probably fully aware of all the above items. Would welcome clarification about anything that is correct / incorrect, thanks.

Edit: delete duplicate words

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119700528#Comment_119700528

You have bits and pieces right, nearly right and misquoted there.

E. g. "Stamped" probably means stamp duty and form and if it is payable, the paper form submission will cost 12.50 but the stamp duty will be a little more, min 400 euros :)

ballyharpat

this should help...

https://www.irishtimes.com/property/residential/2022/10/05/can-my-landlord-increase-the-rent-if-my-partner-moves-in/

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703776#Comment_119703776

I wouldn't rely on that. A landlord is under no obligation to allow another person other than the original tenant reside in the property.

If the landlord does allow a person who will be a licensee of the original tenant reside in the property tat person can apply to the landlord to become a tenant and the landlord has no choice in the matter.

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703802#Comment_119703802

I think this argument has been done to death now at this stage with no consensus.

No point in making statements that the landlord can or can't refuse an additional person living there under licence unless you have something to back it up.

I think the summary of the argument is this:

1. The landlord can prevent licences in the lease - no cases or legislation to back this up, based on the effectiveness of the lease terms.

2. The landlord cannot prevent licences as it impacts on exclusive occupation / peaceful enjoyment - no cases but assumed from terms in the RTA.

Claw Hammer

Section 16h of the RTA requires the tenant to inform the landlord if there is any additional person ordinarily resident in the property. One of the grounds of termination of a tenancy under part 4 is if the accommodation is no longer suited to the needs of the tenant. Bringing in an additional resident may allow the landlord to terminate on this ground.

Section 16h does not permit a tenant to have licensees contrary to a clause in the lease.

it prevents a tenant surreptitiously introducing residents unknown to the landlord.

Where a landlord has tolerated a licence situation for 6 months the licencee can claim to be a tenant.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703894#Comment_119703894

I’m still waiting for you or anyone else to post a link which allows the tenant to over ride the lease in relation to a limit on the number of occupants.

A lease is a binding contract, there is case law on the enforceability of written tenancy agreements, for example fixed terms and evictions, but you have not shown the legislation which makes a lease non binding in relation to occupancy numbers.

So look, if you know what the relevant legislation is, post it here, but sections 12 and 16 are not it.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703776#Comment_119703776

It doesn't really. While in the case above it would be u reasonable for a LL to refuse permission I. The case here there is no such bar. Now if the OP claimed he was a John's partner then it might be considered unreasonable. But as a friend moving in reasonable would not come into play.

Most leases even fixed term leases have a six month hiatus written into them to allow the LL to evict without giving a reason. John's LL can avail of this to evict.

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119704192#Comment_119704192

And likewise no evidence has been given by you or others to say a landlord can restrict.

Its not enough for me to say a lease is a binding contract, there is a lot of terms which would not be upheld so unless you see it at the RTB.

And that is the problem, there's not much point in discussing it further as no-one has anything but their own experience or opinion. I got legal advice, but that's relevant to me only and I guess not very influencial for anyone else.

BTW, it was not my argument I summarised, it was the arguments I read on this tread. Personally I just think that a solicitor can do the interpretation and I'll apply what they recommend.

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703955#Comment_119703955

Yes, well you can add that to the argument as well. I don't think overcrowding is relevant to the OP's situation, it is different again.

But, still personal opinion and not anything to support, and that is on both sides, hence no point rehashing.

But all I will ask is why omit the protection of preventing new tenants in the act? There is sublet /assignment protection, why not licence protection?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119704750#Comment_119704750

There is no evidence that the legislation over rides the tenancy agreement, if there was, you would have posted the legislation. In the absence of that legislation, a binding contract like a tenancy agreement would apply.

Im not posting about my own experience, I’m asking you, and others to show me the law that backs up your opinion, mine is supported by contract law. If a tenancy is a legally binding agreement, and nothing in the RTA precludes a limit on tenant numbers being agreed between LL and tenant when the contract is signed, you show me what legislation over rides that term of a legally binding contract.

I’ve done my part, now you do yours.

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119704855#Comment_119704855

Ask a solicitor if you want to get so vexed about a subject and need a high level of proof. Why are you asking me for this?

I haven't seen any legislation quoted to say a contract is the highest authority, in fact there is a lot of articles stating the lease terms will be disregarded if not consistent with the act, and there was that article posted earlier stating landlords cannot prevent licences, not that I believe everything on the Internet, but clearly there are people in the industry for whatever reason believe you cannot limit licences.

So it is hard to see what anyone's issue is with leaving this matter inconclusive unless they have some proof to add.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119704248#Comment_119704248

The legislation says nothing about the landlord having to be reasonabl in allowing another person reside in the property. The boilerplate lease clause is "not to assign sublet, share or otherwise part with possession without the express written consent of the landlord. There is no case of the RTB finding such a clause void. It is a perfectly reasonable clause for a landlord to insert. The legislation supports the landlord in Section 16(h) of the act. I was in a case where the RTB gave an order agaisnt a tenant who had moved in a flatmate without permission. No mention was made of the tenant having a right to do so or the landlord having to be reasonable.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705208#Comment_119705208

I was referring to reasonable as in taht in renting the property is considered your home. There was a link posted to an IT article relating to a person wishing to allow a partner share a one bed apartment with them. They had to notify the LL. However if the LL refused they could appeal to the RTB. It would be reason to allow a liciencee on those grounds. In a similar it might be reasonable to refuse if it was a three bed and there were other tenants, just likes its reasonable to refuse if in OP's case.

I rent a 2 bed house to a seperated mother and two children. If she wished to move a partner in IMO even if I refused the RTB would overrule.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705363#Comment_119705363

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705208#Comment_119705208

The Irish times article was written by Marcus O’Connor who is a chartered valuation surveyor and member of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, not a lawyer.

He quotes no legislation in his article and it is wrong insofar as he says "Problems arise when tenants move individuals into a property without notifying the landlord as this would be a breach of the tenancy-and-lease agreement in place. In such a situation the landlord would be entitled to end the tenancy due to the breach but only after a 28-day warning letter to rectify the breach had been ignored.".

If a new person was moved in without permission, the landlord would have to give notice that there was a breach of the conditions and give a reasonable time for compliance. Only if there is a failure to comply can the landlord terminate.

The RTB can only force you to accept a tenant after the person has lived in the property for 6 months with your consent.

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705208#Comment_119705208

You were in a case with this?

Can you provide the link then and that would settle it?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119704958#Comment_119704958

I don’t require “a high level of proof”, any proof that the legislation trumps the lease in relation to agreed occupancy numbers will do.

A lease is a binding contract, there is no disputing that. I also do not dispute that a clause in a contract which contradicts the RTA will not be binding, but there is no clause in the RTA that prevents a lease stating the number of occupants who may reside there, ergo there is no legislation which over rides a binding contract on the number of occupants.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705472#Comment_119705472

The interpretation of most law is to what is reasonable. In the IT case if the tenant followed the process and moved the tenant in and the LL tried to evict any court would be reluctant to evict. Just like it would be reluctant to evict a house owner from there PPR.

The RTB might rule against the tenant in the IT's case or it might rule for the tenant.

The overriding fact is that the apartment is the tenants home. The home would have constitutional protection no matter the wording of the legislation.

While the LL could refuse a tenancy but could allow a liciencee arrangements in the IT case and make the case that the original tenant be the responsible person for the contract.

However if they had a baby the LL could look for repossession after a reasonable time as a one bed apartment is unsuitable as a family home

In OP case there is no relationship between John and the OP. As I posted earlier if they were same sex partners then the LL might be on less sure territory. However there is no such relationship in this case.

No law on residency and renting is black and white. There are constitutional rights that are enshrined in the constitution and other that can be implied from them.

That is why many giving definitive answers in cases where families, relationships and home ownership are involved are often incorrect.

That is why the writer of the IT article uses the word reasonable. A judge would consider that constitutional law would override any part of the RTB legislation in any particular case.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705696#Comment_119705696

Why would the gender of the people in a relationship make a difference? I hope you are not claiming same sex couples have more rights than heterosexual couples under the RTA.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705711#Comment_119705711

It's the house not the gender of the people. The LL might be unwilling to have the occupancy of his house mixed between single and a family unit and the interaction between the any couple causing issues in the house.

That is not to say the RTB and courts might overrule his objection. However it is also the home of the other non attached tenants and there rights come into play as well.

If it was a same sex couple in the one bed apartment they would have exactly the same rights I posed as the hetero-sexual couple I posed earlier.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705789#Comment_119705789

Careful there.... wouldn't want to be found to be discriminating on the basis of family status....

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705668#Comment_119705668

But why again are you asking this of me? Personally I don't care if you believe in either version. I have posted the gist of the legal advice I received, if you don't want to accept it without me showing you the source my solicitor obtained it from, well, you know where to go...

But ironically, you have not pointed to anything which tells me a landlord can restrict licences, only a brief mention of contract law and now you have clarified that you do know legislation can override the leases.

But, also add in common law and the fact that you don't exactly know how the RTB interprets the same terms you dismissed as irrelevant.

So honestly I don't really see the point of the way you are arguing your point, as you said yourself, you are not speaking from experience, and you haven't mentioned any particular qualification or study of the area, so what is the point in repeating yourself constantly?

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705696#Comment_119705696

The interpretation of most law is to what is reasonable. The interpretation of law is not done by making law. It is not about looking at a situation and deciding what is reasonable. That would be making law. If the law doesn't allow something, that is it, no matter how unreasonable. Courts have no discretion in enforcing a determination order of the RTB unless there was a flaw in the RTB processes. There are a number of constitutional rights potentially in play. The landlord has his property rights. The landlord also has freedom of association rights. The tenant may have rights to a dwelling or family rights.

No application has ever been taken to a court under the unfair contract terms concerning the restriction on subletting, sharing or parting with possession which is standard in leases. It a reasonable clause to insert and as far as asaying the legal advice is that the RTb wouldn't enforce it, no case has been reported where the RTB refused to enforce such a right. It is not know what qualifications the alleged legal adviser had or what experience, nor what questions they were asked, nor has any reasoning been shown. I give no weight to it.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705539#Comment_119705539

I am not going to provide a link because my name is listed in the Tribunal Report.

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119708067#Comment_119708067

No offense, but still I'll rely on my legal advice, they have at the very least a professional standards I can rely on.

You are posting about a case you were involved in, but injected this late in the conversation, not at the start and if you are as knowledgeable as you are, you know you could have used this case without mentioning you were involved. So I am going to discount this.

Look, I don't know what you are purporting to be here, a tenant, landlord or solicitor?

FishOnABike

No application has ever been taken to a court under the unfair contract terms concerning the restriction on subletting, sharing or parting with possession which is standard in leases.

...but this would not be in question in the scenario of the OP as a licensee of the tenants (John and his brother).

John and his brother would remain as the sole tenants, they are not sublettig to the OP, neither are they sharing or parting with possession - they remain fully responsible for the property as tenants. The OP would be there solely at their invitation as a guest, albeit a long term paying guest.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119658808#Comment_119658808

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119710231#Comment_119710231

The op has already copy and pasted the terms of the lease relating to “paying guests”. No term in the RTA that you have shown negates that term in the lease agreed by John.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119710251#Comment_119710251

Read in context, that refers to operating a business from the premesis, which is a reasonable and understandable restriction as it has implications for zoning, planning permission, commercial rates, commercial water charges, etc...

A rent a room situation, as in the OP being a licensee, would not be seen as a change of use or be viewed as running a business or commercial operation from the premesis.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119710293#Comment_119710293

Can you read?

“let or allow any other person live at the property without the Landlord's written consent”

”Not to receive paying guests”

That is what John agreed to when signing the lease.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119710359#Comment_119710359

My reading (and comprehension) skills are fine, thank you.

“let or allow any other person live at the property without the Landlord's written consent”

I'll refer you back to the Irish Property Owners' Association advice on that, https://ipoa.ie/difference-between-subletting-an-assignment-and-a-licensee/ referred to in an earlier post "The tenant is under a statutory obligation to inform the landlord of the identity of resident in the dwelling however, the landlord is not in a position to to accept or veto the individual concerned as he/she would with a tenant."

”Not to receive paying guests”

Again, that was in the context of carrying out a business. The full paragaph, in context is "Not to receive paying guests, or carry on, or permit to be carried on, any business, trade or profession on or from the property."

That would, quite reasonably, preclude running a guest house, B&B or Air B&B from the premesis but I would argue could not reasonably preclude John (and his brother) from having the OP as a licensee.

John (and his brother) are obliged to inform the landlord in writing of anybody else ordinarily resident.

How can they have an obligation to inform the landlord of something if they don't have a right to that something, either explicitly or implicitly.

No term in the lease may operate to vary, modify or restrict in any way John (and his brother)'s rights under the Residential Tenancies Act.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119710773#Comment_119710773

Again, you are misinterpreting the text you copied.

The LL cannot veto the licensee “concerned”, but that is after the fact that an additional occupant is not permitted. If they were, and a licensee was taken in by the tenant, the LL could not decide who that licensee is.

As has been said many times, a licensee is no more than a paying guest, no different than a B&B guest, a hotel guest, or an Airbnb guest, a paying guest with no more rights, prohibited by the tenancy contract John agreed to.

Yet again, you have nothing to support your viewpoint from the RTA, whereas a tenancy agreement is a binding contract. If you can find a clause in the RTA that negates the lease term in relation to additional occupants, post it. Please dont say sections 12 and 16 support what you posted, they don’t.

FishOnABike

The LL cannot veto the licensee “concerned”, but that is after the fact that an additional occupant is not permitted.

This is a circular argument - essentially you are arguing that the landlord cannot veto the licensee "concerned" but that is after the fact that they have already vetoed any licensee in principle.

As has been said many times, a licensee is no more than a paying guest, no different than a B&B guest, a hotel guest, or an Airbnb guest, a paying guest with no more rights, prohibited by the tenancy contract John agreed to.

A licensee is more than a paying guest, and is different to a B&B guest, a hotel guest or an Airbnb guest.

B&B, hotel or Airbnb guests tend to be transitory and result in an almost continuous stream of a large number of unknown people staying at a property. It would be an impractical annoyance for John (and his brother) to keep the landlord informed of who was staying at the house. As a business it woud also constitute a change of purpose for the dwelling.

The OP would be a stable, long term, regular occupant. John (and his brother) would be obliged to inform the landlord in writing of his presence. The landlord has the right to be informed but not to approve or disapprove the OP's presence.

Nothing the OP has said indicates the tenancy agreement explicitly places a numerical limit on the number of occupants.

It would be unreasonable to argue that the OP could reside ordinarily in the dwelling if he did not pay John (or his brother) but could not if he paid John (or his brother) anything, especially when the landlord could have no idea whether the OP was paying John (or his brother) and no there was no legal relationship between the OP and the landlord.

DFB-D

OK, I've been researching this briefly.

https://mcmahonsolicitors.ie/property-overview/

So if you read the link, the act grants exclusive occupation, which incorporates the right to exclude others from the property.

I think if the landlord retains the right to exclude, the tenant does not have this right, ergo the lease does not allow for exclusive occupation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119711151#Comment_119711151

“I think”? What legislation backs up what you think?

Did you miss this bit in the article you linked?

”A lease is a contract which carries property rights. The tenant has the right to exclude all other persons from the property, including the landlord itself. The tenants rights are conditional on continued compliance with the terms of the lease. The lease can ultimately be cancelled or forfeited for non payment of rent and breach of the lease terms”

Nothing in the article you linked supports the right to breach the lease by taking in extra occupants when the lease prohibits it. In “exclusive use”, you are extrapolating that a tenant can effectively do what they want in contravention of the lease, this is simply not the case. The exclusion of a LL from the property is provided for in the RTA by the reference to the entitlement to “peaceful enjoyment”, but as an earlier poster pointed out, peaceful enjoyment is not dependent on having more occupants than specified in the lease agreement.

So again, what you posted is no closer to supporting your assertion that the tenant has a right to breach the lease by adding occupants, nor does it support the claim by others that tenants rights granted by the RTA negates the lease term relating to number of occupants. If it does, post the relevant section of the RTA.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119711139#Comment_119711139

You claimed earlier that you had no issues with reading and comprehension.

The op copied and posted the actual wording of the lease, it states the following: “let or allow any other person live at the property without the Landlords written consent” and prohibits “paying guests”, which as we know, is effectively what licensees are.

How could you possibly misconstrue that? How is that not putting conditions/a limit on the number of people living there? Limiting it to the tenant on the lease, and any additional occupant who has the LL’s consent to live there.

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119711535#Comment_119711535

Read the part about exclusive occupation, that is in the act and it says quite clearly in the article about the right to exclude being exclusive occupation. Peaceful enjoyment is not the right to exclude....

Hence the terms in the act regarding the obligation to inform the landlord of who is in occupation, hence the right of the landlord to terminate based on overcrowding.

You have already agreed that any term which is not consistent with the act is not enforceable, the act requires the right to exclude to be given to the tenant and a lease term cannot retain this right for the landlord or the right to exclude has not been assigned to the tenant.

And yes "I think", not I know. I am not conceited enough to read some articles for a few hours and to pretend to be an expert. But you are asking for an exact reference in legislation (exclusive occupation covers this) but then you want it phrased exactly the way you want to see it...but your whole argument is based on contract law, which is majority common law based (not contained in statute) , see the irony here?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119711709#Comment_119711709

Where does the act say “exclusive occupation” extends to anyone beyond those on the lease? And where does it say that exclusive occupation is adversely affected by not allowing additional occupants in contravention of the lease?

You are regurgitating the same unsupported opinions time after time. I have the validity of a tenancy agreement as a legally binding contract to support mine, you show me which legislation negates the clause in John’s contract relating to number of occupants.

You don’t have to read lots of articles, you just have to read this:

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/enacted/en/html

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119708684#Comment_119708684

I hope your legal advisers have professional indemnity insurance. Some of what you allege they say is just plain wrong and if you rely on it you may find yourself on the street.

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119712023#Comment_119712023

No no Davo, you haven't anything at all behind you. Linking to the legislation or pointing to a contract without considering what the words actually mean to the legal profession is nothing more than bickering at this stage.

I could insert any term in a lease, but I know right well that if I did its probably wrong. "Let or allow" is someone with no legal experience attempting to sound clever. How about a term which states the landlord is obligated to fix items but the tenants must hold the ladder?

What is your opinion on the landlords association stating you cannot limit licences?

What is your opinion on exclusive occupation meaning - and what have you researched to support this?

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119712273#Comment_119712273

I'm sure they do, they are solicitors afterall. And your insurance is what is exactly?

You dodged the question, what is your capacity in that case you mentioned, tenant, landlord or solicitor?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119712277#Comment_119712277

Nothing new here, still no link to any legislation that supports the right to have additional occupants in contravention of the lease agreement.

Just more obfuscation. The search goes on.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119711553#Comment_119711553

I'm not misconstruing it, I'm saying my opinion is that it is unenforcable as it is contrary to section 18 of the Residential Tenancies Act and the Irish Property Owners' Association would appear to hold the same opinion. https://ipoa.ie/difference-between-subletting-an-assignment-and-a-licensee/ The tenants cannot be in breach of an unenforcable term of their tenancy agreement.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119712816#Comment_119712816

More waffle.

Which parts of sections 12 and 16 has John’s LL breached in the lease?

Put simply, or as simply as I can for you, what section of the RTA makes the restriction on the number of occupants agreed in in the lease, a binding contract, unenforceable?

As has been pointed out to you many times, the LL is not in a position to accept or veto who the licensee is, but that is after the fact of whether they have a right to be there or not. John’s lease agreement specifically refers to limits on occupants, you said earlier you could read and comprehend what the op posted, has that changed?

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119712771#Comment_119712771

Childish. And on that note, I think we are done here.

Anyway, moral of the story, if you are drawing up a lease, get a solicitor to advise, too many "experts" online!

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119712843#Comment_119712843

I've already explained the right to have other person(s) ordinarily resident in the dwelling implicit in the tenants obligation to notify the landlord in writing of same.

The circular argument of the landlord being able to veto something before being asked to approve or veto something which he has no right to approve or veto is just nonsense.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119712978#Comment_119712978

And there, again, is the crux of the argument, can the LL limit the number of occupants before the situation arises whereby the question over vetoing the licensee concerned arises? And again, you have failed to show what makes the clause relating to additional occupants in the lease unenforceable. I agree that if the addition occupant is allowed, the LL cannot veto who it is, but that is not what is being discussed.

If you are certain that the limit on occupants in a lease agreed between tenant and LL is unenforceable, put up the legislation which supports that, it isn’t section 12 nor 16 of the RTA, so it can’t be section 18.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119712315#Comment_119712315

Not every solicitor has insurance to advise on RTB law! From your later posts it looks more like you are doing your onw research which you are trying to pass off as legal advice you got. The answer to your question is none of the above, if it means anything.

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119713865#Comment_119713865

OK, so they mentioned your name in the report because you were lurking around in the back, is that it? 😂

So if I don't stick in terms relating to licences and my solicitor doesn't have the correct insurance, I'll end up on the street 🤣

And, lying about mythical cases? Freedom of association (not freedom to form associations as per constitution)

What will you post about next?