More tenants in house than on lease

Kafer

Hi All,

My dilema. I have a 3 bed house rented to a family for over 3 years. Last year they asked me could they rent out a room to friends of theirs so I agreed. The names were not added to the lease as it was a short term arrangement. The friends moved out but next thing I hear that they have 2 girls sharing with them. I wanted to put them on the lease but they said again that its short term and they would be moving out again shortly.

I had some work done on the house today and the tradesman now tells me that there is a bed in the sitting room. I estimate that instead of 3 people in the house that there is now 6.

They have been excellent tenants but I feel that I am being ridden at this stage. I don't want them to move but at the same time I want them to know that I know.

Suggestions please?

Victor

I'm not sure if its something you can or should control.

Now, if there was 23 people in the house and it was a public health hazard, thats another matter.

bobbysands81

Kafer wrote: »

Hi All,

My dilema. I have a 3 bed house rented to a family for over 3 years. Last year they asked me could they rent out a room to friends of theirs so I agreed. The names were not added to the lease as it was a short term arrangement. The friends moved out but next thing I hear that they have 2 girls sharing with them. I wanted to put them on the lease but they said again that its short term and they would be moving out again shortly.

I had some work done on the house today and the tradesman now tells me that there is a bed in the sitting room. I estimate that instead of 3 people in the house that there is now 6.

They have been excellent tenants but I feel that I am being ridden at this stage. I don't want them to move but at the same time I want them to know that I know.

Suggestions please?

Are you registered with the PRTB?

Residential Tenancies Act, 2004 states:

16.—In addition to the obligations arising by or under any other enactment, a tenant of a dwelling shall—

(k) not assign or sub-let the tenancy without the written consent of the landlord (which consent the landlord may, in his or her discretion, withhold),

(n) notify in writing the landlord of the identity of each person (other than a multiple tenant) who, for the time being, resides ordinarily in the dwelling.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/sec0016.html#partii-chapii-sec16

Kafer

Thanks for that. Yes I am fully paid up to the PRTB and totally tax compliant wrt rents received.

wyndham

If you don't want them to move out, what do you want? More rent? "I want them to know that I know!" ? What does that mean? You agreed that they could sublet.

In the current market, if they are good tenants and pay their rent on time and keep the place to a good standard, etc, IMO let them get on with it.

Kafer

Yes they are excellent tenants so weighing everything up I'll let it go I think. No I am not after extra money. Thanks for the input.

Emerald Lass

Victor wrote: »

I'm not sure if its something you can or should control.

Now, if there was 23 people in the house and it was a public health hazard, thats another matter.

what a silly thing to say! of course you should control it!

Kafer in spite of them being excellent tenants you are setting outself up for future problems. The 3 original tenants may be great, but you do now know what reference checks etc they are doing on the additional 3.

What happens when they want to move out, if there is damage? they may well blame the sub-letters and there is nothing you can do - you can only pursue the people listed on the lease.

You are leaving yourself open for problems. If you are happy to allow people to sublet, then get it all nailed down properly. Get them to sign a subtenancy agreement or put them on the lease. Short term or not you need to protect your interests and assets. Also to protect your tenants and be a good landlord, if you have agreed to allow sub-tenants then you should give them this permission in writing - don't leave it to verbal agreement. I would also recommend that you make an inspection yorself very soon and look at the condition of the house and how many people live there. Don't make a decision to allow people to stay without seeing how it is affecting your property. Make an inspection quick, and make then regularly if you are allowing subletting, as there is no other way for you to know who is resident in the house.

Personally I think you are being very naive to allow additional people in your house without having their references checked and some legal back up in the form of a lease with them.

Personally I would also not like so many people in my home, sleeping in the living room etc, as the more people, the more likelihood of damage and higher wear and tear, therefore higher costs to you when they move out.

You need to show that you insist on everything being above board to get the respect of the tenants and also to remind them that you know what you are doing and won't allow your rights as a LL to be ignored.

Good luck anyway

Victor

Emerald Lass wrote: »

What happens when they want to move out, if there is damage? they may well blame the sub-letters and there is nothing you can do - you can only pursue the people listed on the lease.

The premises gets inspected and the people on the lease get held repsonsible. It is up to them to sort it out with their house guests.

Make an inspection quick,

Agreed.

Personally I would also not like so many people in my home,

This is not your home, it is not Kafer's home. It is the tenants home.

jd

Emerald Lass wrote: »

You are leaving yourself open for problems. If you are happy to allow people to sublet, then get it all nailed down properly. Get them to sign a subtenancy agreement or put them on the lease. Short term or not you need to protect your interests and assets.

KISS

Forget about the "subtenants", if there are issues take it up with the people on the lease. The fact that there are other people living there is neither here nor there.

antoinolachtnai

I think you are unwise to let an issue like this drop completely.

It is quite common, perfectly acceptable and very wise to put a restriction on the number of people living in a rental property.

Even if you didn't put a restriction in the lease, putting an extra bed permanently in the sitting room of furnished accommodation seems unacceptable to me.

It would be quite normal to charge more rent where there are more people in the house. The reason is that the wear and tear is greater. You cannot expect to recover extra wear and tear (or indeed, any wear and tear) from the tenants at the end.

These extra people are unlikely to be sub-tenants. They sound more like licensees to me.

Obviously it is your business and your decision what to do.

Emerald Lass

Victor wrote: »

This is not your home, it is not Kafer's home. It is the tenants home.

ok point taken - replace "home" with "house". the argument still holds strong - it is her property and her (probably most valuable) asset. It needs to be protected - being wishy washy about who can live there will only lead to future problems and confusion.

As I said, not only do Kafers interests need to be protected but also the tenants. If she allows people to live in her home with no protection in the form of a lease /subtenancy agreement then that IMO is irresponsible.

also, in the case of a dispute, you would be in murky waters with the PRTB, and I wouldn't be surprised if they ruled against you.

I would also be concerend about the potential for 'squatters rights' should the legal tenants leave - how can you be sure you will be able to get rid of the 'lodgers'????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald Lass What happens when they want to move out, if there is damage? they may well blame the sub-letters and there is nothing you can do - you can only pursue the people listed on the lease.

The premises gets inspected and the people on the lease get held repsonsible. It is up to them to sort it out with their house guests.

I still believe that you are heading for trouble. They are not "house guests" they are paying, and are living there. If there is damage done by the 'lodgers' then come deposit return time, the legal tenants could object to you witholding their deposit. Then you would have a PRTB dispute, and this takes time and energy. Plus there is a very good chance that PRTB would rule that the tenant who paid the deposit is not liable for damage done by subtenants who were authorised to stay there by the LL. OP admits they have given permission for the subtenant.

my advice is still, very much, get it all made official. protect your assets.

CreepingDeath

You may want to check your insurance policy.

When I applied for my mortgage I said I was going to rent out rooms. I didn't in the end. But the insurance policy needed to know how many tenants would be in the house.

It's a small point, but if ever comes to making an insurance claim, the assessors will be looking for any reason to invalidate your claim.

Emerald Lass

CreepingDeath wrote: »

You may want to check your insurance policy.

It's a small point, but if ever comes to making an insurance claim, the assessors will be looking for any reason to invalidate your claim.

I second that - when I insured my rental property I was also asked the maximum number of peope residing there. In fact when I was getting quotes, oe company asked me if the tenancy was registered with PRTB - out of curiosity I asked why this made a difference - they said that they consider non-registered properties to be a higher liablility as there is more chance of dispute, and therefore a higher risk of damage!

the_syco

Emerald Lass wrote: »

Plus there is a very good chance that PRTB would rule that the tenant who paid the deposit is not liable for damage done by subtenants who were authorised to stay there by the LL. OP admits they have given permission for the subtenant.

The OP admitted they had given permission for the first subtenant, but not the ones there at the moment.