Uneasy about new shared accommodation!

fighty

Hello,

I recently I viewed a room in a new house and all was grand etc etc. Now in this house there are 4 doubles. Pretty much standard naughties house.

Two people are moving into the house at the same time, they leased it form the landlord. They looked for two more people to occupy the two other rooms.

I thought the rent was a bit high so then I decided to look up the leasing Daft ad for the house.

Turns out, the two people that are leasing the house are paying significantly less than the other two people that will be moving in (For the same thing).

Basically the answer I got when I questioned was that they are leasing it and thats the price. So I guess it is subletting (Obviously still splitting all the bills equally though!)

I am not wondering if this is legal or not; i'm sure it is. Just wondering if this is common and should I run a mile? Just simply think it is unfair.

Grolschevik

Depends if they're doing it with the knowledge and permission of the landlord.

Teyla Emmagan

Sounds unfair alright, but I am sure it's legal. How much is the price difference?

You don't have to live there.

lau1247

It is unfair but probably legal if the landlord knows about subletting (Not my area of expertise so open to correction).


Let me put it in another analogy, it is quite similar to saying if you go to supermarket like Tesco (Them) to buy something, you don't expect to get it at their cost price that they obtain the goods from supplier (Landlord) when you have a middleman.


As the other poster had said, you have the option to not take the place.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Crap? Yes. Illegal? I doubt it.

Personally, I would move on as there's always going to be an element of mistrust in your dealings with the original tenants. Find a houseshare where the others are less underhand.

My only caveat is whether there is a significant difference in the size/quality of the room being sublet. If you would be taking a room that U.S. much bigger or an en suite, then that might justify paying more.

whomitconcerns

have you signed a lease with the landlord?

Arbiter of Good Taste

lau1247 wrote: »

It is unfair but probably legal if the landlord knows about subletting (Not my area of expertise so open to correction).


Let me put it in another analogy, it is quite similar to saying if you go to supermarket like Tesco (Them) to buy something, you don't expect to get it at their cost price that they obtain the goods from supplier (Landlord) when you have a middleman.


As the other poster had said, you have the option to not take the place.

I don't agree with your analogy. The original tenants are doing nothing to add value to the "product". Unlike the Tesco analogy there us nothing stopping the OP from going to a "wholesaler" (in this case an actual landlord) and buying their product. In fact if we go with the supermarket analogy, I would say the original tenants are partaking in price gouging.

Nevertheless, I don't think they are doing anything illegal by setting a higher price, but I would not be happy living with them.

o1s1n

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

I don't agree with your analogy. The original tenants are doing nothing to add value to the "product". Unlike the Tesco analogy there us nothing stopping the OP from going to a "wholesaler" (in this case an actual landlord) and buying their product. In fact if we go with the supermarket analogy, I would say the original tenants are partaking in price gouging.

Nevertheless, I don't think they are doing anything illegal by setting a higher price, but I would not be happy living with them.

What are Tesco doing to add value to the product after buying it from a wholesaler though? Nothing. So I don't see anything wrong with that analogy.

If they're renting all of the rooms from the landlord and the landlord is fine with subletting then they are free to sublet and set a price.

It's a bit of a crap thing to do, I agree, but similarly to Tesco, that's just business.

Cuddlesworth

If your subletting and dealing only with the two already in the house, then you're living with your landlord and as such have no tenant rights. Keep that in mind.

Aye Bosun

If they are sub-letting and have signed a lease with the landlord they are the ones liable for the rent and any damage done to the property. As a sub-letter or licensee in this case you have very little rights in the property as you are there at the invitation of the leaseholder. Saying that you are not tied into a lease and can leave the property at anytime with reasonable notice. (for some this is far more ideal than signing into a 1 year lease as it gives you more freedom to move etc)

They are the ones taking on the responsibility of lease and all that entails so while I don't agree that they should charge more rent for the sub-letted rooms, there is no legal reason they cannot. I am assuming their reason to charge extra rent to sub-letters is they are liable under the lease and you will not be!

Whether the landlord knows that his new tenants are sub-letting or not is not the question, that is between them and the landlord. But they are doing nothing illegal by charging extra to sub-letters.

Qualitymark

Back in the day a friend and myself moved in with a woman who was renting a big flat. She charged us two-thirds of the rent, but we and our two children shared the smaller room, while she had the big front room, the breakfast room and first dibs on the kitchen.
All her family are in politics.

TrishSimon

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Crap? Yes. Illegal? I doubt it.

Personally, I would move on as there's always going to be an element of mistrust in your dealings with the original tenants. Find a houseshare where the others are less underhand.

My only caveat is whether there is a significant difference in the size/quality of the room being sublet. If you would be taking a room that U.S. much bigger or an en suite, then that might justify paying more.

I agree here move on and find somewhere else to live it sounds like they will be a hassle down the road and if its not in line with the current rental market for that area at the moment what right do they have to charge you that, who keeps the money does it go to the LL all questions I would be asking but if it was me I would seek other accomodation.

worded

I used to sublet a two bed apt, i covered the rent if the other room was vacant. The rent was near 50:50 but sometimes 55:45 or 60:40 as I had a lot of responsibility for the place.

I suffered any vacancy / had to cover the rent and had a lot of kitchen stuff etc. the subletters had little if anything to buy. TV / Video etc all supplied.

On the other bad the deal was they could give notice within 30 days and were not tied to a lease.

Also all of the utilities were in my name. The place was all set up, a lovely apt.

My advice OP would be stay if you don't have the responsibilities of utilities and leases and its a nice place and the people are easy to get on with.

The landlord see them as key tenants with good form for paying the ref over several years while you are an unknown.

If its a nice place don't rock the boat, if there are better places for less go for it but will the people be as nice / easy to share with ?

I wouldn't leave a nice place because long term tenants were getting a better room or lesser rent if I could be happy there.

Mrs OBumble

worded wrote: »

I used to sublet a two bed apt, i covered the rent if the other room was vacant. The rent was near 50:50 but sometimes 55:45 or 60:40 as I had a lot of responsibility for the place.

I suffered any vacancy / had to cover the rent and had a lot of kitchen stuff etc. the subletters had little if anything to buy. TV / Video etc all supplied.

I've done this on a 4brm place. Things were 25% initially. But later when we had a vacancy, I covered the shortfall: personal stuff meant I really didn't want to move then, and the other housemates simply couldn't afford to contribute - if they had to, they would have moved out so I would have had to cover even more.

After that, I adjusted the room-rates and over time made up some of what I had "lost". I don't think it was unfair in the least. Especially as the overall rent was lower than the market-average because I'd been there so long.



Also - OP, you can see what the place was advertised for on DAFT. But that doesn't mean it was let for that amount, there are plenty of stories of people offering more than what's asked for just to get a place, in Dublin anyway.

fighty

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

Yeah I don't think I will go ahead with the place. Even just the thought that they are paying 15% less than me for nothing would irk the hell out of me, while we all split bills 'fairly'. Not to mention the whole subletting issue.

I highly doubt they told the landlord about the subletting, but not my place really.

andrea1983

fair enough on your part. To be fair, they are taking on the risk and hassle of finding tenants for the rooms they are subletting and if they are paying less this probably somewhat reflects this.

worded

That's good you have reached a decision.

I'd say the land lord knows full well it's partly sublet.

The advantage of a sublet is if you don't like the place you can exit within 30 days if you draw up some agreement in writing. Deposit paid x. Rent paid x. 30 day break clause.

Sharing accommodation always has its compromises.

Ideally you will get your own place in the future and before that perhaps sublet yourself with the responsibilities and expenses that entails

I wish you well OP