Everyones moving out...Advantage landlord?

bgo1

I moved into a house 7 months ago in which my housemate held the lease solely in her name from the landlord and she let the rooms from there to make up the rent, with the landlords consent.

Now everyone in the rooms in the house is moving out all at one and I am being offered the right to solely hold the lease and rent out the rooms but i'm guessing the rent may go up with a new lease to be signed and i'm due to meet the landlord this week.

My query is that the rent went up by 100 euro in 2015 for my housemate with the lease but will this be able to stop a further increase until 2017, considering i am not on the lease but only subletting a room.

He also has not mentioned an increase yet - does the 3 month notification rule apply just yet or due in shortly?

Many thanks.

Mrs OBumble

Due in shortly, AFAIK.

Because you're not on the lease, then no I don't think the 2015 change will stop another one.

Good luck and happy negotiations. IMHO what is proposed is the best way to house-share. It does mean that you're taking a lot of risk - but also gives you a lot of control, which you don't have otherwise.

housetypeb

You were an licensee when you were subletting the room,as you were then living with the landlord, the other tenant with the lease,not the actual owner.
The disadvantage of being a licensee is that you had few rights,you could have been asked to leave with little or no notice by the lease holder.
The advantage of being sole lease holder is offset against the responsibility of making sure that your tenants pay their rent on time,as you're on the hook for the lot if they don't pay and it's you that the landlord will be calling about late rent.
Some business minded lease holders will raise the rent per room to the others, so that their own share of the total rent is lowered.
The landlord doesn't care who pays what as long as he get his full rent every month.
The advantage to the landlord is that he only has to deal with one tenant,who then has a vested interest in making sure the rent is paid.

In answer to your query, The landlord is within his rights to have a new lease put in place at an increased rent if he wishes as this is considered a new letting.

bgo1

As understand it..i may have part IV rights and not actually require a new lease having lived in the property over 6mths.
I understood licensee to be when living with a homeowner and that i might have more rights as its a rental house.
This may be complicated or not by the fact the landlord is unregistered.

Diamond Doll

You don't have Part IV as you weren't on the lease, you were a licensee of the main (named) tenant.

Marcusm

Diamond Doll wrote: »

You don't have Part IV as you weren't on the lease, you were a licensee of the main (named) tenant.

You might want to read section 50 and related sections before telling people that they don't have any rights. The scenario you posit is covered in sections 49 and 50.

salamanca22

Marcusm wrote: »

You might want to read section 50 and related sections before telling people that they don't have any rights. The scenario you posit is covered in sections 49 and 50.

I am not a lawyer and could indeed be wrong but the residential tenancies act does not include licensees and in my own opinion the op was a licensee of the original tenant so would not have garnered any rights from the act in the time they were living under the previous arrangement.

A multiple tenant that the act is referencing to would in my opinion be a tenant that was vetted and added to the abode by the landlord them self.

Again, that is my understanding and could be way off.

the_syco

bgo1 wrote: »

I moved into a house 7 months ago in which my housemate held the lease solely in her name from the landlord and she let the rooms from there to make up the rent, with the landlords consent.

<MOD SNIP >

If only the housemate is on the lease, who subleased to the OP, how is the OP not a licensee?

athtrasna

Mod note :

Marcusm and Salamanca22 please don't get personal. Posts have been deleted.

Tigger

Who did you pay the rent to?

My reading of this that a lisence is between a person occupying part of a home that is occupied by the owner
You were a tenant In a subletting payment structure

http://www.prtb.ie/media-research/publications/leases-and-licences

athtrasna

Tigger wrote: »

Who did you pay the rent to?

My reading of this that a lisence is between a person occupying part of a home that is occupied by the owner
You were a tenant In a subletting payment structure

http://www.prtb.ie/media-research/publications/leases-and-licences

You do not need to be an owner to be a licensor

housetypeb

"... During the existence of a Part 4 tenancy any lawful licensee of the tenant/s may request the landlord to be allowed to become a tenant of the tenancy. The landlord may not unreasonably refuse such a request and must give his/her acceptance in writing...."

Strange- apparently the lease holder peaceful enjoyment of his home can be interrupted by the landlord foisting the lease holders licensee on him as a tenant...mind you, I'm not a legal eagle so I'm probably wrong.

bgo1

Tigger wrote: »

Who did you pay the rent to?

I pay the rent to my housemate who holds the lease in her name solely. She then pays the landlord the full lease sum at the end of each month.

housetypeb wrote: »

"... During the existence of a Part 4 tenancy any lawful licensee of the tenant/s may request the landlord to be allowed to become a tenant of the tenancy. The landlord may not unreasonably refuse such a request and must give his/her acceptance in writing...."

So i may be able to reasonably ask him to amend the lease to add me (+remove existing lease holder) as I now have Part Iv rights? It would be an important difference as he has already raised the rent in 2015 under this lease.

bgo1

I do appear to be a licensee of the 'tenant' as my understanding of section 49 1(b) of Part IV- and as said by Althrasna.

It also appears i am covered by Part IV rights according to section 49 2a "another of the multiple tenants has been in continuous occupation of the dwelling for 6 months".

Sorry I am only looking this up now but it is still legal speak and its not 100% clear to my situation, so any clarity is great.

My understanding of Section 50 is that my rights only exist (in relation to new rent increase before 2017) if the existing tenancy agreement (lease) remains in place 'subsists'. Hence, if it is possible that I could 'reasonably' ask for my addition to the tenancy agreement id be on the pigs back. Id have to find a legal definition of reasonable and as the landlord is not PTRB registered he may come around to my thinking on reasonable...althouth i cant fail to think im clutching at straws.

Would he not just let the rooms individually? This is how it's worked in the houseshares I've lived in and I'd much prefer it than having to be a sole lease holder, and therefore responsible for all the rent and the condition of the house etc. What if you are a month without filling the room or someone you take on does damage etc.

Mrs OBumble

Take a read of this thread for an example of the disadvantages of having the LL let rooms individually.

In summary, you can get caught living with someone you don't want to live with.

bgo1

Would he not just let the rooms individually? This is how it's worked in the houseshares I've lived in and I'd much prefer it than having to be a sole lease holder, and therefore responsible for all the rent and the condition of the house etc. What if you are a month without filling the room or someone you take on does damage etc.

Landlord wants someone reliable to do the work for him basically, this method has worked for him up to now so he seems content to keep to just one person he has to deal with. Its up to me to find decent tenants and to split the rent as appropriate which is an advantage for the lease holder to weigh up against not having the rooms rented 100% of the time and normal hassles of trying to split bills for exact dates people move out etc.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Take a read of this thread for an example of the disadvantages of having the LL let rooms individually.

In summary, you can get caught living with someone you don't want to live with.

It's always been the person moving out who organise the new person in the places I've lived so if you want you could involve yourself in the viewings or I'm sure the person moving out would be happy for the people living there to deal with its a chore having to search for someone to replace you when moving out.

wexandproud

just wondering , in a situation like this would the person who leases the house and sub lets the rooms have to declare the rent received as income or could they be liable for tax

athtrasna

wexandproud wrote: »

just wondering , in a situation like this would the person who leases the house and sub lets the rooms have to declare the rent received as income or could they be liable for tax

Yes they have to declare but would qualify under rent a room so no tax would be due

athtrasna

athtrasna wrote: »

Yes they have to declare but would qualify under rent a room so no tax would be due

Another good reason to avoid this method of doing it so the hassle of a tax return can be avoided.

athtrasna

Atticus Rapping Pub wrote: »

Another good reason to avoid this method of doing it so the hassle of a tax return can be avoided.

It's a simple form. 5 minutes.

athtrasna

athtrasna wrote: »

It's a simple form. 5 minutes.

You would have to take into account bills etc also though, keep all the receipts etc. Looks a lot of hassle to me and has the risk of being stuck liable for the full rent should something happen.

REXER

Sounds like just another landlord trying to get a free ride!