Landlord wants to raise rent

 

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


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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 

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]

[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?
 
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.