# Landlord wants to raise rent



## Raskolnikov (4 Sep 2007)

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.


----------



## colm (4 Sep 2007)

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.


----------



## steelblue (4 Sep 2007)

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.


----------



## Raskolnikov (4 Sep 2007)

Nothing was signed, by any party.


----------



## Persius (4 Sep 2007)

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.


----------



## DerKaiser (4 Sep 2007)

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.


----------



## GarBow (5 Sep 2007)

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.


----------



## Bronte (5 Sep 2007)

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?


----------



## Afuera (5 Sep 2007)

Raskolnikov said:


> Is the landlord entitled to ask for this increase?


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.


----------



## AppleSun (5 Sep 2007)

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?


----------



## Afuera (5 Sep 2007)

Apple* said:


> as far as i was aware you're not allowed to sublet unless you get agreement from landlord.


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.


----------



## MrMan (5 Sep 2007)

> 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.



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.


----------



## sheena1 (5 Sep 2007)

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?


----------



## Recam (5 Sep 2007)

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 ???


----------



## Afuera (5 Sep 2007)

sheena1 said:


> The rent agreed was for two people renting the property.


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 ??


With a lease, which unfortunately is not in place in this case.


----------



## sheena1 (5 Sep 2007)

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.


 
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.


----------



## Afuera (5 Sep 2007)

sheena1 said:


> I find it hard to believe that the tenants might not have realised sub-letting would not be permitted.


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.


----------



## Paulone (5 Sep 2007)

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?


 
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.


----------



## MrMan (5 Sep 2007)

> 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.



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.


----------



## Paulone (5 Sep 2007)

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.


 
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.


----------



## Trish2006 (5 Sep 2007)

I know people who rent houses, if one person moves out they get someone else to move in.  The landlords never seek to meet this new person.  The rent is usually a unit price, when have you ever seen an ad saying rent 1000pm (for 2 people, add 300 for each additional person)??  If the couple split up and one moved out would the landlord reduce the rent??  If they had a child 6 mths later could he up the rent for the baby? If a friend of the couple needed somewhere to live for a couple of months, could they not say 'we have a spare room if you chip in with the rent'?  I understand the argument for wear and tear, but 4 quiet people will cause a lot less than 2 very social people who have dinner parties every night.  
I think the key issue is that the landlord didn't seem bothered by the extra people, just by the fact that he could make more money 'because he could' (or at least that's how the situation seems to be portrayed...)


----------



## MrMan (5 Sep 2007)

Well the landlord does own the house and he is entitled to think that the rent is for his gain and not the tenants.



> If they had a child 6 mths later could he up the rent for the baby?



A small bit of an exaggeration perhaps? The point is the current tenants are not being wronged by the landlord. They agreed a price with him for the apartment. They then tried to cut their rent by taking in another couple. Surely it can be seen that in this scenario a certain increase in rent is due.


> I suppose this is a classic example of why proper tenancy agreements, laying out clearly all the terms, are a good idea.




I guess thats the moral of this story anyways


----------



## Afuera (5 Sep 2007)

MrMan said:


> Well the landlord does own the house and he is entitled to think that the rent is for his gain and not the tenants.


He's entitled to think whatever he likes... He's not allowed to rewrite the rules whenever he feels like it though.



MrMan said:


> The point is the current tenants are not being wronged by the landlord. They agreed a price with him for the apartment.


They agreed a price for the apartment and the landlord tries to raise it a week later. I'm sure the PTRB would have lots of sympathy for the poor landlord in this case 



MrMan said:


> They then tried to cut their rent by taking in another couple. Surely it can be seen that in this scenario a certain increase in rent is due.


The landlord was quite happy to rent the appartment out at a certain price. Nothing was in place to indicate that this price depended on the amount of people residing there. I can't see why the landlord is due more money.


----------



## MrMan (5 Sep 2007)

[/QUOTE]He's entitled to think whatever he likes... He's not allowed to rewrite the rules whenever he feels like it though.[/QUOTE]

Except he didn't initiate the re-writing of the rules; the tenant did.



> They agreed a price for the apartment and the landlord tries to raise it a week later. I'm sure the PRTB would have lots of sympathy for the poor landlord in this case





> The landlord was quite happy to rent the appartment out at a certain price. Nothing was in place to indicate that this price depended on the amount of people residing there. I can't see why the landlord is due more money.



The indication was that he was renting it out to two people. TBH unless we know how the conversation initially went we can't know who is totally in the wrong here, only that the landlord was definitely naive in the first instance

Like I've already said the prtb will be interested in dealing with the registered tenants which are persons 1 & 2. the other two wont even be on their radar.


----------



## gonk (5 Sep 2007)

MrMan said:
			
		

> Like I've already said the prtb will be interested in dealing with the registered tenants which are persons 1 & 2. the other two wont even be on their radar.


 
Not so. 

From the "Quick Guide to the Residential Tenancies Act":

· *Licensees* (i.e. additional occupants brought in by a resident tenant who are not tenants themselves) may request the landlord to become tenant and the landlord may not unreasonably withhold written consent.

[broken link removed]


----------



## MrMan (5 Sep 2007)

> Not so.
> 
> From the "Quick Guide to the Residential Tenancies Act":
> 
> ...



that is the same for any assignment or sub-let, and the common bond would be that the tenant asks the landlord, not turn up looking for another set of keys because he has already sub-let a room in the apartment. There was no permission sought therefore my reading of it is that they cannot be adjudged to be rightfully sub-letting. 

An aside to this is the landlord may refuse them as tenants if he feels it is in the interest of good estate management i.e for the good of his asset.


----------



## Afuera (5 Sep 2007)

MrMan said:


> Except he didn't initiate the re-writing of the rules; the tenant did.


As far as we know, there were no rules dictating the amount of tenants allowed in the property.



MrMan said:


> the landlord was definitely naive in the first instance


Agreed. A simple lease dictating what was and wasn't acceptable to the landlord would have avoided this whole Pandora's box.


----------



## MrMan (5 Sep 2007)

I think it is the landlords intersts to take a cheap lesson and end their tenancy and learn from this mistake. I don't see how the tenants can win out in this instance as it is only a week into their occupancy anyway.


----------



## Afuera (5 Sep 2007)

MrMan said:


> I think it is the landlords intersts to take a cheap lesson and end their tenancy and learn from this mistake. I don't see how the tenants can win out in this instance as it is only a week into their occupancy anyway.


I don't agree with following this action straight away. I think that it could leave him open to penalties (he did try to raise the rent on them illegally). IMHO his best bet would be to get a lease together ASAP which specifies a maximum number of tenants in it. The price should be left as it was agreed upon originally and the tenants can choose to sign this or not. If they sign it then the landlord should be happy as he has achieved what he thought he had last week. If they do not sign, then he can evict them.

If the tenants have already notified the PRTB of the landlord's illegal attempt to raise the rent then it could turn into a very expensive lesson for the landlord. Should the landlord attempt to evict them after they've done this, they will be able to file another dispute with the PRTB, since it's quite possible they are being penalized by him for originally going to the PTRB. If by "winning out", you mean "stop themselves getting evicted", then this action may help them.


----------



## Purple (5 Sep 2007)

Although the Landlord was stupid to ask for more rent it is the tenants that have behaved badly. The Landlord should get rid of them and look for tenants with some integrity.


----------



## Cityliving (6 Sep 2007)

Afuera I am at a complete loss in trying to understand your position (and please correct me if I am wrong)

You seem to think that its ok for these people to have done what they have done - is that the case. now you havent so much said this as attacked the manner in which the landlord has acted so I felt it was inferred. If I have misunderstood you then sorry and this is not directed at you and this is just my opinion on the matter. 

Rather then arguing the fine points (should he be allowed to raise the rent, PRTB involvement etc) the simple facts are:

The landlord met and agreed to let to people he clearly approved of.

He (he for arguments sake) agreed a price with these people. 

The tenants who agreed to stay then decided to sublet (and yes it IS a sublet if they are not on the original lease and if no lease for some reason well at least there was an understanding that it was just those two people) a room. These new tenants are not registered with the PRTB, cannot take out contents insurance at that property and are not protected under the landlords property owners policy unless they lie and say they were overnight guests. 

This is completely unacceptable. The landlord remember (and I know it seems completely unimportant to some people) actually owns the apt and it is an enormous investment of their time and money. These people have misrepresented themselves and the landlord does not know these people who will be entering his property as a tenant without his permission. They were due to sign an agreement from my understanding so the issues of subletting, overnight guests are outlined in any standard agreement.


I would not have even discussed the matter with them (or as you seem to have such a strong feeling on raise the rent, I accept lower rent myself for less tenants or good tenants its his right to do this) and have given them the min notice and be rid of them. There actions are nothing if not ignorant and demonstrating a complete lack of fair play and taking someone at their word.

You seem to react like he`s been terribly unfair raising the rent but they LIED to him about the numbers they would have their then had the gaul to ask for more keys. He was being nice to even consider keeping people demonstrating such bad faith. The only plus on their side is mabe they were indeed naiive enough to actually assume that it was ok and thats why they asked him for keys and he still said they could stay. 

What is it about people nowadays who seem to hold this incredible animosity and sense of entitlement towards renting and landlords. When I rented I was treated fairly and I acted in good faith back. Now I treat my tenants fairly and have been very lucky so far. The reason why I feel I have been fortunate though is that I have interviewed all my potential tenants and any I have found with this attitude of unreasonable entitlement I havent touched with a bargepole - buy your own bloody apt if you want to do as you please. I provide a service and my tenants pay for that service but in return I expect them to play by the rules too. 

This is not much to ask.


----------



## Cityliving (6 Sep 2007)

oh and when i say its his right I mean its his right to accept lower rent when there will be less wear and tear equally at the beginning of a price negotiation it should be his right to know who will be staying there so that if he feels that there will be too many he can say that he does not want 4 people as it will cost too much to repair in the long run.


----------



## z106 (6 Sep 2007)

The bottom line is the tenants knowingly misrepresented themselves.

The landlord should be allowed decide how many tenats he wants in his house - this number should not be dictated to him by his tenants.
From a landlords viewpoint it's a bigger hassle trying to get money out of 4 different individuals than it is 2 different individuals.More chance of late payments etc. with more people involved.
The less tenants the better from a landlods viewpoint.

Unquestionably the original tenants were out of order.

It's the landlords house - the tenants broke the original agreement (I accept it was not a written agreement but if they have any morals they should know there was a common understanding - if they are trying to uise the line that the agreement wasn't in writing then it doesn't say much for them as people where quite clearly their word counts for nothing i.e. people that should not be trusted)).
THe tenants knowingly acted against this common understanding and then kick up a fuss here when the landlord retailates by also shifting the goalposts.
If the original tenants had played by teh original rules there would be no problems here.
Teh original tenants are to blame here - simple as that.


----------



## Raskolnikov (7 Sep 2007)

Sorry, I forgot one important detail here. _After the original tennants moved in (and after a "verbal contract" was agreed)_, they sought, and were given verbal permission to rent the other room to at most two more people. At the time, the landlord didn't mention anything about an extra cost being involved. It was only a week later when keys for the sub-tenants were required that he decided he wanted more money. 

Since the original incident occured, the landlord has actually entered the property without requesting permission from the tenants. To date, the tenants are fully paid up.


----------



## Raskolnikov (7 Sep 2007)

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 ?? Landlord has to have rights also !!!!


The property is listed on prtb.ie as having space for 4 beds. 

I am not sure this informationis legally binding and could be used in a case for us. Anyone?


----------



## Raskolnikov (7 Sep 2007)

Trish2006 said:


> I think the key issue is that the landlord didn't seem bothered by the extra people, just by the fact that he could make more money 'because he could' (or at least that's how the situation seems to be portrayed...)


That's what is seemed like to me. Initially he asked for an extra €200p/m, then he decided €100p/m "would do".


----------



## Raskolnikov (7 Sep 2007)

Apologies for the delay in posting back, I'll explain why here.

The landlord insisted that if all four of us were to remain in the apartment for the 28 days period of notice, that we must pay the extra rent. We were already stretched enough, so this wasn't an option and we have all decided to leave (I know technically I'm not actually a resident). As you can imagine, it was a hectic few days trying to get a place sorted out on such short notice.


----------



## Afuera (7 Sep 2007)

Raskolnikov said:


> The landlord insisted that if all four of us were to remain in the apartment for the 28 days period of notice, that we must pay the extra rent. We were already stretched enough, so this wasn't an option and we have all decided to leave (I know technically I'm not actually a resident). As you can imagine, it was a hectic few days trying to get a place sorted out on such short notice.


You must be given 28 days notice in writing before the landlord can raise the rent. Take this to the PTRB. I still think you have a legal status in the property as a licensee.


----------



## Afuera (7 Sep 2007)

qwertyuiop said:


> The bottom line is the tenants knowingly misrepresented themselves.
> 
> The landlord should be allowed decide how many tenats he wants in his house - this number should not be dictated to him by his tenants.


The only misrepresentation in this case was the landlord who decided to introduce a variable rate rent. The landlord is perfectly within his rights to dictate how many he wants in the property but he needs to have a lease in place to dictate this, otherwise it's at the tenants discretion to allow licensees on the property.


----------



## Afuera (7 Sep 2007)

Cityliving said:


> Afuera I am at a complete loss in trying to understand your position (and please correct me if I am wrong)
> 
> You seem to think that its ok for these people to have done what they have done - is that the case. now you havent so much said this as attacked the manner in which the landlord has acted so I felt it was inferred. If I have misunderstood you then sorry and this is not directed at you and this is just my opinion on the matter.


I'm coming from a position of fairness. Only one party in this dispute has acted illegally.




Cityliving said:


> The tenants who agreed to stay then decided to sublet (and yes it IS a sublet if they are not on the original lease and if no lease for some reason well at least there was an understanding that it was just those two people) a room.


There was no attempt to sublet in this case. The original tenants were not trying to assume the role of a landlord on the sub-tenants. They were attempting to introduce more licensees (which as it turns out the landlord had already agreed to).



Cityliving said:


> What is it about people nowadays who seem to hold this incredible animosity and sense of entitlement towards renting and landlords. When I rented I was treated fairly and I acted in good faith back. Now I treat my tenants fairly and have been very lucky so far. The reason why I feel I have been fortunate though is that I have interviewed all my potential tenants and any I have found with this attitude of unreasonable entitlement I havent touched with a bargepole - buy your own bloody apt if you want to do as you please. I provide a service and my tenants pay for that service but in return I expect them to play by the rules too.


The tenants were not treated fairly here and they did play by the rules. As tenants they are entitled to some basic rights which were completely trampled over here.


----------



## sam h (7 Sep 2007)

Raskolnikov said:


> Sorry, I forgot one important detail here. _After the original tennants moved in (and after a "verbal contract" was agreed)_, they sought, and were given verbal permission to rent the other room to at most two more people. At the time, the landlord didn't mention anything about an extra cost being involved. It was only a week later when keys for the sub-tenants were required that he decided he wanted more money.
> 
> Since the original incident occured, the landlord has actually entered the property without requesting permission from the tenants. To date, the tenants are fully paid up.


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Sep 2007)

Raskolnikov said:


> Sorry, I forgot one important detail here. _After the original tennants moved in (and after a "verbal contract" was agreed)_, they sought, and were given verbal permission to rent the other room to at most two more people. At the time, the landlord didn't mention anything about an extra cost being involved. It was only a week later when keys for the sub-tenants were required that he decided he wanted more money.
> 
> Since the original incident occured, the landlord has actually entered the property without requesting permission from the tenants. To date, the tenants are fully paid up.



You've just changed the whole context of the thread entirely. For me the original story is more credible, and especially since its more consistent with a last minute change of mind, like you've just done. That may be just be unfortunate conincidence.


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Sep 2007)

Afuera said:


> There was no attempt to sublet in this case.





Raskolnikov said:


> 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.


----------



## sam h (7 Sep 2007)

This makes the whole situation entirely different.  I would guess this is a "first time" landlord as it's is mad to let anyone rent your house without a lease.  If he approved more people moving in then he has no right to raise the rent, in fact he is not allowed to raise for a year (or the term of the lease if specified).  And even after a year he must give 28days notice. 
Therefore he cannot claim the higher rent before you move out.  
Would it not have been easier for you to have got your own set of key cut??


----------



## sam h (7 Sep 2007)

Also I ment to say that legally the landlord has no right to enter the property without an arrangement or to do emergency repairs.


----------



## Afuera (7 Sep 2007)

ubiquitous, I know that the OP refered to the arrangement as a sub-let but in fact it is actually not. To sub-let, the original tenants would have to enter a legal agreement between the sub-tenants, and would effectively become their landlords. If someone moves into a property and shares the rent they are licencees. There's a big legal difference here. Sub-letting  strictly requires permission from the landlord however a licensee arrangement does not necessarily.


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Sep 2007)

Afuera said:


> ubiquitous, I know that the OP refered to the arrangement as a sub-let but in fact it is actually not. To sub-let, the original tenants would have to enter a legal agreement between the sub-tenants, and would effectively become their landlords. If someone moves into a property and shares the rent they are licencees. There's a big legal difference here. Sub-letting  strictly requires permission from the landlord however a licensee arrangement does not necessarily.



What are the differences between Sub-letting  and licensee arrangement.


----------



## Afuera (7 Sep 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> What are the differences between Sub-letting  and licensee arrangement.



The Quick Guide to the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 describes it as so:

*Sub-let* (i.e. tenant moves out and becomes landlord to a new sub-tenant with the landlord’s consent)
*
Licensees*  (i.e. additional occupants brought in by a resident tenant who are not tenants themselves)

Regarding licensee's it says that they can request the landlord to become tenants and the landlord can not unreasonably withhold consent for this. This sounds more like the arrangement that the OPs were attempting.


[broken link removed]


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Sep 2007)

Do *Licensees* have any rights?

Do Landlords have any rights to refuse *Licensees* using their property. Or is this something you'd have to put in a contract?


----------



## MrMan (7 Sep 2007)

> The landlord is perfectly within his rights to dictate how many he wants in the property but he needs to have a lease in place to dictate this, otherwise it's at the tenants discretion to allow licensees on the property.



Would there be a cap on the amount of licensees on the property or is that for the tenant to decide rather than the owner of the property being used.



> Sorry, I forgot one important detail here. After the original tennants moved in (and after a "verbal contract" was agreed), they sought, and were given verbal permission to rent the other room to at most two more people. At the time, the landlord didn't mention anything about an extra cost being involved. It was only a week later when keys for the sub-tenants were required that he decided he wanted more money.
> 
> Since the original incident occured, the landlord has actually entered the property without requesting permission from the tenants. To date, the tenants are fully paid up.



Yes that is an  very important detail and would seem a little odd that such a detail was ommitted in the first place.



> Also I ment to say that legally the landlord has no right to enter the property without an arrangement or to do emergency repairs.



He has a right to enter to do emergency repairs other than that 24 hours written notice is required.



> Do Landlords have any rights to refuse Licensees using their property. Or is this something you'd have to put in a contract?



Yes, for most of the reasons pointed out in this thread the main one being wear and tear. If it is not in the interests of his asset .ie the property he can refuse. You cannot simply add 'licensees' to your apartment/house simply because a landlord was naive enough not to have a written contract in place.


----------



## Bronte (7 Sep 2007)

OP - you said

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

End quote

Why didn't you tell the landlord that you intended to sublease?  That's deceitful


----------



## Trish2006 (7 Sep 2007)

There's still something that doesn't sit right with me.  If I see an apt for rent for €1000pm, and go see it and say, I'll take it.  Then 3 mths later my boyfriend and I decide it's silly to be paying rent on 2 places and decide that he'll move in with me, am I obliged to ring the landlord and see if this is ok?  Can he turn around and say sure, but the rent is going up to €1200 because of it?
Just because you're renting doesn't mean it's not your home.  Can a landlord put a limit on the amount of times you can have someone stay over, how many visitors you can have because it'll affect wear and tear?  I understand that a landlord may not want 20 people in a 3 bed house, but is it not reasonable to expect to be allowed to have 1 person per single and 2 people per double room without it adversely affecting wear and tear?  2 double rooms mean it was built to accomodate 4 people and I wouldn't think it unreasonable to put 4 people in there without the landlord being able to up the rent.


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Sep 2007)

I'd say it has potential to just get complicated. What happens if the tenant moves out and the licencee stays? How do you define "reasonable". Also you've no references for the licencee, and also no deposit from them. In my experience landlords are not usually happy with a permanent licencee. If its a short term stay, say someone over a weekend, or on holiday that not normally a problem. The problem is when the Landlord finds out theres people they don't know living in their house, and they haven't been informed. Also the other tenants might not be happy with someone bringing in licencee's. There can be problems with bills and use of services etc. 

In my opinion if theres going to be a change in people living there a new contract should be drawn up covering everyone. So that people are clear what their [SIZE=-1]responsibilities [/SIZE]are.


----------



## Raskolnikov (7 Sep 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> You've just changed the whole context of the thread entirely. For me the original story is more credible, and especially since its more consistent with a last minute change of mind, like you've just done. That may be just be unfortunate conincidence.


I can assure you, it was not a "last minute change of mind". At the time, I was in a rush to type out the full details of my situation, I didn't realise the information I left out was so pertinent.


			
				Afuera said:
			
		

> ubiquitous, I know that the OP refered to the arrangement as a sub-let but in fact it is actually not.


Afuera is correct, I used the term sub-leasing incorrectly. Before my partner and I moved in (but after a verbal lease agreement was agreed upon on commencement of tenancy), permission was sought by the landlord for an extra two people to be allowed in the apartment. He gave this the OK without stating an increase in rent would be required. It wasn't until a week later when additional keys were requested that he demanded more rent.


			
				sam h said:
			
		

> I would guess this is a "first time" landlord as it's is mad to let anyone rent your house without a lease.


Incorrect, he is a professional landlord (i.e. he makes his living as a landlord).

I suppose the question now is, can a landlord give permission for additional licencees renege on this verbal agreement?


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Sep 2007)

So a tenant moves in with the intention of adding licencees but doesn't tell the landlord this till after they move in. Then when ask the landlord agrees verbally. But once you ask for keys can he have 2nd thoughts and back out of it?

He can give the tenants notice. He can't raise the rent. IMO he should draw up a new contract to cover 4 tenants instead of 2, and raise the rent in the new contract. Thats what I'd do. Unless hes having 2nd thoughts about the tenants themselves because they've sprung this on him.

You say hes a professional Landlord. But regardless of how he earns his income, he is not being professional in dealing with this. But I think the original tenants have been less than straight too.


----------



## Afuera (7 Sep 2007)

Raskolnikov said:


> I suppose the question now is, can a landlord give permission for additional licencees renege on this verbal agreement?


As far as I know the landlord's permission is not required if you want to add an additional licensee, although the details of the licensee do need to be passed on to him. Once a new licensee is in place they can request the landlord to make them full tenants (which he can't reject, unless for a valid reason, such as overcrowding, breaking the terms of the lease, etc.). The fact that in this case the property is registered with the PRTB and says that it is suitable for 4 people would mean he has no grounds for denying the extra people here.


----------



## Afuera (7 Sep 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> I'd say it has potential to just get complicated. What happens if the tenant moves out and the licencee stays?


The licensee would request to become a full tenant (and the landlord would generally be obliged to allow this). Their tenancy would be deemed to have begun when the original tenant moved in. The deposit for the apartment would not be returned until the tenancy is terminated, so the usual way it would work is the licensee would give the deposit back to the original tenant and then receive their deposit from the landlord when they move out and the tenancy ends.



aircobra19 said:


> In my opinion if theres going to be a change in people living there a new contract should be drawn up covering everyone. So that people are clear what their responiblities are.


The law doesn't say that this is necessary, but it would probably be wise to have something in the lease to that effect.


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Sep 2007)

Afuera said:


> As far as I know the landlord's permission is not required if you want to add an additional licensee, although the details of the licensee do need to be passed on to him. Once a new licensee is in place they can request the landlord to make them full tenants (which he can't reject, unless for a valid reason, such as overcrowding, breaking the terms of the lease, etc.). The fact that in this case the property is registered with the PRTB and says that it is suitable for 4 people would mean he has no grounds for denying the extra people here.



Do you have any links to where the law deferenciates between a licencee and a tenant for the purpose of renting accomodation etc. I can't find that term mentioned. All I can find relating to this subject is the following.



> *Rights as a tenant in private rented accommodation*
> 
> You are entitled to have friends to stay overnight or for short periods, unless specifically forbidden in your tenancy agreement. You must tell your landlord about an extra person moving in.


[broken link removed]



> *Rights as a landlord*
> 
> decide whether to allow the tenant to sub-let or assign a tenancy (however if you refuse to allow a tenant to assign or sublet a tenancy this refusal can gives the tenant the right to terminate a fixed-term tenancy before its expiry date).


[broken link removed]

It didn't sound right that you can move in anyone you want, and as many as you want, without informing and getting the Landlords permission. 

While the landlord can't raise the rent on a whim like he has tried to do. It really doesn't matter. If you don't agree to it. He can...



> ...terminate a tenancy without giving a reason during the first six months.



There should really be a cooling off period no?


----------



## Raskolnikov (7 Sep 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> So a tenant moves in with the intention of adding licencees but doesn't tell the landlord this till after they move in. Then when ask the landlord agrees verbally. But once you ask for keys can he have 2nd thoughts and back out of it?


That is correct. 

Like I have already stated, he has insisted that if we are to remain in the apartment during the period of notice, we must pay the extra rent. We have decided not to do this and have now subsequently left the apartment. The deposit was returned in full.


----------



## pc7 (7 Sep 2007)

will you inform your new landlord that there are 4 of you?


----------



## MrMan (7 Sep 2007)

> Just because you're renting doesn't mean it's not your home. Can a landlord put a limit on the amount of times you can have someone stay over, how many visitors you can have because it'll affect wear and tear?



Yes he can, but it would have to be in the terms of contract.



> reasonable to expect to be allowed to have 1 person per single and 2 people per double room without it adversely affecting wear and tear?



That would depend on the people, the landlord has a right to look for siutable tenants.



> 2 double rooms mean it was built to accomodate 4 people and I wouldn't think it unreasonable to put 4 people in there without the landlord being able to up the rent



That would depend on if there were allowances made for the fact that only 2 people were renting.



> I suppose the question now is, can a landlord give permission for additional licencees renege on this verbal agreement?



Not worth the paper its written on I would say.



> The fact that in this case the property is registered with the PRTB and says that it is suitable for 4 people would mean he has no grounds for denying the extra people here.



Of course he has grounds for refusal. So far we know nothing about the other two and are they dependable, good character etc. All we know is that the apartment has 4 bed spaces, but does it have adequate common living space 2 bathrooms etc that a doubling in tenants could bring about. As this is in its infancy the tenant should either renegotiate terms or move on cause the whole set up seems to be a bit of a shambles.


----------



## MrMan (7 Sep 2007)

Well it seems like that was an inevitable ending.


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Sep 2007)

Raskolnikov. I think you were wise to do that. For two reasons. He wanted to up the rent when he had no "right", and 2. he came into the apartment without permission. I think that establishes a precedent that he would continue to disregard the law, and your rights. Perhaps because he is simply unaware of how to manage the rental properly according to the law and best practise. 

I would also say that agreeing a contract then trying to change it afterwards (for whatever reason) isn't a good way to build a relationship of trust between you and your landlord. You need to know what you can and can't do, make sure thats in the contract and that both landlord and tenant clearly understand whats in it.


----------



## Afuera (7 Sep 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> Do you have any links to where the law deferenciates between a licencee and a tenant for the purpose of renting accomodation etc. I can't find that term mentioned. All I can find relating to this subject is the following.



The PRTB have a good document which describes a licensee here:
[broken link removed]



> Licensees in private rented accommodation are not tenants as there has been no tenancy entered into by them with the landlord. While the tenant is under a statutory obligation to inform the landlord of the identity of any person resident in (rather than just visiting) the dwelling, *the landlord will not be in a position to accept or veto the individual concerned *in the way that he/she could with a prospective tenant.


----------



## Cityliving (7 Sep 2007)

Dont have time for a proper reply right now but just to confirm to anyone doubting- 

as a tenant you are NOT ALLOWED to licence a room or sub-let a room when you have a signed contract (they didnt yet I know) The legal difference betweern a licencee and sub-letter does not apply as a tenant is not permited to licence a room without the prior knowledge of the landlord.


----------



## Afuera (7 Sep 2007)

Cityliving said:


> Dont have time for a proper reply right now but just to confirm to anyone doubting-
> 
> as a tenant you are NOT ALLOWED to licence a room or sub-let a room when you have a signed contract (they didnt yet I know) The legal difference betweern a licencee and sub-letter does not apply as a tenant is not permited to licence a room without the prior knowledge of the landlord.


I understand tenants can not sub-let without permission from the landlord but the same does not apply for adding licensees. A landlord can not stop someones partner or friend or family from moving in with them. Can you provide a link that says otherwise?

The following comes from the PRTB's Licensee document that I linked to earlier:



> A licensee residing in a private rented dwelling is living there at the invitation of the tenant as the arrangement enabling a licensee to live in rented accommodation is made with the tenant and not with the landlord.


----------



## Afuera (7 Sep 2007)

Raskolnikov said:


> Like I have already stated, he has insisted that if we are to remain in the apartment during the period of notice, we must pay the extra rent. We have decided not to do this and have now subsequently left the apartment. The deposit was returned in full.


Probably the best course of action considering the landlords blatant disregard for your rights. Best of luck with the new place.


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Sep 2007)

Afuera said:


> I understand tenants can not sub-let without permission from the landlord but the same does not apply for adding licensees. A landlord can not stop someones partner or friend or family from moving in with them. Can you provide a link that says otherwise?
> 
> The following comes from the PRTB's Licensee document that I linked to earlier:



Its seems that you have to inform the landlord of licensees but thats really all it says about it. Which would indicated you could bring in an unlimited number of people in as licensees. Which seems unreasonable IMO. 

I wonder can you exclude licencees on the tenancy agreement?


----------



## Afuera (7 Sep 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> I wonder can you exclude licencees on the tenancy agreement?


I think by their nature they are almost always excluded from the tenancy agreement. If they were on the tenancy agreement they would probably be considered tenants.


----------



## aircobra19 (7 Sep 2007)

I meant can you exclude the tenant from bringing in any licencees' on the tenants rental agreement. Or is the bringing in of licencee's a tenants right?

Seems a large loophole that you can sign up one tenant and they can bring in 20 licencees'.


----------



## Afuera (7 Sep 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> I meant can you exclude the tenant from bringing in any licencees' on the tenants rental agreement. Or is the bringing in of licencee's a tenants right?


Ah sorry, misread you the first time. I don't see anything to stop a landlord putting a maximum occupancy clause in the lease which would effectively prevent the tenants from bringing in extra people as licensees.


----------

