Licensee renting troubles

Part 4 rights are the most important consideration in the whole scenario.

If any one of the current tenants do not have part 4 rights, the landlord can simply issue that individual a notice of termination of their tenancy for no reason. If none of them have part 4 rights, any or all of them could be issued termination notices.

If any of the existing tenants have part 4 rights they could exercise those rights, remain a tenant and invite anyone as a licensee (even one of the just made ex-tenants). The landlord would have to be notified who the regular occupants were but cannot simply veto having a licensee unless it breaks one of the reasons provided for in the act e.g. unsuitability due to overcrowding....

The number of tenants is exactly the number in the tenancy agreement, no more, no less. Taking in a licensee does not change the number of tenants or the tenancy agreement.

And there in lies the crux, the op has not stated he/she is replacing and existing tenant, the op is an extra one (see the reference to more money for additional tenant).

I think we can all agree Threshold is biased in favour of tenants, when even they tell the op that John could be evicted for breaching the lease, you know the op is the wrong side of this.

The lease agreement is a binding contract. You show me where there is an entitlement for the tenants to breach it.

What law does it violate? You haven’t shown it yet.

If a rental agreement states the property occupancy is limited to a certain number of people, and the tenants sign that agreement, show me the law that entitles the tenants to breach that agreement.

The tenants have exclusive use of the property, nothing has changed that, but the op does not gain that right as he/she is an additional tenant, not a replacement, and their occupancy breaches Johns agreement with the LL.

As I posted earlier, when Threshold, an agency which is tenant focused tells the op that John is in breach of his rental agreement and can be evicted, the op is on the wrong side of this argument.

Would you please read the op.

Where does it say a tenant has left? The op wants to be an extra occupant, and has informed the LL that he/she wants to be a tenant, has offered additional rent above the rental agreement to be so, but the LL, quite rightly in keeping with RPZ and to keep everything “above board” has refused this.

I agree that we may not be getting the full picture, but the fact remains, there is nothing precluding the LL from having a set number of occupants on the lease agreement, nothing to stop the tenants agreeing to that when signing the lease, nothing that makes that lease agreement non binding, and no entitlement in law for the tenants who signed that contract to breach that agreement by taking in more occupants.

If you know that there is legislation that entitles John to take in more occupants than agreed in the lease, post it. Nothing you or any other poster has posted has shown that entitlement. We all know what a licensee is, they have no more rights than a guest, but that does not mean, despite what snowcat has posted, that a tenant can take one in if it breaches the term relating to the number of occupants in the lease.

@Dav010 Nothing in any of the OP's posts indicates a tenant has left. Similarly none of my posts or arguments indicate or are based on any premise that a tenant has left.

Nothing in any of the OP's posts indicates the OP has engaged in anything more than a hypothetical exercise to consider why the landlord might not accept additional rent if it were offered. Nothing indicates that an actual offer of more rent was made or that the landlord actually refused such an offer.

Nothing in any of the OP's posts indicates there is any clause placing an artificial limit on the number of occupants allowed in the property by John and John's brother's tenancy agreement.

I explained in some detail in an earlier post, how such an artificial limit, in the absence of a reason provided for in the RTA, would be in breach of sections 12, 16 and 18 of the RTA and therefore unenforceable.

Section 18 of the RTA precludes signing away any rights, including as I explained in the same earlier post, in the absence of other permitted reasons, the right to guest(s) and / or licensee(s).

In this instance having three people in a three bedroom house, two tennants and one licensee, would not appear to provide any other permitted reason.

Tenants can sign whatever they want in a tenancy agreement but if any terms are contrary to the provisions of the RTA they are non binding.

Indeed. The lease cannot say "no guests".

But this is not a guests question. It's a sub-tenant one. And every lease I've ever seen says none of those.

18.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no provision of any lease, tenancy agreement, contract or other agreement (whether entered into before, on or after the commencement of this Part) may operate to vary, modify or restrict in any way section 12 or 16 .

Not simple. And as one poster, as a landlord, was advised by their solicitor when drawing up tenancy agreement would be contrary to the RTA.

As the OP has clarified although John is not there six months yet, and therefore does not have part four rights, the lease has a fixed term of one year so the landlord cannot just decide to break that fixed term condition. It is as binding on the landlord as it is on John.

As I see it John (and now his brother also) has security of tenancy for a least a year, after six months of which he will have part four rights. They are jointly renting the whole dwelling. Not allowing a licensee would interfere with their right to peaceful enjyoyment of the dwelling and any such restriction in the tenancy agreement is unlawful and unenforcable.

I were the OP I would get solid legal advice before thinking of moving out. I believe the landlord is overreaching themselves in this instance. The OP does not have to be added to the lease (yet) but as I see it there is nothng to stop him being a licensee.

The law, under section 12 of the RTA, requires that the tenant notify in writing the landlord of the identity of each person (other than a multiple tenant) who, for the time being, resides ordinarily in the dwelling.

The landlord is looking for the right to approve or disapprove each person. That is an additional restriction and would be contrary to section 18 of the act.

18.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no provision of any lease, tenancy agreement, contract or other agreement (whether entered into before, on or after the commencement of this Part) may operate to vary, modify or restrict in any way section 12 or 16.

There is - RTA section 18.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no provision of any lease, tenancy agreement, contract or other agreement (whether entered into before, on or after the commencement of this Part) may operate to vary, modify or restrict in any way section 12 or 16.

OP has clarified John (and his brother) have a fixed one year term in their tenancy agreement, so the LL giving them notice to quit is not an option.

The LL isn't losing. They are renting the property and they are receiving rent for the property. The LL has no right to micro-manage tenants lives.

I was surprised that the author didn't know what subletting means but then it was written by the person below.

Kersten Mehl is a chartered residential agency surveyor and member of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland

Weird person to be providing the answer, it would be similar to me writing the answer because I am member of Chartered Accountants Ireland and the Irish Tax Institute.

I had a look today at the RTB website, any case I looked at where breach of lease was mentioned was for non payment of rent, does anyone know of a relevant case here?

I wouldn't be inclined to take advice from someone who doesn't appear to know the difference between subletting and a licensee either.