Tenancy Classification - Housemate not on the Lease

column · 24-08-2017 4:27pm #1

The situation is that I (and one other, but he has now moved out) am named on the last lease submitted to the landlord. This lease expired in May.

A new housemate moved in in June, which I found through daft. It was intended that we both sign the lease but this was forgotten about and I still have possession of the lease (unsigned by anyone)

There was a sketchy verbal agreement between myself and the new housemate along the lines of how much rent and when to pay it. Nothing more than that. He pays it directly into the landlord's account.

He has now turned out to be quite disruptive. Not breaching the contract but being passive aggressive in text messages. Demanding things be done in a certain way and generally making it uncomfortable and stressful living there. We have chatted about it but he reverts to type eventually.

He's only been there 3 month so the tenancy can be terminated without quibble or reason provided - so I am informed.

The question is - by whom?

The landlord has no agreement with the new housemate at this point so they cannot terminate the tenancy. Threshold say that only a landlord can terminate a tenancy in this way. RTB wont entertain me because it is not the landlord that I have the issue with.

This is creating my home life uncomfortable and I am not good with confrontation.

Should I submit the lease with only my name on it? Is there a benefit in getting him to sign it also?

davo10 · 24-08-2017 4:39pm

When your original flat mate moved out, the lease was reassigned to the new flat mate so he/she is a tenant rather than a licensee. You effectively want the landlord to evict the tenant, there is absolutely no doubt that you would become liable for the full rent in this case until a new tenant moves in. I suspect the LL will say it's your problem, you found the flat mate, you want him/her out, you sort it.

The lease no longer means anything, you have Part 4 rights.

column · 24-08-2017 4:47pm

Thanks. I have no problem with finding a new tenant - the way the market is in Cork at the moment. I have part 4 rights or both of us have part 4 rights?

davo10 · 24-08-2017 5:22pm

column wrote: »

Thanks. I have no problem with finding a new tenant - the way the market is in Cork at the moment. I have part 4 rights or both of us have part 4 rights?

If the lease was reassigned, then effectively the new tenant has the same rights as the old. Either way it doesn't matter, if the tenant hasnt breached the terms of the original lease, the LL won't kick him out just cause you don't like him. You found him, you just have to sit him down and ask him to leave, if he refuses, then either you put up with him, or you leave.

david75 · 24-08-2017 6:34pm

OP that just sounds like you've sublet the room to him without signing the lease. It's your call. If he's a problem and you want him to leave I don't think he has a leg to stand on.

Askthe EA · 24-08-2017 6:37pm

davo10 wrote: »

When your original flat mate moved out, the lease was reassigned to the new flat mate so he/she is a tenant rather than a licensee. You effectively want the landlord to evict the tenant, there is absolutely no doubt that you would become liable for the full rent in this case until a new tenant moves in. I suspect the LL will say it's your problem, you found the flat mate, you want him/her out, you sort it.

The lease no longer means anything, you have Part 4 rights.

Was it reassigned though? There's no lease signed?

OP, Did the LL accept refs, have direct contact with new tenant? Did he take the deposit directly?

column · 24-08-2017 7:24pm

david75 wrote: »

OP that just sounds like you've sublet the room to him without signing the lease. It's your call. If he's a problem and you want him to leave I don't think he has a leg to stand on.

Possibly but the rent doesn't go through me.

davo10 · 24-08-2017 7:28pm

Askthe EA wrote: »

Was it reassigned though? There's no lease signed?

OP, Did the LL accept refs, have direct contact with new tenant? Did he take the deposit directly?

Tenancy is Part 4, a lease doesn't need to be signed. Deposit can be exchanged with tenant who is reassigning it.

Tenant who is leaving is reassigning tenancy, not the LL, the op stated rent is being paid to LL who agreed to new tenant, it is not being paid to the op so it hard to see how the flatmate could be a licensee.

Mrs OBumble · 24-08-2017 7:30pm

Don't get hung up on the legals, you'll get conflicting advice all over the place and at the end of the day the law is likely to be an ass in terms of actually helping fix the situation.

Just tell him that you want him to leave. If he refuses, then find somewhere else to move to yourself.

column · 24-08-2017 7:35pm

Askthe EA wrote: »

Was it reassigned though? There's no lease signed?

OP, Did the LL accept refs, have direct contact with new tenant? Did he take the deposit directly?

Deposit was passed to the exiting tenant.

There was no direct contact. He was made aware of the new tenant's name.

column · 24-08-2017 7:37pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Don't get hung up on the legals, you'll get conflicting advice all over the place and at the end of the day the law is likely to be an ass in terms of actually helping fix the situation.

Just tell him that you want him to leave. If he refuses, then find somewhere else to move to yourself.

A fair suggestion but the market is really ****ty when trying to find decent places now and both of us know that.

The legals are probably put in place to protect someone being booted out.

column · 24-08-2017 7:40pm

davo10 wrote: »

Tenancy is Part 4, a lease doesn't need to be signed. Deposit can be exchanged with tenant who is reassigning it.

Tenant who is leaving is reassigning tenancy, not the LL, the op stated rent is being paid to LL who agreed to new tenant, it is not being paid to the op so it hard to see how the flatmate could be a licensee.

So even if the contract was verbal between myself and the new tenant the fact that rent is being paid to the LL means the landlord has some stake in the whole arrangement and could request terminating the tenancy in the 3rd month without having to be held accountable for that request?

davo10 · 24-08-2017 7:52pm

column wrote: »

So even if the contract was verbal between myself and the new tenant the fact that rent is being paid to the LL means the landlord has some stake in the whole arrangement and could request terminating the tenancy in the 3rd month without having to be held accountable for that request?

I'm not sure what this means. There is no contract between you and your flatmate, it's between your flatmate and the LL, the same one your former flatmate had.

Say two people rent an apartment and one moves out, the LL cannot stop the person moving out from reassigning that tenancy agreement/lease unless there are very specific reasons. The LL couldn't just say to you "no, I'm not allowing someone else move in, you have to pay the full rent by yourself for the apartment". So, the outgoing tenant reassigns their rights and obligations to a new tenant, that new tenant has the same tenancy rights as the old one. So just as the LL could not just kick you out, he cannot kick the new tenant out because he has the same rights as your original flatmate.

So, as Mrs O'Bumble posted, either you man up and ask him to leave, or if he won't, you leave. The LL cannot and will not to this for you.

column · 24-08-2017 8:03pm

davo10 wrote: »

Say two people rent an apartment and one moves out, the LL cannot stop the person moving out from reassigning that tenancy agreement/lease unless there are very specific reasons. The LL couldn't just say to you "no, I'm not allowing someone else move in, you have to pay the full rent by yourself for the apartment". So, the outgoing tenant reassigns their rights and obligations to a new tenant, that new tenant has the same tenancy rights as the old one. So just as the LL could not just kick you out, he cannot kick the new tenant out because he has the same rights as your original flatmate.

All of this is assumed to have happened without any mention of it by anyone? The re-assigning part? Just happens as a matter of course?

davo10 · 24-08-2017 8:06pm

column wrote: »

All of this is assumed to have happened without any mention of it by anyone? The re-assigning part? Just happens as a matter of course?

The old flatmate is no longer paying rent, the new one is to the landlord. Therefore at some point the LL was told that one was leaving and the other was replacing him. It's the same tenancy agreement, just one person has taken it over from another.

Askthe EA · 24-08-2017 8:09pm

davo10 wrote: »

The old flatmate is no longer paying rent, the new one is to the landlord. Therefore at some point the LL was told that one was leaving and the other was replacing him.

I think the fact he's paying directly to the LL is good enough for assignment and not a license.

column · 24-08-2017 8:29pm

Askthe EA wrote: »

I think the fact he's paying directly to the LL is good enough for assignment and not a license.

Ok - and the 6 month period has no bearing on the situation?

I've Threshold saying that it does.

Askthe EA · 24-08-2017 8:45pm

column wrote: »

Ok - and the 6 month period has no bearing on the situation?

I've Threshold saying that it does.

If it's considered assigned, the new guy is taking over the balance of the old guys lease so is entitled to the same protections as the original tenant.

Mind you, I wouldn't trust Threshold. The RTB is the only one that counts. Have you contacted them?

column · 24-08-2017 9:02pm

Askthe EA wrote: »

If it's considered assigned, the new guy is taking over the balance of the old guys lease so is entitled to the same protections as the original tenant.

Mind you, I wouldn't trust Threshold. The RTB is the only one that counts. Have you contacted them?

Yes and they wont entertain me because it is not the landlord that I have the dispute with.

column · 24-08-2017 9:06pm

Askthe EA wrote: »

If it's considered assigned, the new guy is taking over the balance of the old guys lease so is entitled to the same protections as the original tenant.

Just to clarify - the last tenant stayed until the lease reached its term of 12 months.

davo10 · 24-08-2017 10:38pm

column wrote: »

Just to clarify - the last tenant stayed until the lease reached its term of 12 months.

Once the original tenancy exceeds 6 months, tenants have Part 4 rights.

column · 25-08-2017 10:13am

davo10 wrote: »

Once the original tenancy exceeds 6 months, tenants have Part 4 rights.

Ok - thanks.

column · 28-08-2017 11:21am

If I get him to sign the new lease (and I will sign it too) - does that re-start the clock on the initial 6 months?

LuckyLloyd · 28-08-2017 11:41am

column wrote: »

If I get him to sign the new lease (and I will sign it too) - does that re-start the clock on the initial 6 months?

Signing a lease can't disadvantage you or disallow you any rights you could hold under Part IV.

Time to improve your ability to meet conflict like this and articulate yourself rather than weaseling around the problem.

column · 28-08-2017 2:25pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Signing a lease can't disadvantage you or disallow you any rights you could hold under Part IV.

Time to improve your ability to meet conflict like this and articulate yourself rather than weaseling around the problem.

It's been addressed and successfully so far. I just want to keep aware of my position.

Tenancy Classification - Housemate not on the Lease

Comments