Landlord wants to raise rent

R

Raskolnikov

Registered User
Messages
350
Not really sure which is the right forum for this query, so feel free to move.

Here's the scenario.

Landlord rents a 2-bedroomed apartment. A couple move in and take one of the bedrooms with the intention of sub-letting the other room out. At the time, the landlord is not aware of this. Fast forward a week, the existing couple finds another couple to share the apartment. They then go to the landlord looking for two extra sets of keys. Landlord says this is unacceptable and demands more money (despite the fact the couple have only been in the place a week).

Is the landlord entitled to ask for this increase? Can he withhold they extra set of keys from the new couple moving in? The landlord if PRTB registered, however no lease was signed.
 
Was there a contract signed? If you sign a lease for say a yearthen I would imagine you could have people stay as long as its not more than what the property is designed for.
Threshold is the best place to get professional help on this.
 
Hi,

Most leases have a clause that says no subletting of property without landlords consent.

You are in a difficult situation, until you have leased property for 6 months , your rights are minimal. The landlord could give you notice to quit and you could do very little. Your best option is try to come to some agreement with landlord.
 
You're not really subletting the property, seeing as you're still living there yourself. The more relevant question would be whether there was a clause in the contract restricting the lease to max two people. But seeing as you say nothing was signed, then this doesn't apply either.

Generally the landlord is allowed to review the rent once a year and raise (or decrease) it in line with the "market rent" for properties of that type in that area. This according to PRTB.

So in short, IMHO landlord can't ask for an increase at this stage. However as nothing was signed he could try to insist that the rent he always asked for was the now higher sum. Have you paid the first month's rent? Have you paid a deposit and was it equal to one or two month's rent? If you've a receipt for deposit and/or first month's rent, then I'd stick to my guns in your position. Otherwise it could be a bit trickier.
 
From my experience many landlords accept lower rents by renting to a couple rather than more people beacause they feel there will be less wear and tear on the property. Seems reasonable that he would not want more people in the place than he originally was told without some compensation.
 
Maybe you should have just got another set of keys cut yourself. Landlord none the wiser and rent the same. Friends staying over if he ever checked.

Still if i was the landlord i'd not be too pleased.
 
The couple misrepresented themselves to the landlord. Why didn't they initially say there would be more people. As previously posted the rent is generally more when there is more people due to wear and tear. Conversely it's less when it's just a couple who are generally easier to handle than 4 different people. Presumable the landlord checked out the couple and was happy with them. Now complete strangers are going to installed in his property, to say nothing about a future possible disagreement between tenants if one moves out and who pays rent to the landlord etc. Maybe this would be a reason for the landlord to be annoyed. Another point, is there no rent book, did you not get a receipt for your deposit?
 
Raskolnikov said:
Is the landlord entitled to ask for this increase?
Click to expand...
He's definately not entitled to increase the rent after one week anyway. Should the tenants refuse this increase and notify the PRTB about the landlord's illegal attempt to up the rent, it could be held against him. If he subsequently asks them to leave, it could be claimed that they are being penalized for bringing the dispute to the PRTB.

I don't think the tenants have done anything wrong here. Since there's no lease in place specifiying a maximum number of tenants, they should be allowed to have more people in to help with the rent. The fact that they went asking the landlord for keys suggests that it was not intential deception or misrepresentation. The landlord should have got a lease in place BEFORE handing over the keys to the first couple.

At this point the landlord is within his rights to ask the tenants to leave (without any reason) since the tenancy has been in place for less than 6 months. 28 days notice will have to be given though. The fact that he tried to increase the rent illegally will not work in his favour should the tenants decide to take it to the PRTB.
 
as far as i was aware you're not allowed to sublet unless you get agreement from landlord.

obviously 4 people will create more wear and tear than 2.

the renters do state that they rented that place with the intention of subletting without telling the landlord upfront....why would they do this?
 
Apple* said:
as far as i was aware you're not allowed to sublet unless you get agreement from landlord.
Click to expand...
I don't think that they're subletting in this case though. They (as the head tenants) are notifying the landlord that there are more tenants staying in his property. As far as I can see, the landlord had nothing in place to prevent this.

As colm mentioned in the second post, contacting threshold would be the way to go to resolve this one.
 
I don't think that they're subletting in this case though. They (as the head tenants) are notifying the landlord that there are more tenants staying in his property. As far as I can see, the landlord had nothing in place to prevent this.
Click to expand...

He may be ok because he has registered as a landlord and in doing so would have entered the names of those tenants who he permitted to use his property. I would think therefore that the other 'tenants' would not have a case with the PRTB. Fairness should prevail here and if they want to include two more people it is only right that they ask the landlord and he can set up a seperate agreement for them as it is his property. He may learn a valuable lesson here to draw up a rigid lease agreement in future to prevent him from being taken advantage of by his tenants.
 
IMO they are sub-letting the apartment. They are renting out a portion of the property which they themselves are renting from the Landlord. They do not have to rent out the entire property to be classed as sub-letting it. This would be in breach of any implied contract with the Landlord and it is materially different from any agreement reached with the landlord.The rent agreed was for two people renting the property. The landlord is only disadvantaged by having more people in his property and thus he is liable for the resulting increase in wear and tear.
If the landlord wished to rent the apartment to four people then he could off-set the hassle and wear and tear against the greater rent (as evidenced by the fact that th OP is charging rent to the two new people).
Why does the OP think she should be allowed to profit from having two tenants in the apartment but the Landlord should bear the cost?
 
If people feel that two additional tenants are allowed, what's stopping the OP from getting 4 or 6 additional tenants (yes, in theory unlikely) and packing them into the house. Where does this stop ?? Landlord has to have rights also !!!!
And while this extreme example is unlikely, A house (3 bed semi) near me is rented and God himself only knows how many people are living there !!!!! wonder is the Landlord in the picture ???
 
sheena1 said:
The rent agreed was for two people renting the property.
Click to expand...
The tenants obviously did not realise this or they would not have approached the landlord for more keys (or quite possibly even bothered renting the apartment in the first place). It's could be that they can not afford to rent the place on their own and were budgeting to have it shared between four.

Recam said:
If people feel that two additional tenants are allowed, what's stopping the OP from getting 4 or 6 additional tenants (yes, in theory unlikely) and packing them into the house. Where does this stop ??
Click to expand...
With a lease, which unfortunately is not in place in this case.
 
Afuera said:
The tenants obviously did not realise this or they would not have approached the landlord for more keys (or quite possibly even bothered renting the apartment in the first place). It's could be that they can not afford to rent the place on their own and were budgeting to have it shared between four.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that the tenants might not have realised sub-letting would not be permitted. Why did they not mention it to the landlord if this was their intention from the start? If they could not afford the rent then they should not have moved in.
 
sheena1 said:
I find it hard to believe that the tenants might not have realised sub-letting would not be permitted.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that they can not sublet? Most European countries allow this, so they may have assumed it was not necessary to bother the landlord with these details.
 
sheena1 said:
If the landlord wished to rent the apartment to four people then he could off-set the hassle and wear and tear against the greater rent (as evidenced by the fact that th OP is charging rent to the two new people).
Why does the OP think she should be allowed to profit from having two tenants in the apartment but the Landlord should bear the cost?
Click to expand...

Two points about this:
1- The landlord seems to have rented the place on the basis of a price for the apartment, rather than the number of people in it. If he wanted to control the number of people or profit from more people being there, then he should have it a condition that everyone to live there, whether in a couple or not, should sign a lease and charge them individual rent accordingly. There is no lease so there's no real basis to do this.

2- The original tenants seem to have been either very naive or quite slick in assuming that the Landlord wouldn't mind their subletting. With such an unofficial arrangement, it would surely be a real possibility that they were wide open to this sort of reaction. I'm surprised they said anything or felt it was okay to ask for more sets of keys. Again, there's no lease so there's no formal agreement to refer to for guidance on this.

Looks like the sole basis for this particular tenancy 'agreement' is a level of trust which has broken down. I can't imagine how it can be resolved unless a new compromise is negotiated. Threshold might be a good place for the tenants to start, though with nothing on paper it could complicate matters.
 
1- The landlord seems to have rented the place on the basis of a price for the apartment, rather than the number of people in it. If he wanted to control the number of people or profit from more people being there, then he should have it a condition that everyone to live there, whether in a couple or not, should sign a lease and charge them individual rent accordingly. There is no lease so there's no real basis to do this.
Click to expand...

I would imagine the landlord checked references on the original people, but the sub-letters may not have good references or may have an undesirable reputation, the landlord has a right to agree who lives on his property.

the best solution for this landlord if he has any sense is to hand them their notice and look for new tenants.
 
MrMan said:
I would imagine the landlord checked references on the original people, but the sub-letters may not have good references or may have an undesirable reputation, the landlord has a right to agree who lives on his property.
Click to expand...

I agree, but from the sound of it, the landlord didn't seek to know more about the other couple and instead sought extra rent.

It could be argued that this is 'increased risk' money, but isn't that what deposits are for? A compromise could be that the landlord receives a deposit from the new couple - maybe more than normal.

Without a formal tenancy agreement, this arrangement is pretty much entirely between the tenants and the landlord. I can see that the landlord may well demand that the tenants leave if this extra rent isn't paid.

I suppose this is a classic example of why proper tenancy agreements, laying out clearly all the terms, are a good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top