Landlord wants to evict me to move other tenants in

lpool2k05

I moved in with my friend in May last year. She was renting a two bed house. The house was lived in by our current landlord up to 4 years ago before he built another house next to it and my friend moved in

Our address was number 27 while his was 27A and both houses had their own heating supply and electricity.

Last December my friend moved out and she asked the landlord could I take over the house and he said as long as I can pay it wouldnt be a problem.

So I moved a different friend in while he was away without his permission to help with the rent(i know my bad) and he complained about that at the end of December. Then in early January he came into my house and said he wanted myself and my friend to move out within 2months so he can move another couple in. The couple he wants to move in are currently renting a room off him in his house next door.

He also has 4 other houses and has never registered any tenants nor had any leases.

I really want to stay. What rights if any do I have? Could he make my life hell if i did stay and threatened him with the PTRB etc?

Thanks for any advice

athtrasna

Do you have a lease?

lpool2k05

No lease at all given. But i can prove i was living there...Bills etc

Are the two houses attached together with access between them (i.e. one big house) or are they totally seperate houses?

lpool2k05

No theres seperate access to both houses and both houses are private.So he has no access to my house.My address is 27 and his is 27A

lpool2k05

lpool2k05 wrote: »

No theres seperate access to both houses and both houses are private.So he has no access to my house.My address is 27 and his is 27A

So the houses are completely detached from each other? Its an important point as if the houses are attached to each other and there is an access door, even if its permanently locked then you would be licensee rather than a tenant and have no rights.

lpool2k05

The houses are semi detached!! No access to his house from mine or vice-versa!! So Im not living in the same house that he is

Michael D Not Higgins

You were initially a licensee of your friend who was a tenant. By moving out and asking the landlord could you take over, that made you a tenant and your continued occupation as a licensee transfers over so you get Part 4 tenancy rights, according to section 50 of the RTA 2004.

The landlord cannot kick you out for the reason he gave and you can open a PRTB dispute to stay.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You were initially a licensee of your friend who was a tenant. By moving out and asking the landlord could you take over, that made you a tenant and your continued occupation as a licensee transfers over so you get Part 4 tenancy rights, according to section 50 of the RTA 2004.

Why should time as a licensee be considered as counting towards gaining part 4 tenancy. Should the op's time as a tenant not begin when she made the agreement to take over the place and not when she moved in? Therefore part 4 rights would not be gained until July. The RTA has some bizarre rules.

Gatling

Did the op not sublet without permission?

lpool2k05

Does the fact that he is renting 4 houses illegally not give me some stronghold on him?

lpool2k05

lpool2k05 wrote: »

Does the fact that he is renting 4 houses illegally not give me some stronghold on him?

How do you know he is renting them illegally?

Also if you have nothing in writing he could easily claim you were just a licensee of the previous tenant and he never gave you permission to stay on so I wouldn't be so quick to go into full on attack mode with him.

Tiddlypeeps

lpool2k05 wrote: »

Does the fact that he is renting 4 houses illegally not give me some stronghold on him?

The law gives you stronghold over him. He simply cannot evict you just because he wants to move someone else in.

He might be able to evict you based on you moving another person in without his permission but since there is no lease I'm not sure where the law stands on it. I would suspect that legally it's fine since there is no lease and the verbally agreed terms of the tenancy you took over were that sub lets were allowed, but it's hard to say for sure.

Just continue to pay rent as normal, open a case with the PRTB and refuse to move out until the PRTB have made a ruling on the case.

handlemaster

OP. Either way staying longer or trying to manufacture a case against in with the prtb your days living there are coming to an end. Best try and get a good reference from him and move on. Alot less stress all round. Best of luck

Michael D Not Higgins

Sydney Gigantic Finch wrote: »

Why should time as a licensee be considered as counting towards gaining part 4 tenancy. Should the op's time as a tenant not begin when she made the agreement to take over the place and not when she moved in? Therefore part 4 rights would not be gained until July. The RTA has some bizarre rules.

Yeah it's written very much with tenants in mind. I only found that one recently when reading up on what the RTA says about licensees.

Michael D Not Higgins

Sydney Gigantic Finch wrote: »

How do you know he is renting them illegally?

Also if you have nothing in writing he could easily claim you were just a licensee of the previous tenant and he never gave you permission to stay on so I wouldn't be so quick to go into full on attack mode with him.

The PRTB would decide that and likely accepting rent is implicit acceptance of the OP as a tenant.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The PRTB would decide that and likely accepting rent is implicit acceptance of the OP as a tenant.

Could be cash in hand rent, so no proof of anything.

MarkAnthony

Sydney Gigantic Finch wrote: »

Could be cash in hand rent, so no proof of anything.

One party is going to state that they've been paying rent, the other party is (possibly) going to state no rent is being paid. The tenant will state that he is living in the property. The arbiter is going to have to make as decision on the balance of probabilities who's a liar, liar pants on fire.

Who do you think that's going to be?

the_syco

lpool2k05 wrote: »

So I moved a different friend in while he was away without his permission to help with the rent(i know my bad) and he complained about that at the end of December. Then in early January he came into my house and said he wanted myself and my friend to move out within 2months

So basically you moved someone in without asking, landlord had an issue with it, and now wants you gone? Sounds like he wasn't happy with you subletting.

MarkAnthony

MarkAnthony wrote: »

One party is going to state that they've been paying rent, the other party is (possibly) going to state no rent is being paid. The tenant will state that he is living in the property. The arbiter is going to have to make as decision on the balance of probabilities who's a liar, liar pants on fire.

Who do you think that's going to be?

With no proof of anything I'd automatically be siding with the owner of the property. But then again I'm not an arbiter. The PRTB are far too tenant oriented.

housetypeb

This is a new lease as she took over from her friend in December,so her landlord is allowed to give notice within six months of the start of a tenancy,as long as it's not a fixed term lease,which being a verbal contract will be hard for the tenant to prove.
Before that she was a licensee as she was living with her landlord(friend).

Michael D Not Higgins

housetypeb wrote: »

This is a new lease as she took over from her friend in December,so her landlord is allowed to give notice within six months of the start of a tenancy,as long as it's not a fixed term lease,which being a verbal contract will be hard for the tenant to prove.
Before that she was a licensee as she was living with her landlord(friend).

That's not how it works according to section 50 of the RTA.

Lux23

If you want to stay, then open a case with the PRTB and see how it goes. You really don't have anything to lose.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That's not how it works according to section 50 of the RTA.

It is a bit of a sneaky rule though. The assumption would be that your time as a tenant begins the day you agree to take on the house and part 4 doesn't kick in for another 6 months.

I dont see why part 4 rights should be gained through time spend as a licensee.

Michael D Not Higgins

Sydney Gigantic Finch wrote: »

It is a bit of a sneaky rule though. The assumption would be that your time as a tenant begins the day you agree to take on the house and part 4 doesn't kick in for another 6 months.

I dont see why part 4 rights should be gained through time spend as a licensee.

It's not sneaky, it's been published for all landlords to see for the last 12 years. It's the landlord's fault for not knowing the law now, isn't it?

MadDog76

Sydney Gigantic Finch wrote: »

With no proof of anything I'd automatically be siding with the owner of the property. But then again I'm not an arbiter. The PRTB are far too tenant oriented.

The Op has bills in his/her name so it would be safe enough for the PRTB to assume he/she was also paying rent during that time.

Claw Hammer

MadDog76 wrote: »

The Op has bills in his/her name so it would be safe enough for the PRTB to assume he/she was also paying rent during that time.

If the landlord tried to claim there was no rent being paid he would be expected to do something about it. If it is not registered the o/p could get a lot of mileage in a dispute.

MarkAnthony

Sydney Gigantic Finch wrote: »

With no proof of anything I'd automatically be siding with the owner of the property. But then again I'm not an arbiter. The PRTB are far too tenant oriented.

Eh?

Forget the basics of what evidence is; oral testimony alone is not uncommon. Basic common sense would dictate the owner is, on the balance of probability, lying.

While one can argue the merits of the PRTB it becomes a bit difficult when people simply ignore the legislation and fail to apply even basic common sense.