Landlord refusing to let somebody move in

Tar.Aldarion

A friend of mine is in a lease/part IV and so is another guy living there (it's not their first lease there, have been there years), the latter guy is moving out at the end of the lease and my friend would like to get somebody else to live there.

The landlord has straight up said they won't accept anybody and they are quite happy with this as they just want to airbnb the place instead for more money. While they couldn't kick anybody out they can basically make it so nobody new can come in and he can't afford the rent on his own. This is all above board? It sounds like it is but it sure is nasty. They are turning all the apartments in the block into airbnbs when they get a chance.

On another note a friend of mine got kicked out of their apartment recently under redevelopment terms. There was no redevelopment done and now there are 6 Brazilian girls living in a one person apartment. Obviously filed with the PTRB but that's of no use now. At this stage people I know are even worried to mention maintenance to their LL at all in case they are turfed out. I know it's not all rosy for LL's either of course, just been hearing a lot of bad stories recently from the other side.

Graces7

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

A friend of mine is in a lease/part IV and so is another guy living there (it's not their first lease there, have been there years), the latter guy is moving out at the end of the lease and my friend would like to get somebody else to live there.

The landlord has straight up said they won't accept anybody and they are quite happy with this as they just want to airbnb the place instead for more money. While they couldn't kick anybody out they can basically make it so nobody new can come in and he can't afford the rent on his own. This is all above board? It sounds like it is but it sure is nasty. They are turning all the apartments in the block into airbnbs when they get a chance.

On another note a friend of mine got kicked out of their apartment recently under redevelopment terms. There was no redevelopment done and now there are 6 Brazilian girls living in a one person apartment. Obviously filed with the PTRB but that's of no use now. At this stage people I know are even worried to mention maintenance to their LL at all in case they are turfed out. I know it's not all rosy for LL's either of course, just been hearing a lot of bad stories recently from the other side.

I believe it totally. Shaking my old head here. Glad they have filed LLs can think we will not do that.

davindub

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

A friend of mine is in a lease/part IV and so is another guy living there (it's not their first lease there, have been there years), the latter guy is moving out at the end of the lease and my friend would like to get somebody else to live there.

The landlord has straight up said they won't accept anybody and they are quite happy with this as they just want to airbnb the place instead for more money. While they couldn't kick anybody out they can basically make it so nobody new can come in and he can't afford the rent on his own. This is all above board? It sounds like it is but it sure is nasty. They are turning all the apartments in the block into airbnbs when they get a chance.

On another note a friend of mine got kicked out of their apartment recently under redevelopment terms. There was no redevelopment done and now there are 6 Brazilian girls living in a one person apartment. Obviously filed with the PTRB but that's of no use now. At this stage people I know are even worried to mention maintenance to their LL at all in case they are turfed out. I know it's not all rosy for LL's either of course, just been hearing a lot of bad stories recently from the other side.

Your friend can replace tenants on a shared tenancy, just has to inform rather than get permission from the landlord.

See here: https://www.flac.ie/download/pdf/landlord_and_tenant2016.pdf

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Your friend can replace tenants on a shared tenancy, just has to inform rather than get permission from the landlord.

See here: https://www.flac.ie/download/pdf/landlord_and_tenant2016.pdf

There is usually a clause in the lease stating that the tenant cannot assign, sub-let or share possession of the property without the consent of the landlord. There is usually also a clause against business use. I would not regard FLAC as the last word on this kind of an issue.

Tar.Aldarion

How does that work when the lease runs out though, there are then no rules from the lease in place. The case then becomes can a landlord not allow anybody to live there or is that that unreasonable and against legislation.


davindub, is this the bit you are referring to?

Where a tenant sublets part of a
dwelling without the landlord’s
consent, the ‘sub-tenant’
becomes a licensee of the ‘head
tenant.’ In this situation the
licensee can become a multiple tenant. He/she
would have to ask the landlord to allow
him/her become a tenant. The landlord may
not unreasonably refuse such a request. If the
landlord accepts such a request it must be
acknowledged in writing that the licensee is
now a tenant of the dwelling.
If the landlord refuses the
request he/she must be satisfied
that such a refusal was
reasonable. If the request is
refused, the licensee can bring a case to the
RTB under the legislation.

It seems he can just bring somebody in as a licensee.

the_syco

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

A friend of mine is in a lease/part IV and so is another guy living there (it's not their first lease there, have been there years), the latter guy is moving out at the end of the lease and my friend would like to get somebody else to live there.

Are they both on separate leases, and if so; how much does it state that they must pay?

4ensic15

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

How does that work when the lease runs out though, there are then no rules from the lease in place. The case then becomes can a landlord not allow anybody to live there or is that that unreasonable and against legislation.


davindub, is this the bit you are referring to?

When the lease runs out the tenancy continues on a periodic basis with the same terms.

Sarn

Just tell them the gf/bf is moving in. Once they’re informed there’s not a lot that can be done.

Tar.Aldarion

the_syco wrote: »

Are they both on separate leases, and if so; how much does it state that they must pay?

I don't know, I think they are on the same lease.

4ensic15 wrote: »

When the lease runs out the tenancy continues on a periodic basis with the same terms.

I always wondered about that, wasn't sure if it was the same or just reverted to basic law.

Looks like from the prtb that my friend can just take in somebody as a licensee:
https://www.rtb.ie/media-research/publications/licensees-in-private-rented-accommodation

davindub

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

How does that work when the lease runs out though, there are then no rules from the lease in place. The case then becomes can a landlord not allow anybody to live there or is that that unreasonable and against legislation.


davindub, is this the bit you are referring to?




It seems he can just bring somebody in as a licensee.

Yes, if you want to you can actually read the RTB act where the leaflet draws its content from.

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is usually a clause in the lease stating that the tenant cannot assign, sub-let or share possession of the property without the consent of the landlord. There is usually also a clause against business use. I would not regard FLAC as the last word on this kind of an issue.

Frankly, FLAC can be considered the last word here, these leaflets are not prepared using google

Tar.Aldarion

davindub wrote: »

Yes, if you want to you can actually read the RTB act where the leaflet draws its content from.

I'd like to if anybody has a link to it, I'll try and look it up now.

beauf

Makes a joke of looking for references.

If the licencee breaches the lease it's the same as if the tenant has...

Not that the LL can do anything about it either way....

davindub

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I'd like to if anybody has a link to it, I'll try and look it up now.

Consolidated Act to May 16

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/HTML/en_act_2004_0027.htm

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Frankly, FLAC can be considered the last word here, these leaflets are not prepared using google

Flac, Threshold and the RTB FAQs have all been found wrong in the past. You can read the RTA Acts as amended as well as the approx 43 SIs which form the body of the law, but without reading the lease you can't discern whether or not a tenant can introduce a new resident into a dwelling without the consent of the landlord.

Tar.Aldarion

4ensic15 wrote: »

Flac, Threshold and the RTB FAQs have all been found wrong in the past. You can read the RTA Acts as amended as well as the approx 43 SIs which form the body of the law, but without reading the lease you can't discern whether or not a tenant can introduce a new resident into a dwelling without the consent of the landlord.

How does that apply to a licensee, I thought a lease couldn't take away things like that. Is it possible to explicitly forbid a licensee through a lease? I know leases often have illegal things in them also. Will have a read of the legislation now too.

FishOnABike

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

How does that apply to a licensee, I thought a lease couldn't take away things like that. Is it possible to explicitly forbid a licensee through a lease? I know leases often have illegal things in them also. Will have a read of the legislation now too.

Terms in a lease cannot remove rights given (to either side) under the residential tenancy act. Any clause in a lease seeking to remove rights granted under the act would be null and void.

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

Flac, Threshold and the RTB FAQs have all been found wrong in the past. You can read the RTA Acts as amended as well as the approx 43 SIs which form the body of the law, but without reading the lease you can't discern whether or not a tenant can introduce a new resident into a dwelling without the consent of the landlord.

FLAC found wrong? By whom? Are we talking mistake here or did they present a current legal position which was subsequently changed? The latter would be common to all who have published books, material, judgements. You certainly cannot question the legal expertise of the Free Legal Aid Council without some evidence to the contrary, case law etc.

I am going to say you can absolutely introduce a new resident to the premises without consent of the landlord without fear of termination of the tenancy.

4ensic15

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

How does that apply to a licensee, I thought a lease couldn't take away things like that. Is it possible to explicitly forbid a licensee through a lease? I know leases often have illegal things in them also. Will have a read of the legislation now too.

The residential tenancies act (as amended) says nothing about allowing a tenant having the right to introduce a new resident into a dwelling without the consent of the landlord. It does say that a tenant is obliged to notify the landlord of every person who ordinarily resides in the dwelling. There is nothing to stop the landlord having a clause in a lease which forbids a tenant introducing a new resident. Any standard lease will have such a clause.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

FLAC found wrong? By whom? Are we talking mistake here or did they present a current legal position which was subsequently changed? The latter would be common to all who have published books, material, judgements. You certainly cannot question the legal expertise of the Free Legal Aid Council without some evidence to the contrary, case law etc.

I am going to say you can absolutely introduce a new resident to the premises without consent of the landlord without fear of termination of the tenancy.

All of the bodies have published interpretations of the law which have not in fact been upheld. There is relatively little law on this so far but the IPOA is examining the phenomenon of residents arriving into dwellings without the knowledge of the landlord and then surfacing at some future point and claiming rights.

Numerous High Court cases have found the RTB to be wrong in its interpretation of the law. Time and again these FAQ type guidelines are incomplete and misleading. They always say that they do not purport to be a definitive interpretation of the law. Nowhere in the legislation is there any support for your assertion.

Tar.Aldarion

Hmm, so then there is conflicting stuff here, PRTB seem to suggest a landlord can't refuse a licensee and you say leases can restrict licensees and that leases carry over after it runs out.

In general, with regard to the landlord forcing somebody out by not letting anybody else stay there (even though they've asked for subletting and licenceeing but are told no, to open an airbnb) and this was brought to court, wouldn't this be seen as trying to skirt the laws of a part IV? I can't imagine them looking too favorably on the LL here.

4ensic15

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Hmm, so then there is conflicting stuff here, PRTB seem to suggest a landlord can't refuse a licensee and you say leases can restrict licensees.

In general, with regard to the landlord forcing somebody out by not letting somebody else stay there (even though they've asked for subletting and licenceeing but are told no to open an airbnb) and this was brought to court, wouldn't this be seen as trying to skirt the laws of a part IV? I can't imagine them looking too favorably on the LL here.

The landlord let originally to a group. One of the group leaves. That is not the landlord's fault. The landlord has a constitutional right to freedom of association. He can't be forced to contract with a re-constituted group, not of his choosing.

Tar.Aldarion

4ensic15 wrote: »

The landlord let originally to a group. One of the group leaves. That is not the landlord's fault. The landlord has a constitutional right to freedom of association. He can't be forced to contract with a re-constituted group, not of his choosing.

That is correct, however a licensee is not a group. It is one tenant and somebody else they are responsible for. There are plenty of cases where landlords are forced to accept somebody, normal licenceeing, unreasonable refusal of somebody and so forth?

4ensic15

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

That is correct, however a licensee is not a group. It is one tenant and somebody else they are responsible for. There are plenty of cases where landlords are forced to accept somebody, normal licenceeing, unreasonable refusal of somebody and so forth?

The licensee can seek to be a tenant after 6 months. The landlord may not want to be stuck with such a tenant. They haven't carried out any vetting on the person. landlords are not forced to accept anybody unless they have been a licensee for 6 months and have been declared from the start and it would be unreasonable for them to refuse. They can stop the licensee coming in the first place, however.

mrslancaster

4ensic15 wrote: »

The licensee can seek to be a tenant after 6 months. The landlord may not want to be stuck with such a tenant. They haven't carried out any vetting on the person. landlords are not forced to accept anybody unless they have been a licensee for 6 months and have been declared from the start and it would be unreasonable for them to refuse. They can stop the licensee coming in the first place, however.

If a tenant moves another person in without permission of the landlord and it is not allowed in the lease, then would the tenant be in breach of the lease terms.
can the landlord then give the tenant notice because of that

mrslancaster

Lots of questions if anyone has answers - I get so much information from others here, thanks for any help.

A licencee is when someone is sharing with either a landlord or a tenant. From reading 4ensic post that can change to being a tenant after 6 months

is that different to a sublet..

Am I right in thinking that a sublet is when a tenant allows another person to lease the rental property because they are moving out temporarily? With the 'LL permission.

The second person then pays rent to the original tenant who is still liable to pay the landlord.

In that situation is the original tenant considered the new tenant's landlord?

Would they have to register the tenancy with the RTB & pay tax on the rent they receive? So is there two tenancies registered for the property

Would the landlord, the original tenant & the new tenant have to sign new leases?

Does the original tenant have to issue notice to the second tenant if they want to move back in?
This seems very complicated

4ensic15

mrslancaster wrote: »

If a tenant moves another person in without permission of the landlord and it is not allowed in the lease, then would the tenant be in breach of the lease terms.
can the landlord then give the tenant notice because of that

The landlord has to serve a notice on the tenant to remove the licensee and give a reasonable time for that to happen. Only if the tenant doesn't comply can the landlord give notice.

Browney7

4ensic15 wrote: »

The landlord has to serve a notice on the tenant to remove the licensee and give a reasonable time for that to happen. Only if the tenant doesn't comply can the landlord give notice.

And how does the landlord prove conclusively that the other person is resident there without impinging on the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment of the property? Sure doesn't the RTB hate landlords and never finds in their favour?

I'd be telling the OP to ask for forgiveness instead of seeking permission here.

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

All of the bodies have published interpretations of the law which have not in fact been upheld. There is relatively little law on this so far but the IPOA is examining the phenomenon of residents arriving into dwellings without the knowledge of the landlord and then surfacing at some future point and claiming rights.

Numerous High Court cases have found the RTB to be wrong in its interpretation of the law. Time and again these FAQ type guidelines are incomplete and misleading. They always say that they do not purport to be a definitive interpretation of the law. Nowhere in the legislation is there any support for your assertion.

Nice for the IPOA, no offense to them, but if they have only learned of this long long standing practice now......

You are deliberately moving away from your claim that FLAC have been found wrong. You need to establish when and where they have been "Wrong" otherwise you have just fabricated that claim.

As for no-where in the "legislation to support my assertion", where does the landlord gain the right under the RTA to refuse occupancy? The act specifically states "INFORM" not "Seek permission", it would be foolish to seek a HC point of law on this, it has been unchallenged for 14 years and is not actually difficult to establish for yourself.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Nice for the IPOA, no offense to them, but if they have only learned of this long long standing practice now......

You are deliberately moving away from your claim that FLAC have been found wrong. You need to establish when and where they have been "Wrong" otherwise you have just fabricated that claim.

As for no-where in the "legislation to support my assertion", where does the landlord gain the right under the RTA to refuse occupancy? The act specifically states "INFORM" not "Seek permission", it would be foolish to seek a HC point of law on this, it has been unchallenged for 14 years and is not actually difficult to establish for yourself.

there are a number of high Court decisions which have overturned the RTB on points of law. Eg. PRTB v Judge Linnane. FLAC sources its material from the RTB. The landlord gains the right from his lease, not from the RTA. Where does the RTA allow a tenant move anyone in, in breach of a requirement of a lease?

Why is this even being discussed. The answer is that of course the LL can refuse someone moving in, it's his property why would a random person be allowed to move in without his consent.

Secondly a current tenant cannot take in a licensee without the LL explicit permission or both will be out on their ear.

Graham

Archer Witty Robber wrote: »

Secondly a current tenant cannot take in a licensee without the LL explicit permission or both will be out on their ear.

Mod Note

Let's not get into guessing the contents of tenancy agreement/leases.

Bubbaclaus

Archer Witty Robber wrote: »

Why is this even being discussed. The answer is that of course the LL can refuse someone moving in, it's his property why would a random person be allowed to move in without his consent.

Secondly a current tenant cannot take in a licensee without the LL explicit permission or both will be out on their ear.

So you know the contents of the signed lease agreement then?

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

there are a number of high Court decisions which have overturned the RTB on points of law. Eg. PRTB v Judge Linnane. FLAC sources its material from the RTB. The landlord gains the right from his lease, not from the RTA. Where does the RTA allow a tenant move anyone in, in breach of a requirement of a lease?

Poor Judge Linnane, I'm pretty sure this will be news to her! How on earth could you confuse the respondent with the judge?

I'm now convinced you actually don't know who FLAC are. You might look at some of the cases they have represented clients in. I'm pretty sure they have a old copy of Bunreacht na hEireann for a start and maybe Westlaw or failing that they can use the free resources to look at case law.

The landlords duties are the tenants rights and vice versa.....the RTA is the exact place to find these, skip that part? So the duty to inform the landlord of each occupant becomes the right of the landlord to be informed. You can try to contradict/ limit this, it's not enforceable even if in the lease. Same as those who place terms to allow the landlord to enter the property at any time..unenforceable but you won't find that example stated as clearly in the RTA but you wouldn't argue that is not the case?

I have never actually seen a term in a lease that limits the lessee's right to possession in such a manner, have you got an example? (Actually i have seen one linked here and heralded by the poster as RTA compliant, it was awful stuff, but then you should check these things with a solicitor before using...)

mrslancaster

Rtb today told me a tenant must have the landlord's permission to move a licencee in. If they have no permission they can be in breach of the tenancy agreement.

If tenants could do that it could cause overcrowding or problems with insurance.
I suppose that is why some agents recommend regular inspections.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Poor Judge Linnane, I'm pretty sure this will be news to her! How on earth could you confuse the respondent with the judge?

.)

Judge Linnane was served with the papers and was the Respondent. The judge was Budd J. Shows how much you know.
FLAC is a volunteer group. A copy of Bunreacht n HEireann is not much help to it with the RTA. FLAC does not engage in extensive research unless it is instructing in a case.

The RTA is not a totally self contained statement of the law. The parties are free to contract, unless forbidden by legislation to do so. There is nothing in the RTA forbidding the parties from agreeing that no additional parties may reside in the dwelling. Despite all your comment you have yet to show any clause in the RTA which does. There are standard leases provided by such as the Dublin Solicitors Bar Association which explicitly provide that there is to be no business use and that possession is not to be shared.

Tar.Aldarion

mrslancaster wrote: »

Rtb today told me a tenant must have the landlord's permission to move a licencee in. If they have no permission they can be in breach of the tenancy agreement.

If tenants could do that it could cause overcrowding or problems with insurance.
I suppose that is why some agents recommend regular inspections.

RTB told me it was not under their jurisdiction and to contact threshold and to get legal advice.

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

Judge Linnane was served with the papers and was the Respondent. The judge was Budd J. Shows how much you know.
FLAC is a volunteer group. A copy of Bunreacht n HEireann is not much help to it with the RTA. FLAC does not engage in extensive research unless it is instructing in a case.

The RTA is not a totally self contained statement of the law. The parties are free to contract, unless forbidden by legislation to do so. There is nothing in the RTA forbidding the parties from agreeing that no additional parties may reside in the dwelling. Despite all your comment you have yet to show any clause in the RTA which does. There are standard leases provided by such as the Dublin Solicitors Bar Association which explicitly provide that there is to be no business use and that possession is not to be shared.

Even worse than getting the respondent wrong, you are referring to a judicial review of a circuit court decision rather than an RTB decision, there are plenty of cases where the RTB have been corrected, why pick one that one?

FLAC do take volunteer solicitors, but research is research and is conducted properly, you have failed to establish any instance where they have been found wrong and continue to refer to the RTB decisions...

Re: Bunreacht na hEireann: This was your post earlier???

4ensic15 wrote: »

The landlord has a constitutional right to freedom of association. He can't be forced to contract with a re-constituted group, not of his choosing.

Bunreacht na hEireann in any case is always relevant to all legislation.

Again I refer you to this
"The landlords duties are the tenants rights and vice versa.....the RTA is the exact place to find these, skip that part? So the duty to inform the landlord of each occupant becomes the right of the landlord to be informed."

As the term to "inform" the landlord of each occupant, your assertion will effectively remove this from the RTA and replace with "get permission".......that could never be upheld. Again you have 14 years of cases to find an example of where this term has been upheld.

The Dublin Bar Association sell templates.....I have a copy, there is no term there to what you state, there is a blank space for special letting provisions, if your term is in there, it has been placed there by whomever provided the lease, not by the Dublin Bar Association.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Even worse than getting the respondent wrong, you are referring to a judicial review of a circuit court decision rather than an RTB decision, there are plenty of cases where the RTB have been corrected, why pick one that one?

I did not get the respondent wrong. maybe you think there was a different respondent than Judge Linnane? It was a case where the PRTB's own interpretation was found to be wrong but I am glad to see that you now acknowledge that there were several others.

davindub wrote: »

FLAC do take volunteer solicitors, but research is research and is conducted properly, you have failed to establish any instance where they have been found wrong and continue to refer to the RTB decisions...

FLAC has published no research on the RTA that I am aware of and anything published by FLAC is sourced from the RTB.

davindub wrote: »

Again I refer you to this
"The landlords duties are the tenants rights and vice versa.....the RTA is the exact place to find these, skip that part? So the duty to inform the landlord of each occupant becomes the right of the landlord to be informed."

The RTA is not a complete or self contained statement of the applicable legislation and doesn't override conditions in contracts.

[/QUOTE]

The Dublin Bar Association sell templates.....I have a copy, there is no term there to what you state, there is a blank space for special letting provisions, if your term is in there, it has been placed there by whomever provided the lease, not by the Dublin Bar Association.[/QUOTE]

Any I have seen forbid the sharing and parting with possession and well as demanding the dwelling be used as the sole residence of the tenant and also that the tenant does not engage in any business activity in the dwelling.

davindub

"The RTA is not a complete or self contained statement of the applicable legislation and doesn't override conditions in contracts."

Are you crazy?

Anyway, I suppose what is reassuring regarding FLAC is that they are legal professionals......I can't say that each solicitor reads a book that states "look at all relevant law" when making any argument, but I'm 100% sure you wouldn't pass a single FE1 not knowing that. You don't even have a single caselaw or legislative reference to question the accuracy of that leaflet or FLAC, yet here you are doing so....

Graham

mrslancaster wrote: »

Rtb today told me a tenant must have the landlord's permission to move a licencee in. If they have no permission they can be in breach of the tenancy agreement.

That advice appears to contradict itself (emphasis mine).

4ensic15 wrote: »

FLAC has published no research on the RTA that I am aware of and anything published by FLAC is sourced from the RTB.

The fact that no research has been published is not evidence that no research has been done nor is it evidence that advice given is incorrect or un-researched.

4ensic15 wrote: »

Any I have seen forbid the sharing and parting with possession and well as demanding the dwelling be used as the sole residence of the tenant and also that the tenant does not engage in any business activity in the dwelling.

There are rental/lease agreements that specify the number of occupants and/or specific named occupants, and there are those that don't. There are a huge number of tenancies with no formal tenancy/lease agreement.

There are landlords that insist an vetting any replacement/additional tenants, and others that don't.

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

The fact that no research has been published is not evidence that no research has been done nor is it evidence that advice given is incorrect or un-researched.

Maybe not, but the suggestion that a thinly resourced body staffed by volunteers is carrying out research, into what is a minority area, not requiring court attendance, which it doesn't publish, but distils into its advice sheets, which other bodies with more expertise than it has, also produce advice leaflets is absurd.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

Maybe not, but the suggestion that a thinly resourced body staffed by volunteers is carrying out research, into what is a minority area, not requiring court attendance, which it doesn't publish, but distils into its advice sheets, which other bodies with more expertise than it has, also produce advice leaflets is absurd.

Volunteer does not equate with unqualified or incorrect.

Lack of research or otherwise does not equate with a qualified legal opinion being incorrect.

Your other arguments appear to be centred around "I've never seen" or "I've never heard of", legally speaking, neither are compelling.

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

Lack of research or otherwise does not equate with a qualified legal opinion being incorrect.

.

It does not mean that it is invariably correct either. Qualified lawyers get things wrong all the time. FLAC lists its priority areas on its website. Residential tenancy law is not one of them. In the absence of any body of decided cases on any issue with the RTA, commentary by any individual or body cannot be the last word, contrary to what has been suggested on this forum.
As things happen, no landlord has gone to the High Court on a point of law from the RTB whereas many tenants have. As a result, many plausible interpretations of the legislation are not argued.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

It does not mean that it is invariably correct either. Qualified lawyers get things wrong all the time.

You're saying it might be incorrect because lawyers have got things wrong in the past.

Again, not a compelling legal argument.

GGTrek

I am totally with 4ensic15 on this thread. The 2017 template of the DSBA incudes the following special provision:
"11. No other persons may live in this dwelling without consent, this includes family, friends, Au Pairs, Nannies etc.."

"SPECIAL LETTING PROVISIONS WARNING Any Special Letting Provisions must comply with the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 "

You can find the template here: www.leinsterlettings.ie › BLANKLease-2

davindub

GGTrek wrote: »

I am totally with 4ensic15 on this thread. The 2017 template of the DSBA incudes the following special provision:
"11. No other persons may live in this dwelling without consent, this includes family, friends, Au Pairs, Nannies etc.."

"SPECIAL LETTING PROVISIONS WARNING Any Special Letting Provisions must comply with the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 "

You can find the template here: www.leinsterlettings.ie › BLANKLease-2

Yes that is the blank part of the template, there is no content on that page except the warning that comes on the top of the page....which you have posted also.

Tar.Aldarion

GGTrek wrote: »

I am totally with 4ensic15 on this thread. The 2017 template of the DSBA incudes the following special provision:
"11. No other persons may live in this dwelling without consent, this includes family, friends, Au Pairs, Nannies etc.."

"SPECIAL LETTING PROVISIONS WARNING Any Special Letting Provisions must comply with the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 "

You can find the template here: www.leinsterlettings.ie › BLANKLease-2

My current lease doesn't have any of that. One of mine forbade subletting and that was all, another forbade everything, some places I've had no lease, it varies and I've never seen two leases that were very similar in wording (apart from the same letting agencies) let alone have them all come from one template source. I guess the point is, it depends. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot were worded defensively and a lot were not.

Graham

GGTrek wrote: »

I am totally with 4ensic15 on this thread. The 2017 template of the DSBA incudes the following special provision:
"11. No other persons may live in this dwelling without consent, this includes family, friends, Au Pairs, Nannies etc.."

That's one template lease.

It would be a mistake to assume every tenancy is subject to such a lease.

It would be ill advised to give advice based on the assumption that a tenancy is subject to that specific (or similar) leases.

beauf

I don't have much faith in professionals or any of these bodies to get everything correct. Too many times I've been given information that subsequently turns out to be wrong.

This thread, if nothing else suggests that the legislation is unnecessarily torturous, and ambiguous.

I think it's the cause of a lot of unnecessary conflict and misery in the sector.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

I don't have much faith in professionals or any of these bodies to get everything correct. Too many times I've been given information that subsequently turns out to be wrong.

This thread, if nothing else suggests that the legislation is unnecessarily torturous, and ambiguous.

I think it's the cause of a lot of unnecessary conflict and misery in the sector.

I think this is actually one of the areas where there is little legislative interference.

Landlord and tenant are free to negotiate how/when/if replacement tenants require prior approval.