Eviction notice - help needed

james12326

Hi guys,

First time poster here.

We moved into a 3 bed house on the 19th of last month. Signed the lease ect. The 3rd room is tiny, but the house has a converted attic. We decided to put a double bed in the attic and use that as a room. A friend of ours stayed in the box room for a couple of night.

We sent the landlord a snaglist after moving in. A plumber arrived and fixed some of the items.

It now appears that the landlord also arrived, without us knowing, and took loads of pictures of the house. The bedrooms were untidy - but not dirty.

We now received an eviction notice on the basis that 4 people are living in the house and we are untidy. Do we have any ground to stand on here? In particular the unannounced house inspection.

The estate agent we deal with now says that the landlord didn't sign the lease and so is free to kick us out.

Any advice would be most welcome.

Doom

Landlord is guilty of unlawful entry...call to the gardai.

Michael D Not Higgins

Open a PRTB dispute.

whippet

Before jumping on the high horses to slaughter a landlord .. It sounds like the landlord was with the plumber when the agreed work was carried out, if so there is nothing wrong with this.

Also, what does your lease state about who is permitted to live there?

An attic is not a bedroom and unless permitted by planning conditions can not be used as such. By using the attic as a bedroom there are health and safety concerns, a landlord is right to be concerned with a tenant who has more than the agreed number of people staying inthe house and with the tenant using attic space as a bedroom.

foggy_lad

james12326 wrote: »

Hi guys,

First time poster here.

We moved into a 3 bed house on the 19th of last month. Signed the lease ect. The 3rd room is tiny, but the house has a converted attic. We decided to put a double bed in the attic and use that as a room. A friend of ours stayed in the box room for a couple of night.

We sent the landlord a snaglist after moving in. A plumber arrived and fixed some of the items.

It now appears that the landlord also arrived, without us knowing, and took loads of pictures of the house. The bedrooms were untidy - but not dirty.

We now received an eviction notice on the basis that 4 people are living in the house and we are untidy. Do we have any ground to stand on here? In particular the unannounced house inspection.

The estate agent we deal with now says that the landlord didn't sign the lease and so is free to kick us out.

Any advice would be most welcome.

It looks like the Landlord does not want anyone giving him any hassle or "snag-lists" and has decided that ye are going to be trouble.

Open a dispute with the PRTB and don't worry about the photographs as they should not be admissible in any counter claims made by the Landlord.

How long did your friend stay because if it was any longer than 2-3 nights you might have a problem with that.

On the other hand the place being untidy is not any reason or grounds for eviction or even reason for the landlord to say anything.

Michael D Not Higgins

whippet wrote: »

Before jumping on the high horses to slaughter a landlord .. It sounds like the landlord was with the plumber when the agreed work was carried out, if so there is nothing wrong with this.

Also, what does your lease state about who is permitted to live there?

An attic is not a bedroom and unless permitted by planning conditions can not be used as such. By using the attic as a bedroom there are health and safety concerns, a landlord is right to be concerned with a tenant who has more than the agreed number of people staying inthe house and with the tenant using attic space as a bedroom.

I wouldn't say there's nothing wrong with the landlord being there. He's supposed to notify the tenants of visiting at an agreed time with 24 hours notice, not slip in with a workman to catch them out.

Yes it's likely the attic is not a habitable bedroom space as per the regulations and why the house didn't have a bedroom in the attic in the first place. This is however something that should be sorted between the landlord and the tenants not a straight to eviction notice scenario.

Grandpa Hassan

You can just move in another person. It is likely a breach of the lease and the LL is entitled to issue an eviction notice. It's harsh, but within the rules.

His entry, whether unlawful, is another issue

whippet

We are just getting the OPs version of events, from what I can make out it seems that the OP has moved extra tenants in, utilising the attic space as living quarters which is probably in contravention to the lease.

The landlord has spotted this when following up on the snag list the tenant gave him and decided that this contravention to the lease agreement is worrying enough that he does not want to have the OP as a tenant anymore - nothing worse than a bad start.

The op can of course go to the PRTB, however, if they are in contravention of the lease and the landlord follows the eviction process properly there might not be a case to be answered.

By the sounds of it the landlord seems to be decent enough, following up on a snag list with tradesmen and not allowing an attic as a living space.

foggy_lad

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

You can just move in another person. It is likely a breach of the lease and the LL is entitled to issue an eviction notice. It's harsh, but within the rules.

His entry, whether unlawful, is another issue

Having a visitor or two staying for a few days from time to time is allowed!

james12326

Thanks for the replies. In relation to the attic, the estate agent basically told us to use that as a bedroom as the box room is tiny.

Michael D Not Higgins

whippet wrote: »

We are just getting the OPs version of events, from what I can make out it seems that the OP has moved extra tenants in, utilising the attic space as living quarters which is probably in contravention to the lease.

The landlord has spotted this when following up on the snag list the tenant gave him and decided that this contravention to the lease agreement is worrying enough that he does not want to have the OP as a tenant anymore - nothing worse than a bad start.

The op can of course go to the PRTB, however, if they are in contravention of the lease and the landlord follows the eviction process properly there might not be a case to be answered.

By the sounds of it the landlord seems to be decent enough, following up on a snag list with tradesmen and not allowing an attic as a living space.

This all depends on whether the friend was actually 'staying for a couple of nights' or was in fact moving in without the landlord knowing. If the latter is the case, they will have to plead their respective cases to the PRTB and let them decide who to believe.

barneyrubble46

This issue is more clear cut than you think, firstly speak to your landlord, aplologise if needs be and try and resolve with him, if he still wants to evict you, then you must raise a case with the PRTB this will protect you from eviction. Secondly the landlord illegally entered your home, thats right your home not his. Regardless of who he was with, you arranged for a plumber not plumber and landlord to call. He has no right to take photographs of the interior your home without your permission this is totally illegal. and finally it is very difficult to evict someone these days, stand firm and do not under any circumstances let this landlord intimidate you. Good luck

james12326

Thanks guys for the advice. We are good tenants, slightly untidy rooms due to large hours at work but certainly not trying to pull a fast one. I will try and be friendly about the situation, but I cant afford to be evicted. I am still angry about him coming in and taking photos of our personal belongings but thats for another day.

Kevin the Kid

barneyrubble46 wrote: »

This issue is more clear cut than you think, firstly speak to your landlord, aplologise if needs be and try and resolve with him, if he still wants to evict you, then you must raise a case with the PRTB this will protect you from eviction. Secondly the landlord illegally entered your home, thats right your home not his. Regardless of who he was with, you arranged for a plumber not plumber and landlord to call. He has no right to take photographs of the interior your home without your permission this is totally illegal. and finally it is very difficult to evict someone these days, stand firm and do not under any circumstances let this landlord intimidate you. Good luck

I agree absolutely. Grovel a bit. If that doesn't work and if he is being unreasonable then tell him you have no intention of leaving and he should peruse the necessary legal routes to get you out. It is such a pain to have you removed that he will if he has any sense come to a reasonable and less expensive agreement. It will take him months to evict you but you should continue to pay rent. That way you are not violating the agreement. In the mean time seek legal advise. PTRB can be hit and miss but it is necessary to register a complaint with them. If the landlord has not registered your tenancy he is in for a nice €280 euro fine approx.

barneyrubble46

well look we all have untidy homes, thats life, I forgot to say, any conversation you have with him back this up with a letter, so that you have everything in writing. The PRTB have a phone number you can call, its very understaffed however you can drop them an email and they will phone you and give you advise.

Nomis21

barneyrubble46 wrote: »

This issue is more clear cut than you think, firstly speak to your landlord, aplologise if needs be and try and resolve with him, if he still wants to evict you, then you must raise a case with the PRTB this will protect you from eviction. Secondly the landlord illegally entered your home, thats right your home not his. Regardless of who he was with, you arranged for a plumber not plumber and landlord to call. He has no right to take photographs of the interior your home without your permission this is totally illegal. and finally it is very difficult to evict someone these days, stand firm and do not under any circumstances let this landlord intimidate you. Good luck

I couldn't put it any better. Stand your ground but at the same time look around for another place. It will be more trouble ahead with this Landlord.

Mrs OBumble

Do you have proof that it was the LL and not the plumber who took the photos?

The agent saying that the LL never signed the lease is bollox: the agent should have signed it on their behalf - and the fact that they took your deposit and up-front payment and handed you the keys probably implies agreement from the (but we cannot give legal advice).

But, AFAIK, within the first six months, the LL can give you notice for just about any reason: the fact that they say it's 'cos you're untidy is just a handy line, most likely. Unless you and the general population have different ideas about what counts as untidy vs living in a kip.

Personally I wouldn't be that thrilled with any tenant who came up with a snaglist within a short time of moving in: what was good enough for them when they viewed the place clearly isn't good enough for them any more, so they're likely to be needy and annoying for the duration. And if I found that they were doing other dodgy stuff, like living in an attic, then I'd be moving to end things pretty quickly.

Good luck with repairing the relationship: a good first step is to get the unauthorised tenant out of the place, tidy up and invite a re-inspection.

the_syco

james12326 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. In relation to the attic, the estate agent basically told us to use that as a bedroom as the box room is tiny.

Have they written it down?

Also, you could argue it was untidy because work was being carried out. The subletting part you could probably fight if the person is now gone.

Open a case with the PTRB, and state that the agent told them that you could use the attic. Have you had any prior interaction with the landlord?

james12326 wrote: »

The estate agent we deal with now says that the landlord didn't sign the lease and so is free to kick us out.

Who did you pay the deposit to? As said, you're not there that long so could be kicked out without notice. I'd look around, but be prepared to fight to get your deposit back.

james12326

Thanks again everyone. I perhaps used 'snag list' incorrectly, there were somethings that were broken when we moved in and we wanted on the record that we couldnt have noticed during our viewing of the property. The toilet flooded the first time we flushed in and water went straight through the kitchen ceiling - hence the use of the word 'snag list'!

cerastes

barneyrubble46 wrote: »

This issue is more clear cut than you think, firstly speak to your landlord, aplologise if needs be and try and resolve with him, if he still wants to evict you, then you must raise a case with the PRTB this will protect you from eviction. Secondly the landlord illegally entered your home, thats right your home not his. Regardless of who he was with, you arranged for a plumber not plumber and landlord to call. He has no right to take photographs of the interior your home without your permission this is totally illegal. and finally it is very difficult to evict someone these days, stand firm and do not under any circumstances let this landlord intimidate you. Good luck

The issue may seem fairly clear cut, but none of us know for sure. We dont know what arrangement or agreement existed with the tenant regarding moving in or inspection visits or with regard to repairs.
It seems reasonable the landlord responded promptly to a snag list and would want to go along with a trades person, in the least it protects the tenant if the landlord doesnt know the tradesperson and its backup for the trades person that they are not accused of taking anything if the landlord is there, perhaps the landlord wanted to see what the problem was and get it fixed and assess the severity of it too and a camera might be required for records to determine and record the cause.

What is clear is the tenant moved in people that are not on the lease, certainly not a good idea ever, but in under a months residence, its obvious to see why the landlord might be unhappy, to add to that, the landlord is legally entitled to evict a tenant in the first six months without any reason, but what reasonable landlord would do that? requiring the money for rental, its not known if the landlord isnt registered, but for certain the tenant hasnt put them in the best situation either.

I wouldnt say there is any limitations on a landlord taking photographs of their property as they could be taking it along for the reported issues, besides how else do they prove any damage if its put to insurance, but they found a bed in an attic room that wasnt a bedroom and then moved people in too into the bargain. That could invalidate the property insurance and that itself is a breach of the tenancy act.
If the tenant declines to be evicted, it would be on their heads on top of everything else and that is bad advice you are giving as its contrary to the law.
Having said a landlord could evict inside 6 months without a reason or even cause, they could still evict for moving in extra people even after 6 months as its a breach of the tenancy agreement if those people werent on the lease.

OP, Id go with begging bowl in hand, apologise, move the bed out and the extra people and hope the landlord agrees to allow you to stay, No one needs to be in a dispute and its very easy for people to get fired up and advise you of such when they dont have to go through the hassle themselves, seems like a good landlord repsonding to snags promptly and discovered some breaches.

Be honest, what was the intention for these visitors, when you made extar space for them by occupying another room as a bedroom? it looks suspicious to me.

foggy_lad

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Do you have proof that it was the LL and not the plumber who took the photos?

The agent saying that the LL never signed the lease is bollox: the agent should have signed it on their behalf - and the fact that they took your deposit and up-front payment and handed you the keys probably implies agreement from the (but we cannot give legal advice).

But, AFAIK, within the first six months, the LL can give you notice for just about any reason: the fact that they say it's 'cos you're untidy is just a handy line, most likely. Unless you and the general population have different ideas about what counts as untidy vs living in a kip.

Personally I wouldn't be that thrilled with any tenant who came up with a snaglist within a short time of moving in: what was good enough for them when they viewed the place clearly isn't good enough for them any more, so they're likely to be needy and annoying for the duration. And if I found that they were doing other dodgy stuff, like living in an attic, then I'd be moving to end things pretty quickly.

Good luck with repairing the relationship: a good first step is to get the unauthorised tenant out of the place, tidy up and invite a re-inspection.

So we now have proof of an unauthorised tenant?

If I moved in and found some issues which would/could not reasonably be found by a fairly thorough inspection I would make a list for my agent or Landlord and would expect them to act on it in a timely manner. (stuff not working properly is not obvious until you move in and start using things like washing machines and cookers etc) Snag lists are very common and only Cowboy landlords will have any issue with them.

The OP moved in after payment of a deposit and agreement to the lease so a signature is not required as there is a verbal agreement in place.

The Landlord can evict without reason in the first 6 months but it could take a year or more to effect the eviction if the OP were to "dig in". See Michael D's post below.

Michael D Not Higgins

foggy_lad wrote: »

The Landlord can evict without reason in the first 6 months but it could take a year or more to effect the eviction if the OP were to "dig in".

Pretty sure this is only with period tenancies, not fixed term which is the norm (and I assume is the case with this tenancy). This is why the agent is saying the landlord didn't sign the lease in order to make it seem like there's only a periodic tenancy in effect.

Beaner1

Apologise and grovel? Tell him to **** off is the only reasonable thing to do.

AlanG

Were you paying for the plumber? If not it is reasonable for the landlord to accompany the plumber and unlikely you would have much grounds to complain as you gave an implied right of entry for the work to be carried out – carrying out the work includes confirmation by the bill payer that it is completed.
Where did you get the double bed to put in the attic? Was it in the tiny box room or did you bring in an extra bed to the house. If you did you have no real grounds for complaint.
The mess of the place is irrelevant to the landlord if it is not visible from outside and would not cause dampness etc.
Apologise and try to work something out if you really like the place – otherwise save the hassle and leave.

Grandpa Hassan

foggy_lad wrote: »

Having a visitor or two staying for a few days from time to time is allowed!

The OP has converted a room to a bedroom, and had someone staying in it. As a LL, supposedly for someone staying 2 days. That would just look like someone had been moved in. A bf / gf staying is one thing, or a mate on a couch. But setting up a spare bedroom suggests more than a 2 day arrangement.

If went to the PTRB, the LL would be fined for illegal every, but suspect that the eviction would be upheld. The tenant would have to argue the case. And converting the room compromises the argument that it was just for a stay over

AlanG

Doom wrote: »

Landlord is guilty of unlawful entry...call to the gardai.

This is rubbish - you you agreed for the work to be done by the plumber you gave implied consent for the landlord to enter to inspect the work.

Grolschevik

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

The OP has converted a room to a bedroom, and had someone staying in it. As a LL, supposedly for someone staying 2 days. That would just look like someone had been moved in. A bf / gf staying is one thing, or a mate on a couch. But setting up a spare bedroom suggests more than a 2 day arrangement.

No. The original post says the OP moved into attic room that was not previously a bedroom.

Their guest stayed a couple of days in the (existing) box room bedroom.

Michael D Not Higgins

AlanG wrote: »

Were you paying for the plumber? If not it is reasonable for the landlord to accompany the plumber and unlikely you would have much grounds to complain as you gave an implied right of entry for the work to be carried out – carrying out the work includes confirmation by the bill payer that it is completed.

There's no such thing as implied right of entry. The landlord may not enter the tenant's home without their permission.

Edit: nonetheless, their entry to allow work to take place is a separate issue to the entry of the landlord in order to inspect the dwelling. Both are allowable with agreement from the tenant but you can't enter under one premise to carry out the other.

AlanG

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

There's no such thing as implied right of entry. The landlord may not enter the tenant's home without their permission.

There is of course. If the plumbers boss turned up and came in you couldn't have them arrested for breaking and entry. Implied consent and implied contracts are an established aspect of law and may well be relevant in this case.

It is true that that implied consent may be limited to the work required and may not include inspecting the attic but there is no doubt that there can be an implied right of entry. Next time you have a worker in and his co-worker / supplier / boss arrives and enters your premises try to have them arrested and charged if you want to test the law.

Michael D Not Higgins

AlanG wrote: »

There is of course. If the plumbers boss turned up and came in you couldn't have them arrested for breaking and entry. Implied consent and implied contracts are an established aspect of law and may well be relevant in this case.

It is true that that implied consent may be limited to the work required and may not include inspecting the attic but there is no doubt that there can be an implied right of entry. Next time you have a worker in and his co-worker / supplier / boss arrives and enters your premises try to have them arrested and charged if you want to test the law.

Apologies I have clarified my post while you were compiling this. We are in agreement that the landlord can enter but cannot conduct an inspection, thus the landlord's entry is unlawful, which is what we were getting at in the first place.

AlanG

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Apologies I have clarified my post while you were compiling this. We are in agreement that the landlord can enter but cannot conduct an inspection, thus the landlord's entry is unlawful, which is what we were getting at in the first place.

Agreed - I am not totally one side or the other on this case but I think the advice being given for the OP to be confrontational with the landlord is counterproductive and unlikely to leave him better off.
The landlord can argue that he had to enter to inspect the plumbers work before the plumber was paid. (alternatively leaking pipes are considered an emergency in which case a landlord can legally enter a premises if they are severe enough) He may also stretch this to argue that as it was a water leak he had to check the attic area to ensure the source was not there or to turn off the water. Seeing the storage area being used as a bedroom against fire regulations he would be obliged to issue a warning to the OP.
I do not think this alone would be grounds for eviction but it all depends on whether the OP added a new bed to the house in the storage area or took it from an existing bed space.

james12326

Thanks again guys. We gave our permission for the plumber to enter, but we requested advance notice of this - which never received.

CatFromHue

You could get on to the estate agent and get them to confirm they said you could use the attic as a room instead of the box room.

foggy_lad

cerastes wrote: »

The issue may seem fairly clear cut, but none of us know for sure. We dont know what arrangement or agreement existed with the tenant regarding moving in or inspection visits or with regard to repairs.
It seems reasonable the landlord responded promptly to a snag list and would want to go along with a trades person, in the least it protects the tenant if the landlord doesnt know the tradesperson and its backup for the trades person that they are not accused of taking anything if the landlord is there, perhaps the landlord wanted to see what the problem was and get it fixed and assess the severity of it too and a camera might be required for records to determine and record the cause.

Even with repairs and work being carried out by tradespeople the landlord still must get permission before entering the property. Tenant does not know the workers but also does not know the landlord who might also steal from them or go through the tenants belongings and sniff their drawers!

What is clear is the tenant moved in people that are not on the lease, certainly not a good idea ever, but in under a months residence, its obvious to see why the landlord might be unhappy, to add to that, the landlord is legally entitled to evict a tenant in the first six months without any reason, but what reasonable landlord would do that? requiring the money for rental, its not known if the landlord isnt registered, but for certain the tenant hasnt put them in the best situation either.

I see no evidence of anyone being "moved in"!

As a tenant you live in the property as if it were your own but are not allowed change the layout or break through walls etc without the consent of the Landlord.

I wouldnt say there is any limitations on a landlord taking photographs of their property as they could be taking it along for the reported issues, besides how else do they prove any damage if its put to insurance, but they found a bed in an attic room that wasnt a bedroom and then moved people in too into the bargain. That could invalidate the property insurance and that itself is a breach of the tenancy act.
If the tenant declines to be evicted, it would be on their heads on top of everything else and that is bad advice you are giving as its contrary to the law.
Having said a landlord could evict inside 6 months without a reason or even cause, they could still evict for moving in extra people even after 6 months as its a breach of the tenancy agreement if those people werent on the lease.

OP stated they were told to use the attic by the agent, if the Landlord didnt want this room used it should have been blocked off or put beyond use by taking up the floor and removing the fuses for the attic.

OP, Id go with begging bowl in hand, apologise, move the bed out and the extra people and hope the landlord agrees to allow you to stay, No one needs to be in a dispute and its very easy for people to get fired up and advise you of such when they dont have to go through the hassle themselves, seems like a good landlord responding to snags promptly and discovered some breaches.

Be honest, what was the intention for these visitors, when you made extra space for them by occupying another room as a bedroom? it looks suspicious to me.

While it may look suspicious it is not really backed up by facts like Fact: the landlord entered illegally and took pictures as well as going through the clothes in the attic, fact: there is a lease in effect despite the landlord and agents attempts to deny the tenant their rights.

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

The OP has converted a room to a bedroom, and had someone staying in it. As a LL, supposedly for someone staying 2 days. That would just look like someone had been moved in. A bf / gf staying is one thing, or a mate on a couch. But setting up a spare bedroom suggests more than a 2 day arrangement.

If went to the PTRB, the LL would be fined for illegal every, but suspect that the eviction would be upheld. The tenant would have to argue the case. And converting the room compromises the argument that it was just for a stay over

If I have someone staying over I will set up a bed in my spare room for them, there is a dismantled bed and I will assemble it and clear out the spare room even if the person is only expected to stay one night. It is not the landlords business or concern if I do this and if I have visitors but in this case it seems tha OP was told to use this attic room by the agent.

Shelflife

A few minor points.

The tenant wrote to the LL asking him to fix some problems, it was a serious plumbing job according to the Tenant.

If permission was given for the plumber to enter the property , then how was the property to be entered unless the LL was there with a key to them them in.

Is it not reasonable to expect the LL to check out the problem first and see if a plumber is needed? I got a call from a tenant that the electrics in the kitchen were shot, turned out it was cheap bulbs been used-- an expensive way to find out would have been to call out a sparky.

To me the letter is an invitation to the LL to enter, Manners would dictate that a call to make sure that particular day was ok would have been in order. It would also be reasonable to inspect for any further water damage in the house.

Its a bit of an overreaction to call the LL a drawer sniffing c*$t when all they have done is to respond to a problem of a serious nature.

He shouldnt have taken pictures imo, and perhaps he has been stung in the past and just wants to get the official ball rolling in case there is a problem down the road.

I would suggest that the OP chats to the LL and see if they can sort this out in an adult manner.

jmayo

whippet wrote: »

We are just getting the OPs version of events, from what I can make out it seems that the OP has moved extra tenants in, utilising the attic space as living quarters which is probably in contravention to the lease.

The landlord has spotted this when following up on the snag list the tenant gave him and decided that this contravention to the lease agreement is worrying enough that he does not want to have the OP as a tenant anymore - nothing worse than a bad start.

The op can of course go to the PRTB, however, if they are in contravention of the lease and the landlord follows the eviction process properly there might not be a case to be answered.

By the sounds of it the landlord seems to be decent enough, following up on a snag list with tradesmen and not allowing an attic as a living space.

Let me guess you are a landlord :rolleyes:

Your post smacks of an attitude a fair few landlrods show around here.

In the one post you manage to somehow figure out the lardlord is a decent enough sort whilst at the same time implying that the OP i.e. the tenant, is as good as lying by alluding to fact they are only giving "their version of events".

I could just as easily claim the landlord was a nosey perv and the OP is sound out.

Then we have yet more people suddently claiming that the tenant is subletting to all and sundry when they never mentioned anything of the sort.
AFAIK they actually said someone stayed a few days in the box room.
They never said they were living there.

OP should have talk with landlord and see if they can settle it.
If not amicable then no reason why OP should bend over backwards to accommodate someone who has no respect for their privacy.

Eldarion

Lots of strongly worded posts on both sides of this one. Hate to say it to the tenant-side but there's justifiable reason for the landlord to have entered the property here when there's a plumbing issue involved. Any solicitor worth their salt will find any line of communication from the tenant that involves water/leaking/plumbing and classify it as grounds for immediate repair to preserve the asset/living conditions.

Everything after this point becomes a bit grey. There's no rule against him taking pictures, especially given that the tenants provided him with a snag list of repairs. It's his duty to carry out these repairs if they're deemed to be needed so he has to inspect the property. He's already on site, this can be argued quite reasonably from his side.

The only thing he's playing silly with is the "not signing the lease" part. This is completely meaningless and he has more than enough grounds to issue an eviction given it's within the 6 month period.

cerastes

CatFromHue wrote: »

You could get on to the estate agent and get them to confirm they said you could use the attic as a room instead of the box room.

Means nothing, if its not a room, and not advertised as a room, or for that number when it didnt have a bed in it, means it wasnt even let with that consideration. It makes it clear the landlord didnt intend for it to be a bedroom and if there is nothing in writing then thats as far as that goes. Next off, where did the bed come from? it wasnt in the tiny room as mentioned by the OP, so that means they brought this in themselves, looks like an intent to make a permanent arrangement not agreed to in a lease to me. The agent might have said that it could be used, but it means nothing if its not in the lease, the landlord needs no excuse to end this if its part 4 and if its fixed he has just cause..

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Pretty sure this is only with period tenancies, not fixed term which is the norm (and I assume is the case with this tenancy). This is why the agent is saying the landlord didn't sign the lease in order to make it seem like there's only a periodic tenancy in effect.

You assume? Any breach of contract can end any tenancy at anytime, in a part 4 tenancy, the landlord is not required to give any reason within the first six months, this is the time for a landlord to spot trouble, if the guy wasnt on the ball about the plumbing, you'd have posters weighing in against him for not doing the repair or quickly enough, if I was the OP I'd steer away from threatening a certain course of action or hardline viewpoint as you will certainly end up out the door, apologise try extricate everyone from the situation, as they said, they couldnt afford to move, rectify the situation, get the extra person out and expect regular inspections. It doesnt look good though, regardless of what the circumstances are, a landlord going in there, seeing the extra bed is going to think, permanent fixture, extra person taking permanent residence, no permission, toilet leaked, through ceiling, place in a mess, and I cant see how people are coming down against the landlord other than a fixed blinkered view landlords bad tenants good mentality.

Eldarion wrote: »

The only thing he's playing silly with is the "not signing the lease" part. This is completely meaningless and he has more than enough grounds to issue an eviction given it's within the 6 month period.

If the estate agent signed the lease then he is the appointed "agent" as per the meaning in the tenancy act. As for the landlord not being PRTB registered as someone else mentioned, its barely a month, its possible they are, its in process or its getting done, guy seems proactive enough to me, and I think the PRTB will view this on its merits and lack of.

Looking at the facts that have been presented, I would suggest the OP steer away from the confrontational view as that will only reinforce the landlords opinion and he will then still be in his rights and maybe absolutely certain what he will do, sure maybe he wasnt happy OP, but maybe he's calmed down, Id be seriously annoyed if I discovered what he had, can anyone say they wouldnt, what was it? , sounds like a bit of a joke, plus, the place being in an absolute state a month in is not a good sign. If he has had a trouble free previous tenants and suddenly the toilet isnt working, leaks, and all the other stuff, I can absolutely say, Id be moving these people on before it gets worse.

I suggest crawling OP, seriously, you cannot say you're in the right here, are you even sure the toilet isnt your problem, these are not things that just go arse over elbow suddenly.


I just re read the OP,
If you werent happy with the "tiny" room, why did you take the property?
Also, items such as plumbing snags escalated to leaked through ceiling after lease signed, these are things both landlords and tenants need to confirm and sign off on with a detailed checklist before leaving each other to their respective landlord/tenant positions.

mirrorwall14

For me the massive overstep by the landlord is entering and photographing bedrooms without the knowledge or consent of the tenants. If I came home to find that the landlord had been poking around my room I would be livid. it is really really unlikely that the plumbing issue affects all of the bedrooms and the attic, at least not in a standard three bed! Never mind the fact that tenants asked for advance notice and the landlord didn't give it.

The bedroom use etc is a different issue and the landlord would have spotted it anyways if he had organised a proper inspection. I'm still not sure if a jump to eviction would be warranted. I would have assumed that the tenants should be given notice to remedy the situation first. Could be wrong there though

Michael D Not Higgins

cerastes wrote: »

You assume? Any breach of contract can end any tenancy at anytime, in a part 4 tenancy, the landlord is not required to give any reason within the first six months, this is the time for a landlord to spot trouble

Except it's not a periodic or part 4 tenancy and any breach of contract won't end the lease. The PRTB will determine that.

cerastes

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

For me the massive overstep by the landlord is entering and photographing bedrooms without the knowledge or consent of the tenants. If I came home to find that the landlord had been poking around my room I would be livid. it is really really unlikely that the plumbing issue affects all of the bedrooms and the attic, at least not in a standard three bed! Never mind the fact that tenants asked for advance notice and the landlord didn't give it.

The bedroom use etc is a different issue and the landlord would have spotted it anyways if he had organised a proper inspection. I'm still not sure if a jump to eviction would be warranted. I would have assumed that the tenants should be given notice to remedy the situation first. Could be wrong there though

I dont believe the OP said the landlord took pictures of the bedroom, the OP said "the landlord took loads of pictures, the bedrooms were untidy" you joined the two together, while its reasonable enough to think he did that it is still jumping to conclusion, but if the place is in a state a month in, along with some serious damage, it sounds like the landlord is warranted in taking pictures.
If the OP has invited the landlord to carry out repairs, and the OP by their own admission claimed they arent in the house much how does he expect the landlord to do the work or get it done?(OPs own explanation for the mess?? in work all the time, no one is doing more than 12 hours a day for more than a 5 days and most are doing less, ie the legal requirement, which I believe is on average 39-42 hrs and no more than 48hrs in a week, but thats an aside, still loads of time to clean up in the rest of the week or in time off the following week).
Op invited the landlord to complete the repairs and got caught on the hop.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Except it's not a periodic or part 4 tenancy and any breach of contract won't end the lease. The PRTB will determine that.

Its not a part 4 lease? can you clarify where the OP said they had a fixed term lease originally?
Breach of contract can end any lease, so your point is not relevant.

The thing is, landlord gets a snag list early on, OP doesnt mention the extent of the seriousness of the problem which if it was accurate should have been in his opening post.
If this is accurate, the house being in a mess only a month in, concurrent with some massive plumbing issue (leaking plumbing into the downstairs)
which seems to have caught the landlord by surprise but which he attends to promptly is slated here. Landlord discovers the place is a dump, extra bed in a room not suited or advertised as a bedroom, where its obvious someone else is staying in the "tiny" room, its very reasonable the landlord would want to try and trace the extent of any leak and was invited by the OPs snag list, if he didnt landlord would be in breach of his obligations, that he is complying discovers that in all likelyhood, his insurance would be invalidated, not to mention extra hazard of both fire or other safety concern of tenants keeping place in a mess, OP not happy caught out, as whether the person was staying for a few days as they claim, it looks remarkably suspicious along with other problems a month into a tenancy, sounds like problem tenants.


I would not stand by anyone who was doing wrong ie a landlord or tenant,
but some people here only see the landlord as being wrong and the tenant as always being right.
How often in anyones own home has the plumbing leaked through the ceiling compared to how often you hear this with rented properties? the ones where landlords are denied access to? the OP has either carelessly or unwittingly made themself look party to a reckless attitude to being responsible about looking after the property, its no wonder the landlord has taken a dim view of this and has decided enough is enough.
In many circumstances I couldnt care less if the landlord is dealt with properly, but this isnt one of them.
If it was me, Id be getting the plumber to investigate the cause of the major leak and ensure someone hadnt flushed a sock down the toilet, hopefully he's done a full handover checklist.

jack1000

Why couldn't the landlord go into the house. Is he just to take the ops word for the problems that were wrong?Maybe he fixed them himself and never even got a plumber. The op said there were multiple problems to fix. Maybe he had to go up to the attic to fix some of them or to turn off water to drain the tank. Maybe he had to check radiators in the bedrooms.

The fact is if the open converted a room into a bedroom it is them that is in the wrong. End of story.

Michael D Not Higgins

cerastes wrote: »

Its not a part 4 lease? can you clarify where the OP said they had a fixed term lease originally?
Breach of contract can end any lease, so your point is not relevant.

No it's not a part 4, that only happens after 6 months. And it's not a period tenancy. That rarely happens. 99% of everyone sign a year lease. It's just standard and you're arguing for the sake of it.

And no, breach of lease doesn't end the tenancy. If you don't pay the rent on time, that breaches the lease, doesn't end the tenancy though. If the landlord doesn't do maintenance, that breaches the lease, doesn't end the tenancy either. In the real world, these issues are addressed without going for the eviction notice.

We have to go on what information is given here. Sure, you can jump to conclusions and say the tenant probably had another bedroom set up permanently, just as I can assume the lease is fixed term. But all we can say is take it to the PRTB and plead the case and keep paying rent in the meantime. It should get the landlord looking for another solution in the meantime at least.

jack1000

If the op has a copy of the lease then they have a lease. If they don't have a copy of it then they don't have one. It is not jumping to a conclusion to say thay they converted a room to a bedroom. They admit they did it.

cerastes

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

No it's not a part 4, that only happens after 6 months. And it's not a period tenancy. That rarely happens. 99% of everyone sign a year lease. It's just standard and you're arguing for the sake of it.

And no, breach of lease doesn't end the tenancy. If you don't pay the rent on time, that breaches the lease, doesn't end the tenancy though. If the landlord doesn't do maintenance, that breaches the lease, doesn't end the tenancy either. In the real world, these issues are addressed without going for the eviction notice.

We have to go on what information is given here. Sure, you can jump to conclusions and say the tenant probably had another bedroom set up permanently, just as I can assume the lease is fixed term. But all we can say is take it to the PRTB and plead the case and keep paying rent in the meantime. It should get the landlord looking for another solution in the meantime at least.

Im not arguing for the sake of it, you brought up that its not part 4 or periodic??? if they dont have a fixed term lease and they have a lease, then the only possibility is that they have a part 4 lease. Even a fixed term lease has the rights of part 4.
However as it seems they dont have fixed lease, they appear to have a part 4 unless one or the other is clarified by the OP.
A part 4 (not a fixed term of whatever term) can be terminated in the first 6 months for any or no reason, no reason needs to be given.

You suggested any breach of contract wont determine that, in some regard that could be considered to be correct OR HAVE 2 MEANINGS, but Im unsure if you meant it as you worded it.
As it matters not what has occured, simply as a landlord could see all the mess and say, to hell with this lark, Im getting these people out of here now while I can, right, Im giving you notice when thats done off you go lads/ladies, no excuses, no explanations required on the landlords part whatsoever.
However if during the first six months there is a breach of contract, then the landlord could get rid of someone on that basis, but they dont really need to go into that who ha, as they are not under any obligation to explain themselves, this as far as I understand is to account and allow for the landlord to determine what kind of people his/her tenants are.


It really is the tenant that needs to provide the solution, as they can be out on their ear. The landlord can terminate the tenancy and cite those reasons, the PRTB rely and expect a landlord to provide evidence, in this case the landlord could proceed with the eviction process, open a case against the tenants for costs, ie damage to the property,

I suggest the tenant, makes good with the landlord, either finds out can the attic room be covered under insurance, if not, not to use it for that purpose.
If the OP or their co tenants werent happy with the tiny room they should not have taken the property, and this comes up time and again, where people sign leases and then complain in hindsight about obvious things which are plain to see.
Either they decided among themselves or were encouraged to use the attic as a bedroom by the agent, but if this isnt in the lease or what the owner/landlord wanted, do you really think the agent will admit that? if it was the case, but its as likely it isnt the case.

If this was one instance of a problem, but in the space of one month, maybe the landlord might have seen otherwise, but property damage, undetermined, however when you see messy people, that means a disregard for the property, its as likely this has somehow led to the toilet floding/leak problem, along with a person using an extra room/attic room discovered to not intended as a bedroom, probably not covered by insurance for the landlord, that alone is a breach of agreement in the tenancy act, for the tenants not to do anything by act or omission to invalidate the landlords insurance or to cause the landlord to be in breach of their obligations, one of which is to insure the property structurally.

Generally non payment of rent is the main breach and one under which tenants can hang themselves out to dry, however if someone is going to do something that invalidates the insurance on the asset (property) there is no point in having them there, the PRTB wont stand over any complaint of breaches of tenant obligations or invalidating insurance.

The best thing is for the OP to go to the landlord, ask for the landlord to rescind the notice to quit, act like grown ups, treat the place like they would treat friends home, which means look after it, expect after this regular inspections up till the six months, if after that if they act the dick thinking they have post 6 month protection, Id expect to have a case taken against them via the PRTB to quit.
Any other douchbaggery suggests the tenants to be wrong and the landlord to be right, but one month in how can anyone say whats occured is going to go down well? If you did that in any house, your mates or a relatives or anyones, you'd be rightly kicked out on the spot.
Letting comes with rights and obligations for both parties on the lease.

daithi7

I'd kick you out if I was your landlord.

You've given him snag lists, the place is in a mess after only a month, there's a stranger in one room and ye've moved a bed up and belongings up into the attic.(fire, insurance, potential claim, etc, etc)

I mean come on. Just move on and maybe treat your next house& landlord with a bit more respect. Even the fact that you're on here, trying to learn about your rights is fishy imho. Ffs!!

foggy_lad

The attic was converted to a room, obviously an extra bedroom, and the op was given permission to use it by the agent.

The landlord gave no proper notice of his visit nor did he give notice of any inspection. It is not reasonable to expect that the landlord might show up with the plumber unless he actually stated that he will be there. He entered the property without permission of the tenant and proceeded to further invade the tenants privacy by taking pictures.

cerastes

foggy_lad wrote: »

The attic was converted to a room, obviously an extra bedroom, and the op was given permission to use it by the agent.

The landlord gave no proper notice of his visit nor did he give notice of any inspection. It is not reasonable to expect that the landlord might show up with the plumber unless he actually stated that he will be there. He entered the property without permission of the tenant and proceeded to further invade the tenants privacy by taking pictures.

How is it obvious, clairvoyance? how can you come to that conclusion unless you have serious bias in favour of the OP? many an attic is converted as playroom or storage, it doesnt mean it complies with building regulations as a room nor does it mean it is insured as such.
The OP may have said the agent suggested they use the room as a bedroom but that doesnt correspond with permission, and not from the owner/landlord, the agent is in error to suggest that if thats what was said and the tenants knew well they let the house on the basis of 3 people, by the OPs own admission, the landlord is kicking them out as he suspects they have more people in the house, than on the lease, although the landlord is not required to give any reason.

Its not reasonable to expect the landlord might turn up with a plumber? after the tenant reported that a toilet had overflowed and water came through the ceiling below, are you having a laugh, is this whole thread a wind up??
The tenant invited the landlord to get repairs done, either the landlord is a plumber or is engaging a plumber to do this, in the least he is going to need to inspect the property, the OP and co tenants were caught on the hop, crapped themselves when they realised the state of the place and are now trying to counter their own negligence.
I sincerely hope this guy has his ducks in a row, and deals with things appropriately.
Encouraging the OP to take a militant stance wont do them any favours based on the state they have made the place in a month.

All you need to think is, if you were in this persons shoes, would you accept at face value if a number of issues this serious reared their head in a month and this was your property or relate that to anything you own and someone treated something which you had worked for with such disdain, in such a short time, I doubt it.

Michael D Not Higgins

The landlord is required to give a reason and it's not a part 4. A part 4 is only in effect after 6 months. It is almost surely a fixed term and not a periodic tenancy (also periodic is different to a part 4).

You're now claiming they broke the toilet too and claim we're favouring the tenant? You're clearly showing bias to the landlord with your leaps in logic.

The agent acting for the landlord said they could use the attic as a bedroom. They did so in good faith. They had a friend stay. We have to take his word that it was just a couple of days. No breach of lease, except from the landlord who didn't give proper notice of inspection or receive permission of such.

Eldarion

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The landlord is required to give a reason and it's not a part 4. A part 4 is only in effect after 6 months. It is almost surely a fixed term and not a periodic tenancy (also periodic is different to a part 4).

You're now claiming they broke the toilet too and claim we're favouring the tenant? You're clearly showing bias to the landlord with your leaps in logic.

The agent acting for the landlord said they could use the attic as a bedroom. They did so in good faith. They had a friend stay. We have to take his word that it was just a couple of days. No breach of lease, except from the landlord who didn't give proper notice of inspection or receive permission of such.

Subletting is a fairly common stipulation to be called out as not allowed on a standard Fixed term lease. Breach of lease within the first 6 months, tenant doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Landlord does not have to give proper notice of inspection or receive permission when there is viable ongoing property damage or requirement for emergency repairs. Water reaching the downstairs ceiling from an upstairs plumbing issue definitely qualifies in this regard.

Michael D Not Higgins

Eldarion wrote: »

Subletting is a fairly common stipulation to be called out as not allowed on a standard Fixed term lease. Breach of lease within the first 6 months, tenant doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Landlord does not have to give proper notice of inspection or receive permission when there is viable ongoing property damage or requirement for emergency repairs. Water reaching the downstairs ceiling from an upstairs plumbing issue definitely qualifies in this regard.

This is assuming they did breach the lease by subletting without permission. As the OP tells it, they had a friend stay for a couple of days. Of course, we're taking him at his word for that, but if the box room had a wardrobe full of clothes and it looked like someone had permanently moved into it, then you can see where the landlord is coming from.

They can either sort it out with the landlord or go to the PRTB, but we have only one side of the story and I'd say the PRTB will have to get involved if the landlord was willing to jump to eviction straight off.