Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Renting a room...Ripped off?

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    zeebre12
    Registered Users Posts: 537 ✭✭✭zeebre12


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Has zero rights.

    Why would the landlord have to honour an agreement they never entered into and in all likelihood appears to have been in breach of the original tenancy agreement?

    You are trying to blame the landlord for a situation they had no part in creating.

    The landlord was aware that he was subletting the rooms.


  • Options
    #63
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    zeebre12 wrote: »
    The landlord was aware that he was subletting the rooms.

    As a licence we not as a tenant


  • Options
    #64
    Lux23
    Registered Users Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    The other tenant should open a dispute with the RTB, the landlord knew well what was going on! Chancer.


  • Options
    #65
    zeebre12
    Registered Users Posts: 537 ✭✭✭zeebre12


    Lux23 wrote: »
    The other tenant should open a dispute with the RTB, the landlord knew well what was going on! Chancer.

    The other tenant was moving out this weekend anyway. They don't need their deposit back as the used it for last months rent already.


  • Options
    #66
    zeebre12
    Registered Users Posts: 537 ✭✭✭zeebre12


    Lux23 wrote: »
    The other tenant should open a dispute with the RTB, the landlord knew well what was going on! Chancer.

    The landlord was aware that the rooms were being sublet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    zeebre12 wrote: »
    The landlord was aware that the rooms were being sublet.

    Irrelevant


  • Options
    #68
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    ted1 wrote: »
    Irrelevant

    Irrelevant to what?

    It is the same as any other eviction, the op may not have been a tenant of the landlord but he was a licence of the tenant, who cannot be evicted without notice. The property is not abandoned as the licence remains, so all the landlord can do is evict in line with the RTA on the foot of nonpayment of rent, but still the LL cannot just evict the licensee.

    Btw OP you are entitled to apply to become a tenant of the landlord, he cannot refuse this easily but it would mean you inherit a bit of a mess. You should get some advice on this rather than asking here, Threshold or Flac offer free advice.


  • Options
    #69
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    I think some people are getting carried away here.
    The way some are talking a landlord could let a house to a person.
    Then that person can sub let to Jack the ripper, who the landlord never even heard even knew was in his property.
    Main tenant leaves and Jack the ripper gets the house and all the rights to it for themselves.
    Pull the other one :)


  • Options
    #70
    zeebre12
    Registered Users Posts: 537 ✭✭✭zeebre12


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    I think some people are getting carried away here.
    The way some are talking a landlord could let a house to a person.
    Then that person can sub let to Jack the ripper, who the landlord never even heard even knew was in his property.
    Main tenant leaves and Jack the ripper gets the house and all the rights to it for themselves.
    Pull the other one :)

    The landlord was well aware that the rooms were being sublet.


  • Options
    #71
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    zeebre12 wrote: »
    The landlord was aware that he was subletting the rooms.

    Not legally allowed so irelevent and only according to a very generic interpretation by the OP

    No lease, no agreement and never even met the landlord ffs!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davindub wrote: »
    It is the same as any other eviction, the op may not have been a tenant of the landlord but he was a licence of the tenant, who cannot be evicted without notice. The property is not abandoned as the licence remains, so all the landlord can do is evict in line with the RTA on the foot of nonpayment of rent, but still the LL cannot just evict the licensee.
    ce.

    Yes he bloody well can. he was staying there without any permission of the actual owner and landlord. He was not and nevr has been a tenent under the law.

    A licensee can be ****ed out on a whim by the way. Zero rights under tenency legislation


  • Options
    #73
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    I think some people are getting carried away here.
    The way some are talking a landlord could let a house to a person.
    Then that person can sub let to Jack the ripper, who the landlord never even heard even knew was in his property.
    Main tenant leaves and Jack the ripper gets the house and all the rights to it for themselves.
    Pull the other one :)

    The issue is those people are biased towards the OP instead of going by the actual law in this area


  • Options
    #74
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Lux23 wrote: »
    The other tenant should open a dispute with the RTB, the landlord knew well what was going on! Chancer.

    Ignoring a breach does not mean its not a breach. Many landlords will be OK with something but not include it in an agreement. Small pets for example


  • Options
    #75
    zeebre12
    Registered Users Posts: 537 ✭✭✭zeebre12


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Yes he bloody well can. he was staying there without any permission of the actual owner and landlord. He was not and nevr has been a tenent under the law.

    A licensee can be ****ed out on a whim by the way. Zero rights under tenency legislation
    The landlord wants me to pay for staying there since 1st of October. I didn't say I would or wouldn't.Wouldn't I just be better to move out Friday altogether without paying? If I do pay I will probably have to pay for bins/oil (which 'head tenant' didn't bother paying for). I may be able to drag it out until Friday.


  • Options
    #76
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    zeebre12 wrote: »
    The landlord wants me to pay for staying there since 1st of October. I didn't say I would or wouldn't.Wouldn't I just be better to move out Friday altogether without paying? If I do pay I will probably have to pay for bins/oil (which 'head tenant' didn't bother paying for). I may be able to drag it out until Friday.

    If I was in your shoes I would leave without paying anything.

    Im not biased here, I dont consider yourself and the landlord to have any legal agreeement or obligations to each other so if he can tell you to **** off, likewise you to him.

    If you are happy to stay it would be on a going forward basis and no liability for what happened before but personally and its just my own feeling, I would start fresh somewhere else


  • Options
    #77
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Yes he bloody well can. he was staying there without any permission of the actual owner and landlord. He was not and nevr has been a tenent under the law.

    A licensee can be ****ed out on a whim by the way. Zero rights under tenency legislation

    Not at all.

    Why do I feel like this might take a lot of typing to explain in a way you will understand?

    Could I just ask you to think about who is the tenant and why the tenant cannot be evicted and note that the tenant is still in possession here until the licensee has left?


  • Options
    #78
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davindub wrote: »
    Not at all.

    Why do I feel like this might take a lot of typing to explain in a way you will understand?

    Could I just ask you to think about who is the tenant and why the tenant cannot be evicted and note that the tenant is still in possession here until the licensee has left?

    Can you show me the OPs name on the tenency agreement? or



    or was he in fact 'renting a room' from the tenent that had a rental agreement for the entire building?


  • Options
    #79
    Ronin247
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Can you show me the OPs name on the tenency agreement? or



    or was he in fact 'renting a room' from the tenent that had a rental agreement for the entire building?

    My understanding of the situation.

    The OP doesn't need his name on the tenancy.

    The OP is renting a room from the Tenant. This Tenant has not been evicted. He may have disappeared but that doesn't mean the tenancy is invalid. Landlord must evict the tenant "properly " and so the tenants Licensee can remain until that eviction takes place.


  • Options
    #80
    JoChervil
    Registered Users Posts: 2,003 ✭✭✭JoChervil


    zeebre12 wrote: »
    The landlord was aware that the rooms were being sublet.

    The most important is, how you paid your rent. Did you do it by money transfer to a landlord or to a "head tenant"?

    If you paid to the landlord, so you are a tenant and after half a year of leaving there they can't evict you. If you paid in cash to the "head tenant", so you are a licensee with very little rights. But for sure you don't need to pay landlord anything because you never dealt with them.


  • Options
    #81
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Ronin247 wrote: »
    My understanding of the situation.

    The OP doesn't need his name on the tenancy.

    The OP is renting a room from the Tenant. This Tenant has not been evicted. He may have disappeared but that doesn't mean the tenancy is invalid. Landlord must evict the tenant "properly " and so the tenants Licensee can remain until that eviction takes place.


    Which brings us back to Jack the ripper


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Can you show me the OPs name on the tenency agreement? or



    or was he in fact 'renting a room' from the tenent that had a rental agreement for the entire building?

    Let me make this clearer:

    The op is not a tenant.

    The op is a licensee of the tenant.

    The tenant is still in possession of the property as long as his licensee remains.

    The LL can issue notice to the tenant for non payment of rent but not evict without notice.

    The op can apply to become a tenant which the LL cannot reasonably refuse. And if the op pays for this week to the landlord, he would be a tenant from that date on.


  • Options
    #83
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davindub wrote: »
    Let me make this clearer:

    The op is not a tenant.

    The op is a licensee of the tenant.

    The tenant is still in possession of the property as long as his licensee remains.

    The LL can issue notice to the tenant for non payment of rent but not evict without notice.

    The op can apply to become a tenant which the LL cannot reasonably refuse. And if the op pays for this week to the landlord, he would be a tenant from that date on.

    Let me make it even clearer, the licensee has zero rights. Zero. He can be removed on a whim.

    The agreement with the actual tenent has no legal basis. It was not and is not a part of the tenency agreement. While the tenant that has vanished does indeed enjoy protection, the OP does not. Hes absolutely nothing but a complete unauthorised stranger in his property.

    You may as well claim a tenency agreement applies to a squatter


  • Options
    #84
    Ronin247
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Let me make it even clearer, the licensee has zero rights. Zero. He can be removed on a whim.

    The agreement with the actual tenent has no legal basis. It was not and is not a part of the tenency agreement. While the tenant that has vanished does indeed enjoy protection, the OP does not. Hes absolutely nothing but a complete unauthorised stranger in his property.

    You may as well claim a tenency agreement applies to a squatter



    The OP is a licensee of the (head) Tenant and has an agreement with that tenant which authorises him to be in that property. That tenant can kick a licensee out.
    The landlord can only kick out the (head) tenant by going through the proper procedure as that is the legal agreement that is in force.
    There are probably other rights inferred to the OP by the fact that the landlord was in tacit agreement with the (head) tenant subletting, which he acknowledged he is aware of.
    I feel you are under the impression that because the main tenant has disappeared that the tenancy automatically ceases. It doesn't.

    You actually have to be legally removed as a squatter as well.


  • Options
    #85
    zeebre12
    Registered Users Posts: 537 ✭✭✭zeebre12


    I paid my deposit to the 'head tenant'. Is this not almost like my rent for this month? If I wasn't paying rent to the 'head tenant' you can be sure I wouldn't get it back.


  • Options
    #86
    Ronin247
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    zeebre12 wrote: »
    I paid my deposit to the 'head tenant'. Is this not almost like my rent for this month? If I wasn't paying rent to the 'head tenant' you can be sure I wouldn't get it back.

    I would suggest texting the landlord and tell him you will be out at the end of the month.


  • Options
    #87
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Ronin247 wrote: »
    The OP is a licensee of the (head) Tenant and has an agreement with that tenant which authorises him to be in that property. That tenant can kick a licensee out.
    The landlord can only kick out the (head) tenant by going through the proper procedure as that is the legal agreement that is in force.
    There are probably other rights inferred to the OP by the fact that the landlord was in tacit agreement with the (head) tenant subletting, which he acknowledged he is aware of.
    I feel you are under the impression that because the main tenant has disappeared that the tenancy automatically ceases. It doesn't.

    You actually have to be legally removed as a squatter as well.

    The landlord can change the locks. The tenant and not the licencee would have to file a complaint


  • Options
    #88
    Ronin247
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    ted1 wrote: »
    The landlord can change the locks. The tenant and not the licencee would have to file a complaint


    No he can't, not without getting the agreement of the (head) tenant..... who he cannot contact.
    As the landlord has spoken to the OP thus acknowledging that he is living there he would be wide open to legal action if he did that. This is not the 1920s.
    I have sympathy for both OP and landlord in this situation but the (head) tenant ripped off the landlord..... the OP shouldn't have to suffer because of that.


  • Options
    #89
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ronin247 wrote: »
    The OP is a licensee of the (head) Tenant and has an agreement with that tenant which authorises him to be in that property. That tenant can kick a licensee out.

    Im not going to bother going further than this because its sums it up. YOUR opinion, is that someone with zero rights in the house has the right not to be removed by the owner of the property. Can you show me anything written in law or in cases stated that would suggest this?

    What about a brothel? Lets examine where you are going long term with this.

    I rent an apartment to Mr Pimp, he then rents the bedroooms to his hoes. They pay him to operate within the facility.

    Mr Pimp, being a pimp gets sent to jail. The rent is paid by direct debit so as long as Mr Pimps account contains sufficient funds, I can never evict the prostitutes? Forever and ever and ever?


  • Options
    #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ronin247 wrote: »
    No he can't, not without getting the agreement of the (head) tenant..... who he cannot contact.
    As the landlord has spoken to the OP thus acknowledging that he is living there he would be wide open to legal action if he did that. This is not the 1920s.
    I have sympathy for both OP and landlord in this situation but the (head) tenant ripped off the landlord..... the OP shouldn't have to suffer because of that.

    So who exactly is going to complain about the locks being changed then? As that person already specifically stated?

    What legal recourse? On what grounds? What law?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Let me make it even clearer, the licensee has zero rights. Zero. He can be removed on a whim.

    The agreement with the actual tenent has no legal basis. It was not and is not a part of the tenency agreement. While the tenant that has vanished does indeed enjoy protection, the OP does not. Hes absolutely nothing but a complete unauthorised stranger in his property.

    You may as well claim a tenency agreement applies to a squatter

    Well I tried to explain it to you but as I said earlier.....

    Btw you can't remove a "squatter" like that either, sorry.


Advertisement