Letting Agent using threats about partner joining me in my apartment?

DeathWolf

Hi all,

Recently my partner joined me in the appartement that I have been renting under a part4 for 4 years. A couple weeks after this, my landlord's agent calls to announce they are selling the appartement.

I accept their request for a visit, and they come, with an unnannounced photographer(urgh), to make photos. Noticing my partner they ask me to confirm that the landlord is ok with her.

I explain I haven't made the declaration yet, and they start implying my landlord needs to accept her, and request not only an ID, but a proof of work, and previous landlord recommendations. A couple hours later I get a paper notifying my termination of residence, with the amount provided by my part4.

Fast forward 2 weeks, and they start asking for very inconvenient visit moments, including moments where I am not there, which makes me uncomfortable as they refuse to guarantee anything about damage from visitors. I have sent them the documents regarding my partner, but have yet to hear anything.


Now, today, they are making indirect threats, only over the phone, that my landlord is going to refuse my partner if I don't accept visits. I really find the idea of them leading us forever not acceptable. I'm open to visits, on my terms, and I don't see what reason they would not accept my partner, as I'm the one paying all of the rent, and the appartement is spacious and meant for a couple, and they still have my security deposit.

Any recommendations? Suggestions?

Thanks,

DW

El_Duderino 09

Hey DW,

You raised a number of points and I think each of them can be answered by reading your lease agreement.

First off see if your agreement says anything about who can live there on your lease. I'm sure your partner is lovely but if it says you cannot move anyone else in, then you have broken the lease...

Secondly have a look to see if it refers to viewings. I know my lease says I have to be willing to facilitate viewings (within reason) in the last 2 months of my tenancy. I presume viewings when you're not present is not necessarily reasonable so you might not agree to that, but you might be obliged to provide particular times which do suit you to show the house. You need to work it out with the estate agent.

anonyanony

What does the lease say about bringing more people into the flat most don't allow it, if they don't allow it they can ask your partner to leave, you don't have to give viewings that's up to you if you do unless it's in the lease that you do.

He has given notice to quit what was the reason, the sale or the extra person living there?

It's up to you how to play it but check your lease and if you want to jeopardise any reference from them, they might be unhappy already you broke the lease and did not tell then of the extra person living there.

Mrs OBumble

So you moved someone in without permission, most likely the LL has received complaints from the neighbours (at best) about her, and you're complaining because the LL has started to take action about the complaints.

Start by formally requesting permission for her to live there, and take things from there. Your choices may well be to not live together, or to find somewhere new to live. If the latter is necessary, then you will need a reference.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So you moved someone in without permission, most likely the LL has received complaints from the neighbours (at best) about her, and you're complaining because the LL has started to take action about the complaints.

Start by formally requesting permission for her to live there, and take things from there. Your choices may well be to not live together, or to find somewhere new to live. If the latter is necessary, then you will need a reference.

I don't think it is fair to say that it is likely there have been complaints. Nowhere has the OP indicated that.

However, saying that, as a landlord, I would be mightily annoyed if one of my tenants moved someone in without my consent (assuming it is not allowed by the lease) but most importantly, without sight of references Etc. Why would a LL go through the whole vetting process at the beginning of the lease just to allow anyone old person to subsequently move in?

MagicMarker

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So you moved someone in without permission, most likely the LL has received complaints from the neighbours (at best) about her, and you're complaining because the LL has started to take action about the complaints.

Start by formally requesting permission for her to live there, and take things from there. Your choices may well be to not live together, or to find somewhere new to live. If the latter is necessary, then you will need a reference.

Where are you getting complaints from? OP already mentioned how the landlord came to know about his partner living there.

DeathWolf

There was no complaint.

They gave me a notice of sale before any of this.
I looked in the lease.
It says the appartement is for the tenant and his dependent. But does not define dependent.
As far as I am concerned, my partner is my dependent since I'm the working person, paying the lease, and she's not.

Help!!!!

Chances are its not even the LL saying these things but the agent trying to push through the sale quickly

Squatman

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So you moved someone in without permission, most likely the LL has received complaints from the neighbours (at best) about her, and you're complaining because the LL has started to take action about the complaints.

Start by formally requesting permission for her to live there, and take things from there. Your choices may well be to not live together, or to find somewhere new to live. If the latter is necessary, then you will need a reference.

Have you actually read the OP?

Squatman

Help!!!! wrote: »

Chances are its not even the LL saying these things but the agent trying to push through the sale quickly

+1 on this, the estate agent is pushing this, so he can get easier access for viewing the apartment. Dont worry too much about it.

anonyanony

DeathWolf wrote: »

There was no complaint.

They gave me a notice of sale before any of this.
I looked in the lease.
It says the appartement is for the tenant and his dependent. But does not define dependent.
As far as I am concerned, my partner is my dependent since I'm the working person, paying the lease, and she's not.

The gf would not be your dependent, I would not try that with your LL you will just make things worse, you have being given notice to quit for the sale I am guessing if so start looking and try to be nice with the LL saying if she can stay till the end of your notice you will allow viewings within reason and hope for a good reference.

davo10

If you've been there for 4 years under part4 tenancy, LL may not need to give you a reason for asking you to leave.

anonyanony

davo10 wrote: »

If you've been there for 4 years under part4 tenancy, LL may not need to give you a reason for asking you to leave.

He has a valid one anyway before that even, OP will have to leave anyway it's more if he want's to make this more awkward in the mean time before he goes.

DeathWolf

anonyanony wrote: »

The gf would not be your dependent, I would not try that with your LL you will just make things worse, you have being given notice to quit for the sale I am guessing if so start looking and try to be nice with the LL saying if she can stay till the end of your notice you will allow viewings within reason and hope for a good reference.

That is the only thing I'm wondering about. What defines a dependent?

anonyanony wrote: »

He has a valid one anyway before that even, OP will have to leave anyway it's more if he want's to make this more awkward in the mean time before he goes.

I've been here 3 years and 11 months, so it turns in my favor in that case.
I really have no qualms with the agency and the selling to be honest.
The only thing is that I want the visits to be while I'm present(as they refused to give a guarantee they would be responsible if they did visits while I'm away) and at times convenient for me.

anonyanony

DeathWolf wrote: »

That is the only thing I'm wondering about. What defines a dependent?




I've been here 3 years and 11 months, so it turns in my favor in that case.
I really have no qualms with the agency and the selling to be honest.
The only thing is that I want the visits to be while I'm present(as they refused to give a guarantee they would be responsible if they did visits while I'm away) and at times convenient for me.

You don't get to define the dependent, you should have rang to see if the gf could move in and ask was she a dependent, sure otherwise you could take in a homeless person and say they are your dependent.

Visits while there is reasonable, ring the LL say you will allow visits while you are there with 24hrs notice if the gf can stay till you have to move on your notice to quit, that is unless you lease says you have to show it then you have no leverage to get the gf to stay.

Also be polite and nice remember you need a reference

Tarzana2

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So you moved someone in without permission, most likely the LL has received complaints from the neighbours (at best) about her

Why would neighbours complain? I wouldn't have a clue if any of my neighbours moved someone into their apartment. You have some odd ideas!

But OP, I think a LL has a right to be annoyed if someone else moved in. Extra wear and tear etc.

DeathWolf

References are a deeply Irish thing. I've never needed one in France or US before, so I couldn't care any less about them as I don't intend on staying in Ireland after my lease expires. I personally find it revolting that a reference is taken so seriously if the bills are all paid in due time and the apartment kept in good state(that is all that matters in the end). That is all that matters, and anything else is disgusting abuse.

In all cases, considering there is no clause in the contract mentioning that I'm forbidden from having my partner, and that a part4 only requires me to declare a new inhabitant, can they really claim a contract breach and use the 28 days eviction instead of my 2.5 months remaining? Also wouldn't they be shooting themselves in the foot of 2 month of rent by doing that?(I doubt they can rent the place for the last 2 months)
I'm unfortunately dealing with the agent rather than the landlord... and I have a feeling the agent just wants to get their commission as fast as possible.

Tarzana2

DeathWolf wrote: »

References are a deeply Irish thing.

Not at all, they are standard in the UK, and I'm sure I've seen people on the continent mention requiring them too, though maybe not in France.

If anything, reference requests are fairly new to the accommodation rental scene in Ireland.

El_Duderino 09

The references only make sense before you move in so the landlord knows about past performance as a tenant. You moved your partner in without consulting LL so now it appears silly to ask for references but they make sense before you move in.

I'd be really surprised if your partner counts as a dependent. If she is your dependent because she has no job, then what happens if she gets a job? Does she stop being your dependent? I imagine a dependent is a child under 18 and a parent/guardian. That's just how I would imagine it because you could argue anyone is a dependent.

DeathWolf

True:)
Apologies there, s/Irish/Anglosaxon/ is what I meant.
And yup they do exist, I just meant that this power being place unilateraly in the hand of the landlord is kind of bad...

MarkAnthony

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Not at all, they are standard in the UK, and I'm sure I've seen people on the continent mention requiring them too, though maybe not in France.]

If anything, reference requests are fairly new to the accommodation rental scene in Ireland.

They're doubly important here because of our lack of a proper credit referencing system. Frankly you wouldn't go to the bother if you could see a decent credit score, and impact it if the tenant turned out to be a muppet.

garhjw

DeathWolf wrote: »

References are a deeply Irish thing. I've never needed one in France or US before, so I couldn't care any less about them as I don't intend on staying in Ireland after my lease expires. I personally find it revolting that a reference is taken so seriously if the bills are all paid in due time and the apartment kept in good state(that is all that matters in the end). That is all that matters, and anything else is disgusting abuse.

In all cases, considering there is no clause in the contract mentioning that I'm forbidden from having my partner, and that a part4 only requires me to declare a new inhabitant, can they really claim a contract breach and use the 28 days eviction instead of my 2.5 months remaining? Also wouldn't they be shooting themselves in the foot of 2 month of rent by doing that?(I doubt they can rent the place for the last 2 months)
I'm unfortunately dealing with the agent rather than the landlord... and I have a feeling the agent just wants to get their commission as fast as possible.

I was required to provide a reference when renting in the US. your argument against them doesn't make sense. How Do you know someone will keep the apartment in a good condition without knowing if they are a good tenant in previous accomodation? They could be a scumbag that shows no respect for the property...

?Cee?view

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The references only make sense before you move in so the landlord knows about past performance as a tenant. You moved your partner in without consulting LL so now it appears silly to ask for references but they make sense before you move in.

I'd be really surprised if your partner counts as a dependent. If she is your dependent because she has no job, then what happens if she gets a job? Does she stop being your dependent? I imagine a dependent is a child under 18 and a parent/guardian. That's just how I would imagine it because you could argue anyone is a dependent.

You're not subletting to your partner or parting with possession of any part of the property to your partner. How therefore does anyone here think the landlord has power to deny your partner the right to live with you. Can anyone point to where you are breaching the terms of your lease. Sure, you are probably the names lessee, but where does that extend to your being the only resident.

Tarzana2

MarkAnthony wrote: »

They're doubly important here because of our lack of a proper credit referencing system. Frankly you wouldn't go to the bother if you could see a decent credit score, and impact it if the tenant turned out to be a muppet.

Credit rating won't indicate gaff-wrecking tendencies though. :pac:

MarkAnthony

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Credit rating won't indicate gaff-wrecking tendencies though. :pac:

Not the first time. But given you'd be able to register a 6K or whatever judgement against their credit the next landlord would at least be on notice. Not being able to buy a house or a Car also tends to have a focusing effect on people

DeathWolf

In my opinion a proper system is one where the landlord HAS to fill an *official* paper indicating various verifiable facts.

An open letter is an open door to abuse.

El_Duderino 09

Well it depends on the definition of dependent. If dependent means 'anyone who depends on you' then there is no need to stop at moving in your unemployed partner. Why not your sick mother, your unemployed friend or a homeless person? That is why I imagine dependent has a specific meaning relating to someone who you are legally responsible for like your child.

What do you think 'dependent' means?

davo10

DeathWolf wrote: »

In my opinion a proper system is one where the landlord HAS to fill an *official* paper indicating various verifiable facts.

An open letter is an open door to abuse.

If you are a good tenant and pay all your rent/bills, leave the place more or less as you found it and give proper notice, you will receive/are rewarded with a good reference which would benefit your search for new accomodation, but if a tenant acts the maggot and does not provide a reference on request, well the new LL can conclude that there were issues and may not wish to take a chance especially when there are others who can provide references. What's wrong with that?

makeorbrake

DeathWolf wrote: »

And yup they do exist, I just meant that this power being place unilateraly in the hand of the landlord is kind of bad...

What power? A landlord is in the business of achieving a return on his property. I don't think their concern is much else - nor would a tenant want it to be. What earthly reason would a landlord have to provide an unfavourable reference in a scenario where the tenant has been decent? How would he/she benefit from that?

firestarter51

you need landlords permission to move anyone else in except a dependent ie child
ask for notice of appointments so you or girlfriend can be there, its a reasonable request imo

ted1

If I was the landlord I would want you out at the end of a part 4 tenancy

Afroshack

DeathWolf wrote: »

References are a deeply Irish thing. I've never needed one in France or US before, so I couldn't care any less about them as I don't intend on staying in Ireland after my lease expires. I personally find it revolting that a reference is taken so seriously if the bills are all paid in due time and the apartment kept in good state(that is all that matters in the end). That is all that matters, and anything else is disgusting abuse.

In all cases, considering there is no clause in the contract mentioning that I'm forbidden from having my partner, and that a part4 only requires me to declare a new inhabitant, can they really claim a contract breach and use the 28 days eviction instead of my 2.5 months remaining? Also wouldn't they be shooting themselves in the foot of 2 month of rent by doing that?(I doubt they can rent the place for the last 2 months)
I'm unfortunately dealing with the agent rather than the landlord... and I have a feeling the agent just wants to get their commission as fast as possible.

I'm sorry but this post just smacks of entitlement. Everywhere in the UK requires references, both landlord and work ones before they'll even show you the place. You being expected to provide references is hardly abuse so please lay off the exaggeration and grow up. Secondly, if your name is the name on the lease, then you are the tenant, not your partner. It may be where you live but it is your LLs property and he has a right to question who lives there. If there is someone new living there and their name and details are not clearly outlined in the lease, then yes, you have breached your lease.

?Cee?view

firestarter51 wrote: »

you need landlords permission to move anyone else in except a dependent ie child

Can you quote an authority for this please?

?Cee?view

Afroshack wrote: »

. It may be where you live but it is your LLs property and he has a right to question who lives there. If there is someone new living there and their name and details are not clearly outlined in the lease, then yes, you have breached your lease.

Can you justify this statement please? Where is it stated as a matter of law that all living in a property must be named in a lease and further if they are not, that it is a "breach" of the lease if they live in the property

The_Morrigan

?Cee?view wrote: »

Can you quote an authority for this please?

?Cee?view wrote: »

Can you justify this statement please? Where is it stated as a matter of law that all living in a property must be named in a lease and further if they are not, that it is a "breach" of the lease if they live in the property

Clause 16 (n) under Chapter 2 of the RTA 2004, is very clear on the matter.

Chapter 2

Provisions regarding tenant's obligations

Obligations of tenants.

16.—In addition to the obligations arising by or under any other enactment, a tenant of a dwelling shall—

(a) pay to the landlord or his or her authorised agent (or any other person where required to do so by any enactment)—

(i) the rent provided for under the tenancy concerned on the date it falls due for payment, and

(ii) where the lease or tenancy agreement provides that any charges or taxes are payable by the tenant, pay those charges or taxes in accordance with the lease or tenancy agreement (unless provision to that effect in the lease or tenancy agreement is unlawful or contravenes any other enactment),

(b) ensure that no act or omission by the tenant results in there not being complied with the obligations of the landlord, under any enactment, in relation to the dwelling or the tenancy (and in particular, the landlord's obligations under regulations under section 18 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992 ),

(c) allow, at reasonable intervals, the landlord, or any person or persons acting on the landlord's behalf, access to the dwelling (on a date and time agreed in advance with the tenant) for the purposes of inspecting the dwelling,

(d) notify the landlord or his or her authorised agent of any defect that arises in the dwelling that requires to be repaired so as to enable the landlord comply with his or her obligations, in relation to the dwelling or the tenancy, under any enactment,

(e) allow the landlord, or any person or persons acting on the landlord's behalf, reasonable access to the dwelling for the purposes of allowing any works (the responsibility for the carrying out of which is that of the landlord) to be carried out,

(f) not do any act that would cause a deterioration in the condition the dwelling was in at the commencement of the tenancy, but there shall be disregarded, in determining whether this obligation has been complied with at a particular time, any deterioration in that condition owing to normal wear and tear, that is to say wear and tear that is normal having regard to—

(i) the time that has elapsed from the commencement of the tenancy,

(ii) the extent of occupation of the dwelling the landlord must have reasonably foreseen would occur since that commencement, and

(iii) any other relevant matters,

(g) if paragraph (f) is not complied with, take such steps as the landlord may reasonably require to be taken for the purpose of restoring the dwelling to the condition mentioned in paragraph (f) or to defray any costs incurred by the landlord in his or her taking such steps as are reasonable for that purpose,

(h) not behave within the dwelling, or in the vicinity of it, in a way that is anti-social or allow other occupiers of, or visitors to, the dwelling to behave within it, or in the vicinity of it, in such a way,

(i) not act or allow other occupiers of, or visitors to, the dwelling to act in a way which would result in the invalidation of a policy of insurance in force in relation to the dwelling,

(j) if any act of the tenant's, or any act of another occupier of, or visitor to, the dwelling which the tenant has allowed to be done, results in an increase in the premium payable under a policy of insurance in force in relation to the dwelling, pay to the landlord an amount equal to the amount of that increase (“the increased element”) (and that obligation to pay such an amount shall apply in respect of each further premium falling due for payment under the policy that includes the increased element),

(k) not assign or sub-let the tenancy without the written consent of the landlord (which consent the landlord may, in his or her discretion, withhold),

(l) not alter or improve the dwelling without the written consent of the landlord which consent the landlord—

(i) in case the alteration or improvement consists only of repairing, painting and decorating, or any of those things, may not unreasonably withhold,

(ii) in any other case, may, in his or her discretion, withhold,

(m) not use the dwelling or cause it to be used for any purpose other than as a dwelling without the written consent of the landlord (which consent the landlord may, in his or her discretion, withhold), and

(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.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/print.html#sec16

OP didn't mention a lease did they? So this is a breach of tenant obligations under the RTA at the very least.

?Cee?view

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Clause 16 (n) under Chapter 2 of the RTA 2004, is very clear on the matter.



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/print.html#sec16

OP didn't mention a lease did they? So this is a breach of tenant obligations under the RTA at the very least.

Sorry, I can't see anything in that section that this tenants action is contravening

ETA other posters brought in reference to a lease and breach of the lease. I accept the OP didn't mention a lease. I still can't see a breach of the RTA though

Mrs OBumble

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Why would neighbours complain? I wouldn't have a clue if any of my neighbours moved someone into their apartment. You have some odd ideas!.

If you cannot imagine why Mrs Stickybeak next door might complaint, then I guess you haven't worked in a customer facing job.

There are lots of reasons why a neighbour might complain, some justified, some not.

The_Morrigan

?Cee?view wrote: »

Sorry, I can't see anything in that section that this tenants action is contravening

(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.

That isn't clear enough for you?

It states that the landlord must be notified in writing of the identity of each person who resides in the property.

Moving in another person and not notifying the landlord is a contravention of that clause.

?Cee?view

The_Morrigan wrote: »

(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.

That isn't clear enough for you?

It states that the landlord must be notified in writing of the identity of each person who resides in the property.

Moving in another person and not notifying the landlord is a contravention of that clause.

Very strange thread with the definitive views being given against the OP. Will reply in detail in morning as phone is not allowing a detailed reply. Still don't agree that you're interpreting the issue correctly btw.

Maybe consider avoiding the "isn't that clear enough for you" comments? My aim here is to ensure the OP isn't bullied by an abusive landlord.

The_Morrigan

?Cee?view wrote: »

Very strange thread with the definitive views being given against the OP. Will reply in detail in morning as phone is not allowing a detailed reply. Still don't agree that you're interpreting the issue correctly btw.

Maybe consider avoiding the "isn't that clear enough for you" comments? My aim here is to ensure the OP isn't bullied by an abusive landlord.

There are a few issues here, but the one in relation to the quoted legislation is that the OP moved in his girlfriend and didn't tell the landlord - do you agree with that?

That is a breach of the tenant obligations I've already quoted above - the clause is very clear in it's meaning. It you wish to move in another person then you must notify the landlord in writing.

I'm not interpreting any other issues in my posts btw.

DeathWolf

davo10 wrote: »

If you are a good tenant and pay all your rent/bills, leave the place more or less as you found it and give proper notice, you will receive/are rewarded with a good reference which would benefit your search for new accomodation, but if a tenant acts the maggot and does not provide a reference on request, well the new LL can conclude that there were issues and may not wish to take a chance especially when there are others who can provide references. What's wrong with that?

Because the LL can use it as a way to force a tenant to agree to things they don't want.
Regardless of the actual state of the property and how the tenant was keeping his obligations, they can still deny a letter on basis they don't like the person/the person didn't do what they wanted.

A fair law would be that the landlord is OBLIGED to give that letter if no clause were breached.

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Clause 16 (n) under Chapter 2 of the RTA 2004, is very clear on the matter.


OP didn't mention a lease did they? So this is a breach of tenant obligations under the RTA at the very least.

It might be... I would argue that a month is a reasonable amount of time to notify of such thing considering there is no obligation to inform of a friend coming over for vacation to sleep over.

Afroshack wrote: »

I'm sorry but this post just smacks of entitlement. Everywhere in the UK requires references, both landlord and work ones before they'll even show you the place. You being expected to provide references is hardly abuse so please lay off the exaggeration and grow up. Secondly, if your name is the name on the lease, then you are the tenant, not your partner. It may be where you live but it is your LLs property and he has a right to question who lives there. If there is someone new living there and their name and details are not clearly outlined in the lease, then yes, you have breached your lease.

It is abuse when such a letter is purely at the goodwill of the landlord. That letter is only as a reference that you can be a good tenant, not that you are a great dude sharing beers with your LL.

davo10

DeathWolf wrote: »

Because the LL can use it as a way to force a tenant to agree to things they don't want.
Regardless of the actual state of the property and how the tenant was keeping his obligations, they can still deny a letter on basis they don't like the person/the person didn't do what they wanted.

A fair law would be that the landlord is OBLIGED to give that letter if no clause were breached.

A LL cannot force you to do anything which isn't in your contract, tenants actually have far more rights here than the property owners. If you are an unhappy tenant, you have the PRTB to complain to, if you are a good tenant then there would be no reason to refuse a good reference.

The_Morrigan

DeathWolf wrote: »

It might be... I would argue that a month is a reasonable amount of time to notify of such thing considering there is no obligation to inform of a friend coming over for vacation to sleep over.

You can argue it all you want, but there is no mention of notice periods, just that you must inform your landlord of any new residents. This you did not do by your own admission.

makeorbrake

DeathWolf wrote: »

Because the LL can use it as a way to force a tenant to agree to things they don't want.

Things like what exactly?

DeathWolf wrote: »

Regardless of the actual state of the property and how the tenant was keeping his obligations, they can still deny a letter on basis they don't like the person.

That they don't like the person? I won't say that it's not possible or that such a thing hasn't happened (as there are all manner of garden variety landlords (and tenants) out there). However, I'd have to say it's unlikely. A LL is concerned with getting a return on their investment. Why would it be factored in if they 'like' you as a human being or not? Is it not safe to assume that the only context in which they 'like' or 'dislike' a tenant is on the basis of how they have treated the property, how well they have adhered to the lease and how well they have performed with regard to ongoing rent payments? What else is there to consider?

DeathWolf wrote: »

It might be...

Isn't that kind of relevant then? Would it not be a case that before you draw some of the conclusions in your posts here that you work that out for sure either way?

DeathWolf wrote:

It is abuse when such a letter is purely at the goodwill of the landlord. That letter is only as a reference that you can be a good tenant, not that you are a great dude sharing beers with your LL.

Yes, and I'd imagine that your next prospective landlord would treat it as an 'indicator' of whether you're likely to be a 'good' tenant or not. As regards ' a great dude sharing beers with your LL' - where exactly does that come into play?? Is this going back to the fact that you feel that your LL doesn't 'like' you as a person?

DeathWolf

davo10 wrote: »

A LL cannot force you to do anything which isn't in your contract, tenants actually have far more rights here than the property owners. If you are an unhappy tenant, you have the PRTB to complain to, if you are a good tenant then there would be no reason to refuse a good reference.

Of course they can. They can force me to visits I do not agree to do with the threat of no letter. They can force me to not claim my deposit back too. They can make me leave earlier. All of this just needs a simple oral threat of no reference letter to someone who will need one.

Tarzana2

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If you cannot imagine why Mrs Stickybeak next door might complaint, then I guess you haven't worked in a customer facing job.

I've worked in a few.

A neighbour complaining might happen, anything's possible. But unless the person moved in is disruptive, it's highly unlikely.

davo10

DeathWolf wrote: »

Of course they can. They can force me to visits I do not agree to do with the threat of no letter. They can force me to not claim my deposit back too. They can make me leave earlier. All of this just needs a simple oral threat of no reference letter to someone who will need one.

Hold on, they have given you three months notice which is correct for someone renting for 3-4 years (you said 3 yrs 11 months) what does your contract say about visits at times when property may be for sale/let? OP you first say you agreed to the viewings, the LL has a right to serve notice when property is for sale, many think that this is sneakily used to get rid of tenants but in your case the EA and photographer came around so no question of shady dealings there and LL cannot force you out sooner than notice period.

There would seem to be a quid-pro-quo situation going on here, you should have informed LL of extra adult in the property but didn't and as per Morrigans post this is a breach of contract, the LL wants to be able to show perspective buyers. It would seem the obvious thing to do is to say to the EA, "you can view the property when you want (giving notice of course) and let's say no more about my girlfriend staying during remainder of notice period"

Mrs OBumble

Tarzana2 wrote: »

... unless the person moved in is disruptive, it's highly unlikely.

Absolutely agreed.

What we know is that the LL found out about the gf who moved in, and is asking for work references - which is apparently an issue because the gf is the OP's "dependent".

Now, yes, the sale process is complicating things.

But I know what I'm seeing between the lines here.

DeathWolf

davo10 wrote: »

Hold on, they have given you three months notice which is correct for someone renting for 3-4 years (you said 3 yrs 11 months) what does your contract say about visits at times when property may be for sale/let? OP you first say you agreed to the viewings, the LL has a right to serve notice when property is for sale, many think that this is sneakily used to get rid of tenants but in your case the EA and photographer came around so no question of shady dealings there and LL cannot force you out sooner than notice period.

There would seem to be a quid-pro-quo situation going on here, you should have informed LL of extra adult in the property but didn't and as per Morrigans post this is a breach of contract, the LL wants to be able to show perspective buyers. It would seem the obvious thing to do is to say to the EA, "you can view the property when you want (giving notice of course) and let's say no more about my girlfriend staying during remainder of notice period"

Well, as said, I'm not against visits, I've not done any resistance.
The only thing I've said is I wanted to be present, unless they can give me a proof of responsibility. After that, they started giving me aggressive weekend timings where I was not available. I proposed alternatives, and then they started making hints of threat...

The_Morrigan

DeathWolf wrote: »

Well, as said, I'm not against visits, I've not done any resistance.
The only thing I've said is I wanted to be present, unless they can give me a proof of responsibility. After that, they started giving me aggressive weekend timings where I was not available. I proposed alternatives, and then they started making hints of threat...

They being the letting agent or the landlord?

El_Duderino 09

If your partner does not qualify as a dependent then they could tell her to leave immediately. Maybe you should call their bluff which would result in them not getting their visits and your GF finding a new place to sleep by tomorrow night. Maybe you need to appreciate that the EA are being accommodating towards your GF and asking you to be accommodating in return.