Sub-leaser and their rights

Snow joke

Hi, I recently have a new subleaser for my apartment this summer. These guys have been quite rude and have still not paid me the rent or security deposit. The have moved in only a few days ago, however even if they do pay me the money owed, can I remove them without penalty from the PRTB or otherwise and get in new subtennents if i am still uncomfortable with them?

NOTE: I would not keep their rent or security deposits, only the rent for the time stayed would be kept, not trying to scam them, They seemed nice but now that they have moved in, it is a whole different game.

Thank you in advance

power101

Never ever ever leave tenants in without a full rent and deposit received. If they want to pay you the rent when they get paid, thats a no. If they want to pay you a deposit next month, thats a no.

This will not end well.

Snow joke

power101 wrote: »

Never ever ever leave tenants in without a full rent and deposit received. If they want to pay you the rent when they get paid, thats a no. If they want to pay you a deposit next month, thats a no.

This will not end well.

Well say i did? can i throw them out? seeing as I am still technically living there and there is no lease or agreement signed?

ElleEm

They haven't signed anything, haven't paid anything AND are living in your place. I would have thought they have no rights!

the_syco

Snow joke wrote: »

These guys have been quite rude and have still not paid me the rent or security deposit. The have moved in only a few days ago, however even if they do pay me the money owed, can I remove them without penalty from the PRTB or otherwise and get in new subtennents if i am still uncomfortable with them?

From my understanding, as you are subleasing to them, they are living with the landlord, and thus can receive 24 hour notice to get them out?

Snow joke

the_syco wrote: »

From my understanding, as you are subleasing to them, they are living with the landlord, and thus can receive 24 hour notice to get them out?

I should qualify this, I will be moving out in the next day or 2 to live on campus accommodation for work.

Pawwed Rig

So did you assign your lease?

You are going to have to be clearer here to get any kind of good advice. Who has the agreement with the landlord?

valleyoftheunos

also if it is a sub-let did you get the approval of your LL in advance?

djimi

I would be of the opinion that someone who is there without having paid any money or signing any kind of lease is a guest, not a tenant, and as such its up to you to tell them to get lost if you want rid of them.

This, of course, is just my opinion; Im not sure legally where you stand. They might claim that you have a verbal agreement with them, but them proving it would be a whole different matter.

Snow joke

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

also if it is a sub-let did you get the approval of your LL in advance?

Sorry for the confusion folks.

Basically I've just unofficially moved out now. I have gotten full approval and permission from the landlord and he told me to just chuck them out on their ear if we dont want them, but I wanted to make sure I could do this.

So from next week all 3 rooms will be taken by the tennants and I will NOT be living there. I have signed the lease with 2 other guys that I live with normally so the lease is under our name. So these 3 new tennants have not signed any lease

valleyoftheunos

Snow joke wrote: »

Sorry for the confusion folks.

Basically I've just unofficially moved out now. I have gotten full approval and permission from the landlord and he told me to just chuck them out on their ear if we dont want them, but I wanted to make sure I could do this.

So from next week all 3 rooms will be taken by the tennants and I will NOT be living there. I have signed the lease with 2 other guys that I live with normally so the lease is under our name. So these 3 new tennants have not signed any lease

If they don't sign any lease you would still technically be liable for the rent, you need to sort that out straight away.

Pawwed Rig

Am I understanding correct here (I am using some assumptions that still are not clear).
You and 2 others are the leaseholders.
You are breaking a lease?
You gave correct notice to the landlord?
The landlord has given you permission to assign the rest of the lease to others.
It seems you assigned the lease to others without the prior approval of the new tenants by the landlord.
They have given you no rent.
You and the two other leaseholders have already moved out.

So now you are the leaseholder on a house in which you no longer live and have allowed tenants to move in without a security deposit or prepaid rent.

I don't understand 'unofficially' moved out. You either live there or you don't. Test. Have you your own room and bed that you have full access to?
Is this your primary residence?
If not there is a danger here that you are actually a landlord now.
If yes then you have lots of rights.

Snow joke

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Am I understanding correct here (I am using some assumptions that still are not clear).
You and 2 others are the leaseholders.
You are breaking a lease?
You gave correct notice to the landlord?
The landlord has given you permission to assign the rest of the lease to others.
It seems you assigned the lease to others without the prior approval of the new tenants by the landlord.
They have given you no rent.
You and the two other leaseholders have already moved out.

So now you are the leaseholder on a house in which you no longer live and have allowed tenants to move in without a security deposit or prepaid rent.

I don't understand 'unofficially' moved out. You either live there or you don't. Test. Have you your own room and bed that you have full access to?
Is this your primary residence?
If not there is a danger here that you are actually a landlord now.
If yes then you have lots of rights.

We are not breaking the lease, the lease is up but the landlord has allowed us a monthly lease now, so we still wish to stay there.

this is my primary residence. The landlord knows this situation and has approved of subletters

Pawwed Rig

Ok.
Did you give adequate notice that you are moving out?
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html

If you did then once your notice period expires you have no further interest in the house so it is up to the landlord needs to provide a lease to the new tenants aswell as collect the rent/deposit.

That they moved in while you were there too seems like a strange way to start a tenancy. Is there 6 bedrooms where you and the two other leaseholders along with the new tenants?
Trying to help you here but you need to provide more information to advise you properly. Not to be nosey but there are alot of strict rules around tenancy that you don't seem to understand and without the details of your agreements with your landlord and new tenants it is impossible to give definite answers to your questions.

Snow joke

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Ok.
Did you give adequate notice that you are moving out?
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html

If you did then once your notice period expires you have no further interest in the house so it is up to the landlord needs to provide a lease to the new tenants aswell as collect the rent/deposit.

That they moved in while you were there too seems like a strange way to start a tenancy. Is there 6 bedrooms where you and the two other leaseholders along with the new tenants?
Trying to help you here but you need to provide more information to advise you properly. Not to be nosey but there are alot of strict rules around tenancy that you don't seem to understand and without the details of your agreements with your landlord and new tenants it is impossible to give definite answers to your questions.

We plan to move back in for September, so the lease is still under our names. Its a 3 bedroom place, we are subletting it for the summer with the permission of the landlord. I gave them the benefit of the doubt as they seemed like nice people and would pay their rent when they said they would.

odds_on

There seems to be confusion as to exactly what a sub-tenant is.

When a tenant sub-lets, the tenant then vacates the property and becomes a landlord (aka the head landlord) while still retaining possession of the property; the sub-tenant pays rent to the head landlord (i.e. the previous tenant). However, as a landlord s/he must comply with all RTA 2004 and PRTB regulations. S/he is also responsible to the owner landlord for the rent due on the property.

If the original tenant remains in the property, the new occupant is not a sub-tenant but licensee/lodger.

As regards the OP main question, a lease may be verbal or written. Terms and conditions of verbal leases can be difficult to prove as it is the tenant's word against the landlord's word as to what was agreed. However, for a lease agreement to exist there must also be payment made: deposit + 1 month's rent being the norm. If the occupants have not paid a cent then IMO, no lease exists although they are in the property.

If the OP remained in the property or has agreed the occupants do not have exclusive use of the property, then again, the occupants are licensees.

Pawwed Rig

Thanks odds_on. This is the crux of the issue OP and the reason for all of my annoying questions.
I was trying to determine whether you are a landlord or an 'owner occupier' (for want of a better term) as there are huge differences in the tenants rights in both cases.
If as I suspect you are actually a landlord you could have a huge issue on your hands.

odds_on

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Thanks odds_on. This is the crux of the issue OP and the reason for all of my annoying questions.
I was trying to determine whether you are a landlord or an 'owner occupier' (for want of a better term) as there are huge differences in the tenants rights in both cases.
If as I suspect you are actually a landlord you could have a huge issue on your hands.

Yes, it can be difficult to determine exactly what a situation is. OPs give much detail about their situation without providing the basic information required for a reasonable answer to their problem.

Part of a lease agreement requires that "a valuable consideration" must pass between the parties which in this case has not happened, thus, I believe the occupants may be squatters.

Snow joke

I had a chat with threshold and FLAC, They told me because it is within the first 6 months, I can fallow rule 4 of the tennancy code. Meaning that I can give them 28 days notice to leave the premises. Im just wondering if I could have them removed before that.

the_syco

Snow joke wrote: »

I had a chat with threshold and FLAC

Did you tell them that no lease was signed, no deposit was paid, and no rent was paid? TBH, if you don't get them out very soon, I don't see them moving out, and taking the severe piss regarding you having to go through months of court to get them evicted.

the_syco

Oh, and if no lease has been signed, is there anything to stop the OP from staying in the house, and giving the new tenants 24 hours to get the f**k out, if OP played owner occupier, as technically as the subletter person, they are?

Grandpa Hassan

the_syco wrote: »

Oh, and if no lease has been signed, is there anything to stop the OP from staying in the house, and giving the new tenants 24 hours to get the f**k out, if OP played owner occupier, as technically as the subletter person, they are?

This.

I don't understand here why the OP can't just ask them to leave and then call the police. They are nothing more than unwelcome guests, surely?

Tigger

They are subletting and have full tenants rights
This is a very awkward situation a d throwing them out without notice could be hassle
But I don't know them
And how they will react

athtrasna

Tigger wrote: »

They are subletting and have full tenants rights
This is a very awkward situation a d throwing them out without notice could be hassle
But I don't know them
And how they will react

Not while the OP hasn't moved out, while the OP is still technically there they are licensees with few rights

endacl

Snow joke wrote: »

We plan to move back in for September, so the lease is still under our names. Its a 3 bedroom place, we are subletting it for the summer with the permission of the landlord. I gave them the benefit of the doubt as they seemed like nice people and would pay their rent when they said they would.

I'd say you won't be making that mistake again!

Tigger

athtrasna wrote: »

Not while the OP hasn't moved out, while the OP is still technically there they are licensees with few rights

no they are sub-leasers
read the title of the thread

djimi

Tigger wrote: »

no they are sub-leasers
read the title of the thread

They're not anything at the moment as they haven't paid anything nor have they a written lease. At best they are guests; I don't see how they have any legal rights whatsoever.

Grandpa Hassan

Tigger wrote: »

no they are sub-leasers
read the title of the thread

Am I being a bit slow here?

My understanding is that they have signed no lease, paid no deposit and paid no rent. So they have zero right to be there. I don't understand how they have any legal protection at all.

They're not even squatting as the OP is still there. Are they not just unwelcome guests? With no more legal right to spend the night than a drunk uncle who has overstayed his welcome at a dinner party. In which case the guards should be able to remove them.

Zulu

They've signed no lease.
They've paid no rent.
They've paid no deposit.

The thing to do would be call the Guards and have them tossed out as unwelcome "guests".

But if I understand you've now moved out leaving them in the house?!? WTF? :rolleyes:

odds_on

The fact that they have signed no lease is irrelevant - a lease agreement may be verbal but difficult to prove the terms and conditions.

The fact that there has been no "valuable consideration" paid is important as this completes a lease agreement.

valleyoftheunos

odds_on wrote: »

The fact that they have signed no lease is irrelevant - a lease agreement may be verbal but difficult to prove the terms and conditions.

The fact that there has been no "valuable consideration" paid is important as this completes a lease agreement.

For a lease to be legally enforceable it must be in writing.

I'm far from convinced that there is any lease here but even if there were its unenforceable as its not in writing and the tenants are in breach as they haven't paid the rent.

Tigger

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

For a lease to be legally enforceable it must be in writing.

I'm far from convinced that there is any lease here but even if there were its unenforceable as its not in writing and the tenants are in breach as they haven't paid the rent.

There is a verbal agreement to lease the place
The start date and end date are defined as is the deposit the rate of rent and most likely a brief overview of the terms ( no smoking/wolves etc)

Call the Garda or throw the tenants out but they will probably wil if they take action

odds_on

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

For a lease to be legally enforceable it must be in writing.

I'm far from convinced that there is any lease here but even if there were its unenforceable as its not in writing and the tenants are in breach as they haven't paid the rent.

In the commercial world , yes, a written lease may be required. However, in the Residential renting, a verbal lease is sufficient.

RTA 2004 Section 1 clause 4
‘‘tenancy agreement’’ includes an oral tenancy agreement;

Ignore 'signed'/'unsigned' point; even an oral Letting Agreement can be valid.
The question is whether Landlord and Tenant have entered into a binding contract. Are there the three basic requirements present? They comprise:
1. Offer.
2. Acceptance.
3. Intention to create legal relationship- usually evidenced by contractual consideration passing.

Grandpa Hassan

odds_on wrote: »

In the commercial world , yes, a written lease is required. However, in the Residential renting, a verbal lease is sufficient.

RTA 2004 Section 1 clause 4
‘‘tenancy agreement’’ includes an oral tenancy agreement;

So theoretically, to take it to an extreme, I could go into someones house (whilst they are still there), sit myself down on their sofa, go for a sleep in their bed, and when the Guards come I could just say that I had verbally entered into a tenancy agreement with the owner / leaseholder?

And the Guards couldnt throw me out on my ear as it would be my word against theirs? Surely that can't be right....

valleyoftheunos

odds_on wrote: »

In the commercial world , yes, a written lease may be required. However, in the Residential renting, a verbal lease is sufficient.

RTA 2004 Section 1 clause 4
‘‘tenancy agreement’’ includes an oral tenancy agreement;

Ignore 'signed'/'unsigned' point; even an oral Letting Agreement can be valid.
The question is whether Landlord and Tenant have entered into a binding contract. Are there the three basic requirements present? They comprise:
1. Offer.
2. Acceptance.
3. Intention to create legal relationship- usually evidenced by contractual consideration passing.

Thanks for the contract law lesson. You failed to mention that a contract can't exist without consideration and it's unenforceable if the consideration doesn't pass from the promisee.

The OP is in a sticky situation, he may still be on the hook for rent and any damage done to the property. He needs to make sure that either these guys pay up or get out.

djimi

odds_on wrote: »

In the commercial world , yes, a written lease may be required. However, in the Residential renting, a verbal lease is sufficient.

RTA 2004 Section 1 clause 4
‘‘tenancy agreement’’ includes an oral tenancy agreement;

Ignore 'signed'/'unsigned' point; even an oral Letting Agreement can be valid.
The question is whether Landlord and Tenant have entered into a binding contract. Are there the three basic requirements present? They comprise:
1. Offer.
2. Acceptance.
3. Intention to create legal relationship- usually evidenced by contractual consideration passing.

A verbal lease may technically be valid, but realistically a tenant wouldnt have a hope in hell of proving it unless they had recorded the conversation. Would any witness be likely to be seen as impartial, given that they would most likely be on one side or the other (most likely friend/family of landlord or tenant).

Where no money has changed hands (or where there is no proof of money changing hands) Id say it would be near impossible for these "tenants" to prove any kind of arrangement.

Pawwed Rig

djimi wrote: »

Where no money has changed hands (or where there is no proof of money changing hands) Id say it would be near impossible for these "tenants" to prove any kind of arrangement.

There is no contract where one side does not provide consideration ie payment.

odds_on

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There is no contract where one side does not provide consideration ie payment.

And therein lies a dilemma for the OP.

Does the OP now refuse any payment and try to remove the "squatters" without the help of the PRTB (irrespective of how useful they maybe), because, if there is no tenancy it is outside the remit of the PRTB.
or
Does the OP accept late payment (in full) thus making a binding contract and comply with all the RTA terms and conditions. If the OP accepts the consideration, will the tenants then leave if a Notice of Termination is served on them?

Glad I'm not the OP!

Pawwed Rig

As was said if he is living there he can just show them the door or change the locks however by the sounds of it he has actually moved out already (whether officially or unofficially whatever that means).
The Gardai are not going to help nor should they if the Op is in fact a landlord. The PRTB may help but it won't be a quick process. In the meanwhile the OP needs to keep paying his landlord as there is a valid contract in existence.
I wonder does the OP realise that they will need to register the tenancy with the PRTB at a cost of €90? Also they will have to file a tax return based on their rental income albeit with a deduction for rent paid, the act of filing a return for someone who doesn't know their way around the tax rules can be a pain.
To advise the OP I would keep things as sweet as possible. Get some cash off the guys as soon as possible. Get them to sign a fixed term lease for the time they will be in the house and hope that they move out when they are meant to. Be prepared to have a long drawn out battle on your hands.

odds_on wrote: »

Glad I'm not the OP!

That's the truth

djimi

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I wonder does the OP realise that they will need to register the tenancy with the PRTB at a cost of €90?

Would the tenancy not already be registered? Or does it have to be registered again? Can a tenancy be registered twice at the same time?

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

Would the tenancy not already be registered? Or does it have to be registered again? Can a tenancy be registered twice at the same time?

It must be a new tenancy and requires registration.

Two tenancies exist
- the head tenancy - first tenant with an agreement with the owner-landlord.

- sub-tenancy - first tenant (head tenant) with an agreement with new sublet tenants.

The current tenants have no agreement with the owner-landlord; their agreement is with the tenant who has vacated to let them reside there.

The current tenants could not make a claim against the owner-landlord, only against the vacating tenant/new landlord. What information is given in PRTB registration? landlord's name - vacating tenant; tenants' names - new tenants. There is no mention of the owner-landlord