Have a large spare room, landlord won't let us rent it out. Lots more like us!

power101

I'm currently renting a modern two bed apartment with my girlfriend. (No one beds in the building) The second room is a double room with plenty of storage, overlooking a large green space and only 25 min walk to Dublin city centre.

This room is empty and we are not allowed to have a licencee rent the room. Most landlords seem to have the same rules restricting people from having licencees in their extra rooms.

In today's market and with the massive issues that are being experienced with regards the lack of accommodation surely this would be a reasonably easy way to create a large amount of supply in a short time.

I understand landlords reservations and I think it would be fair for landlords to have the right to approve such licencees and even seek extra deposit amounts in case of any issues.

Saying that though this would be a quick way to help the current issues in Ireland. It would allow renters to have the option to save more and create a quick boost to supply.

...__...

power101 wrote: »

I understand landlords reservations and I think it would be fair for landlords to have the right to approve such licencees and even seek extra deposit amounts in case of any issues.

Saying that though this would be a quick way to help the current issues in Ireland. It would allow renters to have the option to save more and create a quick boost to supply.

If only that would be the reality, all that will happen is crazy amounts for renting out a room. like 700 euro a month for a room on the outskirts of west Dublin or 1500 a month for a room in the south inner city.

power101

...__... wrote: »

If only that would be the reality, all that will happen is crazy amounts for renting out a room. like 700 euro a month for a room on the outskirts of west Dublin or 1500 a month for a room in the south inner city.

I don't really get your point. Landlords could and some already rent by room, but the majority don't because of the extra workload associated with doing that themselves. The majority of landlords want to have certainty for a year with regards income and won't want to rely on people that can leave anytime they want.

All the risk will be on the current tenant with the lease for the property who will be responsible for returning the property as they received it.

An increase in supply is not going to lead to an increase in rental prices. Surely more accommodation on the market is a good thing.

awec

Most people have absolutely no interest in sharing accommodation like this so it wouldn't really fix the supply problem.

And most two-bed apartments are not geared to have 4 people living there. I'm also not sure if they'd be licensees or tenants, they'd not be living with the landlord so presumably they'd have full tenant rights (and therefore tenant obligations, i.e. not being able to leave on a whim).

You can also be sure if you were to sublet a room and get a rental income that your own rent would increase significantly as soon as possible.

power101

awec wrote: »

Most people have absolutely no interest in sharing accommodation like this so it wouldn't really fix the supply problem.

And most two-bed apartments are not geared to have 4 people living there. I'm also not sure if they'd be licensees or tenants, they'd not be living with the landlord so presumably they'd have full tenant rights (and therefore tenant obligations, i.e. not being able to leave on a whim).

You can also be sure if you were to sublet a room and get a rental income that your own rent would increase significantly as soon as possible.

Most people, but some do. It may not suit 4 people but 3 people wouldn't be excessive. They would be living with the person renting the property who technically would be their landlord. This would make them a licencee. The original lessee can take advantage of the rent a room scheme and pay no tax on the income from the licencee.

Senecio

Many landlords don't allow subletting because they are not comfortable to hand over control of who stays in their dwelling to a tenant. I can't blame them.

power101

Senecio wrote: »

Many landlords don't allow subletting because they are not comfortable to hand over control of who stays in their dwelling to a tenant. I can't blame them.

As I said in the opening post. Landlords could be given the right to approve licencees so that they keep control.

pilly

power101 wrote:

This room is empty and we are not allowed to have a licencee rent the room. Most landlords seem to have the same rules restricting people from having licencees in their extra rooms.

Why didnt you just share in the first place?

power101

pilly wrote: »

Why didnt you just share in the first place?

I was sharing for a few years . There comes a time in life when it calls for renting and eventually buying. People aren't going to share forever but it can be useful to younger people for a few years.

pilly

power101 wrote: »

I was sharing for a few years . There comes a time in life when it calls for renting and eventually buying. People aren't going to share forever but it can be useful to younger people for a few years.

My question was a genuine one in that I thought from your opening post that you would like another tenant in the other room. If you wouldn't then maybe a lot of other people in 2 bedroom apartments wouldn't either so the idea may not release thousands of rooms after all?

I think people who want to share generally go into a lease as a group anyway.

Do you know what I mean?

power101

pilly wrote: »

My question was a genuine one in that I thought from your opening post that you would like another tenant in the other room. If you wouldn't then maybe a lot of other people in 2 bedroom apartments wouldn't either so the idea may not release thousands of rooms after all?

I think people who want to share generally go into a lease as a group anyway.

Do you know what I mean?

Just to be clear. I would like to be able to have a licencee in the room as it would allow me to save more. I understand what you're saying and obviously sharing isn't for everyone, however there are 800,000 people renting in Ireland so if this allowed even a few % of renters to have a licencee it could have a huge positive affect and I don't think saying several thousand is a massive overestimate. It may well be an underestimate.

pilly

power101 wrote: »

Just to be clear. I would like to be able to have a licencee in the room as it would allow me to save more. I understand what you're saying and obviously sharing isn't for everyone, however there are 800,000 people renting in Ireland so if this allowed even a few % of renters to have a licencee it could have a huge positive affect and I don't think saying several thousand is a massive overestimate. It may well be an underestimate.

But that's exactly what I meant, you having a licencee in the other room is effectively the same as sharing. Yourself, OH and another person? I don't get why it has to be a licencee situation? Maybe there's something I'm not understanding here. Or maybe things have just gone overboard in terms of regulation. What exactly is stopping you having someone else in the room who pays a share of the rent?

power101

pilly wrote: »

But that's exactly what I meant, you having a licencee in the other room is effectively the same as sharing. Yourself, OH and another person? I don't get why it has to be a licencee situation? Maybe there's something I'm not understanding here. Or maybe things have just gone overboard in terms of regulation. What exactly is stopping you having someone else in the room who pays a share of the rent?

It's specifically in almost all leases these days that a tenant can't rent out a room. The alternative is I would have to try to find someone in advance of renting an apartment to take the second room but that would be overly complicated and likely cause delays renting places due to having to wait for the other party to agree.

Idbatterim

could we a win / win / win, more rooms freed up, existing tenants looking to save towards a deposit etc can save quicker and landlord can take in more money...

pilly

power101 wrote: »

It's specifically in almost all leases these days that a tenant can't rent out a room. The alternative is I would have to try to find someone in advance of renting an apartment to take the second room but that would be overly complicated and likely cause delays renting places due to having to wait for the other party to agree.

Oh right, I get where you're coming from now. I've never noticed it on a lease but then I wouldn't be specifically looking for that I suppose. There was a time when it was all a bit more relaxed I suppose.

The problem is the people who abuse this type of freedom, like Ms Firmo on another thread who has about 3 in each bedroom and the house is in bits.

It's the problem tenants that restrict it for everyone else really.

...__...

power101 wrote: »

I don't really get your point. Landlords could and some already rent by room, but the majority don't because of the extra workload associated with doing that themselves. The majority of landlords want to have certainty for a year with regards income and won't want to rely on people that can leave anytime they want.

All the risk will be on the current tenant with the lease for the property who will be responsible for returning the property as they received it.

An increase in supply is not going to lead to an increase in rental prices. Surely more accommodation on the market is a good thing.

Sure more accommodating is a good thing but Im skeptical that the amount what you suggest would stem the rising rents. I would predict all it would do is make it easier to find somewhere and still have to pay a large amount.

The other side of the coin with renting by the room is that there is minimal down time with income. ie: only one room empty at a time as opposed to a full house empty. It wouldn't be as much of a problem in Dublin now but there was a time when renting a house could mean periods of 2 months or more with nothing coming in.
Renting by the room would mean you minimize the potential impact as the chances of everyone moving out together would be slim.

...__...

I would be in favor of it I mean your paying the rent to the landlord how you get it and what you do in the house should be up to you.
As long as everyone is protected is what counts the licensee regulations or lack of them doesn't make it very attractive to rent as a licensee.

Emme

power101 wrote: »

Just to be clear. I would like to be able to have a licencee in the room as it would allow me to save more. I understand what you're saying and obviously sharing isn't for everyone, however there are 800,000 people renting in Ireland so if this allowed even a few % of renters to have a licencee it could have a huge positive affect and I don't think saying several thousand is a massive overestimate. It may well be an underestimate.

Why don't you move into a shared house or apartment so you can save money? The landlord owns the property and has a right to decide how many people can rent his apartment. You were happy to rent the property under the conditions set out by the landlord.

I don't think it's a good idea for people renting a premises to have a licencee. A licencee has fewer rights than a tenant. Many people would prefer not to rent from an owner-occupier for this reason. People also prefer not to rent with a couple if they can avoid it.

People in your situation have been known to rent out the spare room on the quiet but I would not advise that.

Here is what can happen when subletting gets out of hand:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/must-shower-at-least-once-a-day-wear-deodorant-the-108-crazy-rules-these-tenants-are-forced-to-live-by-35255339.html

cerastes

power101 wrote: »

Just to be clear. I would like to be able to have a licencee in the room as it would allow me to save more. I understand what you're saying and obviously sharing isn't for everyone, however there are 800,000 people renting in Ireland so if this allowed even a few % of renters to have a licencee it could have a huge positive affect and I don't think saying several thousand is a massive overestimate. It may well be an underestimate.

Essentially, you could ask the landlord for permission to sublet, this is what you are saying it seems, that an option to sublet to a licencee could have its advantages. I can see that it could for both the landlord and the tenant, assuming the landlord wasnt reducing the rental cost in any way to account for loow usage, in a case where they just want someone in but not huge traffic.

pilly wrote: »

But that's exactly what I meant, you having a licencee in the other room is effectively the same as sharing. Yourself, OH and another person? I don't get why it has to be a licencee situation? Maybe there's something I'm not understanding here. Or maybe things have just gone overboard in terms of regulation. What exactly is stopping you having someone else in the room who pays a share of the rent?

Subletting, permission would need to be granted from the landlord. The same as sharing how? like licencees or tenants, no its not the same as that. Im open to correction but the licencee would not have rights like a tenant sharing who would be on the lease.

power101 wrote: »

It's specifically in almost all leases these days that a tenant can't rent out a room. The alternative is I would have to try to find someone in advance of renting an apartment to take the second room but that would be overly complicated and likely cause delays renting places due to having to wait for the other party to agree.

This could have benefits for those that are renting but dont mind sharing, many get into renting on their own I think so they dont have to share anymore. In a way it offers them some protection from anything unusual or that they dont like in that the person would be subletting or a licencee.
In a way, the landlord would be protected from issues too, but they would seemingly want to hold the deposit and have the final say on anyone or if there was problems with them.
I think what needs to be clarified is, what are the rights of a person subletting? are they a sublettee or a licencee?

I think it could be a workable scenario and any suggestion outside the norm is good, but Im not convinced it will free up the amount of rooms you think, overall I think its a good idea, but many tenants might not want to get into the situation and neither may many landlords, that doesnt mean that it means there would be a possibility of 50% of the remaining rented accomodation available as those two possibilities may not always overlap, eliminate whats in areas not sought by potential sublettees, anyones guess what percent is left.

Idbatterim

in response to a few points made here, first of all many people would like to save more, but dont want to move, due to hassle, the rent may well increase and also it is hard for couples to get a room in a houseshare.

Spanish Eyes

Subletting on the fly is happening without the LL knowing in many cases anyway I would imagine.

power101

Emme wrote: »

Why don't you move into a shared house or apartment so you can save money? The landlord owns the property and has a right to decide how many people can rent his apartment. You were happy to rent the property under the conditions set out by the landlord.

I don't think it's a good idea for people renting a premises to have a licencee. A licencee has fewer rights than a tenant. Many people would prefer not to rent from an owner-occupier for this reason. People also prefer not to rent with a couple if they can avoid it.

People in your situation have been known to rent out the spare room on the quiet but I would not advise that.

Here is what can happen when subletting gets out of hand:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/must-shower-at-least-once-a-day-wear-deodorant-the-108-crazy-rules-these-tenants-are-forced-to-live-by-35255339.html

As I explained earlier I've lived in house shares for years. I'm moving on in life and I want more security in the accommodation im living in.

I wasn't happy actually to rent it with those conditions attached but it's the same with most landlords these days so I'm left with little choice in the matter.

You say"many people" above. Again this is not all people. Young people especially are willing to house share.

Your example is a house owner subletting directly themselves. That isn't what I'm discussing and like anything one extreme event doesn't make it a regular occurrence.

awec

power101 wrote: »

As I explained earlier I've lived in house shares for years. I'm moving on in life and I want more security in the accommodation im living in.

I wasn't happy actually to rent it with those conditions attached but it's the same with most landlords these days so I'm left with little choice in the matter.

You say"many people" above. Again this is not all people. Young people especially are willing to house share.

Your example is a house owner subletting directly themselves. That isn't what I'm discussing and like anything one extreme event doesn't make it a regular occurrence.

Sure. As tenants though.

I think most landlords don't allow it because they are taking a risk and getting pretty much no reward for it. There's nothing in it for them unless they increase your rent, in which case the tenant (you) would probably be against it and decide not to bother.

athtrasna

Mod note

Thread title edited to be more reflective of the situation at hand and not clickbait-esque. As per the forum charter please use meaningful thread titles.

Emme

power101 wrote: »

As I explained earlier I've lived in house shares for years. I'm moving on in life and I want more security in the accommodation im living in.

I wasn't happy actually to rent it with those conditions attached but it's the same with most landlords these days so I'm left with little choice in the matter.

You say"many people" above. Again this is not all people. Young people especially are willing to house share.

Your example is a house owner subletting directly themselves. That isn't what I'm discussing and like anything one extreme event doesn't make it a regular occurrence.

If you rented out the spare room in the apartment you're back to a houseshare situation again. Or do you want that person to have the status of a licencee so you can kick them out when you feel like it? In the meantime you as a tenant are protected. That is not fair. You are basically looking to have your cake (security in your accommodation) and eat it (have a licencee you can kick out if you you feel like it).

pilly

Emme wrote: »

If you rented out the spare room in the apartment you're back to a houseshare situation again. Or do you want that person to have the status of a licencee so you can kick them out when you feel like it? In the meantime you as a tenant are protected. That is not fair. You are basically looking to have your cake (security in your accommodation) and eat it (have a licencee you can kick out if you you feel like it).

Getting that distinct feel alright. OP wants to get extra income but put all the responsibilities onto the LL.

power101

Emme wrote: »

If you rented out the spare room in the apartment you're back to a houseshare situation again. Or do you want that person to have the status of a licencee so you can kick them out when you feel like it? In the meantime you as a tenant are protected. That is not fair. You are basically looking to have your cake (security in your accommodation) and eat it (have a licencee you can kick out if you you feel like it).

The point of this thread seems to be getting lost. There are thousands of empty rooms in Dublin and Ireland that with legislation could be filled in a short space of time and could help alleviate the current rental crisis and lack of accommodation. I want to be able to rent out my spare room, that's it.

power101

pilly wrote: »

Getting that distinct feel alright. OP wants to get extra income but put all the responsibilities onto the LL.

Responsibility is with the tenant who signed the lease who is obliged to return the property back in the same way they initially rented it.

Yourself isit

Emme wrote: »

If you rented out the spare room in the apartment you're back to a houseshare situation again. Or do you want that person to have the status of a licencee so you can kick them out when you feel like it? In the meantime you as a tenant are protected. That is not fair. You are basically looking to have your cake (security in your accommodation) and eat it (have a licencee you can kick out if you you feel like it).

He's also looking for the tax free sublet rent. Hiding behind concern for the situation of other renters.

muggles

After 6 months a licensee may request to become a tenant with all the rights of a Part 4 tenancy and the landlord may not unreasonably refuse such a request.

power101

power101 wrote: »

Most people, but some do. It may not suit 4 people but 3 people wouldn't be excessive. They would be living with the person renting the property who technically would be their landlord. This would make them a licencee. The original lessee can take advantage of the rent a room scheme and pay no tax on the income from the licencee.

This is the main point for you, lining your pocket using someone else's property.

power101

muggles wrote: »

After 6 months a licensee may request to become a tenant with all the rights of a Part 4 tenancy and the landlord may not unreasonably refuse such a request.

No they can't. A licencee does not get part 4 tenancy.

power101

Yourself isit wrote: »

He's also looking for the tax free sublet rent. Hiding behind concern for the situation of other renters.

Or showing that many people may be interested in doing this and that it could open up thousands of new rooms for accommodation which I've repeated several times now.

muggles

power101 wrote: »

No they can't. A licencee does not get part 4 tenancy.

Really?? You might want to take a read of this.

http://www.rtb.ie/media-research/publications/licensees-in-private-rented-accommodation


Chapter 6 of Part 4 contains the rules governing the operation of Part 4 in cases of multiple occupants. In some instances the multiple occupants will all be tenants but in other instances they will be a mixture of tenants and licensees. A tenancy becomes a Part 4 tenancy on the earliest date at which one of the tenants has been in occupation for 6 months. 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. All the rights, restrictions and obligations of a tenant will then apply to the former licensee except that the protection of the Part 4 tenancy will not apply until the former licensee has completed 6 months of continuous occupation counting time spent as a licensee and as a tenant.

power101

Augeo wrote: »

This is the main point for you, lining your pocket using someone else's property.

Really, if it's the main point to me I would have concentrated on that point but I haven't. I could easily say that landlords are lining their own pockets charging the highest rents in Irish history due to the lack of property and accommodation on the market

Tombo2001

Senecio wrote: »

Many landlords don't allow subletting because they are not comfortable to hand over control of who stays in their dwelling to a tenant. I can't blame them.

On this, I was talking to an international student recently looking for accommodation.

She mentioned she was going to see a two bedroom flat with 10 people living in it. And there was no disguising it.....they were quite upfront about it. It was five to a room. And it was a sublet.

Amongst the many other questions one would ask, is if the Landlord was aware of it.

I was talking to another student who said they were answering an ad for a room share, which was actually a bed share. Moving and sharing a bed with a complete stranger.......I said 'ewwww'....to which the student replied she had actually seen an ad for a a 'couch share'.........double ewwww....

Yes there is a rental crisis.

Yes there are good reasons not to do a sublet.

Yes when your LL was letting the place, s/he could have let it to 4 people instead of 2, and s/he would be getting more rent.

No s/he chose not to.

As a matter of interest; if the second room was to be let out, with the entire rental proceeds going to the LL, would you still be in favour? it being to alleviate the accommodation crisis and so on.....

power101

power101 wrote: »

Or showing that many people may be interested in doing this and that it could open up thousands of new rooms for accommodation which I've repeated several times now.

Of course many people are interested in making €500/€600 per month tax free by renting out someone else's property.

Which is why most leases stipulate that you cannot do so, they also stipulated this in the depths of the recession when rents were low.

If you want a houseshare move into one and your current apartment will be freed up for someone else

power101

power101 wrote: »

Really, if it's the main point to me I would have concentrated on that point but I haven't. I could easily say that landlords are lining their own pockets charging the highest rents in Irish history due to the lack of property and accommodation on the market

What is your primary motivation to rent your spare room?

Answer that honestly............ go on.

power101 wrote: »

...I want to be able to rent out my spare room, that's it.

Why?



As a landlord I received very small rent in the recession and did not moan about it. I'll take market rates now, lining my pocket is my aim as a landlord. Much like when I go to work I do it for financial reasons.

Tombo2001

Augeo wrote: »

What is your primary motivation to rent your spare room?
Answer that honestly............ go on.



As a landlord I received very small rent in the recession and did not moan about it. I'll take market rates now, lining my pocket is my aim as a landlord. Much like when I go to work I do it for financial reasons.

OP

You are going on about Landlord greed

And yet your own post seems to be very much about self interest, dressed up opportunistically in the moral glow of 'alleviating the rental crisis'.

Sorry to be blunt.

But you cant give out about Landlords taking an opportunity to make some dough, when you are seeking to do exactly the same.....even more so when you are trying to make some dough
off someone else's capital.

Tombo2001

power101 wrote: »

The point of this thread seems to be getting lost. There are thousands of empty rooms in Dublin and Ireland that with legislation could be filled in a short space of time and could help alleviate the current rental crisis and lack of accommodation. I want to be able to rent out my spare room, that's it.

Its not your spare room......

SteM

power101 wrote: »

Really, if it's the main point to me I would have concentrated on that point but I haven't. I could easily say that landlords are lining their own pockets charging the highest rents in Irish history due to the lack of property and accommodation on the market

Landlords have made an investment and the rent they receive is a return on their investment. You don't like the amount of rent you are paying but you aren't in debt up to your eyeballs with the constant threat of a tenant refusing to pay rent. They may be charging stupid money but many of them aren't actually making a fortune believe it or not.

What you want is for the landlord to increase their risk by allowing another person into the apartment/house (a young person as you keep saying, most landlords try and avoid letting to young people) with zero reward while you take the reward tax free. You say the landlord could have final say on who goes in but again, it's more work for them checking references etc but with no reward for anyone except you.

Michael D Not Higgins

The proposal is a win win for tenants and licensees. They get lower rent and more rental supply.

It is a loss for landlords. They get higher wear and tear, the same rental income, and another Part 4 tenant in 6 months.

Any proposal that would force landlords to accept this will push more of them out of the market. It is not a sustainable way to address the supply and it pushes the balance further towards tenants.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The proposal ...........

Thankfully it's not a proposal as such, merely someone's mutterings on a forum

deepsilent

Good for you to ask your landlord, I'm searching for a flat right now and it's incredible the amount of people subletting or even posting the rooms on airBnB as though it was it was theirs.

Del2005

power101 wrote: »

Really, if it's the main point to me I would have concentrated on that point but I haven't. I could easily say that landlords are lining their own pockets charging the highest rents in Irish history due to the lack of property and accommodation on the market

Landlords are charging high rents and paying up to 50% in tax for the pleasure along with other charges and have absolutely zero support from the RTB if the tenant causes damage or stops paying rent. Yet you want to earn €14k tax free from this persons property. I think someone other than the greedy landlord is looking to line their pockets from the rental crisis.

I can't remember the same amount of concern about landlords lining their pockets with the rental crisis of only a few years ago where everyone was demanding thousands off their rent as there was an oversupply of rental property.

Mrs OBumble

muggles wrote: »

After 6 months a licensee may request to become a tenant with all the rights of a Part 4 tenancy and the landlord may not unreasonably refuse such a request.

But many don't do so, because they don't want to be jointly and individually liable for the entire rent.

OP has a fair point. IMHO the head tenant is the one taking more risk, because they have to live with the licensee and fix any damage they did .

Tombo2001

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But many don't do so, because they don't want to be jointly and individually liable for the entire rent.

OP has a fair point. IMHO the head tenant is the one taking more risk, because they have to live with the licensee and fix any damage they did .

So they don't own the property, they get tax free income out of the property that they haven't paid a penny for; and the only 'risk' to them is the unlikely event of material damage being caused by the sub-lessee, which they themselves vet.....

And the risk is to them.....of course it is.

But risk versus reward is how you evaluate a proposition; and the reward massively outweighs the risk.

cerastes

muggles wrote: »

Really?? You might want to take a read of this.

http://www.rtb.ie/media-research/publications/licensees-in-private-rented-accommodation


Chapter 6 of Part 4 contains the rules governing the operation of Part 4 in cases of multiple occupants. In some instances the multiple occupants will all be tenants but in other instances they will be a mixture of tenants and licensees. A tenancy becomes a Part 4 tenancy on the earliest date at which one of the tenants has been in occupation for 6 months. 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. All the rights, restrictions and obligations of a tenant will then apply to the former licensee except that the protection of the Part 4 tenancy will not apply until the former licensee has completed 6 months of continuous occupation counting time spent as a licensee and as a tenant.

That's assuming the landlord knows about the subletting, also from reading what the op is saying they don't seem to want to pull a miss firmo and make money, just reduce their costs by spreading that with someone else, and in the situation they describe they would be liable for any damage or consequences as a result of a subletting, especially without permission.
The landlord if discovering this would only be able to ask them to terminate the unapproved subletting, which they would have to comply with or they could be subject to the start of a termination notice themselves.
The main reasons a landlord might not want a subletting is that they have set the rent accordingly for those present and may consider it should be higher for additional people and because less people should mean less wear and tear, I'd suggest the op enquires off their landlord for permission.

murphaph

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Subletting on the fly is happening without the LL knowing in many cases anyway I would imagine.

I'd say it's rife (though it's not sub-letting, that's when you vacate yourself and let the entire) with the current rates. Doesn't make it right though, if the lease forbids it. If a tenant broke a lease like this with me I'd evict.

A head tenant letting the spare room to a licencee should be common, but it's already hard enough for landlords to evict their own tenants, never mind their tenants' tenants. Landlords simply do not feel comfortable with the idea generally. Again it goes back to poor regulation of the sector.