Tenants sublet house without permission

Browney7 · 07-02-2019 3:29pm

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 · 07-02-2019 3:40pm

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 · 07-02-2019 4:23pm

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 · 07-02-2019 4:27pm

Well done op. Hopefully it all works out.

beauf · 07-02-2019 5:44pm

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 · 07-02-2019 7:00pm

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? · 07-02-2019 7:12pm

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? · 07-02-2019 7:17pm

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 · 07-02-2019 7:47pm

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? · 07-02-2019 7:55pm

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 · 07-02-2019 8:34pm

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 · 07-02-2019 8:35pm

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? · 07-02-2019 8:40pm

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 · 07-02-2019 8:40pm

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 · 07-02-2019 8:53pm

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 · 07-02-2019 8:53pm

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 · 07-02-2019 8:57pm

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? · 07-02-2019 9:09pm

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? · 07-02-2019 9:12pm

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:

07-02-2019 9:36pm

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?

beauf · 07-02-2019 9:55pm

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

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

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

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

I have no idea what your point tbh

People seem to want the rules followed unless it doesn't suit them. They want some people to be allowed break the rules and some not.

Then wonder why the system is dysfunctional.

beauf · 07-02-2019 9:59pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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?

People often say all tenants can be readily vetted and bad tenants avoided. This story showed how easily it is to circumvent this.

I assume he will now register them all now.

4ensic15 · 07-02-2019 10:18pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

If tenant A moves out the remaining tenants continue. That is one reason landlords are getting out of the business. They are being foisted with tenants they haven't vetted.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 07-02-2019 10:58pm

beauf wrote: »

I have no idea what your point tbh

People seem to want the rules followed unless it doesn't suit them. They want some people to be allowed break the rules and some not.

Then wonder why the system is dysfunctional.

my point is there are good and bad LLs, just as there are good and bad tenants.
no one side has a monopoly on bad/illegal behaviour.
please show me where i implied otherwise.

GGTrek · 08-02-2019 2:55am

4ensic15 wrote: »

If tenant A moves out the remaining tenants continue. That is one reason landlords are getting out of the business. They are being foisted with tenants they haven't vetted.

This is 100% correct, the govvie legislative effort is trying to force down on landlords very risky occupiers as tenants (in order to avoid its social duties!). Subletting is rampant in Dublin due to the fact that in my experience many people applying for a tenancy (I received hundreds of applications over the years, so I do have a representative sample) would not pass an half decent vetting process, so in their desperation they try to short-circuit it. The most desperate ones are irresponsible people coming to Dublin who should have stayed in their original locations (being in Ireland or elsewhere) and would be very unreliable tenants.

A LL should avoid at all costs fixed term tenancies of more than 5 months among other things in order to have an easier route to evict illegally subletting tenants which in my experience will appear in the very first few months of the tenancy. Evicting for subletting without permission a part 4 tenant is easier said than done in Ireland due to the massive tenancy protection laws (in the UK they serve a no reason section 21 and they know that in a few months the bailiffs will knock). It is really hard work, probably more difficult than anti-social behaviour, because in the second case you will usually have the victims of the anti-social behaviour coming to testify at the hearing or providing statements, while for subletting it is very hard to get witnesses or statements.

A few do-gooders (with other people assets of course) in this thread do not understand that a non vetted illegal occupier represents a potential big risk to the LL and (sometimes) to its neighbours, just a short list of the risks to illuminate the minds of the do-gooders (who say that as long as rent is paid things are fine):
- the LL does not know the identity and the suitability of who is staying in his property. The illegal occupier could be a criminal, a person who on its own cannot afford the rent, a person with a very bad credit history or that previously caused damage and is prone to cause damage
- the illegal occupier has no contractual agreement with the LL in the LL very own property, the lease clauses do not apply to him/her, damage he/she causes to the property would be very difficult to recover, even worse trying to pursue any anti social behaviour. How do you take to court or to the RTB a person whose name you do not even know? The LL only recourse is against the main tenant and it is a difficult one at best.
- If the main tenant leaves the LL is effectively left with a squatter in its own property
- in case of accidents at the property, there might be serious problems with the insurance
- finally the fact that the main tenant/s decided that the lease was just a worthless piece of paper is very indicative of a frame of mind that they are prone to break other rules (and this is much more likely to happen in these situations, in the only two cases I had of non vetted subletting this included damages, anti-social behaviour, breach of the peace, non payment of bills)

I lived in quite a few countries and I noticed that usually a leftie or a distorted Catholic ideology (Ireland has got plenty of both) creates self-delusional people with double standards so I shall give the do-gooders a hint of my own moral view: illegal subletting is a massive infringement of freedom of contract, the LL has exactly the same right as the tenant to enter into a contractual agreement with people of his/her choice, without such choice being taken away by the govvie or the main tenant subletting without permission!

rightmove · 11-02-2019 2:18pm

GGTrek wrote: »

This is 100% correct, the govvie legislative effort is trying to force down on landlords very risky occupiers as tenants (in order to avoid its social duties!). Subletting is rampant in Dublin due to the fact that in my experience many people applying for a tenancy (I received hundreds of applications over the years, so I do have a representative sample) would not pass an half decent vetting process, so in their desperation they try to short-circuit it. The most desperate ones are irresponsible people coming to Dublin who should have stayed in their original locations (being in Ireland or elsewhere) and would be very unreliable tenants.

A LL should avoid at all costs fixed term tenancies of more than 5 months among other things in order to have an easier route to evict illegally subletting tenants which in my experience will appear in the very first few months of the tenancy. Evicting for subletting without permission a part 4 tenant is easier said than done in Ireland due to the massive tenancy protection laws (in the UK they serve a no reason section 21 and they know that in a few months the bailiffs will knock). It is really hard work, probably more difficult than anti-social behaviour, because in the second case you will usually have the victims of the anti-social behaviour coming to testify at the hearing or providing statements, while for subletting it is very hard to get witnesses or statements.

A few do-gooders (with other people assets of course) in this thread do not understand that a non vetted illegal occupier represents a potential big risk to the LL and (sometimes) to its neighbours, just a short list of the risks to illuminate the minds of the do-gooders (who say that as long as rent is paid things are fine):
- the LL does not know the identity and the suitability of who is staying in his property. The illegal occupier could be a criminal, a person who on its own cannot afford the rent, a person with a very bad credit history or that previously caused damage and is prone to cause damage
- the illegal occupier has no contractual agreement with the LL in the LL very own property, the lease clauses do not apply to him/her, damage he/she causes to the property would be very difficult to recover, even worse trying to pursue any anti social behaviour. How do you take to court or to the RTB a person whose name you do not even know? The LL only recourse is against the main tenant and it is a difficult one at best.
- If the main tenant leaves the LL is effectively left with a squatter in its own property
- in case of accidents at the property, there might be serious problems with the insurance
- finally the fact that the main tenant/s decided that the lease was just a worthless piece of paper is very indicative of a frame of mind that they are prone to break other rules (and this is much more likely to happen in these situations, in the only two cases I had of non vetted subletting this included damages, anti-social behaviour, breach of the peace, non payment of bills)

I lived in quite a few countries and I noticed that usually a leftie or a distorted Catholic ideology (Ireland has got plenty of both) creates self-delusional people with double standards so I shall give the do-gooders a hint of my own moral view: illegal subletting is a massive infringement of freedom of contract, the LL has exactly the same right as the tenant to enter into a contractual agreement with people of his/her choice, without such choice being taken away by the govvie or the main tenant subletting without permission!

Great summary

Tenants sublet house without permission

Comments