Licensee renting troubles

How long has John been renting?

If he's in Part 4 then you've a chance to get onto the RTB as the landlord has to allow you become a tenant. The only potential issue is that John might not have been authorised to allow a licencee but that's an issue between John and the Landlord not you and the landlord, as you have a signed licencee agreement with John 😉

Can you pay the LL more rent?

The landlord has fair reason to refuse, they never agreed to this person or Licensees/subleters, could be from the point of view of fair wear and tear, consideration of neighbours regarding parking spaces whether they are limited due to being allocated or even when not as that can cause problems. Basically, I cannot understand where any person who was not originally assigned to the lease can be granted rights unless they were approved by the landlord, because as nice as it seems, it opens the landlord up to problems/liability they never agreed to take on, in some cases (not saying this instance) it can assist criminal activity.

No person should be able to have an automatic entitlement to a tenancy unless the landlord has signed off on it, regardless of their duration, its an example of well meaning (mostly) do gooders interfering but who have zero actual experience of problems it can cause.

In this case and many others, the person may be legit and genuine, but I still see zero reason they should be allowed to live there without the landlords consent, as its an RPZ, the landlord cant up the rent to account for this unplanned person on the tenancy as that would be breaking the law, I dont see why tenants or potential tenants should be allowed circumvent the law either, but it is accepted in other aspects of Part4, Tenancies and renting in general.

Thankfully I am not a landlord anymore, but anyone with an ounce of experience would say it should rightfully be at the landlords discretion OR any notice to request to be added to a lease should have a 6 months trial period (not as it seems to be, just claiming someone is there 6 months and automatically has part4 rights), ie a landlord should be notified formally, and if they dont outright refuse immediately, then the licensee has 6 months before they can be granted part4 rights from that first notification, where the landlord can say still decline them up to the end of the 6 months (in the case it didnt suit them/they had given some leeway to the licencee and found they still weren't happy with them or the situation).

That's a load of bollox to be fair. A LL is well entitled to look after their asset.

Naturally You're not entitled to be added to a lease on a whim just because a fella renting another room said you can.

In my experience the lease often states the number of nights a visitor can stay in a month. This seems a little petty but it is the only way to avoid the problem you describe.

So John is renting a 4 bed house on his own?

where did it say there are 4 bedrooms?

where did it say nobody else lives in the house?

why do you invent a fake story?

Ok, so as the other poster replied, what if someone renting decides on their own bat that their mate/sibling/cousin can stay, what if the landlords policy doesnt cover for example a smoker or not without being notified or the landlord doesnt want to deal with the problems associated with that after the original guy that rented has left, what if the landlord wants to vet the person themselves? what if the person drives a car, and everyone in the house has cars and the landlord doesnt want to have his tenants block access because they are considerate of the neighbours? what if they decided they just want X number of people and let it on that basis, its not about compassion or lack of it, but when you give an inch people take a mile, next it will be 2 people staying or more, it can also cause problems in that, maybe the other tenant didnt want or agree to this chap staying or felt obligated to agree. I am completely on board that there is a huge problem, but one which has not been caused by smalltime landlords who are fleeced/scapegoated/hassled for providing accommodation. I got out because of the hassle and one sidedness and the delays to deal with problems.

The current situation has been created by successive Govts across a few areas, 1. Not facilitating more home builds, not influencing councils in the last decade to make land available at a price and ensuring their developer mates are held accountable for not building crap on land that started out as public/state land. 2. Having laws in place to deal with delinquent tenants (and landlords) because the current setup encourages bad tenants & bad landlords, thats not to say their arent good landlords or good tenants, but good tenants are paying for the acts of foolish/idiotic decisions, which may be well meaning or they may be based on the fact the State (successive Govts) know the cost involved in providing accommodation would be huge, instead of rewarding smalltime landlords they are fleeced and blamed.

Your post is significantly indicative of this blame and reduces the potential for a problem down to it being a lack of compassion, its not that simple, it is not the responsibility of private landlords to fix the problems of the state, such as providing longterm accomodation, smalltime landords dont make Policy, but renting would be possible and viable for all if the Govt made the right laws/decisions, instead it is all stick and very limited carrot for landlords, so little that Landlords are leaving in droves, yet you still blame landlords for not having compassion, when in fact many have been (including myself) compassionate. Compassion doesnt pay the bills and there is only so much that can be given when the landlords own responsibilities and family are affected, many landlords are in that situation (some accidental, others not, neither of which should mean they have more or less rights), many other landlords just extract what they can (I had to put money in to make up costs) that was a fact of the situation I was in. It could in fact save the State and consequently taxpayers billions to supplement available accommodation provided by the state for rental with that provided by private landlords. So those that cant or dont want to/need to buy have a that option, but there needs to be something in it for landlords, so by the time you deduct tax, pay down debts it is not an easy task to balance the monthly budget. Buying shouldnt be a necessity to avoid a rental trap, I dont agree with it, but I do see it as necessary in this Country. I believe neo-liberal policies have influenced many Nations policy to provide less and less accomodation and just let it be a free for all where the whole thing is foisted onto the market and a capitalist free-market policy drives the entire process. I dont agree with that, I believe housing should be affordable such that it should be a less important consideration in peoples lives.

1. If a small number of problems were fixed and dealt with that would help (not completely) solve many of the problems that exist, basically you have Threshold and by inaction tacit support from the RTB for tenants and tenant landlord problems not to be dealt with, that means bad tenants get away with a lot that wouldnt be tolerated elsewhere. So if a landlord isn't allowed bend the rules (shouldn't be) why do you think tenants should be? The landlord never agreed to what is raised here and is within their rights to refuse.

What if there is a couple, and they have a baby? Does the LL have the right to kick them out?

For clarification, is the OP saying this is a 3 bedroom house and there are 3 original tenants? if so what room is the OP occupying?

Either way, the landlord is within their rights to refuse, if not an RPZ, the landlord may have taken the original number of tenants into account when setting the rent, which if so, confirms making deals favourable to a tenant can backfire (plenty of landlords being compassionate cant even increase the rent closer to market rates, let alone actual rates), so it is very difficult for a landlord to be compassionate and not risk getting stung. Same for other breaches of tenancy (by the tenants, not the OP, they aren't a tenant, Licensee or a subletter, because the Landlord has confirmed they have declined this) therefore landlord should deal with this formally as is their right and treat it like the contract is being reneged upon.

It depends if it’s overcrowded. There’s an official definition, I believe. If it’s a one bed, I think that technically it would be when the child turns 1.

Edited to add: not advising this, just answering in respect of what the rules are as I understand them.

Take a walk in his shoe and you can see why he wouldn't agree to do it off book. It might suit you now to offer to do that but from his point of view, if future relationship goes sour. You could threaten to report him to Revenue/RTB etc as a parting shot. There is absolutely no upside for him as far as I can see.