Landlord entering house

bunina

Hi. I have been living at my rented house for nearly 4 years. there are 3 other tenents in the house. We all pay our rent on time to the landlord. MY issue is my landlord enters the house whenever he wants which is usually a few times a week. I finally plucked up the courage to say it to him nicely If he could only enter house when collecting rent once a week. He blew his top. He said to me that if I paid the rent for everyone everyweek that would be fine, otherwise he said "I will come and go whenever I please" He said cause we all are individual tenents that he has aright to enter whenever he chooses. Is this true?:(

gurramok

bunina wrote: »

Hi. I have been living at my rented house for nearly 4 years. there are 3 other tenents in the house. We all pay our rent on time to the landlord. MY issue is my landlord enters the house whenever he wants which is usually a few times a week. I finally plucked up the courage to say it to him nicely If he could only enter house when collecting rent once a week. He blew his top. He said to me that if I paid the rent for everyone everyweek that would be fine, otherwise he said "I will come and go whenever I please" He said cause we all are individual tenents that he has aright to enter whenever he chooses. Is this true?:(

No. The landlord that appears from your post does not live there. The house is your home and you have the right to refuse permission of entry by law to a landlord who does not give any notice. Stick up for your rights.

Milk & Honey

You have only got a licence to reside so the landlord can come and go as often as he wants. You are effectively in the same position as a guest in a hotel. If it bothers you, move!

convert

bunina wrote: »

Hi. I have been living at my rented house for nearly 4 years. there are 3 other tenents in the house. We all pay our rent on time to the landlord. MY issue is my landlord enters the house whenever he wants which is usually a few times a week. I finally plucked up the courage to say it to him nicely If he could only enter house when collecting rent once a week. He blew his top. He said to me that if I paid the rent for everyone everyweek that would be fine, otherwise he said "I will come and go whenever I please" He said cause we all are individual tenents that he has aright to enter whenever he chooses. Is this true?:(

I lived in a house with a similar livinging arrangement, and the landlord would never enter without prior notice, except on the day they collected rent.

bath handle

convert wrote: »

I lived in a house with a similar livinging arrangement, and the landlord would never enter without prior notice, except on the day they collected rent.

What does that prove?

gurramok

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You have only got a licence to reside so the landlord can come and go as often as he wants. You are effectively in the same position as a guest in a hotel. If it bothers you, move!

There are tenancy laws which outlaw that. The PRTB have it on their website, the landlord needs prior permission before entering the tenants home.

Milk & Honey

gurramok wrote: »

There are tenancy laws which outlaw that. The PRTB have it on their website, the landlord needs prior permission before entering the tenants home.

To be a tenant the o/p would need to be leasing a dwelling which he is not. He is not covered by the PRTB. There was a decision about it on the PRTB website. For a discussion about it see

http://www.irishlandlord.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1649

gurramok

Milk & Honey wrote: »

To be a tenant the o/p would need to be leasing a dwelling which he is not. He is not covered by the PRTB. There was a decision about it on the PRTB website. For a discussion about it see

http://www.irishlandlord.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1649

I think you're getting it mixed up.

This is what the poster bunina said - "I have been living at my rented house for nearly 4 years. there are 3 other tenents in the house. We all pay our rent on time to the landlord."

That looks to me a single lease which is shared among 4 people, its the house that is rented out, not different rooms.

Dublin_Gunner

Milk & Honey wrote: »

To be a tenant the o/p would need to be leasing a dwelling which he is not. He is not covered by the PRTB. There was a decision about it on the PRTB website. For a discussion about it see

http://www.irishlandlord.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1649

While technically correct, it does not take away from the fact that the landlord is being an arse.

If I was the OP, I'd arrange that we all pay the landlord, the same time, each week, giving him no reason to enter at any other time, as he stated.

(assuming there's not like 50 people at the address).

If there's only about 3/4 of you - why not see about signing a single lease between you?

You'd be covered under all the laws then.

Dublin_Gunner

gurramok wrote: »

I think you're getting it mixed up.

This is what the poster bunina said - "I have been living at my rented house for nearly 4 years. there are 3 other tenents in the house. We all pay our rent on time to the landlord."

That looks to me a single lease which is shared among 4 people, its the house that is rented out, not different rooms.

The landlord stated he collects rent from people at different times. This would suggest seperate leases i.e not a dwelling being rented.

BostonB

Can you be outside the remit of the PRTB but still fall under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004

Dublin_Gunner

BostonB wrote: »

Can you be outside the remit of the PRTB but still fall under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004

AFAIK they PRTB are merely there to help ensure the laws are followed, for the safety of both landlords and tenants.

So technically, there is no PRTB to be outside of. You MUST be registered with the PRTB as required by law, but not being registered does not mean you are onot subject to the law.

Does that make sense?

The PRTB does not have its own 'rules'. The key word you should look our for however, here is 'residential'.

i.e you can't be outside the remit of the Gardai if you've broken a criminal law.

But just to be clear, there can be some landlord/tenant arrangements that are exempt:
What dwellings are exempt from registration with the PRTB? TOP

* Business premises, even where partly residential (to which section 13(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 could apply).
* A dwelling to which Part II of the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act 1982 applies (i.e. formerly rent controlled dwelling occupied by the "original tenant" or his/her spouse) or to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 applies (i.e. long occupation equity lease tenancies)
* A dwelling let by or to a public authority or voluntary housing body
* A dwelling occupied under a shared ownership lease
* A holiday let
* A dwelling in which the landlord is also resident
* A dwelling in which the spouse, parent or child of the landlord is resident and there is no written lease or tenancy agreement
* A dwelling that is occupied rent free

BostonB

AFAIK the PRTB doesn't enforce anything, or take anyone to court.

Dublin_Gunner

BostonB wrote: »

AFAIK the PRTB doesn't enforce anything, or take anyone to court.

No, they act more as a mediation service.

BostonB

It seems to me, the remit of the PRTB, or what they cover is meaningless. The only legal way to enforce anything is to go to court. After you've wasted some time with the PRTB.

If a LL is not going to be reasonable and fair about entering a property, they are not going to fair or reasonable about anything else. So why would you keep renting from them. Just move to a better LL.

bath handle

The key word is "dwelling". A room is not a dwelling. In order for the Act to apply there must be a lease of a dwelling.

BostonB

I get that that the act does not apply here because the OP is not leasing a dwelling...

But even if they were theres little the PRTB could do about it in any case.

Dublin_Gunner

BostonB wrote: »

It seems to me, the remit of the PRTB, or what they cover is meaningless. The only legal way to enforce anything is to go to court. After you've wasted some time with the PRTB.

If a LL is not going to be reasonable and fair about entering a property, they are not going to fair or reasonable about anything else. So why would you keep renting from them. Just move to a better LL.

The idea of the PRTB is to find an amicable solution via mediation to a problem without having to go to court.

Lets say the PRTB have issued a recommendation against the landlord in this instance (if it was a 'dwelling') the landlord would be VERY stupid to continue to court.

The PRTB recommendation would stand up in court as evidence against the landlord, and the tenant would most likely win hands down.

Just like the injuriesboard.ie, this serves not to judge or make decisions, but to outline under the law what the claimant should be entitled to, without the need to go to court - thereby freeing up courts services for cases that NEED to go to court.

It is most certainly NOT meaningless, and you appear to have a very closed minded view of the situation tbh.

Treehouse72

Absolutely the first thing I would do is report him to Revenue. Leasing out 4 x individual rooms rather than the entire place as a single lease sounds like a scam to dodge something to me.

I also do not believe that even if it is 4 separate rents that that gives the LL the right to enter the property. You have the right to "quiet enjoyment" of a rental property and you do not have that. I'd see if you can get access to some free legal advice and I might even consider popping into your local Garda station and just ask them their opinion.

Mr. Presentable

Who owns the house?

The landlord as described in the OP is collecting four rents. So each tenant is renting a part of the house, therefore there are common use areas no-one is renting - kitchen, living room, hallway, bathroom etc. The Landlord in my opinion is entitled to enter these areas as they are not let out and he owns them. Different situation if one person is renting the house.

So, OP, logically the Landlord is entitled to come and go as he pleases, but not into the room you are renting.

Dublin_Gunner

Treehouse72 wrote: »

Absolutely the first thing I would do is report him to Revenue. Leasing out 4 x individual rooms rather than the entire place as a single lease sounds like a scam to dodge something to me.

I also do not believe that even if it is 4 separate rents that that gives the LL the right to enter the property. You have the right to "quiet enjoyment" of a rental property and you do not have that. I'd see if you can get access to some free legal advice and I might even consider popping into your local Garda station and just ask them their opinion.

It's perfectly legal to rent multiple rooms out in the one house. No problem, or reason to assume tax evasion there.

And yes, as has been pointed out, the landlord has every right to enter if he pleases. There is no 'dwelling' being rented, therefore most of the laws to protect tenants don't apply.

Mr Presentable - technically you would also be renting the 'use' of the common area's during your lease.

CiaranC

Seriously, why do people live under these conditions?

There is plenty of rental stock on the market. Move somewhere where you having privacy and a landlord who isnt an asshole.

BostonB

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

The idea of the PRTB is to find an amicable solution via mediation to a problem without having to go to court.

Lets say the PRTB have issued a recommendation against the landlord in this instance (if it was a 'dwelling') the landlord would be VERY stupid to continue to court.

The PRTB recommendation would stand up in court as evidence against the landlord, and the tenant would most likely win hands down.

Just like the injuriesboard.ie, this serves not to judge or make decisions, but to outline under the law what the claimant should be entitled to, without the need to go to court - thereby freeing up courts services for cases that NEED to go to court.

It is most certainly NOT meaningless, and you appear to have a very closed minded view of the situation tbh.

It would be the tenant who would need to take it to court. How likely is that.

Treehouse72

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

It's perfectly legal to rent multiple rooms out in the one house. No problem, or reason to assume tax evasion there.

And yes, as has been pointed out, the landlord has every right to enter if he pleases. There is no 'dwelling' being rented, therefore most of the laws to protect tenants don't apply.

Mr Presentable - technically you would also be renting the 'use' of the common area's during your lease.

Ah, so it is like a building with bedits in it? I see that now.

I started to wonder what the downside for the LL to this arrangement might be, when it struck me that it must be a massively less profitable way of leasing a property than leasing the whole thing. After all, renting-a-room usually costs a few hundred quid, whereas renting an entire 4-bed property property out would usually bring in more than 4x those individual rents. On top of which, you have 4x more void periods plus attendant costs, plus potentially 4x more headaches from dealing with 4 people.

I don't agree though that there is no reason to assume tax evasion. For example, if the 4 tenancies started as a single rent-a-room arrangement but drifted into 4 rent-a-room arrangements over time, then the LL may have let full compliance slide. Also, if something smells fishy, there might be fish. Here, it's a most odd arrangement for not a lot of benefit that I can see (avoiding PTRB registration? Hardly a big deal, given standard tenancy rights re: Chapter 4 etc. must still exist on the individual rooms), so the LL must be doing it for some reason. On aggregate, there is at least a possibility he is not tax compliant, including perhaps on NPPR tax. I'd also be most keen to check that his insurance arrangements are in order.

Dublin_Gunner

BostonB wrote: »

It would be the tenant who would need to take it to court. How likely is that.

Very, if the situation was bad enough.

And as its a civil case, your costs would be awarded too.

Are you a landlord rights activist or something? You have an awful tone in your messages, without actually providing any decent info in your posts.

Dublin_Gunner

Treehouse72 wrote: »

Ah, so it is like a building with bedits in it? I see that now.

I started to wonder what the downside for the LL to this arrangement might be, when it struck me that it must be a massively less profitable way of leasing a property than leasing the whole thing. After all, renting-a-room usually costs a few hundred quid, whereas renting an entire 4-bed property property out would usually bring in more than 4x those individual rents. On top of which, you have 4x more void periods plus attendant costs, plus potentially 4x more headaches from dealing with 4 people.

I don't agree though that there is no reason to assume tax evasion. For example, if the 4 tenancies started as a single rent-a-room arrangement but drifted into 4 rent-a-room arrangements over time, then the LL may have let full compliance slide. Also, if something smells fishy, there might be fish. Here, it's a most odd arrangement for not a lot of benefit that I can see (avoiding PTRB registration? Hardly a big deal, given standard tenancy rights re: Chapter 4 etc. must still exist on the individual rooms), so the LL must be doing it for some reason. On aggregate, there is at least a possibility he is not tax compliant, including perhaps on NPPR tax. I'd also be most keen to check that his insurance arrangements are in order.

Its not an odd arrangement at all. There are literally 100's of residential property's (in Dublin at least) that rent out multiple, single rooms.

Its actually very common, so quite where you see it as being 'odd' or reason to assume tax evasion I don't know!

Lets say, you had a 4 bed house, you want to rent it for 1200 p/m. You're finding it difficult renting it.

How about you merely rent 4 rooms, at 300p/m each - a LOT more likely. (plenty of students rent in this fashion).

Plus, if someone leaves, you're only down 300, rather than 1200. In certain circumstances, it actually makes a LOT of sense. Quite contrary to what you might believe.

Milk & Honey

Treehouse72 wrote: »

Absolutely the first thing I would do is report him to Revenue. Leasing out 4 x individual rooms rather than the entire place as a single lease sounds like a scam to dodge something to me.

I also do not believe that even if it is 4 separate rents that that gives the LL the right to enter the property. You have the right to "quiet enjoyment" of a rental property and you do not have that. I'd see if you can get access to some free legal advice and I might even consider popping into your local Garda station and just ask them their opinion.

Rental situations are nothing to do with the Garda. You could be charged with wasting police time going to them for an opinion. That is what solicitors are for. they have the education and the professional indemnity insurance to advise people. Quite enjoyment only arises if a person is a tenant not a licencee.

Milk & Honey

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

It's perfectly legal to rent multiple rooms out in the one house. No problem, or reason to assume tax evasion there.

And yes, as has been pointed out, the landlord has every right to enter if he pleases. There is no 'dwelling' being rented, therefore most of the laws to protect tenants don't apply.

Mr Presentable - technically you would also be renting the 'use' of the common area's during your lease.

Technically the tenant would have a licence to use the common areas in the same way as the owner of an apartment has a licence to use the common areas of the block and grounds.

Dublin_Gunner

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Technically the tenant would have a licence to use the common areas in the same way as the owner of an apartment has a licence to use the common areas of the block and grounds.

Well yes, it would be a licence. But the use of the area could be said to be 'rented' for the duration of the 'licence'.

BostonB

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Very, if the situation was bad enough.

And as its a civil case, your costs would be awarded too.

Are you a landlord rights activist or something? You have an awful tone in your messages, without actually providing any decent info in your posts.

I would argue that practical advice is far more useful, if you are paying for something you are not happy with. You could be a long time waiting to go to court.

If as you suggest, its likely that tenants or landlords, go to court, and the PRTB gives evidence. Are there any stats on how often this happens and the results of same. The PRTB lists lots of judgment but no info if they person LL or Tenant, actually got their money or how long it took.

Dublin_Gunner

BostonB wrote: »

I would argue that practical advice is far more useful, if you are paying for something you are not happy with. You could be a long time waiting to go to court.

If as you suggest, its likely that tenants or landlords, go to court, and the PRTB gives evidence. Are there any stats on how often this happens and the results of same. The PRTB lists lots of judgment but no info if they person LL or Tenant, actually got their money or how long it took.

If there were many, it would mean the PRTB wasn't working.

That's the whole idea. :rolleyes:

Court should only ever be the last resort.

But I'm sure if you wanted to go digging, you'd find a few cases alright. If you're really that interested, why not contact the PRTB and ask them?

BostonB

I've read many comments from Tenants and LL, and from people in RL, that the PRTB isn't working. For example if need your deposit back to move to another place, and you don't get it back, any delay by the PRTB process is a big problem. Likewise, if a tenant can run up big arrears or damages, due to the process'es that LL can't recover, then thats also a problem. There are a lot of disputes, on the PRTB website. Usually its the same issues over and over.

Saying you can go through a lengthy process with the PRTB and then court doesn't really help, if you are stuck for the money.

bunina

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You have only got a licence to reside so the landlord can come and go as often as he wants. You are effectively in the same position as a guest in a hotel. If it bothers you, move!

Hi I dont want to get into a row online but it souds as if you may be a landlord urself. If so I dont wish to move cause it is too unsettling. we all pay our rent on a sunday that four of us and we have nothing signed., but surely when the house is spotless and there are no other problems the landlord should understand I need my privacy. I know he owns the house but I am renting of him and its just common decency not to be calling around and letting himself in just to go to the toilet. I agree with another reply that my landlord is just been an ass.

bunina

HI. I would just like to thank everyone for all their advice. Its greatly appreciated. If I had the money I would move but I dont, and I think there is no point in moving into another house share where things could be worse.
Thanking u all most sincerly again.

Bellamy

bunina wrote: »

Hi. I have been living at my rented house for nearly 4 years. there are 3 other tenents in the house. We all pay our rent on time to the landlord. MY issue is my landlord enters the house whenever he wants which is usually a few times a week. I finally plucked up the courage to say it to him nicely If he could only enter house when collecting rent once a week. He blew his top. He said to me that if I paid the rent for everyone everyweek that would be fine, otherwise he said "I will come and go whenever I please" He said cause we all are individual tenents that he has aright to enter whenever he chooses. Is this true?:(

Hi
I am a landlord and I can tell you that your landlord is not obeying the rules. Once rent is being paid and a tenancy agreement for a given term is in place the landlord cannot enter the dwelling and must respect the fact that this is your home. If the rent is being collected by him you are within your rights to hand it over at the door step and have him receipt your rent book. You should not allow him cross the treshhold - he is bang out of order. You should report him to the Private Residential Tenancy Board - phone number:016350600. This matter is clearly defined in law.

Milk & Honey

Bellamy wrote: »

Hi
I am a landlord and I can tell you that your landlord is not obeying the rules. Once rent is being paid and a tenancy agreement for a given term is in place the landlord cannot enter the dwelling and must respect the fact that this is your home. If the rent is being collected by him you are within your rights to hand it over at the door step and have him receipt your rent book. You should not allow him cross the treshhold - he is bang out of order. You should report him to the Private Residential Tenancy Board - phone number:016350600. This matter is clearly defined in law.

You obviously have not read this thread. The position in law is otherwise. The o/p asked was it true the landlord had a right to enter when he wanted. having had that answered he is now making emotional arguments.

Dublin_Gunner

BostonB wrote: »

I've read many comments from Tenants and LL, and from people in RL, that the PRTB isn't working. For example if need your deposit back to move to another place, and you don't get it back, any delay by the PRTB process is a big problem. Likewise, if a tenant can run up big arrears or damages, due to the process'es that LL can't recover, then thats also a problem. There are a lot of disputes, on the PRTB website. Usually its the same issues over and over.

Saying you can go through a lengthy process with the PRTB and then court doesn't really help, if you are stuck for the money.

I agree with you.

But there's no better option at the moment. I know from hearing many stories, and from people I know that it's happened to, the recouping deposits is one of the largest issues.

Unfortunately there really is not much to be done about that, apart from suing the LL when they don't pay up.

Maybe the PRTB should have a section that holds all deposits from registered landlords, and re-imburses the tenant on completion of their lease (subject the LL inspection of the premises etc).

WOuld require quite a bit of admin - but the PRTB could make money from thew interest paid on the account the deposits are held in.

Milk & Honey

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Unfortunately there really is not much to be done about that, apart from suing the LL when they don't pay up.

Maybe the PRTB should have a section that holds all deposits from registered landlords, and re-imburses the tenant on completion of their lease (subject the LL inspection of the premises etc).

WOuld require quite a bit of admin - but the PRTB could make money from thew interest paid on the account the deposits are held in.

A tenant can't sue a LL for the return of a deposit. The tenant has to make a complaint to the PRTB. Having the PRTB holding deposits would mean hardship for the majority of tenants. how long would it take after the end of the lease for the tenant to get a deposit back? How much would it cost? It would need several hundred staff and most likely increase the complaints about deposit being retained.

BostonB

Well if the LL or Tenant, ignores the PRTB then the other party has to go to court. The PRTB can't enforce anything itself, AFAIK.

Other countries have a 3rd party hold deposits and it seems to work much better. Though I kinda agree, if the PRTB are overwhelmed with their current workload, with long delays, then theres no much hope of them handling deposits quickly. A quick response time is essential, so tenants can move with their deposits. Or people can't overstay with impunity and run up large arrears. The PRTB seems to be flooded with disputes about deposits. The LL disputes like overstaying or damage, while fewer seems to involve much large sums.

With the reduction in Public services I can't see them expanding the PRTB.

Milk & Honey

BostonB wrote: »

Well if the LL or Tenant, ignores the PRTB then the other party has to go to court. The PRTB can't enforce anything itself, AFAIK.

That is not correct. If either the LL or the tenant ignores the PRTB the PRTB will make an order against them. The order has the same status as a court order and if ignored a criminal offence is committed and the usual sanctions for breach of a court order can be invoked. The PRTB brings proceedings for breach of its orders. There is no option for the tenant or landlord of going to court in most cases.

Residential Tenancies Act 2004

182.—(1) On and from the commencement of Part 6, proceedings may not be instituted in any court in respect of a dispute that may be referred to the Board for resolution under that Part unless one or more of the following reliefs is being claimed in the proceedings—

(a) damages of an amount of more than €20,000,

(b) recovery of arrears of rent or other charges, or both, due under a tenancy of an amount, or an aggregate amount, of more than €60,000 or such lesser amount as would be applicable in the circumstances concerned by virtue of section 115 (3)(b) or (c)(ii).

(2) In this section “dispute” has the same meaning as it has in Part 6.

BostonB

Milk & Honey wrote: »

That is not correct. If either the LL or the tenant ignores the PRTB the PRTB will make an order against them. The order has the same status as a court order and if ignored a criminal offence is committed and the usual sanctions for breach of a court order can be invoked. The PRTB brings proceedings for breach of its orders. There is no option for the tenant or landlord of going to court in most cases.

Residential Tenancies Act 2004

182.—(1) On and from the commencement of Part 6, proceedings may not be instituted in any court in respect of a dispute that may be referred to the Board for resolution under that Part unless one or more of the following reliefs is being claimed in the proceedings—

(a) damages of an amount of more than €20,000,

(b) recovery of arrears of rent or other charges, or both, due under a tenancy of an amount, or an aggregate amount, of more than €60,000 or such lesser amount as would be applicable in the circumstances concerned by virtue of section 115 (3)(b) or (c)(ii).

(2) In this section “dispute” has the same meaning as it has in Part 6.

Maybe I have it wrong then. I took that to mean you have to go to the PRTB first, not that what the PRTB says is the same as a court order, or that the PRTB can enforce it. I was told you have to take it to court. (circuit court).

On the PRTB site...

11. What will the Enforcement Section do when I make a request?
The Enforcement Section will commence its enforcement process by writing to both parties informing them of the process and possible consequences of non compliance. If compliance is not obtained through communication with the non compliant party the PRTB may direct our solicitors to commence legal proceedings through the courts. This process may take several months however, priority is given in over-holding or serious anti-social behaviour cases; even then, the process is a lengthy one and you may wish to consider taking your own proceedings which, given current resource constraints within the PRTB, will be a faster process.

http://public.prtb.ie/disputesFAQs.htm#d8

Milk & Honey

All that says is that you can take your own enforcement proceedings, which might be quicker that waiting for the PRTB to do it. That is the same as any court order. The case is not heard again, the Court is simply concerned with forcing the delinquent to comply with the PRTB order.

As a general point too many people are relying on FAqs on websites. Those are for general guidance only and it is far to easy to misunderstand the law. Look at the text of the ACT itself

http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/2004/0027.html

BostonB

I suspect the act use specific legal terms which I may mis-interpret. So am I qualified to read it? I assume the PRTB hasn't got its own FAQ wrong. Though you can't sure of anything. You said a tenant can't sue a LL, this would seem to suggest otherwise. Yes you have to go to the PRTB first. But then you can go to court.

Bellamy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You have only got a licence to reside so the landlord can come and go as often as he wants. You are effectively in the same position as a guest in a hotel. If it bothers you, move!

check it out! you are wrong. A landlord may NOT enter a property once rent is being duly paid

BostonB

Bellamy wrote: »

check it out! you are wrong. A landlord may NOT enter a property once rent is being duly paid

....

bath handle wrote: »

The key word is "dwelling". A room is not a dwelling. In order for the Act to apply there must be a lease of a dwelling.

Bellamy

BostonB wrote: »

....

... But a landlord must respect the fact that this is the tenants living space even if it is only a room.:P Nobody has the right to walk into another persons home without being invited - that includes the landlord. How would you like it if someone just walked into where you live?

Mr. Loverman

Bellamy wrote: »

... But a landlord must respect the fact that this is the tenants living space even if it is only a room.:P Nobody has the right to walk into another persons home without being invited - that includes the landlord. How would you like it if someone just walked into where you live?

Your emotions and sense of right or wrong do not override the law.

BostonB

You may not like, it, but the Landlord isn't breaking any law here. Threads like this are interesting you find out quirky things about the law.

Bellamy

BostonB wrote: »

You may not like, it, but the Landlord isn't breaking any law here. Threads like this are interesting you find out quirky things about the law.

Let's agree to disagree. I am a landlord and as far as I am aware I have no right to enter the property once the rent is being paid. This is stated clearly on the lease. With all due respect I do appreciate that rent is being paid to me and I in turn respect my tenants and treat them as I myself would like to be treated.

CiaranC

Bellamy wrote: »

Let's agree to disagree. I am a landlord and as far as I am aware I have no right to enter the property once the rent is being paid. This is stated clearly on the lease. With all due respect I do appreciate that rent is being paid to me and I in turn respect my tenants and treat them as I myself would like to be treated.

You have clearly not read the thread.

the_syco

Bellamy wrote: »

Let's agree to disagree. I am a landlord and as far as I am aware I have no right to enter the property once the rent is being paid. This is stated clearly on the lease. With all due respect I do appreciate that rent is being paid to me and I in turn respect my tenants and treat them as I myself would like to be treated.

You do understand that different landlords give different leases? As well as that, are you renting rooms in the house to different people, or are you renting the entire house to a group of people?