Do I have to sign a lease after renting for 8 years?

CrazyR

Hello,

I have been renting a room since 2013. There are 3 other rooms on the property but every room is rented separately. I always pay for my room only every month by transfer to my landlord's account. There was never any lease signed. There was never any problem with me not fulfilling my obligations as a tenant. Now the landlord (an elderly person) has a family member helping with the matters with renting however the owner hasn't change.
Recently the person helping with the matters raised my rent substantially. There was only one raise in 2014 and there was no subsequent raise because the owner was happy with me as a tenant. But now the new person said that if I want to stay in the house the new rent is 500euro a month. The amount I have been paying is 300 euro amount. I realize that it is way below the current market value. I told them that it's not possible to do that because the rent is regulated and such a raise is not permitted by law. I leave in a pressure area so the rent has been increased by 4% each year since 2014 and I agreed to pay 400 euro a month which is still below the value they could get renting the room to somebody else. They want me to sign a lease but I don't know the conditions yet.
So my questions are:
Do I have to sign a lease?
If for example, a lease they want me to sign is for a year, will I have to give up my rights like the security of tenure for being a tenant since 2013?
I read the part 4 tenancy rules and I understand that I am protected by I just need some advice about what to pay attention to in a lease when they want me to sign to avoid any problems when the lease end.

VanHalen

If you are renting a room then you are a licensee not a tenant and therefore RPZ legislation does not apply. As such there is no "security of tenure" for a licensee. In all cases it's better to have a written contract so that both sides are aware of their obligations under the Agreement.

Graham

VanHalen wrote: »

If you are renting a room then you are a licensee not a tenant and therefore RPZ legislation does not apply. As such there is no "security of tenure" for a licensee.

That is not always the case.

The OP doesn't say the landlord lives in the house but does say the rooms are rented separately and the rent is paid directly to the landlord.

There is every likelihood the OP is a tenant.

If the OP is a tenant they are under no obligation to sign a lease but even if they did it could not be used to remove the OPs part 4 rights. The exception might be if the tenancy were somehow converted to a licensee situation but there's nothing to indicate that is on the cards in the opening post.

fungie

If the landlord doesn't live there, you're a tenant and fall under rent control legislation. I'm guessing you have a part 4 tenancy so don't need to sign a lease.

VanHalen

The OP says "There are 3 other rooms on the property but every room is rented separately. I always pay for my room only every month" so unless the OP can tell us otherwise it seems they are a licensee.

VanHalen

VanHalen wrote: »

The OP says "There are 3 other rooms on the property but every room is rented separately. I always pay for my room only every month" so unless the OP can tell us otherwise it seems they are a licensee.

A licensee shares a property with the owner, owners relative or rents (and pays rent to) from the lead tenant. There can be multiple tenants with separate tenancy agreements in the same property.

CrazyR

The house is not landlord-occupied. Never has been. A licensee has a relationship with a tenant and I don't have any relationship with other tenants allowing me to stay in the house. I have a direct relationship with the landlord which makes me a tenant.

Graham

Check the rent increase is in accordance with the RPZ rules if it's applicable to your area and no, you don't have to sign a lease but it may offer you additional security that you otherwise may not have. The devil is in the detail.

Sleeper12

VanHalen wrote:

The OP says "There are 3 other rooms on the property but every room is rented separately. I always pay for my room only every month" so unless the OP can tell us otherwise it seems they are a licensee.

OP hasn't stated that the LL lives there. I don't see how you draw that conclusion from ops comments? 3 other rooms on the property but LL doesn't live in any of the rooms as they are rented. OP deals directly with the LL & doesn't pay rent to other tenants.

dennyk

Assuming you are a tenant (which it sounds like you are), you are not under any obligation to sign a new lease or any other sort of agreement. You have Part 4 tenancy rights under a Further Part 4 tenancy until the anniversary date of your tenancy in 2023. At that point, however, your tenancy can be ended by the landlord without requiring a reason (though they will still need to give you a significant amount of notice; 223 days for tenancies over eight years).

In terms of the rent, your landlord can increase the rent without you signing a new lease. However, as you are in an RPZ, they must abide by the limits. By my calculations, if your rent was last set in 2014 at €300, the most they can set it to would be about €350, give or take. You can use the RTB's calculator to figure the exact limit based on the dates in question. Don't offer to pay more than this amount; the landlord cannot legally set the rent above the RPZ limits even with your agreement, so at any time you could file a complaint with the RTB that they've been overcharging you rent.

Also remember that you must be given a written notice of rent review at least 90 days in advance, and that notice must meet very specific requirements. A notice that doesn't fulfill all of the requirements is not valid and the landlord would have to issue another one that is valid and then wait a further 90 days before the new rent commences.

VanHalen

Sleeper12 wrote: »

OP hasn't stated that the LL lives there. I don't see how you draw that conclusion from ops comments? 3 other rooms on the property but LL doesn't live in any of the rooms as they are rented. OP deals directly with the LL & doesn't pay rent to other tenants.

OP does not exclusive use of the property as the other bedrooms are rented out directly with the landlord.

A licensee includes "persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal license arrangement with the owner where the occupants are not entitled to its exclusive use and the owner has continuing access to the accommodation and/or can move around or change the occupants".

The op has not said anything about the LL having free access to the property, also, if the LL could do that without residing there, it would be a neat way of circumventing tenancy law. Just require each tenant to sign a licensee agreement and tell them they are not tenants. I doubt the RTB would see it that way, the first question would be, does the LL live in the property?

Sleeper12

VanHalen wrote:

A licensee includes "persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal license arrangement with the owner where the occupants are not entitled to its exclusive use and the owner has continuing access to the accommodation and/or can move around or change the occupants".

Again, this is anything but clear from what op has said. All op said was the other rooms are rented out. You are jumping the gun on this without op explaining more

CrazyR

No he doesn't have any free access to the property. He has to call and let us know he would be comming.

CrazyR

CrazyR wrote: »

No he doesn't have any free access to the property. He has to call and let us know he would be comming.

Thanks, that pretty much puts the licensee argument to bed.

CrazyR

Thanks, everybody for the advice. In terms of the rent amount, I checked the official calculator and the rent calculated was 363 euro. When I spoke to the new person managing the house on the landlord's behalf she wanted me to pay 500 euro and her words: "now your rent will be 500 a month if you want to stay in the house" which already showed me a lack of any respect for the rules. I respectfully replied that the rent cannot be 500 euro because there is a limit of 4% a year in a pressure area. I told her I calculated the rent on the RTB website and it was 363 euro she said "ohh no no way" and she quickly calculated the rent and said she can agree to 400 euro which is still not legal. Seeing her approach I can see she will try some dirty tricks to get me to sign something which will benefit her not me. I understand that if whatever is in the lease is not aligned with the law then the law takes precedence.

My worry is that in this climate with the housing crisis I won't have any chance to defend my rights. That is why I don't want to sign anything. I told her yesterday I decided not to sign any lease because there was no legal requirement and I couldn't see any reason to do it after so many years. She insisted on me signing the lease and she said that all she wanted in it is that I give 30-day notice if I want to move out. I said ok if that is all she wanted in the lease I will sign it, but I will not sign a fixed-term lease and there has to be the new rent amount in the lease.

I must say that I don't trust this person and I don't like her approach which is like the law didn't exist, and I am pretty sure when she shows up today with the lease it won't be anything she said it would be. In this climate, I am worrying that I may be forced to sign the lease which will be very bad for my situation, and basically I will be bullied into it. I don't want to lose my accommodation now but it looks to me like she already has a plan to get rid of me so she can get her 500 euro a month, regardless of the fact that the house doesn't even belong to her.

Another thing is that the house was never registered and none of the tenants ever were registered. That may be the reason that she insists on having leases signed because with new leases she can register the house as a rental and forget about the potential penalties for not doing so for years. So now what I am thinking is if she wants me to sign a lease which is not respecting the fact I have been renting since 2013 and she tries to bully me into signing I will straight away contact RTB and make a complaint. If she forces me to sign it, it won't leave me any other choice.

CrazyR

CrazyR wrote: »

Thanks, everybody for the advice. In terms of the rent amount, I checked the official calculator and the rent calculated was 363 euro. When I spoke to the new person managing the house on the landlord's behalf she wanted me to pay 500 euro and her words: "now your rent will be 500 a month if you want to stay in the house" which already showed me a lack of any respect for the rules. I respectfully replied that the rent cannot be 500 euro because there is a limit of 4% a year in a pressure area. I told her I calculated the rent on the RTB website and it was 363 euro she said "ohh no no way" and she quickly calculated the rent and said she can agree to 400 euro which is still not legal. Seeing her approach I can see she will try some dirty tricks to get me to sign something which will benefit her not me. I understand that if whatever is in the lease is not aligned with the law then the law takes precedence. My worry is that in this climate with the housing crisis I won't have any chance to defend my rights. That is why I don't want to sign anything. I told her yesterday I decided not to sign any lease because there was no legal requirement and I couldn't see any reason to do it after so many years. She insisted on me signing the lease and she said that all she wanted in it is that I give 30-day notice if I want to move out. I said ok if that is all she wanted in the lease I will sign it, but I will not sign a fixed-term lease and there has to be the new rent amount in the lease.
I must say that I don't trust this person and I don't like her approach which is like the law didn't exist, and I am pretty sure when she shows up today with the lease it won't be anything she said it would be. In this climate, I am worrying that I may be forced to sign the lease which will be very bad for my situation, and basically I will be bullied into it. I don't want to lose my accommodation now but it looks to me like she already has a plan to get rid of me so she can get her 500 euro a month, regardless of the fact that the house doesn't even belong to her.
Another thing is that the house was never registered and none of the tenants ever were registered. That may be the reason that she insists on having leases signed because with new leases she can register the house as a rental and forget about the potential penalties for not doing so for years. So now what I am thinking is if she wants me to sign a lease which is not respecting the fact I have been renting since 2013 and she tries to bully me into signing I will straight away contact RTB and make a complaint. If she forces me to sign it, it won't leave me any other choice.

In relation to the registration, there is a late penalty fee, used to be around €180, so not really a consideration.

Regarding notice, just inform her that the legal requirement for a tenant who has been there exceeds the 30 days she is looking for in the lease, so there is no need for her to be concerned about that.

Sounds as if you are renting from someone who is learning on the job.

Mundo7976

Take the copy of the lease that she brings, tell her you'll read over it before considering signing it and alsontell her you'll be ensuring everything is above board with the rtb before you decide to sign or not sign the agreement. Say to leave it with you for a few days and you'll come back to her. One way or another shes going to be a headache for you so you may as well tackle back

Ace2007

Dav010 wrote: »

In relation to the registration, there is a late penalty fee, used to be around €180, so not really a consideration.

Regarding notice, just inform her that the legal requirement for a tenant who has been there exceeds the 30 days she is looking for in the lease, so there is no need for her to be concerned about that.

Sounds as if you are renting from someone who is learning on the job.

Could also be a case now that the elderly landlord needs extra income to pay for carers to come in etc. I often feel that the law should be max 4% or up to market value. Look all over dublin right now and houses that were once rented out are for sale - there is no incentive for individual landlords especially any who in the past where sound to their tenants and didn’t increase rent - tenants will now turn around and say it’s capped at 4% etc. If extra income in needed for instance - could end up with house being sold - especially as the landlord is elderly.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

Could also be a case now that the elderly landlord needs extra income to pay for carers to come in etc. I often feel that the law should be max 4% or up to market value. Look all over dublin right now and houses that were once rented out are for sale - there is no incentive for individual landlords especially any who in the past where sound to their tenants and didn’t increase rent - tenants will now turn around and say it’s capped at 4% etc. If extra income in needed for instance - could end up with house being sold - especially as the landlord is elderly.

Good point, but that doesn’t alter the legalities that must be adhered to by the LL.

Ace2007

Dav010 wrote: »

Good point, but that doesn’t alter the legalities that must be adhered to by the LL.

Of course not but if you were the relative say of the elderly landlord, you might see the tenant as being taking their parent for a mug the last few years, if paying at a 40% discount to market rent and then throwing legislation in their face when they increase to market value for example.

Unfortunately for renters, playing hardball could backfire, the OP could win then battle but the war would be far from over with the relative if end up on wrong side of them.

dennyk

CrazyR wrote: »

She insisted on me signing the lease and she said that all she wanted in it is that I give 30-day notice if I want to move out. I said ok if that is all she wanted in the lease I will sign it, but I will not sign a fixed-term lease and there has to be the new rent amount in the lease.

That excuse is nonsense; either she's full of it or she truly has no idea about tenancy laws. As a Part 4 periodic tenant for the duration of your tenancy, you'd have to either give 84 days notice (if less than eight full years) or 112 days notice (once you're past eight years) to end the tenancy anyway. A new tenancy agreement could give you a shorter notice period (but not the landlord), but the law already requires a much longer period than the 30 days she's demanding anyway.

Also, the lack of a registration of the tenancy is not an issue for you; you can still bring complaints to the RTB regardless of whether the landlord has registered or not. It's the landlord who can't avail of the RTB proceedings if they failed to register. Just make sure you hang onto all of your records showing that you've been in the place since 2013 and the rents you've been paying, in case they're ever needed as evidence if things do escalate to an RTB complaint at some point.

ted1

Just tell her you are staying under part 4 tenancy and that the notice period is clearly defined.

Tell her the rent Is €363 and that If she insists on any higher you will rates a case with the RTB.

Tell her you understand that she’s talking over, but that she needs to be aware of the rules and regulations.

The_Conductor

OP - just to reiterate- she cannot detract from your rights under the residential tenancies act in any manner in any proposed lease- she can however, give you better terms than those afforded to you under the Act. If she is now suggesting that you only need to give 30 days notice if you wish to leave the property- this would be an enhancement under the Act- and it does not absolve her of her obligations under the legislation- she has however given you a right that you did not otherwise have.

I would seriously suggest that you need to go through the proposed lease with a fine tooth comb- however, and notwithstanding this, if she has put anything it in that detracts from your rights- it is wholly unenforceable- and if she tries to enforce it, she is going to get a short sharp shock.

CrazyR

I felt forced to sign a lease. I was told it is a new lease because now she is the co-owner. The lease says that my rent is 400 a month. And she said that it is a new tenancy. Her father is still the co-owner and the rent is paid to his account. It's a new bank account but it is in his name, not her name. I have a feeling that this is not a new tenancy and I didn't lose my 6 months of notice although I signed the lease which says that my notice is a month. Another thing is why she accepted 400 euro a month when she wanted me to pay 500 if I wanted to stay in the house? If it was a new tenancy she wouldn't have a problem with forcing 500 euro a month.
I decided to sign it because I have a full-time job and college and I have no time to look for a new place.

3DataModem

CrazyR wrote: »

I felt forced to sign a lease. I was told it is a new lease because now she is the co-owner. The lease says that my rent is 400 a month. And she said that it is a new tenancy. Her father is still the co-owner and the rent is paid to his account. It's a new bank account but it is in his name, not her name. I have a feeling that this is not a new tenancy and I didn't lose my 6 months of notice although I signed the lease which says that my notice is a month. Another thing is why she accepted 400 euro a month when she wanted me to pay 500 if I wanted to stay in the house? If it was a new tenancy she wouldn't have a problem with forcing 500 euro a month.
I decided to sign it because I have a full-time job and college and I have no time to look for a new place.

If the landlords child is living in the place and acting for the landlord (whether co-owner or not, whether you pay to a bank account owned by owner or not) then - contrary to what was concluded above - you may be a licencee and not a tenant. Your rights are significantly different if this is the case.

CrazyR

I never said they were living in the place. They don't. I am a tenant, not a licensee.

Lux23

You have a record of paying rent to the same landlord for eight years, so even if she tries to pull something, you can immediately raise a case with the RTB to defend your rights as a long-term tenant. I am sure you will also have bills and other information delivered to the house, so she can't say that it's a new tenancy. She would be laughed out of any hearing.

3DataModem

CrazyR wrote: »

I never said they were living in the place. They don't. I am a tenant, not a licensee.

My mistake.

Moonbeam

I would contact the PRTB and clairify your rights and also so it is on record in case she tries to boot you out.
It could be that she is looking out for the best interest of her relation or it could be she is greedy and does not care.

dennyk

CrazyR wrote: »

I felt forced to sign a lease. I was told it is a new lease because now she is the co-owner. The lease says that my rent is 400 a month. And she said that it is a new tenancy. Her father is still the co-owner and the rent is paid to his account. It's a new bank account but it is in his name, not her name. I have a feeling that this is not a new tenancy and I didn't lose my 6 months of notice although I signed the lease which says that my notice is a month. Another thing is why she accepted 400 euro a month when she wanted me to pay 500 if I wanted to stay in the house? If it was a new tenancy she wouldn't have a problem with forcing 500 euro a month.
I decided to sign it because I have a full-time job and college and I have no time to look for a new place.

Even if ownership of the property has changed, that does not affect your tenancy or create a "new" tenancy. Your tenancy and all your associated rights under the RTA would survive a change of ownership intact. If the owner of the property wants vacant possession in order to sell or otherwise transfer ownership, that is a valid reason to end a tenancy under Part 4, but if they didn't end your tenancy and sold or transferred ownership of the place while you were still a tenant, then your tenancy remains unaffected and you still have all of the same rights no matter who owns the property.

A lease or tenancy agreement cannot override the law or reduce your rights as a tenant (though it can grant you additional rights). Even if the agreement says the landlord only has to give you a month's notice to end the tenancy, or that they can end it for any reason rather than an allowable reason under Part 4, that doesn't make it true; the minimum requirements for notice and the limitations on ending a Part 4 tenancy under the RTA still apply no matter what is on the lease.

If she tries to give you an invalid termination notice (whether because it's not for a valid reason or because the notice period is not long enough to comply with the law), you can bring a case to the RTB to challenge its validity. Also, you do NOT have to leave the property if you have not been given a valid notice that complies with all of the requirements. Don't let anyone bully you into leaving on foot of an illegal notice; she has no right to remove you from the property, change the locks, etc. without going through the necessary processes with the RTB and the courts. If she does any of those things, contact Threshold for advice, and call the guards if anyone is trying to physically remove you or your belongings from the property by force.

Regarding the rent, a new agreement also cannot override the RPZ rent restrictions, so she cannot charge you €500 a month (or even €400, based on the info you provided). If you are paying that much, you are overpaying your rent. You can bring a claim to the RTB that your landlord is overcharging you in violation of RPZ restrictions, and if successful, the landlord will have to pay back the illegal extra rent you've been paying (and possibly damages on top of it).

Also, RPZ restrictions apply to new tenancies, not just the current tenant. Even if you left and she brought in a new tenant, legally she could not charge them more than the maximum rent per the RPZ regulations based on the last rent amount the previous tenant was paying. As to why she accepted the €400, it's likely because she knows full well that she's breaking the law and is doesn't want to push the issue to the point where you'll go to the RTB and get her in the ****.

CrazyR

Thanks. I decided not to do anything at the moment. I will see how it goes and if they take any other steps to increase my rent or get rid of me I will most likely contact RTB.

Mrs OBumble

CrazyR wrote: »

Thanks. I decided not to do anything at the moment. I will see how it goes and if they take any other steps to increase my rent or get rid of me I will most likely contact RTB.

Indeed. I'm in a similar-but-different scenario. I have very carefully filed the "paperwork" such as it was showing an illegally-large rent increase and vastly inadequate process. Don't plan to use them unless something goes wrong (eg LL lost capacity and a family member took over and tried to get stroppy). But it's quite reassuring knowing they're there.