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

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.

DeathWolf

The_Morrigan wrote: »

They being the letting agent or the landlord?

The sales agent.(who is the same company as the letting agent, the one that starts with an L)

I wish I could talk to the landlord but that has never happened.

cruizer101

Afroshack wrote: »

It may be where you live but it is your LLs property and he has a right to question who lives there.

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.

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.

There is a bit of a difference in what is being stated here 'right to question who lives there' implies he has a say. When in fact the requirement is just that he is notified. I'm not sure but I doubt a term in lease could override this such that moving a new tenant in would give the LL any power to change the lease in anyway.

Regarding viewings from agent, even if there is a term in the lease this doesn't override your right to peaceful enjoyment of the property, the agent must only come when you want and if you don't want them there at all fair enough.

The_Morrigan

DeathWolf wrote: »

The sales agent.(who is the same company as the letting agent, the one that starts with an L)

I wish I could talk to the landlord but that has never happened.

Thanks - I'll edit your thread title to reflect that.

/Mod

DeathWolf

So I agreed to a visit today, the agent came early to talk to me.
She straight threatened and blackmailed me.

She litteraly said if we didn't agree to all visits, even when we are not there, she would have the rent augmented and my partner kicked out.

And you call that justice? I was openly proposing her to come any evenings of the week, but no, she wants to self invite herself.

The_Morrigan

DeathWolf wrote: »

So I agreed to a visit today, the agent came early to talk to me.
She straight threatened and blackmailed me.

She litteraly said if we didn't agree to all visits, even when we are not there, she would have the rent augmented and my partner kicked out.

And you call that justice? I was openly proposing her to come any evenings of the week, but no, she wants to self invite herself.

Report the agent to the regulator.

anonyanony

DeathWolf wrote: »

So I agreed to a visit today, the agent came early to talk to me.
She straight threatened and blackmailed me.

She litteraly said if we didn't agree to all visits, even when we are not there, she would have the rent augmented and my partner kicked out.

And you call that justice? I was openly proposing her to come any evenings of the week, but no, she wants to self invite herself.

Best option might be call the bluff move the girl out as per lease don't allow viewings if it's not in the lease if is contact prtb about if you have to be there. when was the last rent review if less then a year point that out if not pay it after they give the proper notice.

The LL will be in contact if he agent messed it up this bad then explain to him the details and all you are doing is following the lease.

Eldarion

DeathWolf wrote: »

So I agreed to a visit today, the agent came early to talk to me.
She straight threatened and blackmailed me.

She litteraly said if we didn't agree to all visits, even when we are not there, she would have the rent augmented and my partner kicked out.

And you call that justice? I was openly proposing her to come any evenings of the week, but no, she wants to self invite herself.

This is nuts. You have to stand up to people like this. How does agent know the girlfriend is "living there" and not just staying over? If the gf is not on the bills, not on the lease and doesn't have mail coming there then it's almost impossible to "prove" the gf lives there. Just say the gf stays over a lot because you're in a relationship and that's what happens. The agent has NO grounds to tell you when you can have guests over.

As for her threats tell her the LL is perfectly entitled to review the rent every 12 month period in line with market rent, her "augmenting rent" threat is just nonsense, and a fixed lease is exactly that, fixed. Then ask her how she plans to evict someone that is part of no legal agreement pertaining to the property, how would she even go about this? Either she's completely naive or she thinks you're completely naive and is trying to walk all over you to get what she wants.

DeathWolf

Eldarion wrote: »

This is nuts. You have to stand up to people like this. How does agent know the girlfriend is "living there" and not just staying over? If the gf is not on the bills, not on the lease and doesn't have mail coming there then it's almost impossible to "prove" the gf lives there. Just say the gf stays over a lot because you're in a relationship and that's what happens. The agent has NO grounds to tell you when you can have guests over.

I was shocked too of her attitude. She said word for word that "I should know my place". That "I had no idea how bad it was going to be for me". I kept calm and explained I wanted to find a way to make the visits happen that was acceptable for me, and wanted my right to peace otherwise.

Eldarion wrote: »

As for her threats tell her the LL is perfectly entitled to review the rent every 12 month period in line with market rent, her "augmenting rent" threat is just nonsense, and a fixed lease is exactly that, fixed. Then ask her how she plans to evict someone that is part of no legal agreement pertaining to the property, how would she even go about this? Either she's completely naive or she thinks you're completely naive and is trying to walk all over you to get what she wants.

Thanks, that's exactly what I said. I told her that it is well within the rights of the landlord to do the increase since it's been 12 months. All in all, I'm not sure what will happen, but I'm pretty sure she is just too used to bullying people in getting what she wants.

El_Duderino 09

OP be serious for a moment. You seem to have convinced yourself that you are totally innocent and the ea is picking on you for no reason. Have you totally convinced yourself that your partner is entitled to live in the house with you?

I've looked around a bit and as far as I can see a dependent is a person you have an obligation to care for (your child who is under 18) or a spouse who has medical or some other issues which qualifies them as a dependent.

Maybe it's different in France and the US bit in Ireland you can't rent a place for yourself and then move in any unemployed person you want calling them your dependent.

So you told the ea your partner is living there. You broke the lease and your partner can be told to leave immediately. In return for letting your partner stay the ea is demanding extra latitude in visits to the property to sell it quicker.

It looks more like a quid pro quo situation than a threat.

You broke the agreement whether you intended to or not.
The ea could throw your partner to rectify the situation.
Instead they are allowing her to stay in exchange for extra visitation rights.

OP I think you want to have your cake and eat it.

Lemming

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So you told the ea your partner is living there. You broke the lease and your partner can be told to leave immediately. In return for letting your partner stay the ea is demanding extra latitude in visits to the property to sell it quicker.

It looks more like a quid pro quo situation than a threat.

Eh ... no. It does not look like a quid pro quo situation. Now what was it you said about cake and eating it? the letting agent is behaving like she wants to
have the cake all to herself ... She is using threats & blackmail when the OP is attempting to arrange times that suit both parties.

Edit: OP, as others have suggested, if you can arrange temporary accommodation elsewhere for your g/f then do so and pull the rug from under this slime-ball agent. And then report her to the regulator anyway.