nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Tenants sublet house without permission

pjackson

I rented a house to a couple in January 2018. The rent has been paid on time and the house is being kept well. However I have just discovered that the couple brought 2 additional people into the house a number of months ago. My belief is that they intended to do so from the outset as the rent was not sustainable for them. At the time of letting the house, I asked the couple whether the rent was affordable and they indicated that it was. So they are in breach of the lease. My thinking on the next steps is to meet with all 4 people in the house and to indicated that I want to regularise the situation with all parties signing a new lease. I believe one of the tenants (a student) may leave in May when his course finishes and I am thinking that from that point, I will tell them that I want a maximum of 3 in the (3 bedroom) house. My original ideas was to get 3 professional people sharing the house.

Any advice would be appreciated particularly from anyone who may have had a similar situation as a landlord.

Thanks in advance.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

GGTrek

utmbuilder wrote: »

How did they not claim breach of privacy as mentioned in the rta

Because you have no expectation of privacy in the common areas of a building and a nice poster was put that the common areas were being monitored.

utmbuilder

GGTrek wrote: »

Because you have no expectation of privacy in the common areas of a building

Interception of post is far beyond the remit of the RTB and a high court matter typically only granted by Conditions justifying interception in interests of security of State.

If they had you on public record in a tribunal and took a high court action you could of ended up with a lean on your house even taken photos of envelopes

GGTrek

utmbuilder wrote: »

Interception of post is far beyond the remit of the RTB and a high court matter typically only granted by Conditions justifying interception in interests of security of State.

If they had you on public record in a tribunal and took a high court action you could of ended up with a lean on your house even taken photos of envelopes

Again you are making too many assumptions. I did not intercept any post. The post was dropped on the floor of the common areas (again visible by anyone entering the building) and during inspections photos where taken of the envelipes with name and address of the illegal occupier.
You are over thinking especially on "high court" case of someone who is illegally occupying.
If you are trying to legally scare me you have really got the wrong guy.

utmbuilder

Ah thats all your doing. Your right thats totally normal.

JustMe,K

So how does a situation like this work with regards to creating a tenancy? I spoke to RTB recently and they advised that a tenancy exists from the time someone lives at a property irrespective of whether they are on a lease or paying rent or not, and as a result they are entitled to their own rights and notice outside of what a LL might reasonably expect on the basis that the property was not rented to that person.

rightmove

Whatever op decides hope he can come back and tell us how it works out. Saying that I think they have just started and there may be more issues down the road. What gave them the impression they could break the terms of the lease? Esp so early. If the ll did this would they be so accommodating?? Doubt it. Prtb would make sure of that

Claw Hammer

kcdiom wrote: »

So how does a situation like this work with regards to creating a tenancy? I spoke to RTB recently and they advised that a tenancy exists from the time someone lives at a property irrespective of whether they are on a lease or paying rent or not, and as a result they are entitled to their own rights and notice outside of what a LL might reasonably expect on the basis that the property was not rented to that person.

That is rubbish. there are difficulties when a landlord knows someone is there and accepts rent from such a person. A person can be living in a property as a lodger and it has nothing to do with the RTB. Equally a person can be a licensee of a tenant and does not acquire tenancy rights until 6 months have passed.

JustMe,K

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is rubbish. there are difficulties when a landlord knows someone is there and accepts rent from such a person. A person can be living in a property as a lodger and it has nothing to do with the RTB. Equally a person can be a licensee of a tenant and does not acquire tenancy rights until 6 months have passed.

So the RTB gave incorrect information? Lovely!

Wheres Me Jumper?

Marcusm wrote: »

4 people in a 3 bed house and rent paid on time! Not a chance that the RTB would uphold a notice of termination.

Nonsense. the amount of misinformation spouted on this topic is incredible.
according to the op they have doubled the number of tenants.
this is a clear case of subletting, and IS a serious breach of the LA.
the LL is entitled to evict if he follows the correct procedure, as previously outlined.

in case you didn't know the RTB adjudicates both for and AGAINST tenants btw.

just because you don't like something, that does not make it illegal.:D

[Deleted User]

People are getting their wires crossed all over the place in here. I've sought clarification on a very similar matter in an RTB hearing before and the adjudicator spelled it out for all sides like this:

1. Owner rents property to person A. Owner becomes LL and A becomes tenant (RTA applies).
2. A then brings in B & C to help pay the rent. A then also becomes a live-in LL, with B & C becoming licensees of A....(RTA does not apply)..
3. The only way A can sublet the property is if they move out and rent the property to B & C exclusively (RTA applies).

Browney7

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

.

in case you didn't know the RTB adjudicates both for and AGAINST tenants btw.

I thought the RTB existed to defend delinquent tenants at all costs and drag landlords over hot coals for the craic!

Good to hear they hear both sides

Old diesel

If you want to operate at the 2019 hard core record rent levels then you have to accept an element of risk that something like this could happen.

As people battle to keep on top of rents.

pjackson

I have now resolved the issue to my satisfaction with the original and additional tenants. One party will be moving on shortly leaving me with 3 tenants under a fresh lease.

eoing90

Well done op. Hopefully it all works out.

beauf

Old diesel wrote: »

If you want to operate at the 2019 hard core record rent levels then you have to accept an element of risk that something like this could happen.

As people battle to keep on top of rents.

This risk happens regardless of what rent is set.
Subletting has always been a thing.

Marcusm

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

Nonsense. the amount of misinformation spouted on this topic is incredible.
according to the op they have doubled the number of tenants.
this is a clear case of subletting, and IS a serious breach of the LA.
the LL is entitled to evict if he follows the correct procedure, as previously outlined.

in case you didn't know the RTB adjudicates both for and AGAINST tenants btw.

just because you don't like something, that does not make it illegal.:D

Neither you nor I know what is contained in the lease agreement and whether there is an express clause prohibiting further occupants. I find it hard to conceive of any 3 bedroom property which would be overcrowded with 4 occupants hence why I have suggested that a claim that it is overcrowded would be unlikely to succeed.

Whether the addition of additional occupants is a sufficiently significant breach of the lease terms would have to be determined based on the facts, many of which are not known to us.

Irrespective, before the LL would get any traction with the RTB, they would have to engage with the cited tenants and give them an opportunity to remedy the situation.

On another point, irrespectively of how strongly you feel about this, nothing contemplated here is “illegal”. It may constitute a breach of the contractual arrangements but no offence is being committed.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Browney7 wrote: »

I thought the RTB existed to defend delinquent tenants at all costs and drag landlords over hot coals for the craic!

Good to hear they hear both sides

i dont subscribe to the view that they are there to victimise LLs.
if a LL or a tenant is acting lawfully, then they have nothing to fear.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Marcusm wrote: »

Neither you nor I know what is contained in the lease agreement and whether there is an express clause prohibiting further occupants. I find it hard to conceive of any 3 bedroom property which would be overcrowded with 4 occupants hence why I have suggested that a claim that it is overcrowded would be unlikely to succeed.

Whether the addition of additional occupants is a sufficiently significant breach of the lease terms would have to be determined based on the facts, many of which are not known to us.

Irrespective, before the LL would get any traction with the RTB, they would have to engage with the cited tenants and give them an opportunity to remedy the situation.

On another point, irrespectively of how strongly you feel about this, nothing contemplated here is “illegal”. It may constitute a breach of the contractual arrangements but no offence is being committed.

most posters here including myself have encouraged the LL to initially speak with his tenants in order to resolve the issue, which if you care to read the thread you will see he has done, the issue as i understand it was not overcrowding, but sub-letting. every TA i have ever seen, contained a specific clause prohibiting sub-letting.
it is reasonable to assume this is the case here also. again if you read the thread you will see from his opening post the OP states he believes they were in breach of the lease, but maybe you know better???

Old diesel

beauf wrote: »

This risk happens regardless of what rent is set.
Subletting has always been a thing.

Sky high rents and a severe housing shortage means that people who normally wouldnt dream of getting into messy situations in terms of subletting - either as main official tenant or as the friend/colleague who is renting a room in a sublet situation.

Are more likely to do it out of frustration.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Old diesel wrote: »

Sky high rents and a severe housing shortage means that people who normally wouldnt dream of getting into messy situations in terms of subletting - either as main official tenant or as the friend/colleague who is renting a room in a sublet situation.

Are more likely to do it out of frustration.

if LLs squeeze the last euro out of their properties, then they are more likely to encounter these issues.

it's very important to call regularily on your property. the odd unannounced visit is best.
also a friendly nosey neighbour is always a good thing. leave them your mobile.

beauf

You can't squeeze anything there is RPZ.
And cause of the shortage and increased demand and rent is economic policy.

Sub letting clauses have been in leases forever. They didn't just appear in the last 10yrs.

beauf

Old diesel wrote: »

Sky high rents and a severe housing shortage means that people who normally wouldnt dream of getting into messy situations in terms of subletting - either as main official tenant or as the friend/colleague who is renting a room in a sublet situation.

Are more likely to do it out of frustration.

So it's ok to break the rules if you're frustrated.

Wheres Me Jumper?

beauf wrote: »

You can't squeeze anything there is RPZ.
And cause of the shortage and increased demand and rent is economic policy.

Sub letting clauses have been in leases forever. They didn't just appear in the last 10yrs.

are you telling me all LLs strictly adhere to RPZ rules?
my God i have so misjudged them. i feel so bad.

4ensic15

Deleted User wrote: »

People are getting their wires crossed all over the place in here. I've sought clarification on a very similar matter in an RTB hearing before and the adjudicator spelled it out for all sides like this:

1. Owner rents property to person A. Owner becomes LL and A becomes tenant (RTA applies).
2. A then brings in B & C to help pay the rent. A then also becomes a live-in LL, with B & C becoming licensees of A....(RTA does not apply)..
3. The only way A can sublet the property is if they move out and rent the property to B & C exclusively (RTA applies).

2. Above is not correct. Under the RTA a licensee who has been resident in a property for 6 months can apply to be a tenant.

Old diesel

beauf wrote: »

So it's ok to break the rules if you're frustrated.

I'm saying it's an outcome of rent levels that are completely insane.

The system is broken - but then we already know that.

beauf

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

are you telling me all LLs strictly adhere to RPZ rules?
my God i have so misjudged them. i feel so bad.

You seem to be implying the only reason rents rise is if someone breaks the rules.

Sticking to the rpz rules doesn't stop rents from rising.

This was common knowledge before they implemented the rpz but no one would listen.

It especially favours the REIT companies who seem to aim for the more profitable high end.

beauf

Old diesel wrote: »

I'm saying it's an outcome of rent levels that are completely insane.

The system is broken - but then we already know that.

I remember people doing it all the time decades ago. People do it because there is no real penalty for doing it.

Wheres Me Jumper?

beauf wrote: »

You seem to be implying the only reason rents rise is if someone breaks the rules.

Sticking to the rpz rules doesn't stop rents from rising.

This was common knowledge before they implemented the rpz but no one would listen.

It especially favours the REIT companies who seem to aim for the more profitable high end.

i never implied any such thing.
please do not misconstrue what i said.

Wheres Me Jumper?

beauf wrote: »

I remember people doing it all the time decades ago. People do it because there is no real penalty for doing it.

some LLs actively encourage & profit from it.
OMG! :eek:

[Deleted User]

4ensic15 wrote: »

2. Above is not correct. Under the RTA a licensee who has been resident in a property for 6 months can apply to be a tenant.

So it is correct.......up until the 6 month mark. And only then can their situation be regularised after application?

I'd like to know what would happen if the tenant's licencee becomes a tenant themselves? What then? The landlord is stuck with more tenants which they haven't vetted or quite possibly never even met? What if tenant A then decides to move out?