Landlord forcing me into arrears

Stratahead

Hi,

I'm 8 months in my accommodation, the lease was a 6 month fixed term one. I moved here after seeing the property on a Facebook group and signed the contract along with the two guys who already live there.

These two are now moving out leaving me as the sole occupier of the house. The landlord contacted me when they handed in their notice to put my name on the electric account which I did.

Since then I have advertised the two rooms that will be spare on daft, the landlord since contacted me and said I will not be allowed to sublet any rooms and that I will be the only person in the house once the other two leave. He has also informed the other two not to allow any viewings (he claims it would be illegal without his permission) of their rooms and that they must remain locked at all times.

This is tripling my rent which I cannot afford. I've contacted threshold and they've advised me to go ahead and move people in. They also said it's quite likely that my landlord is trying to force me to breach my tenancy agreement so he can put the rent up and bring someone else in. I'm worried about bringing people in as they won't have a contract to sign, my landlord is going to accuse me of subletting and it's kinda sketchy moving strangers in under such circumstances.

I'd love to go elsewhere but I have only 4 days left to figure this out and I won't get my deposit back without the proper notice period.

Any advice would be appreciated here. I don't want to end up in debt or homeless.

Mr. Incognito

Stratahead wrote: »

Hi,

I'm 8 months in my accommodation, the lease was a 6 month fixed term one. I moved here after seeing the property on a Facebook group and signed the contract along with the two guys who already live there.

These two are now moving out leaving me as the sole occupier of the house. The landlord contacted me when they handed in their notice to put my name on the electric account which I did.

Since then I have advertised the two rooms that will be spare on daft, the landlord since contacted me and said I will not be allowed to sublet any rooms and that I will be the only person in the house once the other two leave. He has also informed the other two not to allow any viewings (he claims it would be illegal without his permission) of their rooms and that they must remain locked at all times.

This is tripling my rent which I cannot afford. I've contacted threshold and they've advised me to go ahead and move people in. They also said it's quite likely that my landlord is trying to force me to breach my tenancy agreement so he can put the rent up and bring someone else in. I'm worried about bringing people in as they won't have a contract to sign, my landlord is going to accuse me of subletting and it's kinda sketchy moving strangers in under such circumstances.

I'd love to go elsewhere but I have only 4 days left to figure this out and I won't get my deposit back without the proper notice period.

Any advice would be appreciated here. I don't want to end up in debt or homeless.

You are renting a room not the house

Tell him that you won't be moving out and if he doesn't want to rent the other rooms fine. You'll not be subsidising the rent. He has accepted the termination of the other two lads. After that you are not responsible for their share of the rent.

He'll shortly change his tune.

DubCount

I don't think Threshold have given the best advice here. You cant sublet without the consent of the landlord. If you go ahead against your landlord instruction, you could be in hot water. I don't see any way out if you cant pay the rent yourself.

Stratahead

DubCount wrote: »

I don't think Threshold have given the best advice here. You cant sublet without the consent of the landlord. If you go ahead against your landlord instruction, you could be in hot water. I don't see any way out if you cant pay the rent yourself.

I've tried this but because my name is on the tenancy then that would leave me liable for the rent. There's no law on this so I've no idea where I stand. I've never been in debt before and that's my biggest fear if I stand my ground.

Sarn

If you are renting the entire property surely you should be able to reassign the lease from the other two individuals? My understanding is that the LL cannot object to this provided the tenants are of an equivalent 'quality'.

DubCount

https://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/the-three-stages-of-a-tenancy/what-is-subletting-

Paulw

When you first rented, were you the only name on the lease? Or did you sign a lease for a house share? I'm confused.

Bushmanpm

"Eight months in on a SIX MONTH FIXED TERM lease" and Threshold reckon the landlord is trying to force YOU to breach your tenancy agreement?
Wow!
I'd also check your lease (the six month one from eight months ago) regarding subletting because if the agreement is between you and the landlord, how can you introduce a third party that the landlord knows nothing about other than you're desperate?
So to recap, Threshold are not only advising questionable subletting, they are also encouraging overholding?
Good job they're not publicly funded by tax payers, some of which would be landlords.

davindub

DubCount wrote: »

https://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/the-three-stages-of-a-tenancy/what-is-subletting-

what has that got to do with the OP? He is not subletting the property to another.

OP the LL actually has no legal recourse to take with you, you are free to replace tenants and it is common. Threshold are absolutely correct, the LL want to terminate your tenancy for whatever reason, but cannot do it. He is mistaken if he believes that he can force you out financially.

As you probably replaced a tenants yourself, i'd say you and your housemates shared a tenancy rather than each having one of your own. For the LL this means he can expect the full rent to be paid, but cannot interfere with the replacement of tenants. He surrenders his property rights to the holders of the tenancy in return for rent.

Normally I would suggest you let the LL vet the new tenants, but in this instance don't bother. Just go ahead and do it. Also have you keys to those doors and the other tenants have moved out? If not replace the locks and deduct from the rent and send him a copy of the receipt. any case he would have would be countered by your claim for possession of property.

Stratahead

Paulw wrote: »

When you first rented, were you the only name on the lease? Or did you sign a lease for a house share? I'm confused.

There were two people in here when I first moved in. I signed a lease along with the other occupants who already resided at the house. I didn't sign any lease for a house share.

Stratahead

DubCount wrote: »

I don't think Threshold have given the best advice here. You cant sublet without the consent of the landlord. If you go ahead against your landlord instruction, you could be in hot water. I don't see any way out if you cant pay the rent yourself.

Threshold have advised me that it wouldn't be subletting because I'm not subletting the property as a hole but the lease does specify subletting rooms. I haven't a clue what to do to be honest.

TheChizler

Bushmanpm wrote: »

"Eight months in on a SIX MONTH FIXED TERM lease" and Threshold reckon the landlord is trying to force YOU to breach your tenancy agreement?
Wow!
I'd also check your lease (the six month one from eight months ago) regarding subletting because if the agreement is between you and the landlord, how can you introduce a third party that the landlord knows nothing about other than you're desperate?
So to recap, Threshold are not only advising questionable subletting, they are also encouraging overholding?
Good job they're not publicly funded by tax payers, some of which would be landlords.

You think staying on beyond the end of a lease is overholding?

Stratahead

TheChizler wrote: »

You think staying on beyond the end of a lease is overholding?

The landlord has stated he has no problem with me staying on in the house but he doesn't permit any other occupants to move in. I don't think overholding is an issue here.

Zillah

Stratahead wrote: »

but the lease does specify subletting rooms

Specify what, that it is allowed?

Stratahead

Zillah wrote: »

Specify what, that it is allowed?

That I can't sublet any room or part of the property. Threshold have advised that if I bring new people in that it wouldn't be subletting.

jimmycrackcorm

Stratahead wrote:

That I can't sublet any room or part of the property. Threshold have advised that if I bring new people in that it wouldn't be subletting.

Not avoiding to the link above, because you would be the one collecting the rent from them.

The landlord can't stop you from locking the other rooms our from having guests over if you are paying the full rent.

I wouldn't fancy the landlords chances against the rtb the way he is carrying on though.

The_Conductor

It would appear that the OP and his two housemates- have rented the house- as opposed to the rooms- and not individual rooms.

Accordingly- any one of the 3 of them- are jointly and severally liable to rent the entire property.

They have specific lease terms forbidding leasing individual rooms- which is well and good.

The OP can reassign the lease in full to another person- if they no longer wish to continue the tenancy- however, they have undertaken not to sublet rooms.

The information Threshold have given in this instance- is pretty appalling.

OP- can you confirm- you and your two housemates- were renting the entire house- and not individual rooms?

padser

The advice being given here is a bit bonkers. Without having details of the lease it's impossible to know what situation the LL and PP are in. Generic answers like "LL can't object to you moving in tenants" are quite possible completely wrong.

@OP, did Threshold view the lease before giving you advice? If so, I'd believe their advice. If not, I'd disregard it, unless they advised you that their advice was accurate irrespective of what's in your lease (which I doubt given you are only 8 months in the property).

@OP, if you can't afford going to solicitor (best option) then take an hour, sit down and read your lease. It's written in English and will at least mostly be readable. If there is something you don't understand post it onto the legal forum and ask if someone can translate it for you into plain English. If you find a clause that directly prohibits you from bringing in sub tenants see if you can find something online (like citizens advice) which would indicate whether that clause is legal or not

davo10

Op, put simply, is the LL saying 2 replacements cannot move in, or is he saying you cannot sublet? These are two very different situations. You can get two new people to rent the rooms under the terms of the lease you signed, you are replacing like with like, three tenants who all pay rent to the LL at the rate agreed. But he seems to be saying you cannot sublet the rooms, i.e. The two new tenants are renting from and paying rent to you as the lease holder. That is standard in most residential tenancies, LL do not allow sublets where the main tenant may actually be making a profit and the new tenants are licencees.

Browney7

Just as a matter of interest OP, what happened the deposit for the departing tenants? Did landlord refund their portion or will it be up to you to give them their portion.

If you get two people in and keep paying the rent and they're fine and do no damage do you really think the landlord will go to the RTB? Landlord: "One of my tenants was left with no where to go, got other people in on their own initiative who have done nothing wrong and haven't missed a days rent but I want to enforce one term in the lease for reasons known only to myself". If the RTB is as pro tenant as people say.....

Stratahead

The_Conductor wrote: »

It would appear that the OP and his two housemates- have rented the house- as opposed to the rooms- and not individual rooms.

Accordingly- any one of the 3 of them- are jointly and severally liable to rent the entire property.

They have specific lease terms forbidding leasing individual rooms- which is well and good.

The OP can reassign the lease in full to another person- if they no longer wish to continue the tenancy- however, they have undertaken not to sublet rooms.

The information Threshold have given in this instance- is pretty appalling.

OP- can you confirm- you and your two housemates- were renting the entire house- and not individual rooms?

Yeah, we were renting the entire house. Everyone is on the main lease of the house.

dogbert27

As the other two tenants were already in the house when you moved in I assume you each paid your portion of the rent to the landlord, i.e. 3 separate payments to the landlords account.

If the landlord has agreed to the other tenants leaving but still wants their portion of the rent paid to him then he has to accept that you can have two more people replace the previous tenants.

If the two new tenants pay the landlord directly then this would not be subletting as you personally would not be receiving any money from the new tenants.

Is the landlord registered with the PRTB?

Stratahead

Browney7 wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest OP, what happened the deposit for the departing tenants? Did landlord refund their portion or will it be up to you to give them their portion.

If you get two people in and keep paying the rent and they're fine and do no damage do you really think the landlord will go to the RTB? Landlord: "One of my tenants was left with no where to go, got other people in on their own initiative who have done nothing wrong and haven't missed a days rent but I want to enforce one term in the lease for reasons known only to myself". If the RTB is as pro tenant as people say.....

The other tenants believe they're getting their deposits back. He has told them that they will receive their deposit but I sincerely doubt this.

beauf

Stratahead wrote: »

....the lease was a 6 month fixed term one...

Sounds like hes keeping short term tenants so he can rotate the tenants and increase the rent.

I'm curious what lease Threashold thinks he is breaking.

The_Conductor

beauf wrote: »

Sounds like hes keeping short term tenants so he can rotate the tenants and increase the rent.

I'm curious what lease Threashold thinks he is breaking.

I'm guessing Threshold told the OP whatever he wanted to hear- to get him off the phone. Honestly- I'm staggered that they continue to receive state funding- their advice is simply appalling.

So- the OP and his housemates signed a lease for the entire property- and his two mates have now buggered off.......

Solution- request permission to assign the lease- do so- and get out of there.
Aka- one person can't sublet to randomers- they are jointly and severally liable for the rent for the property. The two housemates who buggered off- are in the same boat- they continue to be jointly and severally liable for the rent.

You are letting the whole property- as you agreed to- and you've also agreed you're not subletting bedrooms to others.

Next time- read the lease when you're signing it.

The two housemates who've buggered off- got the deal of the century- you gave them a 'get out of jail free card'.

Key to all of this- you are renting the whole house- with your two mates- and have signed a lease expressly agreeing not to sublet bedrooms...........

You are liable for the entirety of the rent- if you decide to stay- mind you- your two mates are too.

Stratahead

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'm guessing Threshold told the OP whatever he wanted to hear- to get him off the phone. Honestly- I'm staggered that they continue to receive state funding- their advice is simply appalling.

So- the OP and his housemates signed a lease for the entire property- and his two mates have now buggered off.......

Solution- request permission to assign the lease- do so- and get out of there.
Aka- one person can't sublet to randomers- they are jointly and severally liable for the rent for the property. The two housemates who buggered off- are in the same boat- they continue to be jointly and severally liable for the rent.

You are letting the whole property- as you agreed to- and you've also agreed you're not subletting bedrooms to others.

Next time- read the lease when you're signing it.

The two housemates who've buggered off- got the deal of the century- you gave them a 'get out of jail free card'.

Key to all of this- you are renting the whole house- with your two mates- and have signed a lease expressly agreeing not to sublet bedrooms...........

You are liable for the entirety of the rent- if you decide to stay- mind you- your two mates are too.

They're two strangers. People have moved in and out of this house in the same fashion for at least the last 3 years. Although they always replaced themselves.

This time, when two are moving out, the LL has requested no-one moves in.

The_Conductor

Stratahead wrote: »

They're two strangers. People have moved in and out of this house in the same fashion for at least the last 3 years. Although they always replaced themselves.

This time, when two are moving out, the LL has requested no-one moves in.

This may be how you managed the property up to now- however, you signed a lease saying something else entirely- and while it would be a civil matter for the landlord to chase you to enfore it- he/she is within their rights to do so.

For crying out loud- read what you're signing next time.

GGTrek

I believe the OP is in a difficult predicament since he has signed a joint lease. The landlord has a strong hand based on section 16 (k) of the RTA:

"(k) not assign or sub-let the tenancy without the written consent of the landlord (which consent the landlord may, in his or her discretion, withhold),"

You would have to check RTB Tribunal determination orders for similar cases in the rtb disputes database to see if the discretion allowed to the landlord is limited and in what way. In any case not an easy one.

The_Conductor

The OP could ask to assign the lease- and if the landlord refuses, the tenant can then vacate the tenancy without punitive measures.

Note- paying rent for the whole property- is not a punitive measure- whether the tenant likes it or not- they signed up to rent the property in its entirety. Assigning the lease to a third party- means the OP still owes rent up to the date they vacate the property- for the whole of the property- and they also have to find somewhere else to live.

While I do sympathise with the OP to a certain extent- honestly- signing that lease was nuts.

beauf

I would prefer to rent to one person than a bunch of different people in one house.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

I would prefer to rent to one person than a bunch of different people in one house.

I'd be the opposite (as would many others), I'd rather rent out rooms than a full house. I wouldn't do it like the op though it would be room by room not full house shared. Overall there is less risk to the LL in this setup on many aspects.

BraveInca

The_Conductor wrote: »

Note- paying rent for the whole property- is not a punitive measure- whether the tenant likes it or not- they signed up to rent the property in its entirety.

If OP is paying rent for the whole property then how is the LL able to stipulate that certain rooms have to remain locked (as described in the first post)? LL can't have it both ways.

runawaybishop

BraveInca wrote: »

If OP is paying rent for the whole property then how is the LL able to stipulate that certain rooms have to remain locked (as described in the first post)? LL can't have it both ways.

OP cant sublet or introduce new people to the lease.

OP, reassign the lease.

Also, threshold are a joke.

Browney7

runawaybishop wrote: »

OP cant sublet or introduce new people to the lease.

OP, reassign the lease.

Also, threshold are a joke.

Is the lease not expired and now needs to reassign the tenancy? If OP finds two people and says to the landlord, wish to reassign tenancy from existing people A and B to new people X and Y and the op seems them equivalent.
If landlord refuses can op raise a dispute that the landlord is unreasonably not allowing a reassignment (effectively meaning the OP has to leave) before having to seek accommodation elsewhere?

listermint

runawaybishop wrote: »

OP cant sublet or introduce new people to the lease.

OP, reassign the lease.

Also, threshold are a joke.

That didn't answer the question that you responded to....

The_Conductor

Browney7 wrote: »

Is the lease not expired and now needs to reassign the tenancy? If OP finds two people and says to the landlord, wish to reassign tenancy from existing people A and B to new people X and Y and the op seems them equivalent.
If landlord refuses can op raise a dispute that the landlord is unreasonably not allowing a reassignment (effectively meaning the OP has to leave) before having to seek accommodation elsewhere?

The OP can assign the lease, with the landlord's permission, to another party.
They are then assigning the lease, as a whole- to the other party- and have to find alternate accommodation.

The lease is for the whole property- and if you assign the lease (its an assignment- not a reassignment)- you are assigning a tenancy for the whole property- to another party.

There is a specific clause stating the OP cannot sublet- which is entirely normal, very few landlords allow subletting.

In this instance- given the other two signatories to the lease have left- the OP has the choice of also leaving- or staying and paying for the property.

Next time- read the lease and if you only want to rent a room- make sure you are only renting a room- not an entire property.

Browney7

The_Conductor wrote: »

The OP can assign the lease, with the landlord's permission, to another party.
They are then assigning the lease, as a whole- to the other party- and have to find alternate accommodation.

The lease is for the whole property- and if you assign the lease (its an assignment- not a reassignment)- you are assigning a tenancy for the whole property- to another party.

There is a specific clause stating the OP cannot sublet- which is entirely normal, very few landlords allow subletting.

In this instance- given the other two signatories to the lease have left- the OP has the choice of also leaving- or staying and paying for the property.

Next time- read the lease and if you only want to rent a room- make sure you are only renting a room- not an entire property.

So once people are named on a lease which then becomes a part 4 tenancy, the names of people responsible for fulfilling tenant obligations can't be changed? Ie Op, tenant A and tenant B wish to assign lease to OP, tenant x and tenant Y can't be done?

The_Conductor

Browney7 wrote: »

So once people are named on a lease which then becomes a part 4 tenancy, the names of people responsible for fulfilling tenant obligations can't be changed? Ie Op, tenant A and tenant B wish to assign lease to OP, tenant x and tenant Y can't be done?

Correct.
All signatures to the lease are jointly and severally liable for the lease.
They are not entitled to assign their interest to another party without the permission of the landlord- however, if the landlord does not give them permission, this can be used as justification by the tenant for terminating the tenancy.

I.e. the OP can leave- or if he/she chooses to stay- they are renting the whole of the property and have no right to sublet.

If they only intended to rent a room- they should have made damn sure this was what the lease said- unfortunately- all 3 of the signatories to the lease signed for the whole of the property- making them all jointly and severally liable for the whole of the property.

Browney7

The_Conductor wrote: »

Correct.
All signatures to the lease are jointly and severally liable for the lease.
They are not entitled to assign their interest to another party without the permission of the landlord- however, if the landlord does not give them permission, this can be used as justification by the tenant for terminating the tenancy.

I.e. the OP can leave- or if he/she chooses to stay- they are renting the whole of the property and have no right to sublet.

If they only intended to rent a room- they should have made damn sure this was what the lease said- unfortunately- all 3 of the signatories to the lease signed for the whole of the property- making them all jointly and severally liable for the whole of the property.

But is there any way to dispute a landlord refusing assignment? If new tenants have jobs, incomes greater than if not equal to existing guys and good references and a landlord refuses (not picked up two bums off the street) and in turn will be letting out property again anyways - how could he defend that in front of RTB or is his right of refusal absolute?

runawaybishop

listermint wrote: »

That didn't answer the question that you responded to....

It did, the op cant sublet.

"how is the LL able to stipulate that certain rooms have to remain locked"

.........

Browney7 - the OP has to reassign the lease in totality. They cant just assign new extra people to it.

runawaybishop

Browney7 wrote: »

But is there any way to dispute a landlord refusing assignment? If new tenants have jobs, incomes greater than if not equal to existing guys and good references and a landlord refuses (not picked up two bums off the street) and in turn will be letting out property again anyways - how could he defend that in front of RTB or is his right of refusal absolute?

OP signed a contract which is enforceable so he is liable for all teh rent and cannot sublet. He needs to reassign the lease, which the LL cant really refuse unless the potential new tenants are really unsuitable. If the LL refuses to allow the op to reassign then he is in breech and the OP can leave without penalty.

The_Conductor

Browney7 wrote: »

But is there any way to dispute a landlord refusing assignment? If new tenants have jobs, incomes greater than if not equal to existing guys and good references and a landlord refuses (not picked up two bums off the street) and in turn will be letting out property again anyways - how could he defend that in front of RTB or is his right of refusal absolute?

What do you mean by disputing a landlord refusing assignment?
The lease is for the whole property- it is not for individual rooms in the property- its for the property as a whole.
If the tenant wants to stay- he is renting the property (as a whole) and has no right to sublet.
If the tenant doesn't want to stay- he assigns the lease to a new tenant- who in turn- is letting the entirety of the property.
If the landlord refuses to countenance the tenant assigning the lease to another party- the tenant has a get-out-of-jail free card, and can walk from the property without consequence.

In this case- it sounds like the OP signed for the entire property (with his two mates)- the two mates have walked- and the tenant is left in a property which he can't afford on his own- but he has no right to bring third parties into.........

He/she should have sat down and discussed this properly with his two mates- before letting them walk, leaving him holding the baby and the bathwater..........

The people in the wrong here- are the two tenants who were let leave the property without consequence- alongside the remaining tenant- who mistakenly signed for renting the house in its entirety- when all they wanted was a room and a houseshare.........

Only solution that I see is the remaining tenant terminates the tenancy- and negotiates with the landlord vis-à-vis the rent for the duration of their remaining stay there......... (and of course they go and find somewhere else to live).

runawaybishop

The_Conductor wrote: »

Only solution that I see is the remaining tenant terminates the tenancy- and negotiates with the landlord vis-?-vis the rent for the duration of their remaining stay there......... (and of course they go and find somewhere else to live).

Yeah, tbh it is unlikely a single tenant would agree to take on the lease for a full house. OP might be better off just leaving.

Browney7

Seeing as the op has nothing to lose, if it was me I'd frame it that it's regrettable that we can't come to a mutually beneficial agreement and I'll leave no problem but might pop round in a few months when you've new tenants in and provide them with evidence of previous rent paid and give them a crash course in the new RPZ legislation (provided this applies).

If landlord calls your bluff, nothing lost, if he flinches he might let you stay with a new lease

The_Conductor

Browney7 wrote: »

Seeing as the op has nothing to lose, if it was me I'd frame it that it's regrettable that we can't come to a mutually beneficial agreement and I'll leave no problem but might pop round in a few months when you've new tenants in and provide them with evidence of previous rent paid and give them a crash course in the new RPZ legislation (provided this applies).

If landlord calls your bluff, nothing lost, if he flinches he might let you stay with a new lease

Blackmail is illegal- you do know that- right?

listermint

runawaybishop wrote: »

It did, the op cant sublet.

"how is the LL able to stipulate that certain rooms have to remain locked"

.........

Browney7 - the OP has to reassign the lease in totality. They cant just assign new extra people to it.

It didnt,

The question was if the LL wants the tenant to take the entire property how can he ask him to lock rooms if he is taking the entire property.....

BraveInca

listermint wrote: »

It didnt,

The question was if the LL wants the tenant to take the entire property how can he ask him to lock rooms if he is taking the entire property.....

Yeah, how can the LL exclude him from certain parts of the property if he's renting the whole property? This doesn't have anything to do with the subletting question.

GGTrek

BraveInca wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

It didnt,

The question was if the LL wants the tenant to take the entire property how can he ask him to lock rooms if he is taking the entire property.....

Yeah, how can the LL exclude him from certain parts of the property if he's renting the whole property? This doesn't have anything to do with the subletting question.

He cannot exclude the OP from any part of the property.

The only advantage of requesting assignment in such case is that the termination notice for the tenant goes down to the minimum 28 days. The OP does not specify when the original lease started, so it is not possible to define what the OP notice period is.

On a practical level if the OP is a working tenant his/her best way of action right now is to negotiate an exit date with the landlord, while reducing the amount of rent paid and getting a good reference.

Previous flatmates left the OP high and dry, and in the current statutory environment I can understand why the landlord would not wish to reassign and continue to provide part 4 rights to new tenants. Another unintended consequence of the lack of forward thinking of the current and past Irish govvies.

runawaybishop

listermint wrote: »

It didnt,

The question was if the LL wants the tenant to take the entire property how can he ask him to lock rooms if he is taking the entire property.....

You are correct, i didn't read the bit about locking the rooms properly - i took it to mean he wasn't allowed to rent out the rooms.

Tiddlypeeps

The terms of the lease the OP signed were renting the property with 2 other people. They signed up to pay one third of the rent. Those terms cannot change for the OP without their permission. From a legal perspective it sounds like the other 2 tenants are still responsible for their share of the rent as long as the OP refuses to leave. They can reassign their position on the lease, but they can't just walk away from it without the agreement of both the landlord AND the OP. I don't believe the landlord can legally just let the other 2 tenants off the lease leaving the OP as the sole tenant without their agreement.

GGTrek

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

The terms of the lease the OP signed were renting the property with 2 other people. They signed up to pay one third of the rent. Those terms cannot change for the OP without their permission. From a legal perspective it sounds like the other 2 tenants are still responsible for their share of the rent as long as the OP refuses to leave. They can reassign their position on the lease, but they can't just walk away from it without the agreement of both the landlord AND the OP. I don't believe the landlord can legally just let the other 2 tenants off the lease leaving the OP as the sole tenant without their agreement.

Of course he can: a tenancy is not a prison. The fixed lease term had expired and any joint tenant can provide a termination notice (given proper notice period) with absolutely no reason at all.
There is an ethical issue among the joint tenants responsibilities and a legal one where the landlord can pursue all three tenants for rent and damages even the ones who left. I never returned deposit to joint tenants until they have all left exactly to avoid the situation the OP is. Negotiating the deposit among themselves forces the tenants to think about their joint responsibilties. You would be surprised how many adult children are currently renting in Ireland.