Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can the lease-holder do this?

Options
  • 29-05-2007 4:25pm
    #1
    NeptunesMoon
    Registered Users Posts: 418 ✭✭


    At the moment I am renting in a house with 3 others. I moved in recently enough. The lease is held under one persons name. He has decided to ask two of the people living here to leave, because their level of cleanliness is not up to his standard. I have been given a warning, and since the other two have been given multiple warnings they are now being asked to leave at the next date rent is due which is the 11th.

    My first question, is this (approx 2 weeks) enough notice to give? Are they within their rights to stay longer than this, in order to find alternative accomodation? Can he kick them out whenever he wants just because his name is on the lease? One of them has been living here as long as he has, which is around 2 years. And I'm quite sure the other person has been living here for almost as long.

    For the record there has been no problem with rent being payed from either of the two. It is purely a cleanliness issue.

    Also for the record, the house can get a bit messy, but it is not really bad by any means.

    Also, the leasholder has already asked someone else to move in. He did this without first asking me. Should I not be consulted before deciding who moves in? Or again is it a case of him being able to do whatever he wants and make whatever decisions he wants, because its his name on the lease?

    Thanks


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    gibo_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 782 ✭✭✭gibo_ie


    If te lease is in his name only (for whatever reason) then he can pretty much do what he likes. You should really have a lease in joint names unless he is subletting which is probably against the lease....


  • Options
    #3
    digitally-yours
    Registered Users Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭digitally-yours


    Do you have any written contract with him or just verbal ?

    If its the later than you dont have any grounds what so ever ! also if u do anything wrong ur not liable as well as he dont have any agreement binding you !


  • Options
    #4
    thewing
    Registered Users Posts: 661 ✭✭✭thewing


    Yeah, I'd either get my name on the lease pronto, or get out of the house - little hitler will rule the roost...the funny thing tho would be if he fails to get in subs, he'll have to come up with the shortcoming in rent...


  • Options
    #5
    sharpsuit
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭sharpsuit


    Does OP pay rent to the landlord or to the tenant you call the leaseholder? How did the other two pay rent? If you pay rent to the landlord, you are tenants with the same right as the person whose name is on the lease.


  • Options
    #6
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,776 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    NeptunesMoon wrote:
    Can he kick them out whenever he wants just because his name is on the lease?

    Yes. That's about it.

    Should I not be consulted before deciding who moves in?

    No, unless there is some special reason why you should be consulted. And if you aren't happy, you can always leave.
    Or again is it a case of him being able to do whatever he wants and make whatever decisions he wants, because its his name on the lease?

    Pretty much. It's his house. He's in possession. You are a licensee.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    Yes. That's about it.
    No, its not really. As sharpsuit says, if he is paying rent to a landlord, then the landlord can kick them out. If hes not, he's paying it to the leaseholder, who effectively becomes the landlord. These are the reasons a landlord may terminate a tenancy...

    Landlords can terminate a tenancy that has lasted between six months and four years (a Part 4 tenancy) only in the following circumstances:

    * After 3 and ½ years.
    * If the tenant does not comply with the obligations of the tenancy.
    * If the property is no longer suited to the tenants’ needs (e.g. overcrowded).
    * If the landlord needs the property for him/herself or for an immediate family member.
    * If the landlord intends to sell the property.
    * If the landlord intends to refurbish the property.
    * If the landlord plans to change the business use of the property (e.g. turn it into offices).

    Notice periods

    The length of notice depends on the length of the tenancy.
    Length of tenancy Notice by landlord
    Less than 6 months 4 weeks (28 days)
    6 months to a year 5 weeks (35 days)
    1 – 2 years 6 weeks (42 days)
    2 – 3 years 8 weeks (56 days)
    3 – 4 years 12 weeks (84 days)
    4 years or more 16 weeks (112 days)

    Regarding Tenants obligations, referenced above:

    Obligations of a tenant in private rented accommodation

    You must

    * pay your rent on time.
    * keep the property in good order.
    * inform the landlord if repairs are needed and give the landlord access to the property to carry out repairs.
    * give the landlord access (by appointment) for routine inspections.
    * inform the landlord of who is living in the property.
    * avoid causing damage or nuisance.
    * make sure that you do not cause the landlord to be in breach of the law.
    * comply with any special terms in your tenancy agreement, verbal or written.
    * give the landlord the information required to register with the PRTB and sign the registration form when asked to do so.
    * tell the landlord before the last month of a fixed-term tenancy of more than six months if you intend to avail of protection under Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (e.g. stay in the property for up to four years).

    There is limited enough protection under Irish law for tenants, but what is there would be just about enough to stop "little hitlers" evicting people at will.


  • Options
    #8
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,776 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    This is incorrect. None of this applies in the current case.

    The document SimpleSam is quoting from is basically irrelevant. A more relevant document would be http://www.prtb.ie/DownloadDocs/Licensees.pdf

    First, the OP is not a tenant of the ultimate landlord. There is a written lease, and the OP's name is not on it. The OP is a licencee. It makes little difference whom he is paying money to, directly or indirectly. He is a stranger in law to the ultimate landlord when he does not have his name somehow on the lease.

    Your alternative proposal is that the OP must be a subtenant of the leaseholder since he is not a tenant of the ultimate landlord. This is not the case. The relationship between the leaseholder and the OP has all the characteristics of a licensor-licensee relationship and none of the characteristics of a tenancy.

    For a start, the OP is not in possession of a complete premises. He shares many areas of the house (and this is where the issues have arisen) with others, including the licensor.

    Next, the OP does not have a written lease, with anyone.

    Finally, the OP is sharing the home with the leaseholder.

    In general, government legislation (including the RTA) does not regulate or lightly regulates domestic situations. Anyway, it would be impossible in practice to enforce regulations in the private home of a licencee or landlord. It's unworkable for a court or board to try to regulate how a person runs his or her home on a day-to-day basis.


  • Options
    #9
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    This is incorrect. None of this applies in the current case.

    The document SimpleSam is quoting from is basically irrelevant.
    Indeed. Leaseholders are not "owners", as defined in the document you posted, nor are the other tenants "living at their invitation". You don't automatically waive all tenant rights because you are paying a leaseholder.

    Or to put it another way, if leaseholders are not landlords, the information I posted above is not applicable. But in that case, neither can leaseholders evict tenants. They have to go through the landlord in order to do so. Whichever applies, the OP can't just be shown the door given two weeks notice.

    Also if you read that document, if there is any further confusion, the OP can apply for part 4 protection and become a full tenant, if they are in fact licensees. The landlord may not unreasonably refuse such a request.


  • Options
    #10
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,776 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    The OP isn't a tenant, he's a licensee. He is staying there at the invitation of the tenant. He is not waiving any tenant rights, he didn't have any tenancy rights in the first place because he was never a tenant. It's not a question of who he is paying, it's a question of the nature of the arrangement.

    A licensor doesn't have to go through an eviction process to get someone to leave their home. They can just change the locks and take belongings out of the room when the licence is terminated. As a licensee you would have no more rights than if you had checked into a hotel (probably fewer rights).

    The fact that the current sole tenant doesn't want the OP living there would certainly be reasonable grounds for the landlord to refuse to grant a tenancy. The sections of the act you are referring to aren't intended to confer any right on a licencee to impose himself or herself on a tenant and the context in the Act makes that pretty clear.


  • Options
    #11
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    It's not a question of who he is paying, it's a question of the nature of the arrangement.
    Its always a question of who's paying. If cash is changing hands, an implied contract most certainly exists (exchange of money for services), in the case that tenants apparently have no rights, which I strongly dispute. A part of the understanding of this implied contract could very easily be said that in attendance with the use of living space, standard caveats and addendums are attendant upon this implied contract, which would be normal tenants rights.
    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    As a licensee you would have no more rights than if you had checked into a hotel (probably fewer rights).
    Sorry now, but this dream world of instant evictions doesn't really exist, at least if you've been living in a place longer than 6 months..
    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    The fact that the current sole tenant doesn't want the OP living there would certainly be reasonable grounds for the landlord to refuse to grant a tenancy. The sections of the act you are referring to aren't intended to confer any right on a licencee to impose himself or herself on a tenant and the context in the Act makes that pretty clear.
    Complete nonsense. Fully half of that document you kindly posted up there deals with situations where "licensees" want to become full tenants, and yet you only mention it with great reluctance.

    Something that I find very curious, if you really wanted to help the OP, you would have pointed out to him that the PRTB will deal with these disputes, as stated in your own document:
    A licensee who wishes to refer a complaint to the PRTB that his/her request to become a tenant has been unreasonably refused should contact the Board directly in the first instance and discuss the matter...

    ...Finally an occupant of rented accommodation who considers that his/her arrangement with the owner is a tenancy although the owner has designated it a licence, could refer a dispute to the PRTB...

    And I mean really, think about it. What if there were two names on a lease and one person wanted to evict someone, the other didn't? Would they go to the landlord, the PRTB, or a contracts court? In the case of someone who has been living in the house for two years, theres no question about it; they have full tenancy rights, or can get them in a hurry if they need them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,776 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    First, you cannot 'instantly evict' any tenant. You have to go to the PRTB or court, regardless of how short a time they have been in the property.

    You can however, be thrown out of a hotel, or any other situation where you are a licencee. Do you think an order from the PRTB should be required to kick someone out of a hotel? Do you think people in digs also have tenancy rights?

    All this stuff about implied contracts would be arguable if there wasn't a written tenancy agreement. But there is, and the OP's is not a part to it. He could get it on there if the other tenant wanted, but the other tenant doesn't.

    The landlord is a stranger in law to the OP. He has no obligations to him.

    Have you actually read the Act on this point? Section 50 (7) suggests that the purpose of the provisions is for a specific purpose. The purpose isn't to allow the licencees to impose their will on the other tenants.

    He can refer to the PRTB all he wants, but he will lose. And in the meantime, whilst he is waiting for the case to come up, he will have to find somewhere new to live anyway once his two weeks notice has expired.

    The case you're talking about where there was a conflict between two tenants about a licencee, the most obvious thing would be to resolve it amongst themselves. They could go to the District Court if they were so inclined. The PRTB doesn't deal with disputes between tenants (or licensees) and it is not part of a landlord's role to arbitrate between tenants.

    What do you propose the OP do in the first instance? Appeal to the landlord?

    The OP should ring the PRTB or Threshold about this if he is in doubt.


  • Options
    #13
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    You can however, be thrown out of a hotel, or any other situation where you are a licencee. Do you think an order from the PRTB should be required to kick someone out of a hotel? Do you think people in digs also have tenancy rights?
    If the individual in question has been living there more than six months, they do have other options, as is clearly outlined in the document.
    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    All this stuff about implied contracts would be arguable if there wasn't a written tenancy agreement. But there is, and the OP's is not a part to it. He could get it on there if the other tenant wanted, but the other tenant doesn't.
    Whoops, don't mistake the relationship between landlord and leaseholder with the one between leaseholder and other people in the house. If the other people living in the house are paying the leaseholder, an implied contract most definetely exists, as I pointed out in my earlier post. Would the other people in the house have remained living in the house if they knew they could be evicted on a whim, and had no rights as tenants? I think not, so they were under the assumption that the impied contract also included basic tenants rights.
    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    The landlord is a stranger in law to the OP. He has no obligations to him.
    Yet.
    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    Have you actually read the Act on this point? Section 50 (7) suggests that the purpose of the provisions is for a specific purpose. The purpose isn't to allow the licencees to impose their will on the other tenants.
    You obviously didn't even read that document you posted up, so your interpretation of the Act is of course under question. Or if you did, you only cherry picked the parts that would ensure NeptunesMoon's friends get turfed out.
    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    He can refer to the PRTB all he wants, but he will lose. And in the meantime, whilst he is waiting for the case to come up, he will have to find somewhere new to live anyway once his two weeks notice has expired.
    Oho, not just a legal expert, but a fortune teller as well! Remarkable. If he points out the time constraints to the PRTB, I'm sure they will be delighted to bump his case up a few ranks.
    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    The case you're talking about where there was a conflict between two tenants about a licencee, the most obvious thing would be to resolve it amongst themselves. They could go to the District Court if they were so inclined. The PRTB doesn't deal with disputes between tenants (or licensees) and it is not part of a landlord's role to arbitrate between tenants.
    So you have no answer there, either.

    I reckon we'll have to agree to disagree in this case. My advice to NeptunesMoon would be first to get his friends to contact the landlord, and ask him to get their names on the lease. Failing that, proceed to contact the PRTB and follow the procedures in the document dropped up by Antoin there.


  • Options
    #14
    sharpsuit
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭sharpsuit


    If I may intervene...

    In my view ... If OP is paying his rent directly to the landlord, he is a full tenant, despite his name not appearing on the lease. Paying rent to a landlord is an intrinsic part of being a tenant.

    It is not correct to say that an occupant who pays rent directly to a landlord is a stranger in law to that landlord.

    If, however, OP is paying "rent" to an existing tenant, OP is a licensee. OP has few rights under the Residential Tenancies Act, but one of those rights to request the landlord to become a part 4 tenant once the licensee has 6 months' occupation in the dwelling.

    That licensee can request the landlord to become a tenant of the dwelling. As already mentioned, the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse this request.

    A question though: would it be reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent where there is an obvious breakdown in relations between the applicant-licensee and existing tenants?

    OP may or may not be able to apply to become a tenant, depending on how long OP has been in occupation.

    Until OP becomes a tenant, the exisiting tenant only has to give reasonable notice of termination to the licensee. The notice periods in the Residential Tenancies Act do not apply.


  • Options
    #15
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    sharpsuit wrote:
    OP may or may not be able to apply to become a tenant, depending on how long OP has been in occupation.
    It would be a highly ironic twist of fate if the other two managed to get their names on the lease, and evicted the original twit. :D


  • Options
    #16
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,776 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    sharpsuit wrote:
    If I may intervene...


    A question though: would it be reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent where there is an obvious breakdown in relations between the applicant-licensee and existing tenants?

    For sure. Because he would be effectively forcing the original tenant out by adding the new tenant. This would be to the detriment of the tenant.

    Go back to basics. Becoming a tenant involves getting the consent of the other parties to the tenancy agreement. The act prevents the landlord from refusing this in certain circumstances. However it does not force the other parties to accept it.

    The point of the section is to strengthen the rights of tenants and their licensees in their dealings with the landlord. It is not supposed to be invoked to the detriment of an existing tenant.
    Until OP becomes a tenant, the exisiting tenant only has to give reasonable notice of termination to the licensee. The notice periods in the Residential Tenancies Act do not apply.

    For sure.


  • Options
    #17
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    The point of the section is to strengthen the rights of tenants and their licensees in their dealings with the landlord. It is not supposed to be invoked to the detriment of an existing tenant.
    Nor is it meant to strip tenants of their rights completely, nor enable them to be thrown out arbitrarily after two years in residence. Why do you hate NeptunesMoon so much? :D

    Seriously though, only the landlord and / or the PRTB can resolve this issue.
    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    For sure.
    You do love that cherry picking, don't you.


  • Options
    #18
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,776 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    SimpleSam06 wrote:

    Whoops, don't mistake the relationship between landlord and leaseholder with the one between leaseholder and other people in the house. If the other people living in the house are paying the leaseholder, an implied contract most definetely exists, as I pointed out in my earlier post. Would the other people in the house have remained living in the house if they knew they could be evicted on a whim, and had no rights as tenants? I think not, so they were under the assumption that the impied contract also included basic tenants rights.

    They are paying the leaseholder as his licencees, just as they might pay if they were living in digs, in a hostel or in a hotel.

    As you describe the situation, the OP is effectively living with his landlord. This is certainly one way of looking at it. CIB (whom you quoted before) have a factsheet about living with your landlord:

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/housing/renting-a-home/landlord-and-tenants-rights/sharing-accommodation-with-your-landlord

    Perhaps, as you say, the licensees have been naive. But they must have known that the tenant was going to be in charge.


    You obviously didn't even read that document you posted up, so your interpretation of the Act is of course under question. Or if you did, you only cherry picked the parts that would ensure NeptunesMoon's friends get turfed out.

    I picked the relevant parts. The PRTB's (or CIB's) interpretations of the act aren't that great generally. You really have to refer to the act.
    Oho, not just a legal expert, but a fortune teller as well! Remarkable. If he points out the time constraints to the PRTB, I'm sure they will be delighted to bump his case up a few ranks.

    I don't appreciate your sarcasm. I never claimed to be a legal expert.

    It's not a random thing. The PRTB just don't intervene in disputes between tenants or between tenants or licensees. It just doesn't happen. It's a waste of time.
    So you have no answer there, either.

    I have an answer. That's the reality of small disputes between former friends. No one wants to get involved.


  • Options
    #19
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,776 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    SimpleSam06 wrote:
    Nor is it meant to strip tenants of their rights completely, nor enable them to be thrown out arbitrarily after two years in residence.

    They're not tenants! They're licencees beyond a shadow of a doubt. What you are proposing is that the rights of a the person who possesses a house to run his private home as he sees fit should be subjugated to the rights of people he has allowed stay in rooms in the house.
    Why do you hate NeptunesMoon so much? :D

    I don't! I don't! Honest! I just want the best for him.
    Seriously though, only the landlord and / or the PRTB can resolve this issue.

    I don't think they will want anything to do with it (but you knew that).
    You do love that cherry picking, don't you.

    I love cherries, you're right.


  • Options
    #20
    NeptunesMoon
    Registered Users Posts: 418 ✭✭NeptunesMoon


    Thanks very much for the input from everyone,

    Well it looks like there isnt much the other guys can do which is unfortunate.

    As it turns out, the leaseholder actually gave them til 11th July to move, not June...which is a month longer than I thought.

    The lease used to be in all 3 of their names. One of the guys being thrown out has lived here for 3 years, as long as the leaseholder. apparently the leaseholder approached the landlord and got the lease renewed in his name only...saying that the others in the house were mistreating the house etc - which is quite sneaky imo.


  • Options
    #21
    sharpsuit
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭sharpsuit


    If the tenants who are being asked to leave ever had a direct relationship with the landlord, they are tenants. The tenant whom you call the leaseholder does not have the right to ask other tenants to leave.

    The tenants who are being asked to leave can take a case to the PRTB for invalid notice of termination.

    Also, how is rent paid in the house?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Ste.phen
    Registered Users Posts: 2,808 ✭✭✭Ste.phen


    yeah, if the guys were originally on a lease which lapsed but they continued living there, I think that means they're still afforded rights under Part 4 of the act, listed above.

    I find it hard to believe there aren't more protections for people in the OP's situation though, sounds nasty!


  • Options
    #23
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,776 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    NeptunesMoon wrote:
    The lease used to be in all 3 of their names. One of the guys being thrown out has lived here for 3 years, as long as the leaseholder. apparently the leaseholder approached the landlord and got the lease renewed in his name only...saying that the others in the house were mistreating the house etc - which is quite sneaky imo.

    Well, then the landlord has leased a property that he didn't have possession of. I hope those guys have a copy of the lease.

    Anyway, there is no future in this, why would anyone want to live with this guy if he did that?


  • Options
    #24
    NeptunesMoon
    Registered Users Posts: 418 ✭✭NeptunesMoon


    Igy wrote:
    yeah, if the guys were originally on a lease which lapsed but they continued living there, I think that means they're still afforded rights under Part 4 of the act, listed above.

    how dyou mean exactly? The two guys who's names were removed from the lease upon its renewal had their name on the old lease up until this point, as far as I know. But is a lease renewal put under one persons name the same as a lease lapsing that was under several peoples name?

    Does the fact that the two guys names were directly requested to be removed from the renewed lease negate this?


  • Options
    #25
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,776 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Tenant A can't just decide that he doesn't want tenants B and C to be tenants anymore and drop them from the list. They are still tenants and they have their part 4 rights. (Of course they'll need to have a copy of their lease.)


  • Options
    #26
    NeptunesMoon
    Registered Users Posts: 418 ✭✭NeptunesMoon


    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    Tenant A can't just decide that he doesn't want tenants B and C to be tenants anymore and drop them from the list. They are still tenants and they have their part 4 rights. (Of course they'll need to have a copy of their lease.)

    Where can I see this 'Part 4' please?


  • Options
    #27
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,776 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    it refers to part 4 of the residential tenancies act 2004.

    Go to the PRTB website (http://www.prtb.ie/) and there is some reasonable information there.


Advertisement