How to handle this one?

_Kaiser_

Hey all,

Just wondering what other people would do in this situation...

Bit of background first... for just over a year I've been renting an apartment in Dublin. Actually I'm renting most of an apartment you could say - it's a 2 bed but the landlord keeps some stuff in one of the rooms while they themselves live elsewhere.

Really they just wanted someone who'll keep an eye on the place I think and not trash it, so as a result then I'm paying significantly less than I would otherwise - in effect I'm paying (less than) what a 1-bed would cost me in the area and that includes all the bills as well. It also has the advantages of being quiet, in a very nice area, and 10 minutes from the office. Bargain of the year then right?

Given all this then, I wasn't too bothered about them obviously not being registered, and agreed to a 6 month lease that we've just continued with since then and there's been no issues at all other than perhaps the minor inconvenience of them dropping over unannounced for 10/15 minutes every other weekend to pick up post and stuff from the other bedroom. As I'm away a lot of weekends, this isn't a problem and the landlord is very nice anyway.

However, while collecting said post this weekend they casually announced that their brother may need to stay for "a few nights" at some point in the next few weeks which although I have let pass so far, I'm not really thrilled about either.

The original lease does mention that the other bedroom is reserved for their (the landlord's use) and that I'll be notified if they wish to use it so I'm guessing I'll probably have to just put up with it right?

Option B would to object and possibly upset what has been a mutually beneficial arrangement if they take it badly.. worst come to worst I neither want nor could afford to rent a similar property "fully" (well I could but I have better things to spend the cash on than inflated Dublin rents) and I'm certainly not going to take a house share or something like that (fine when you're in your 20s and I did it then myself, but I'm a fair bit older than 20 now! )

So will I just have to live with it/this relative for the few days or has anyone any thoughts?

Cheers

irishmover

Easy answer is yes you'll probably have to live with it, even though they're not registered. But it seems like it might be a slippery slope.

What I would do is allow it this time but explain that you don't want it to happen too often, amend the agreement and give it to them as your conditions.

It might be a once off though?

Cushie Butterfield

Basically you're just renting a room. If he decides to allow someone else use his room that's up to him. He was only paying you the courtesy of letting you know.

You may feel like you have exclusive use of the apartment considering that he's rarely there, but the reality is you don't & the bubble is bound to burst at some stage.

StillWaters

Do you have a lease or is it sortof a rent a room agreement? In any case I don't think it really matters. Even if you have a lease which gives you exclusive use, with the deal you have going you can't really afford to kick up a stink about the brother coming to stay for a few nights.

Ando's Saggy Bottom

Could be that by still having his post directed to the apartment and technically speaking still "living" there the landlord us renting to you under the rent a room scheme. I don't think they need to register as a landlord in that case? In which case you actually have few enough rights. But you're also getting a two bed all to yourself for a cheap price so its up to you to weigh up the pros and cons.

mari2222

This looks like a rent-a-room arrangement, so essentially you have a room in somebody else's dwelling.

The_Conductor

You do not have sole and exclusive use of the property.
Whether or not the 'lease' is phrased as a rent-a-room lease or not, the conditions are there for the landlord to claim such, should it ever be disputed. The terms of the lease most probably apply- as it is a civil contract between you and the landlord- however the terms of the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act, do not.

You're paying significantly less than the going rate for the property- while you may have had a lot of privacy and enjoyed being there- it never was an arrangement at market rates- and if you decide to make a point of it- the natural thing for the landlord to do would simply be to charge you the going market rate, all bills etc, and move their crap from the other bedroom.

When you have a situation which is too good to be true- normally it simply is- too good to be true- there will be downside- you either live with it, or if you're unhappy- move on.

djimi

Surely it depends on how the lease is worded? Would a rent a room lease not be worded as such? If it's a standard lease with an unwritten mutual understanding about the storage room then I don't see how anyone can say that the OP is not renting the entire property?

If you have been sold this apartment as having exclusive use bar the storage room then I would be very annoyed if he landlord wished to allow his family/mates use it as a hotel.

_Kaiser_

Thanks for the feedback guys. More or less as I expected really..

djimi wrote: »

Surely it depends on how the lease is worded? Would a rent a room lease not be worded as such? If it's a standard lease with an unwritten mutual understanding about the storage room then I don't see how anyone can say that the OP is not renting the entire property?

If you have been sold this apartment as having exclusive use bar the storage room then I would be very annoyed if he landlord wished to allow his family/mates use it as a hotel.

That's more or less exactly how it was sold - ie: here's a 2 bed apartment that I'm renting as one because I keep some stuff in one of the rooms. The rest is all yours.

As I mentioned although the price is less than the going rate, surely that's up to them to decide? - ie: if they just wanted a person to keep an eye on the place and look after it rather than it sitting empty (as it was previously) then that's up to them.

I'm also paying all of the bills, not a portion of them, so in theory anything used by this "house guest" would be at my expense.

But still, I suppose that given the price is most definitely right and to be fair I've had zero problems previously, I might wait and see if this actually happens at all and as someone said above, gently put across the point that I'd hope this isn't going to be a regular thing?

The_Conductor

If its an actual bedroom- as opposed to a store room- its a different story altogether. The OP should check out their lease- however they have to accept that they are paying significantly below market rate- as there is at very least a tacit understanding that the owner can use their bedroom as and when they see fit.

Its an unusual situation- and given the large discount on what it would cost to rent the entire place- there is at least a presumption on the part of both parties that the situation is the owner and/or a family member can use the bedroom whenever they want to. If the OP isn't happy with this- they pay full market price for the property along with all bills- and have full and complete enjoyment of the property- or they move.

You can't expect the massive discount they have, to not have strings attached to it.

As it is a bedroom- and not a storage closet- the tenancy (if it is) is not covered under the 2004 RTA- any rules are those specified in writing between the owner and the OP.

If the OP wants to dispute it- its their prerogative, however if the owner can prove its a bedroom and they have reserved the right to the bedroom, and the bills for the property are in their name and not the OPs- you're on a highway to no-where trying to say its not the Rent-a-room scheme the owner is operating.

djimi

It's up to you how you handle it, but if you are paying for exclusive use of the property then you have every right to flat out refuse.

The_Conductor

djimi wrote: »

It's up to you how you handle it, but if you are paying for exclusive use of the property then you have every right to flat out refuse.

By his own admission- he is not paying for exclusive use of the property- his initial post sounded more like he was property-sitting on behalf of the owner, than a tenant.

OP- are the bills associated with the property in your name and are they being paid by you?

What is in the 'lease' you signed with the owner?

I genuinely don't think you're a tenant at all- you sound more akin to a house sitter, than anything else.

djimi

smccarrick wrote: »

If its an actual bedroom- as opposed to a store room- its a different story altogether. The OP should check out their lease- however they have to accept that they are paying significantly below market rate- as there is at very least a tacit understanding that the owner can use their bedroom as and when they see fit.

Its an unusual situation- and given the large discount on what it would cost to rent the entire place- there is at least a presumption on the part of both parties that the situation is the owner and/or a family member can use the bedroom whenever they want to. If the OP isn't happy with this- they pay full market price for the property along with all bills- and have full and complete enjoyment of the property- or they move.

You can't expect the massive discount they have, to not have strings attached to it.

As it is a bedroom- and not a storage closet- the tenancy (if it is) is not covered under the 2004 RTA- any rules are those specified in writing between the owner and the OP.

If the OP wants to dispute it- its their prerogative, however if the owner can prove its a bedroom and they have reserved the right to the bedroom, and the bills for the property are in their name and not the OPs- you're on a highway to no-where trying to say its not the Rent-a-room scheme the owner is operating.

Surely the only thing that matters is what is written into the lease? Rental price does not determine the tenancy type. If the lease is a standard lease (ie for the whole property and not just renting a room) and there is nothing written into the lease about the landlord retaining access to one of the bedrooms then as far as I can see there is nothing to say that it is not a standard tenancy rather than a rent a room? If the tenant subsequently chooses to allow the landlord use the second room as storage space in return for a reduction in the rent then would this change that?

odds_on

As smccarrick says, what you actually have is a licence agreement although it may be titled Lease Agreement.

The fact that you do not have "exclusive" use of the apartment is of paramount importance and would indicate a licence agreement. Therefore, as a licensee, you have very few rights apart from those set out in the agreement.

However, you could look for a contribution for utilities etc. while the other room is occupied.

A licence agreement does not have to be under the rent a room scheme, but does permit the landlord, who does not have to be resident, to have access as and when he requires. This is also set out in the OP's agreement.

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

Surely the only thing that matters is what is written into the lease? Rental price does not determine the tenancy type. If the lease is a standard lease (ie for the whole property and not just renting a room) and there is nothing written into the lease about the landlord retaining access to one of the bedrooms then as far as I can see there is nothing to say that it is not a standard tenancy rather than a rent a room? If the tenant subsequently chooses to allow the landlord use the second room as storage space in return for a reduction in the rent then would this change that?

The OP says in his first post:

The original lease does mention that the other bedroom is reserved for their (the landlord's use) and that I'll be notified if they wish to use it so I'm guessing I'll probably have to just put up with it right?

djimi

odds_on wrote: »

As smccarrick says, what you actually have is a licence agreement although it may be titled Lease Agreement.

Again I ask can you categorically say that without seeing the actual lease, or are you just making that assumption based on what the OP has said?

djimi

odds_on wrote: »

The OP says in his first post:

Okay fair enough, I missed that part...

odds_on

You're welcome.

Sometimes coming into a thread when there are already a fair number of posts, one can miss a vital point. That's why I don't bother too much when a thread is over 15 posts long - unless I see something that is strikingly erroneous.

djimi

Id say it has more to do with it being a Sunday morning and me having had about 4 hours sleep to be fair!

StillWaters

odds_on wrote: »

However, you could look for a contribution for utilities etc. while the other room is occupied.

OP states utilities are included in the rent. He really has a sweet deal going.

_Kaiser_

Thanks for the feedback all - I'll just play it by ear for now and if this actually happens, hopefully it's a once off for a night or two when I may not even be around.

If it becomes more regular than that I'll re-evaluate then...

StillWaters wrote: »

OP states utilities are included in the rent. He really has a sweet deal going.

I know which is why I'm very hesitant to upset the apple cart, but that said, I took it based on the fact that they would only be here for a few mins a week to pick up post etc. If it becomes the case that I end up sharing the place a lot of the time well then I'll just either have to move and pay more, or live a bit further out.

Cheers

the_syco

When the LL's bro moves in, get a feeler why they're there. It could be somewhere until they find their feet, or it could be to see if you two get on well, and in turn lead to him being there all the time.

When the landlord rings with a further update, check where he's moving from. It sounds like the brothers lease for the previous house has ran out (brothers previous landlord could be selling the house), and needs somewhere to stay until he finds a new house, or he could have been kicked out.

Questions, questions. It all does sound a bit odd, though.

Grolschevik

StillWaters wrote: »

OP states utilities are included in the rent. He really has a sweet deal going.

No, he says that his rent plus all the bills, which he pays, still works out cheaper than the local market rent for a one-bed.

From post 9: "I'm also paying all of the bills, not a portion of them, so in theory anything used by this "house guest" would be at my expense."

So this (from post 21) -- " I know which is why I'm very hesitant to upset the apple cart" --would seem only to relate to the "sweet deal" comment in post 20? Otherwise he's contradicting himself!"

The_Conductor

Grolschevik wrote: »

No, he says that his rent plus all the bills, which he pays, still works out cheaper than the local market rent for a one-bed.

From post 9: "I'm also paying all of the bills, not a portion of them, so in theory anything used by this "house guest" would be at my expense."

So this (from post 21) -- " I know which is why I'm very hesitant to upset the apple cart" --would seem only to relate to the "sweet deal" comment in post 20? Otherwise he's contradicting himself!"

We're splitting hairs here. By his own admission he has a remarkable deal- and doesn't want to upset the quid-pro-quo.

Grolschevik

smccarrick wrote: »

We're splitting hairs here. By his own admission he has a remarkable deal- and doesn't want to upset the quid-pro-quo.

I know. I'm just a pedant!