Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rent a room his girlfriend moved in

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    athtrasna wrote: »
    Does it not occur to you that the licensee has shown zero respect for the owner occupier? I have a lodger and from the start the rule was no more frequently than twice a week. If there were exceptional circumstances I know he would come to me and plead the case. We have a good relationship. I couldn't share my home with someone who didn't respect it and me.

    I wouldn't call it zero respect (for me that would be being extremely dirty and continual late or non payment of rent), but possibly a lack of consideration. I don't think it warrants the licensee being thrown out, nor do I think it warrants a 50% increase in rent.

    The OP should discuss his issues with his lodger and find out their intentions. As I said it might make more sense, business and personally to roll with it if the arrangement is very short term and they are generally good in their other aspects.

    I'd agree that adjustments to the contract would be appropriate if her stay was to be an extended one. The adjustment should be proportional to the loss of amenity by the OP.


  • Options
    #63
    JillyQ
    Registered Users Posts: 2,382 ✭✭✭JillyQ


    J Mysterio wrote: »
    Telling someone they can 'only have someone round twice a week' is ridiculous, restrictive and is basically treating them like a child.

    I would never enter into an arrangement with an owner occupier as I would be worried of dictatorial instructions such as those.

    When you are living with an owner occupier, you got realise what they say goes.


  • Options
    #64
    The_Morrigan
    Moderators Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    I wouldn't call it zero respect (for me that would be being extremely dirty and continual late or non payment of rent), but possibly a lack of consideration. I don't think it warrants the licensee being thrown out, nor do I think it warrants a 50% increase in rent.

    The OP should discuss his issues with his lodger and find out their intentions. As I said it might make more sense, business and personally to roll with it if the arrangement is very short term and they are generally good in their other aspects.

    I'd agree that adjustments to the contract would be appropriate if her stay was to be an extended one. The adjustment should be proportional to the loss of amenity by the OP.

    The gf is there a month at this point and you don't think it's time to readjust the rent and bills to reflect her living arrangements that have been imposed on the OP?


  • Options
    #65
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    The gf is there a month at this point and you don't think it's time to readjust the rent and bills to reflect her living arrangements that have been imposed on the OP?

    At this stage yes, a conversation is warranted on the current arrangements and a proportional adjustment to the rent should be considered.

    The OP has to weigh up the pros and cons of this approach, knowing that upsetting his licensee could end up being the most costly option for him.


  • Options
    #66
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    JillyQ wrote: »
    When you are living with an owner occupier, you got realise what they say goes.

    Yes. Seems some take a power trip from it.

    Rather than it being a situation where 'people live together' and 'share' a house, seems some tenants have to step on tippy toes and placate a tyrant in the owner occupier.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    J Mysterio wrote: »
    Telling someone they can 'only have someone round twice a week' is ridiculous, restrictive and is basically treating them like a child.

    I would never enter into an arrangement with an owner occupier as I would be worried of dictatorial instructions such as those.

    No it's not. Rent a room is typically cheaper than renting alone or renting with friends. I don't have many rules but the key one is that I advertised for ONE person to move in, not two. Any more than a couple of times a week and I would feel uncomfortable in my own home. I didn't force my current lodger to take the room, and had plenty of interest. It works both ways. I don't have guests round on a regular basis either.

    In this case the OP has lived with a couple for over a month, with no extra financial contribution from the approved lodger despite the fact that an extra person leads to an increase in bills. Not acceptable.


  • Options
    #68
    The_Morrigan
    Moderators Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    J Mysterio wrote: »
    Yes. Seems some take a power trip from it.

    Rather than it being a situation where 'people live together' and 'share' a house, seems some tenants have to step on tippy toes and placate a tyrant in the owner occupier.

    Most people in that situation don't pay market rent because they aren't on equal footing with regards to living arrangements.


  • Options
    #69
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    J Mysterio wrote: »
    Yes. Seems some take a power trip from it.

    Rather than it being a situation where 'people live together' and 'share' a house, seems some tenants have to step on tippy toes and placate a tyrant in the owner occupier.

    It's the OOs hoise. And their stuff. What do you expect? Rent a room is generally cheaper than a rental off a LL, even if shared. That's the trade off I'm afraid


  • Options
    #70
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    athtrasna wrote: »
    In this case the OP has lived with a couple for over a month, with no extra financial contribution from the approved lodger despite the fact that an extra person leads to an increase in bills. Not acceptable.

    I agree the situation in the OP's case is unacceptable, I was referring to your rules.


  • Options
    #71
    OpenShutter
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭OpenShutter


    Just be straight up, have a normal conversation, ask him why he didn't ask? At the end of the day, calm and collective will win out. You have the right to increase the rent or ask him to move out. I think 600 with bills is more than fair.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    J Mysterio wrote: »
    I agree the situation in the OP's case is unacceptable, I was referring to your rules.

    My rules? Completely off topic but I have two. Overnight guests no more than twice a week (unless there are exceptional circumstances, in which case it needs to be pre agreed). And lock the door and set the alarm when coming and going. Nothing draconian there IMO.

    My room is priced at approximately 60-70% of the market rate for a room in a shared apartment in the same development. If a potential lodger doesn't want to show me the respect of abiding by the rules I wouldn't be long in showing them the door. It's my apartment but both of our homes. Respect is key.


  • Options
    #73
    purplecow1977
    Registered Users Posts: 2,877 ✭✭✭purplecow1977


    J Mysterio wrote: »
    Telling someone they can 'only have someone round twice a week' is ridiculous, restrictive and is basically treating them like a child.

    I would never enter into an arrangement with an owner occupier as I would be worried of dictatorial instructions such as those.

    If you are renting to another person, you don't wish to have another person over 3, 4, 5+ evenings of the week. Otherwise, you'd be better off renting to the 2 of them & charging them accordingly!

    It's not dictatorial at all.

    Twice a week to have someone stay over seems quite reasonable. It's almost 33% of the week!

    Most people who rent rooms out would prefer not to, particularly if they are owner occupied. It's usually a case of having to in order to pay the mortgage.


  • Options
    #74
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    I wouldn't call it zero respect (for me that would be being extremely dirty and continual late or non payment of rent), but possibly a lack of consideration. I don't think it warrants the licensee being thrown out, nor do I think it warrants a 50% increase in rent.

    The OP should discuss his issues with his lodger and find out their intentions. As I said it might make more sense, business and personally to roll with it if the arrangement is very short term and they are generally good in their other aspects.

    I'd agree that adjustments to the contract would be appropriate if her stay was to be an extended one. The adjustment should be proportional to the loss of amenity by the OP.

    But it is a non payment of rent, the licensee moved someone in without permission and its more than a lack of consideration, its more a break in the agreement the OP came to with them.
    I wouldnt say there is anything to discuss, but the OP should just lay it out, plainly, saying discuss makes it seem like there is leeway, if I was the OP Id set in my mind what I was willing to tolerate, any debate crossing that would just have to be met as a line in the sand, they dont need to be rude, just firm and not give way, its not a negotiation, the OP holds all the rights and should hold all the cards.
    You say adjustments, I say breach.
    If her stay was to be extended, continual residence is an unapproved adjustment, we dont even know if she works or stays there all day (more electric/heat/wear).
    Proportional to the loss of amenity?? Its the OPs home! double rooms are going for 600-650 plus bills on top. Even if they were both agreed and paying to stay, being in the room all the time, that in itself can be awkward, more like the OP is living with a couple in their home.

    Ive lived with a few people at the same time in the same scenario, some had partners, others didnt, I never really made a deal of people staying over or coming over so long as they weren't practically living there all the time, as in coming directly from work/showering/sleeping/living there all the time, even up to 50% of the week, more than that, especially unmentioned is a lot, in this case its 100%, that is living there, the OP has every right to jack up the rent, to whatever they like and charge for bills, as its not what they factored into usage they might have expected.

    They are getting all the benefits of a furnished place at no or little cost, I think the OP might not even have a deposit as they might feel they'll be rounded on here for saying so, so these people have really pulled a fast if thats the case, in that scenario, the OP should be getting one from now. One and it may have been their intention all along, its hard to see how they couldnt think this wouldnt come up, or maybe they are just dragging it out as long as possible.

    Keep it simple OP, 100% increase in occupancy, 50% increase in rent, 33% bill split.

    Maybe those of us nearby can offer the OP a boardsie unwelcoming get out of dodge party for his guests?


  • Options
    #75
    GoingLinux
    Registered Users Posts: 37 ✭GoingLinux


    Original Poster - please let us know how this ended up as very interested in outcome!


  • Options
    #76
    viper006
    Closed Accounts Posts: 642 ✭✭✭viper006


    athtrasna wrote: »
    It's my apartment but both of our homes. Respect is key.

    Nicely put but doesnt fit with the rest of your comment really. Sounds like its more of your apartment and your home scenario. Its a tough line at times To judge between tenants pushing boundaries and owner occupiers being a little too overbearing but saying 2 nights a week for a tenant to have a partner over is actually acceptable when paying hundreds a month to you, is shocking. That's a case of being happy to take the rent but not allowing the person to make it their home as well despite paying for the privilege.

    Very often this set up is when the Owner is themselves single and tenant is not. Dont think ive ever heard of that set up working. Again, so many factors can dictate whether tenant and owner can rent happily together but some of reading here only reinforces i wouldn't dream of ever renting with an owner occupier. Granted less rent but you always walking on egg shells in other peoples home under far more rules.

    OP this person is 100% however stepping over the mark having the partner over fulltime and i hope you can resolve it and not be out of pocket. Goodluck with it


  • Options
    #77
    GoingLinux
    Registered Users Posts: 37 ✭GoingLinux


    Just out of interest where are this "couple" from?


  • Options
    #78
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    For me the only thing the OP can do is kick them out,

    He is being disrespected and made feel uncomfortable in his own home which to me is unacceptable,

    If he charges them both rent and splits bills which he should do he will have a couple taking run of the place even more as they feel the will be entitled to as they are paying rent,nobody wants to live with couples!

    interested to see how turns out!


  • Options
    #79
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    cerastes wrote: »
    But it is a non payment of rent, the licensee moved someone in without permission and its more than a lack of consideration, its more a break in the agreement the OP came to with them.
    I wouldnt say there is anything to discuss, but the OP should just lay it out, plainly, saying discuss makes it seem like there is leeway, if I was the OP Id set in my mind what I was willing to tolerate, any debate crossing that would just have to be met as a line in the sand, they dont need to be rude, just firm and not give way, its not a negotiation, the OP holds all the rights and should hold all the cards.

    But you see the OP doesn't hold all the cards. Its true that the OP could put his lodger out on his ear, but that would only hurt the OP, as he would have to shoulder the cost of readvertising, possibly miss a couple of weeks rent and then could take on someone that is far more inconsiderate. The same would be true if he chose a course of action that had a similar outcome - such as jacking up the rent to the levels you're suggesting, forcing the licensee out.
    cerastes wrote: »
    You say adjustments, I say breach.
    If her stay was to be extended, continual residence is an unapproved adjustment, we dont even know if she works or stays there all day (more electric/heat/wear).
    Proportional to the loss of amenity?? Its the OPs home! double rooms are going for 600-650 plus bills on top. Even if they were both agreed and paying to stay, being in the room all the time, that in itself can be awkward, more like the OP is living with a couple in their home.

    Yes its the OP's home, but its also his licensee's as well. The OP owns it but also but has to remember he has to consider the needs of his licensee once he decided to let out a room. The letting of a room always involves the loss of amenity. If he doesn't want this then he shouldn't let out a room. A lot of OO see their licensee as an inconvenience at best and their only purpose is to pay their mortgage on a property they can no longer afford. That said the OP should only seek compensation for the further loss of amenity that he has suffered - the rack rent proposed on this forum won't help him.
    cerastes wrote: »
    Ive lived with a few people at the same time in the same scenario, some had partners, others didnt, I never really made a deal of people staying over or coming over so long as they weren't practically living there all the time, as in coming directly from work/showering/sleeping/living there all the time, even up to 50% of the week, more than that, especially unmentioned is a lot, in this case its 100%, that is living there, the OP has every right to jack up the rent, to whatever they like and charge for bills, as its not what they factored into usage they might have expected.

    They are getting all the benefits of a furnished place at no or little cost, I think the OP might not even have a deposit as they might feel they'll be rounded on here for saying so, so these people have really pulled a fast if thats the case, in that scenario, the OP should be getting one from now. One and it may have been their intention all along, its hard to see how they couldnt think this wouldnt come up, or maybe they are just dragging it out as long as possible.

    Keep it simple OP, 100% increase in occupancy, 50% increase in rent, 33% bill split.

    Maybe those of us nearby can offer the OP a boardsie unwelcoming get out of dodge party for his guests?

    I hardly think sending round the Boards.ie heavies is the appriopriate way to sort this out. Yes of course the OP has the right to charge what ever he likes, but the licensee also has the option to refuse to pay it. If he refuses, then who is left high and dry and under financial pressure? (Hint: its not the licensee).


  • Options
    #80
    GoingLinux
    Registered Users Posts: 37 ✭GoingLinux


    He could change the locks, and use the deposit as bridging finance until he gets a new person in.


  • Options
    #81
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,768 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    GoingLinux wrote: »
    Just out of interest where are this "couple" from?

    Why does it matter? Are foreigners not allowed to cohabit?

    Or people from <insert your least favourite county> more likely to be troublesome?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Baby01032012
    Registered Users Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭Baby01032012


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    But you see the OP doesn't hold all the cards. Its true that the OP could put his lodger out on his ear, but that would only hurt the OP, as he would have to shoulder the cost of readvertising, possibly miss a couple of weeks rent and then could take on someone that is far more inconsiderate. The same would be true if he chose a course of action that had a similar outcome - such as jacking up the rent to the levels you're suggesting, forcing the licensee out.



    Yes its the OP's home, but its also his licensee's as well. The OP owns it but also but has to remember he has to consider the needs of his licensee once he decided to let out a room. The letting of a room always involves the loss of amenity. If he doesn't want this then he shouldn't let out a room. A lot of OO see their licensee as an inconvenience at best and their only purpose is to pay their mortgage on a property they can no longer afford. That said the OP should only seek compensation for the further loss of amenity that he has suffered - the rack rent proposed on this forum won't help him.



    I hardly think sending round the Boards.ie heavies is the appriopriate way to sort this out. Yes of course the OP has the right to charge what ever he likes, but the licensee also has the option to refuse to pay it. If he refuses, then who is left high and dry and under financial pressure? (Hint: its not the licensee).

    At the end of the day the person renting the room has no rights under RTA 2004. It's the owners house his rules. If licensee doesn't like then he can move or be moved and I'm sure someone else would happily take his place.


  • Options
    #83
    The_Morrigan
    Moderators Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    GoingLinux wrote: »
    Just out of interest where are this "couple" from?
    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Why does it matter? Are foreigners not allowed to cohabit?

    Or people from <insert your least favourite county> more likely to be troublesome?

    Don't go there either of you.


  • Options
    #84
    Van.Bosch
    Registered Users Posts: 2,860 ✭✭✭Van.Bosch


    OP, if you are on the edge, financially as you put it, it's even more reason to up the rent. It's only fair, you agreed to rent to one person thus went without the additional rent you could get from a couple, now you have the couple with single rent.

    If you are tight financially, forgive the cheek of it being done on the sly but tackle it from now on andget the benefits of the higher rent if you are happy to live with a couple.

    I don't mean to be blunt but being a landlord is tough, if you don't like confrontation people may walk all over you.


  • Options
    #85
    SteM
    Registered Users Posts: 6,597 ✭✭✭SteM


    Here's an issue OP - if you up the rent (by €200 for example) and they accept then you are basically agreeing to her staying there as a another tenant. You don't sound like you want to live with a couple and I don't blame you to be honest. I was sharing with a work colleague years ago and my girlfriend moved in. Looking back now I can see how uncomfortable it made him.

    If you're going to up the rent then up it to an amount where you will be happy to have another body around the apartment, not just by an amount that will cover the extra bills. If you up it by €200 will that be enough for you to be comfortable to go home in the evening and potentially find them having friends over - they are a couple after all. Will it be enough for you to be comfortable going home finding them on the sofa in front of the TV when you just want to relax after a day at work? Will it be enough for you to put up with their inevitable arguments - it happens to most couples and can make a 2 bed apartment a seem like a very small space.

    The extra money that you get from this shouldn't just be extra bill money - it needs to be 'peace of mind money'. Money you can use to get out of the apartment if you have to.


  • Options
    #86
    dont bother
    Closed Accounts Posts: 542 ✭✭✭dont bother


    OP, get rid of them.

    even if you were raking it in from them getting 2000 a month, i'd still have them gone.

    living with a couple is the WORST thing you can do. i did it before, their relationship broke down in the meantime, me in the middle. it was total nightmare.
    even when they were together it was a nightmare.

    get rid of them and get <another tenant> sorted


Advertisement