Notifying Landlord Of Tenants...

UCDVet

I understand that I have an obligation to inform the landlord who is living at the property.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/tenants_rights_and_obligations.html

Inform the landlord of who is living in the property

My question is - what happens if the landlord does not approve? Assume there is no specific mention of the number of people living in the place in the lease.

For example, if my wife and I are renting an apartment and want to save some money by having someone move in with us. If I notify the landlord there will be a 3rd person, does he have any right to say 'no'. And if he does, what does that mean for our lease obligation?

Thanks!

athtrasna

UCDVet wrote: »

I understand that I have an obligation to inform the landlord who is living at the property.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/tenants_rights_and_obligations.html


My question is - what happens if the landlord does not approve? Assume there is no specific mention of the number of people living in the place in the lease.

For example, if my wife and I are renting an apartment and want to save some money by having someone move in with us. If I notify the landlord there will be a 3rd person, does he have any right to say 'no'. And if he does, what does that mean for our lease obligation?

Thanks!

Most leases have clauses that prohibit sub letting like that

The_Morrigan

The named tenants in the lease are the tenants. Anyone you wish to move in is a licencee. The landlord can refuse this arrangement as they have no contract with the person.

ABajaninCork

The landlord has the right to say 'No'. He also has the right to put up the rent if a third person is living there...

UCDVet

athtrasna wrote: »

Most leases have clauses that prohibit sub letting like that

Assume they aren't paying rent, but would be sharing in the utility bills. Would that qualify as sub-letting?

The_Morrigan

UCDVet wrote: »

Assume they aren't paying rent, but would be sharing in the utility bills. Would that qualify as sub-letting?

Seriously?

UCDVet

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Seriously?

Yes. Think family member who will help out with bills, chores, and babysitting, but who will not have a lease or pay rent to me directly.

In that situation, I understand that I would need to notify the landlord; but I'm confused by the wording of it. Does the landlord not have the ability to say, 'No way, that's too many people!'?

The_Morrigan

UCDVet wrote: »

Yes. Think family member who will help out with bills, chores, and babysitting, but who will not have a lease or pay rent to me directly.

In that situation, I understand that I would need to notify the landlord; but I'm confused by the wording of it. Does the landlord not have the ability to say, 'No way, that's too many people!'?

I wouldn't allow it. If the person is there with the landlords permission but not on the lease there is a whole host of legal minefields ahead. The landlord has no recourse with regards to this person. There is increased usage within the house with regards to utilities (negating your reason) and there is increased wear and tear.

UCDVet

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I wouldn't allow it. If the person is there with the landlords permission but not on the lease there is a whole host of legal minefields ahead. The landlord has no recourse with regards to this person. There is increased usage within the house with regards to utilities (negating your reason) and there is increased wear and tear.

So, ultimately, the landlord needs to *approve* anyone who comes to live in the place their place and have the right to either say 'no' or modify the terms of the rental agreement. And, presumably if the landlord and tenant cannot come to a consensus, the tenant has to maintain the original terms of the lease?

Does that sound about right to you?

I really appreciate all the info - I did search online but I always seem to have trouble finding this stuff.

Does anyone know if there is any technical definition between an overnight 'visitor' and a new person residing at the place?

I found this:

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

But it would really help me out if I knew what that meant. If someone stays for....two months, consecutively, but then leaves and never returns, would that need the landlords approval? One month? two weeks? etc... or is it like total days per year?

The_Morrigan

UCDVet wrote: »

So, ultimately, the landlord needs to *approve* anyone who comes to live in the place their place and have the right to either say 'no' or modify the terms of the rental agreement. And, presumably if the landlord and tenant cannot come to a consensus, the tenant has to maintain the original terms of the lease?

Does that sound about right to you?

I really appreciate all the info - I did search online but I always seem to have trouble finding this stuff.

Does anyone know if there is any technical definition between an overnight 'visitor' and a new person residing at the place?

Yes that's about right.

It's a guest or licencee....but the licencee should be granted permission by the owner, which you are not.
To be honest I don't think anyone in their right mind would allow another person to stay in their property without having the arrangement legally airtight.

UCDVet

Thanks everyone for answering my original question regarding whether or not the landlord has the ability to say 'no' to the required notification of people moving in.

I now have an entirely separate question.

How Long Can A Guest Stay Without Notifying The Landlord?

In cases where the lease doesn't explicitly say anything on the matter. Is there any legal definition. I understand that the legislature says:

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

But I'm looking for a more specific meaning. In my mind - if someone is 'visiting' it's for a few days. More than that, and they are residing in the place. But I've spoken to other people who say that the visit could be a few months at a time.

Even though this is an entirely different question from my original question, I'm posting it in this thread. I hope that isn't confusing. Thanks

mirrorwall14

UCDVet wrote: »

Thanks everyone for answering my original question regarding whether or not the landlord has the ability to say 'no' to the required notification of people moving in.

I now have an entirely separate question.



In cases where the lease doesn't explicitly say anything on the matter. Is there any legal definition. I understand that the legislature says:



But I'm looking for a more specific meaning. In my mind - if someone is 'visiting' it's for a few days. More than that, and they are residing in the place. But I've spoken to other people who say that the visit could be a few months at a time.

Even though this is an entirely different question from my original question, I'm posting it in this thread. I hope that isn't confusing. Thanks

A visit is not a few months particularly when you are a tenant. If you owned the house you might have a bit more discretion but not when renthng

The_Morrigan

It's not a different question, you are just trying to get your way and you're rules lawyering to achieve it.

If you have another person moving into the house then the landlord is well within their rights to veto it. Stop trying to find workarounds and talk to your landlord.

ted1

UCDVet wrote: »

So, ultimately, the landlord needs to *approve* anyone who comes to live in the place their place and have the right to either say 'no' or modify the terms of the rental agreement. And, presumably if the landlord and tenant cannot come to a consensus, the tenant has to maintain the original terms of the lease?

Does that sound about right to you?

I really appreciate all the info - I did search online but I always seem to have trouble finding this stuff.

Does anyone know if there is any technical definition between an overnight 'visitor' and a new person residing at the place?

I found this:


But it would really help me out if I knew what that meant. If someone stays for....two months, consecutively, but then leaves and never returns, would that need the landlords approval? One month? two weeks? etc... or is it like total days per year?

There is additionall wear and tear having an extra person there. The landlord could and should increase the rent if he allows another person stay there.

fasttalkerchat

I would tell the LL but tell them that you will still take full liability for paying all the rent.

Marcusm

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It's not a different question, you are just trying to get your way and you're rules lawyering to achieve it.

If you have another person moving into the house then the landlord is well within their rights to veto it. Stop trying to find workarounds and talk to your landlord.

I just cannot agree with such a broad ranging statement. A lease is a grant of the use and occupation of the property - absent a preclusion on additional residents or a clause requiring the landlord's consent or approval, there is no such general prohibition irrespective of whether you as a landlord might like to impose one.

The OP has not posted his lease in its entirety but has posted an extract specifying that a "notification" is required. If the landlord's consent is not specifically required under the lease but a clause permitting notification is included then, provided the OP does not propose to overburden the property by having an excessive number of residents, the inclusion of a notification clause would be regarded as an implied right to have persons other than the specified tenants ordinarily residing there. This would commonly occur where parents enter into a lease and notify the landlord of the existence of their children. If, however, it was a one bed apartment and the OP proposed to bring in a family member to sleep on the sofa, that would not be appropriate.

The_Morrigan

Marcusm wrote: »

I just cannot agree with such a broad ranging statement. A lease is a grant of the use and occupation of the property - absent a preclusion on additional residents or a clause requiring the landlord's consent or approval, there is no such general prohibition irrespective of whether you as a landlord might like to impose one.

The OP has not posted his lease in its entirety but has posted an extract specifying that a "notification" is required. If the landlord's consent is not specifically required under the lease but a clause permitting notification is included then, provided the OP does not propose to overburden the property by having an excessive number of residents, the inclusion of a notification clause would be regarded as an implied right to have persons other than the specified tenants ordinarily residing there. This would commonly occur where parents enter into a lease and notify the landlord of the existence of their children. If, however, it was a one bed apartment and the OP proposed to bring in a family member to sleep on the sofa, that would not be appropriate.

He hasn't posted anything from his lease, he is quoting tenant obligations under law.

If himself and his wife are the leaseholders then another adult moving into a property without paying any rent and who may try to claim rights under tenancy law once moved in is completely unfair on any property owner.

btw, I'm not a landlord, I'm a home owner.

groovyg

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I wouldn't allow it. If the person is there with the landlords permission but not on the lease there is a whole host of legal minefields ahead. The landlord has no recourse with regards to this person. There is increased usage within the house with regards to utilities (negating your reason) and there is increased wear and tear.

So just going on that post if somebody has relatives to visit and stay (for free) for a few weeks hols a few times a year, should they be letting the landlord know?

The_Morrigan

groovyg wrote: »

So just going on that post if somebody has relatives to visit and stay (for free) for a few weeks hols a few times a year, should they be letting the landlord know?

I would as a matter of courtesy and common sense. Having your parents come to visit for a week is not the same as moving someone in rent free. The landlord needs to be aware of who is or isn't in the house as a matter of security and with regards to insurance.

Mrs OBumble

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I would as a matter of courtesy and common sense. Having your parents come to visit for a week is not the same as moving someone in rent free. The landlord needs to be aware of who is or isn't in the house as a matter of security and with regards to insurance.

I wouldn't. The LL does NOT need to know about visitors.

garhjw

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I wouldn't. The LL does NOT need to know about visitors.

Ah yes the landlord does need to know if it is more than a couple of weeks. If I see strangers occupying my property, I would want to know about it.

El_Duderino 09

I thought there was an accepted definition. Like in the 'big bang theory' room mate agreement. Like if someone stays more than 2 days a week for 4 consecutive weeks or more than 8 days in a calendar month.

I thought it was in my agreement so I looked in the folder and can't find the agreement.

Edit: I found the agreement and it says the following;
"The tenant agrees not to assign, under-let, charge or part with or share possession or occupation of the premises or grant licence or licencee to occupy the premises or any part thereof including the taking in of lodgers or paying guests without the prior consent in writing of the landlord".

In my case that seems to rule out any kind of guest whether paying or not.

It doesn't say what exactly constitutes a guest or a licencee.

What does your agreement say?

UCDVet

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It's not a different question, you are just trying to get your way and you're rules lawyering to achieve it.

If you have another person moving into the house then the landlord is well within their rights to veto it. Stop trying to find workarounds and talk to your landlord.

No disrespect intended; but you're completely wrong. It is a different question (the first question has been answered, the second question has not). I'm *not* trying to get 'my way'. I haven't even stated which 'way' is the way I want things to be. I asked a question and gave a fictional example to illustrate my question.

These aren't two questions about me, they are two questions about the laws in Ireland.

Let's say, for example, my wife wants her sister to 'visit' us. Assume I don't like her sister and would rather she didn't. I know, we have a legal obligation to notify our landlord of anyone who is living with us - but my wife insists her sister is just visiting. If I can point to an official looking document that clarifies the difference between visiting and residing, I can convince my wife NOT to have her sister visit us.

Let's say her sister is going to stay with us for TWO MONTHS.

Is that just visiting or is that living? I say, we'd need to notify the landlord who would HOPEFULLY say no. But my wife says, No, we don't need to tell him, she's just visiting.

Our lease doesn't specify anything on the subject.

If I call the landlord and he gives me his opinion on the matter, it's just that, an opinion. I'm looking for something objective from a somewhat official source. Despite my honest efforts, I haven't found anything.

The only thing I've been able to find online that is semi-related to this topic; is that many non-eu citizens are able to 'visit' Ireland for up to 90 days. My wife feels that this supports the idea that her sister could visit us for up to 90 days before we'd need to notify the landlord. I think that's ridiculous and I don't want her here more than a week....but I want to find something more relevant than the unrelated 90 day visa thing.

UCDVet

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I thought there was an accepted definition. Like in the 'big bang theory' room mate agreement. Like if someone stays more than 2 days a week for 4 consecutive weeks or more than 8 days in a calendar month.

I thought it was in my agreement so I looked in the folder and can't find the agreement.

Edit: I found the agreement and it says the following;
"The tenant agrees not to assign, under-let, charge or part with or share possession or occupation of the premises or grant licence or licencee to occupy the premises or any part thereof including the taking in of lodgers or paying guests without the prior consent in writing of the landlord".

In my case that seems to rule out any kind of guest whether paying or not.

It doesn't say what exactly constitutes a guest or a licencee.

What does your agreement say?

Unfortunately, there is nothing in our lease about it. It looks like something the landlord just typed up himself and it's not very long at all.

Tazium

Would you tell the LL if you and your wife had a baby?

foggy_lad

UCDVet wrote: »

Thanks everyone for answering my original question regarding whether or not the landlord has the ability to say 'no' to the required notification of people moving in.

I now have an entirely separate question.



In cases where the lease doesn't explicitly say anything on the matter. Is there any legal definition. I understand that the legislature says:



But I'm looking for a more specific meaning. In my mind - if someone is 'visiting' it's for a few days. More than that, and they are residing in the place. But I've spoken to other people who say that the visit could be a few months at a time.

Even though this is an entirely different question from my original question, I'm posting it in this thread. I hope that isn't confusing. Thanks

A visit is between one and three night stay and the visitor should not be moving in large amounts of clothing etc. this visiting should be on a non regular basis so three nights every week is out but every few weeks is acceptable and would cover most situations where friends or relatives might stay for a night or three.

If any visitor is staying for any longer than three nights the landlord should be informed.

Mrs OBumble

Tazium wrote: »

Would you tell the LL if you and your wife had a baby?

Yes, you are required to do this.

And depending on the situation, the LL may or may not approve of the child staying there long term.

Eg,I own a property which meets all building standards at the time it was built (late 1980s), which is all that is legally required. But there are a couple of issues, not easily fixed, where it doesn't meet current safety standards. It's fine for adults, but I am not happy for any child between crawling age and about 8 to live there.

So when tenants have a child (has happened several times), it's fine when the child is first born, but they do need to be thinking about moving at the end of the lease period (max 12 months). I've never had to say this: the tenants always realise it themselves. But I would have absolutely no problem saying it.

Irish tenancy law with its 4-year cycles would make it more difficult for a LL to manage this sort of situation: I could see a LL refusing to allow a baby in the property because of just this sort of down-the-line situation.

brownej

ted1 wrote: »

There is additionall wear and tear having an extra person there. The landlord could and should increase the rent if he allows another person stay there.

I don't understand how this works?
Presumably the landlord is claiming the maximum tax benefit for wear and tear.
If he is now asking the tenant to pay for this wear and tear is that not putting the landlord in a dubious position with teh revenue.

Beaner1

You can ask the landlord permission to sublet rather than having a visitor scenario. If he refuses then you can end your fixed term lease without penatly.

Here is the relevant legislation.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/sec0186.html#sec186

Tenant may terminate where consent to assignment or subletting withheld.
(2) If a landlord of a dwelling refuses his or her consent to an assignment or sub-letting of the tenancy concerned by the tenant, the tenant may serve a notice of termination in respect of the tenancy and terminate it accordingly.

Care to back up your claim with the relevant legislation?

The_Morrigan

Beaner1 wrote: »

You can ask the landlord permission to sublet rather than having a visitor scenario. If he refuses then you can end your fixed term lease without penatly.

Here is the relevant legislation.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/sec0186.html#sec186

Mod Note: No you can't - you've already been told that this is incorrect. Subletting and reassignment of lease occur when the tenant is leaving the premises, which is not the case.

Stop giving factually incorrect advice that may land others in hot water.


Do not post in this thread again.

Tazium

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yes, you are required to do this.

Thanks for explaining that so well in your reply, I didn't know so I've learned something new.