Renting a room...Ripped off?

davindub · 07-10-2020 11:22pm

Dav010 wrote: »

But davindub you have to be a licensee for 6 months before you apply for tenancy rights. Zeebre only recently moved in.

You are correct, zeebre is a licensee of the head tenant, and as such can take a case for redress against him to the SCC. The head tenant ended the tenancy agreement with the LL when the LL accepted that he has left the property.

Engaging with you is never a laugh, it inevitably involves you making unsubstantiated legal comments that drag on for pages with nothing to back them up.

Last the last thread where I produced cases to prove what you argued was incorrect?

You are right it is incredibly droll to listen to someone pretend they know what they are talking about and then wont accept it.

Part 4 after 6 months btw. See what I mean? Literally even basic thing you don't seem to comprehend.

07-10-2020 11:36pm

Ronin247 wrote: »

You are 100%correct, you can never evict the "hoes". You have to evict Mr Pimp not the "hoes"
You have to go through the correct channels to evict Mr Pimp even if he is in jail. Nobody is implying you have any obligations to the "hoes" or jack the ripper.
My opinion is just an opinion however if you need something in writing, read the last paragraph.It is only YOUR opinion that the OP has zero rights.

https://ipoa.ie/difference-between-subletting-an-assignment-and-a-licensee/

Where in that does it agree with you? It literally states the licensee has no rights

07-10-2020 11:38pm

Ronin247 wrote: »

https://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/illegal-eviction/

You don't appear to understand the difference between a tenant and a licensee or to don't read your own links

Twice now we have asked you how the op will complain about the locks being changed. Can you answer?

07-10-2020 11:39pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Is this another thread where you make up your own laws? If the tenant abandons the property, the tenancy ends if the LL accepts this without notice, are you saying the licensee automatically gains tenancy rights? What are you basing this on?

Licensees have few rights when it comes to renting, that is why they can apply to the SCC court rather than the RTB to recover deposits.

This is exactly what he's trying to claim.

Thankfully a level head has arrived

07-10-2020 11:42pm

zeebre12 wrote: »

For arguments sake could landlord and tenant be in on it together?

For arguments sake yes but for arguments sake the tenant could be a cia operative that had to flee after his identity was discovered.

For arguments sake were could say a lot of possibilities.

davindub · 07-10-2020 11:47pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

This is exactly what he's trying to claim.

Thankfully a level head has arrived

A person who is lawfully in occupation of the dwelling concerned as a licensee of the tenant or the multiple tenants, as the case may be, during the subsistence of a Part 4 tenancy may request the landlord of the dwelling to allow him or her to become a tenant of the dwelling.

Perhaps you and your "level" head recognises this passage?

07-10-2020 11:48pm

davindub wrote: »

A person who is lawfully in occupation of the dwelling concerned as a licensee of the tenant or the multiple tenants, as the case may be, during the subsistence of a Part 4 tenancy may request the landlord of the dwelling to allow him or her to become a tenant of the dwelling.

Perhaps you and your "level" head recognises this passage?

A complete stranger can ask as well. They still don't enjoy any rights until the landlord agrees

davindub · 07-10-2020 11:54pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

A complete stranger can ask as well. They still don't enjoy any rights until the landlord agrees

Find it and read it...

Teaser:
"Cannot reasonably refuse".

Ronin247 · 07-10-2020 11:54pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You don't appear to understand the difference between a tenant and a licensee or to don't read your own links

Twice now we have asked you how the op will complain about the locks being changed. Can you answer?

There is a legally binding tenancy between the Landlord and the head tenant.

The landlord must serve correct notice to terminate the tenancy.

It is illegal for the landlord to change the locks while that tenancy is in force.

The licensee is there by invitation of the tenant.

Landlord cannot just assume the tenant has ended the tenancy.

Now if any of the above statements are incorrect please explain which one and why.

ted1 · 08-10-2020 12:09am

Ronin247 wrote: »

There is a legally binding tenancy between the Landlord and the head tenant.

The landlord must serve correct notice to terminate the tenancy.

It is illegal for the landlord to change the locks while that tenancy is in force.

The licensee is there by invitation of the tenant.

Landlord cannot just assume the tenant has ended the tenancy.

Now if any of the above statements are incorrect please explain which one and why.

It’s up to the tenant to file a complaint, which he won’t as he has abandoned the tenancy.

The tenancy has ended.

Ronin247 · 08-10-2020 2:28am

ted1 wrote: »

It’s up to the tenant to file a complaint, which he won’t as he has abandoned the tenancy.

The tenancy has ended.

These are just opinions.

I have made 5 statements, show me where my thoughts are incorrect, please feel free to explain how.

I 100% think you are right and assume the head tenant has abandoned the tenancy, but I, like you and the landlord, have no proof of that, and assumption is the mother of all fcuk ups. The head tenant could be self isolating and has no phone signal where he is.

The licensee is lawfully living in his home that he is renting and is entitled by law to protection from the landlord just changing the locks. He CAN go to the guards. He can call threshold and they will call the guards for him.

https://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/illegal-eviction/

ted1 · 08-10-2020 9:30am

Ronin247 wrote: »

These are just opinions.

I have made 5 statements, show me where my thoughts are incorrect, please feel free to explain how.

I 100% think you are right and assume the head tenant has abandoned the tenancy, but I, like you and the landlord, have no proof of that, and assumption is the mother of all fcuk ups. The head tenant could be self isolating and has no phone signal where he is.

The licensee is lawfully living in his home that he is renting and is entitled by law to protection from the landlord just changing the locks. He CAN go to the guards. He can call threshold and they will call the guards for him.

https://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/illegal-eviction/

There’s two landlords.
The owner is the tenants landlord , and tenant is the licencees landlord.

Threshold may do a lot of things. Doesn’t mean they are legal. Also what are you posting links about tenancies. ? This isn’t a tenancy , the RTA or RTB are not relevant here. That is where your thoughts are incorrect here’s the correct piece you need to look at.

https://www.threshold.ie/advice/seeking-private-rented-accommodation/sharing-with-your-landlordrenting-from-a-tenant/

A licencee has little to no rights and can be evicted on the spot.

Don’t think the guards would do much.

08-10-2020 9:43am

Ronin247 wrote: »

There is a legally binding tenancy between the Landlord and the head tenant.

The landlord must serve correct notice to terminate the tenancy.

It is illegal for the landlord to change the locks while that tenancy is in force.

The licensee is there by invitation of the tenant.

Landlord cannot just assume the tenant has ended the tenancy.

Now if any of the above statements are incorrect please explain which one and why.

They are correct but you are willfully ignoring the question you have been asked multiple times which means you know it's correct but wont accept it.

You keep going to legislation that refers to tenants when the op is a licensee.

I shall all tyy one more time

A, How will the OP complain about the locks being changed? Not the tenant who has vanished, the OP.

B, Do you understand that the OP is a licensee and not a tenant? If so, why do yo keep referencing tenant rights?

C, Can you quote any law that protests LICENSEES from eviction from a private rental? Not students from college accommodation as that's not the OP either.

D, What criminal law do you think the landlord would be breaking that would result in the Gardai taking action?

08-10-2020 9:51am

davindub wrote: »

Find it and read it...

Teaser:
"Cannot reasonably refuse".

It's your evidence, you provide it

davindub · 08-10-2020 10:57am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It's your evidence, you provide it

No, sorry throw your little tantrums all you want.

You have talked so much here about something you know nothing about, what is the word used for that?

08-10-2020 11:12am

davindub wrote: »

No, sorry throw your little tantrums all you want.

You have talked so much here about something you know nothing about, what is the word used for that?

Can you provide evidence of your claim or not? That's how debate works. You back your point with facts and figures.

I have done so. Yo however want the opposition to search for your evidence to prove your point.

So, can you provide the evidence?

davindub · 08-10-2020 11:20am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Can you provide evidence of your claim or not? That's how debate works. You back your point with facts and figures.

I have done so. Yo however want the opposition to search for your evidence to prove your point.

So, can you provide the evidence?

Residential tenancies acts 2004 - 2018

It's public record.

Assessible to all.

A debate would infer that both sides have become prepared. What is going on here is akin to some idiot arguing in the pub.

08-10-2020 11:24am

davindub wrote: »

Residential tenancies acts 2004 - 2018

It's public record.

Assessible to all.

A debate would infer that both sides have become prepared. What is going on here is akin to some idiot arguing in the pub.

Don't call yourself that, c'mon now.

You mean the act that specifically does not include licensees in its protection? The same act that specifies that s head tenant is when a tenant sub let's the entire dwelling to another tenant and must have permission from the landlord to do so? That act? The same act that doesn't cover renting of a single room?

dartboardio · 08-10-2020 11:45am

I cannot believe OP is even considering paying another weeks rent. Why would you do that?

Plus, since the landlord isn't even technically your landlord now, you don't owe him a cent, seen as he essentially knew nothing about you.

It's his mess, he should have been more stringent in his checks and making sure the right people were in the house at the right time with the right paperwork etc etc.

His carelessness has lead to this.

I wouldn't pay another cent, and tell him you'll be out within the next couple of weeks

davindub · 08-10-2020 12:34pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Don't call yourself that, c'mon now.

You mean the act that specifically does not include licensees in its protection? The same act that specifies that s head tenant is when a tenant sub let's the entire dwelling to another tenant and must have permission from the landlord to do so? That act? The same act that doesn't cover renting of a single room?

Well I mean the RTA.

Hmmm maybe I am a bit rusty, can you demonstrate where the landlord can:

Enter the premises and change the locks

And

Chuck the tenants licensee, mother, siblings, drug dealer out of the house?

And

The terms in the RTA where the terms relating to the right of a licencee to apply to become a tenant of the landlord which the LL cannot be refused is akin to a member of the public asking but it means nothing unless the LL agrees (as you previously stated)

meijin · 08-10-2020 12:40pm

dartboardio wrote: »

I cannot believe OP is even considering paying another weeks rent. Why would you do that?

Plus, since the landlord isn't even technically your landlord now, you don't owe him a cent, seen as he essentially knew nothing about you.

Once OP starts paying rent to the landlord, it might start a tenancy?

Just tricky situation re. previous debts.

zeebre12 · 08-10-2020 1:09pm

dartboardio wrote: »

I cannot believe OP is even considering paying another weeks rent. Why would you do that?

Plus, since the landlord isn't even technically your landlord now, you don't owe him a cent, seen as he essentially knew nothing about you.

It's his mess, he should have been more stringent in his checks and making sure the right people were in the house at the right time with the right paperwork etc etc.

His carelessness has lead to this.

I wouldn't pay another cent, and tell him you'll be out within the next couple of weeks

I'm going to text him instead of ringing him I think. How would I phrase it really regarding my deposit (which I didn't get back) being used as this months rent? Or what is best way to approach it?

08-10-2020 1:52pm

davindub wrote: »

Well I mean the RTA.

Hmmm maybe I am a bit rusty, can you demonstrate where the landlord can:

Enter the premises and change the locks

And

Chuck the tenants licensee, mother, siblings, drug dealer out of the house?

And

The terms in the RTA where the terms relating to the right of a licencee to apply to become a tenant of the landlord which the LL cannot be refused is akin to a member of the public asking but it means nothing unless the LL agrees (as you previously stated)

I would settle for you showing what rights a licensee of six weeks has under the RTA. A link to the relevant section would suffice.

Here is a link to the SCC covering licensee disputes relating to deposits.

https://www.courts.ie/small-claims-procedure

08-10-2020 2:05pm

davindub wrote: »

Well I mean the RTA.

Hmmm maybe I am a bit rusty, can you demonstrate where the landlord can:

Enter the premises and change the locks

And

Chuck the tenants licensee, mother, siblings, drug dealer out of the house?

And

The terms in the RTA where the terms relating to the right of a licencee to apply to become a tenant of the landlord which the LL cannot be refused is akin to a member of the public asking but it means nothing unless the LL agrees (as you previously stated)

I'll play along one more time but really, if you are going to make a statement, up should back it up with something. Like evidence maybe.

The road traffic act? Nah, don't think I will find anything in there about tenants.

A, the tenant has vanished. The landlord can enter and change the locks because, and please follow this one, there's no actual tenant to complain. The property has been vacated. The LICENSEE cannot make a complaint because he's not on the tenancy agreement. The tenant could make a complaint if he was there and hadn't pulled a runner with everyones money. (Fraud by the way. A Criminal offence)

B, I never said tenant. Did I? Can you quote that? Or is it because you know you are wrong so are trying to add words in and move the goalposts?

C, LICENSEE, pimps and prostituted are covered here:

Trespass as defined in common law. Where a person enters or remains on land without the permission of the owner. This can also occur where permission to remain is removed. There is a common law right to remove trespassers from your property. Without any legal authority to remain which the op as a licensee does not have it cannot prove, he becomes a trespasser once asked to leave. It's explained here: http://mcmahonsolicitors.ie/trespass-issues/

In addition to this, the trespass is also covered under section 13, criminal justice (public order) act 1994 and in the case of drug selling and pimping, it becomes a burglary as defined under section 12, Criminal Justice (theft and fraud offences) act 2001.

The act of allowing your residence even by a tenant to be used for pimping is an offence under section 11, sexual offences act 1993.

Right to remain for a licensee:

Licensee – is a person allowed to reside in a rental property but has no rights as a tenant. A licensee in a private rented dwelling is there by invitation of the tenant, the relationship of a licensee is with the tenant and not with the landlord (https://ipoa.ie/difference-between-subletting-an-assignment-and-a-licensee/)

If you are renting a room from one of the existing tenants, you may also be a licensee and the normal landlord and tenant laws do not apply. After six months however you can apply to become a tenant on the same terms and conditions as the existing tenants (https://www.threshold.ie/advice/seeking-private-rented-accommodation/sharing-with-your-landlordrenting-from-a-tenant/)

There is little legal protection for licensees for example they do not have to be registered with the RTB, there are no minimum standards, rent book regulations or minimum notice periods required (https://www.threshold.ie/advice/seeking-private-rented-accommodation/sharing-with-your-landlordrenting-from-a-tenant/)

Be told who is living in the property, and decide whether to allow the tenant to sub-let or assign the property (https://www.rtb.ie/beginning-a-tenancy/rights-and-responsibilities)

Assignment can only take place with the consent of the landlord (https://www.rtb.ie/beginning-a-tenancy/types-of-tenancies-and-agreements/subletting-and-assignment)

A licensee or lodger cannot claim adverse possession of the property given they are occupying the property with the owner’s consent. (https://www.lawonline.ie/index.php/law-guides/business/landlord-and-tenant)

Enough for you? And remember, I can't prove a negative.

I'll edit to add the exact links for ya:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/50/section/12/enacted/en/html

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/13/enacted/en/html

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/20/enacted/en/html

08-10-2020 5:15pm

zeebre12 wrote: »

I'm going to text him instead of ringing him I think. How would I phrase it really regarding my deposit (which I didn't get back) being used as this months rent? Or what is best way to approach it?

I'm sorry but the landlord really isn't bothered about what tou did and didn't pay. He wants the house back on the market.

Perhaps and I'm only making a suggestion, it may suit both parties to agree to an actual tenency going forward? This will require a line in the sand regarding what happened with the head tenant and another deposit from you I'm afraid but then that will be required regardless of where you move to.

08-10-2020 6:49pm

davindub wrote: »

Hahaha what a load of sh'te!!! You fool!

Did you not even remember that the licensee is not there with the permission of the landlord, rta means residential tenancies act, and you made the same mistake as Davo in regards the 6 months!.

Trespass!!!!!

I am literally laughing here!!!!

Wow.

Not a shred of a rebuttal and not a shred of evidence to back yourself.

Plus you thought I was serious about the road traffic act and I included an emoji and all.

We shall leave it there I think when all you can resort to is name calling (again)

mrslancaster · 08-10-2020 9:11pm

I thought one of the obligations on a tenant under the RTA is to let the landlord know who is living in the property, ie to get the permission or agreement of the landlord and then give the person's details to the landlord.

If a head tenant could take in licensees whenever they felt like it, a house could become overcrowded in no time without the landlord knowing what was going on.

Also, if the landlord has no idea when a licencee moved in, how could he agree to accept the licensee as a full tenant after 6 months if he had no idea who the person was or how long they were in the property? In that case, anyone could just rock up and say they were living there for 6 months, it doesn't make any sense.

I thought a tenant had to give notice when they are leaving and as the OP can't contact the head tenant, maybe he has just abandoned the tenancy. Is it not the responsibility of the tenant to abide by the terms of the lease and the RTA regulations? Sure why not just do away with contacting or communicating with the landlord altogether

.

How does the OP/licensee have any rights under the RTA here?

davindub · 08-10-2020 11:22pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

I thought one of the obligations on a tenant under the RTA is to let the landlord know who is living in the property, ie to get the permission or agreement of the landlord and then give the person's details to the landlord.

If a head tenant could take in licensees whenever they felt like it, a house could become overcrowded in no time without the landlord knowing what was going on.

Also, if the landlord has no idea when a licencee moved in, how could he agree to accept the licensee as a full tenant after 6 months if he had no idea who the person was or how long they were in the property? In that case, anyone could just rock up and say they were living there for 6 months, it doesn't make any sense.

I thought a tenant had to give notice when they are leaving and as the OP can't contact the head tenant, maybe he has just abandoned the tenancy. Is it not the responsibility of the tenant to abide by the terms of the lease and the RTA regulations? Sure why not just do away with contacting or communicating with the landlord altogether .

How does the OP/licensee have any rights under the RTA here?

1. There is an obligation to inform but not to get permission. Please note sublet and assign relate to letting the entire unit (by their name).

2. A license is there without LL permission, if permission is sought and granted, they are generally considered multi tenants. (See Flac guide as I remember they had a bash at explaining it)

3. A licensee of an existing part 4 can apply at any time to become a tenant and the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse. See RTA. 6 months is not correct.

4. A tenancy can be terminated by notice, but none has been given here. There is no obligation on tenants to keep in contact in a general chatty way. Maybe he has abandoned the property but whilst the licensee remains there with the permission of the tenant, the tenant is still responsible for the rent and the tenancy continues until notice has been served. The RTA has terms related to abandonment.

5. The tenant has the rights here and see point 3 on how the licensee can become a tenant.

6. Breach of lease is remedied or the LL serves notice, no automatic right to end the tenancy.

7. For the avoidance of doubt the LL has no rights to enter the property without notice, and cannot remove people or add people to the premises. That is strictly between the tenants right.

8. For those with an active imagination, adverse possession cannot apply as the op is there with permission of the tenant. If he was there with the permission of the landlord see point 2.

All the above is either in the RTA or Flac leaflet so there is no need to debate it further unless you can write your own legislation or have credentials equal to the flac.

ted1 · 09-10-2020 12:19am

davindub wrote: »

1. There is an obligation to inform but not to get permission. Please note sublet and assign relate to letting the entire unit (by their name).

2. A license is there without LL permission, if permission is sought and granted, they are generally considered multi tenants. (See Flac guide as I remember they had a bash at explaining it)

3. A licensee of an existing part 4 can apply at any time to become a tenant and the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse. See RTA. 6 months is not correct.

4. A tenancy can be terminated by notice, but none has been given here. There is no obligation on tenants to keep in contact in a general chatty way. Maybe he has abandoned the property but whilst the licensee remains there with the permission of the tenant, the tenant is still responsible for the rent and the tenancy continues until notice has been served. The RTA has terms related to abandonment.

5. The tenant has the rights here and see point 3 on how the licensee can become a tenant.

6. Breach of lease is remedied or the LL serves notice, no automatic right to end the tenancy.

7. For the avoidance of doubt the LL has no rights to enter the property without notice, and cannot remove people or add people to the premises. That is strictly between the tenants right.

8. For those with an active imagination, adverse possession cannot apply as the op is there with permission of the tenant. If he was there with the permission of the landlord see point 2.

All the above is either in the RTA or Flac leaflet so there is no need to debate it further unless you can write your own legislation or have credentials equal to the flac.

The tenant has legged it, the tenant has no interest in what the owe we does.

zeebre12 · 09-10-2020 6:57am

davindub wrote: »

1. There is an obligation to inform but not to get permission. Please note sublet and assign relate to letting the entire unit (by their name).

2. A license is there without LL permission, if permission is sought and granted, they are generally considered multi tenants. (See Flac guide as I remember they had a bash at explaining it)

3. A licensee of an existing part 4 can apply at any time to become a tenant and the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse. See RTA. 6 months is not correct.

4. A tenancy can be terminated by notice, but none has been given here. There is no obligation on tenants to keep in contact in a general chatty way. Maybe he has abandoned the property but whilst the licensee remains there with the permission of the tenant, the tenant is still responsible for the rent and the tenancy continues until notice has been served. The RTA has terms related to abandonment.

5. The tenant has the rights here and see point 3 on how the licensee can become a tenant.

6. Breach of lease is remedied or the LL serves notice, no automatic right to end the tenancy.

7. For the avoidance of doubt the LL has no rights to enter the property without notice, and cannot remove people or add people to the premises. That is strictly between the tenants right.

8. For those with an active imagination, adverse possession cannot apply as the op is there with permission of the tenant. If he was there with the permission of the landlord see point 2.

All the above is either in the RTA or Flac leaflet so there is no need to debate it further unless you can write your own legislation or have credentials equal to the flac.

So where does that leave me then?

09-10-2020 7:40am

zeebre12 wrote: »

So where does that leave me then?

Zeebre, despite all the waffle Davindub is going on with, it appears you just want the deposit you gave to the head tenant to be returned.

Unfortunately as a licensee, your tenancy is not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act so you can’t raise a dispute against the LL with the RTB, and the LL does not actually have your deposit, the scumbag who has done the runner does.

The process open to you is to file a claim in the local Small Claims Court against the head tenant, even though it might be against GDPR, the LL may be pissed off enough to pass on any details he has about the head tenant to you. I think it costs about €25 to file a claim.

The other option is to chalk it down to experience and move on, hopefully karma will catch up with the head tenant. You can’t be that unlucky again.

09-10-2020 7:43am

Dav010 wrote: »

Zeebre, despite all the waffle Davindub is going on with, it appears you just want the deposit you gave to the head tenant to be returned.

Unfortunately as a licensee, your tenancy is not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act so you can’t raise a dispute against the LL with the RTB, and the LL does not actually have your deposit, the scumbag who has done the runner does.

The process open to you is to file a claim in the local Small Claims Court against the head tenant, even though it might be against GDPR, the LL may be pissed off enough to pass on any details he has about the head tenant to you. I think it costs about €25 to file a claim.

The other option is to chalk it down to experience and move on, hopefully karma will catch up with the head tenant. You can’t be that unlucky again.

It appears that the op will ignore any advice he doesn't like. That's ok though because he can just quote davindub when he gets to court. That's better than actual sections of acts afterall.

09-10-2020 7:50am

ted1 wrote: »

The tenant has legged it, the tenant has no interest in what the owe we does.

Not too mention never providing any proof that the licensee is actually there with permission.

Ignore that though, evidence and proof only applies when it's from the other side

davindub · 09-10-2020 8:08am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It appears that the op will ignore any advice he doesn't like. That's ok though because he can just quote davindub when he gets to court. That's better than actual sections of acts afterall.

Every bit of it is in the act so he can quote that.

Or he can consult a solicitor, threshold or flac, he is likely to get the same material.

What he should not do is rely on advice on the internet, which he is very correctly doing. Your post was a prime example of that, it was of a level that a 10 year old who can google would produce. None of it was applicable to the situation, it was just a mix of random posts and legislation that wasn't understood by you and that is all too evident when you mentioned fraud and trespass.

davindub · 09-10-2020 8:09am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Not too mention never providing any proof that the licensee is actually there with permission.

Ignore that though, evidence and proof only applies when it's from the other side

You contradict yourself again, occupation without permission equals?

Adverse possession.

09-10-2020 8:10am

davindub wrote: »

Every bit of it is in the act so he can quote that.

Or he can consult a solicitor, threshold or flac, he is likely to get the same material.

What he should not do is rely on advice on the internet, which he is very correctly doing. Your post was a prime example of that, it was of a level that a 10 year old who can google would produce. None of it was applicable to the situation, it was just a mix of random posts and legislation that wasn't understood by you and that is all too evident when you mentioned fraud and trespass.

The act that DOES NOT APPLY TO A LICENSEE

09-10-2020 8:12am

davindub wrote: »

You contradict yourself again, occupation without permission equals?

Adverse possession.

Your knowledge of the law is ridiculous. You cannot just make that claim. You can only make an adverse possession claim after being present for 12 continuous years ffs. You cannot just walk into someone's house and voila, you have squatters rights. It's actually laughable that you think this. It shows how basic your grasp of law is.

Listen to an actual real solicitor with an actual real law degree here: http://www.cahirsolicitors.com/adverse-possession

Yo see what I have done? Provided proof of my claim. You try it.

Being in someone's house without permission is trespass. Trespass as per the actual law that you never once actually quote I notice. Whereas I quoted to the actual exact section of law. I can do it again. It's section 13, Criminal Justice (public order) act 1994 and it states "It shall be an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to trespass on any building or the curtilage thereof in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another person." (Citation, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/13/enacted/en/html#sec13)

Where the trespass is purely civil / tort it is still trespass where and again I quote an actual qualified and practising solicitor here:

"Trespass as defined in common law. Where a person enters or remains on land without the permission of the owner. This can also occur where permission to remain is removed. There is a common law right to remove trespassers from your property. " (Citation: http://mcmahonsolicitors.ie/trespass-issues/)

Please pay particular attention to the part that states "this can also occur where permission to remain is removed".

Again, a licensee enjoys no legal protection. None. It doesn't matter a fiddler's **** who invited him into the house. The owner is removing permission to remain with absolutely no opposition from the tenant.

davindub · 09-10-2020 8:14am

zeebre12 wrote: »

So where does that leave me then?

You can take the tenant to small claims or district court but I would say your deposit is not recoverable.

You are not responsible for any rent to the landlord as it stands.

If you want to stay, apply to become the tenant but as I said you inherit a mess. It would probably be better to move elsewhere.

Try threshold and flac if you need help. They provide free advice.

My apologies for the idiots on this forum, they give malicious advice but then that is their pathetic enjoyment in life.

monkeysnapper · 09-10-2020 8:15am

O God this also sounds like myslef all them years back....

The two other guys were at house all day while I was at work , loads of their friends over and staying nights , the one guy moved in his girlfriend and baby which cried during night when I was on earlys ....

My situation came to a head when I was expected to pay a 3rd of Bill's even tho I was hardly there....

OP..... my situation ended in a fight and I moved out onto small flat on my own and I was in bliss .... best move I ever made..... my advice op.... move out and get on with your life....

Good luck

davindub · 09-10-2020 8:17am

Dav010 wrote: »

Zeebre, despite all the waffle Davindub is going on with, it appears you just want the deposit you gave to the head tenant to be returned.

Unfortunately as a licensee, your tenancy is not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act so you can’t raise a dispute against the LL with the RTB, and the LL does not actually have your deposit, the scumbag who has done the runner does.

The process open to you is to file a claim in the local Small Claims Court against the head tenant, even though it might be against GDPR, the LL may be pissed off enough to pass on any details he has about the head tenant to you. I think it costs about €25 to file a claim.

The other option is to chalk it down to experience and move on, hopefully karma will catch up with the head tenant. You can’t be that unlucky again.

I hope you realise the answers I gave also apply to you?

You do know the registrar will kick any case against the LL before accepting it? The LL would never hear of it!!! Great strategy!

theteal · 09-10-2020 8:35am

Has anybody ever seen that Cant Pay, We Take It Away program (that my wife seems to love). Yes it's based on UK law but I cant believe ours is too much different, most likely based on it I would guess. Anyway from the brief bits I've seen of some house repos, it would confirm what davindub is saying. One episode really rings a bell when compared to the OPs situation i.e. landlord has to follow process to get unknown subletters out when his known tenant has done a runner - there are possibly more examples but its not really my thing.

Anyway, I can see there would be a legal grey area about whether the tenancy is officially ended. With no notice given, who is to say when the LL can take back possession without something official from a court? Normally this wouldn't be an issue with an obviously vacated property with no rent paid etc but I can envision why it would be an issue in this case.

09-10-2020 8:41am

theteal wrote: »

Has anybody ever seen that Cant Pay, We Take It Away program (that my wife seems to love). Yes it's based on UK law but I cant believe ours is too much different, most likely based on it I would guess. Anyway from the brief bits I've seen of some house repos, it would confirm what davindub is saying. One episode really rings a bell when compared to the OPs situation i.e. landlord has to follow process to get unknown subletters out when his known tenant has done a runner - there are possibly more examples but its not really my thing.

Anyway, I can see there would be a legal grey area about whether the tenancy is officially ended. With no notice given, who is to say when the LL can take back possession without something official from a court? Normally this wouldn't be an issue with an obviously vacated property with no rent paid etc but I can envision why it would be an issue in this case.

It differs a good bit actually as we stopped using their acts in 1922 albeit retain the common law system and the sheriff's. We have the various residential tenancies acts, public order act and a whole range of housing specific legislation. Trespass under common law has remained as well though.

In regards procedures, against the tenant of course he will need to follow the steps. I would be amazed if the landlord hasn't started.

Op is not a tenant though. He's a random person in the owners property with zero legal protection or proof of right to remain. Let me be clear on this as perhaps I wasn't before. If the tenant remained and could confirm the op was a licensee and remained welcome by the tenant, then the landlord could be snookered but the tenant is not there and is not answering or replying to anyone while also retaining money (alledgedly) that is owed.

The illogical conclusion of what is being suggested is that as long as the rent is paid by the licensee, the landlord can never have his property back. What do you and Davin think happens when a tenant dies? Or for that matter, the owner that has a licensee? If say your parents rented the box room out and then died, do you think that person just gets to stay and can refuse to leave? For how long? Until probate is finished? Until the house is sold? Until the new owners kick him out? Never?

09-10-2020 8:42am

davindub wrote: »

I hope you realise the answers I gave also apply to you?

You do know the registrar will kick any case against the LL before accepting it? The LL would never hear of it!!! Great strategy!

You have lost the plot. Who posted anything about a case against the LL?

09-10-2020 8:52am

Dav010 wrote: »

You have lost the plot. Who posted anything about a case against the LL?

He actually just repeated your advise while insulting you about that advise.

theteal · 09-10-2020 8:52am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Against the tenant of course, he will need to follow the procedures.

Op is not a tenant. He's a random person in the owners property with zero legal protection or proof of right to remain.

The illogical conclusion of what is being suggested is that as long as the rent is paid by the licensee, the landlord can never have his property back. What do you and Davin think happens when a tenant dies? Or for that matter, the owner that has a licensee?

Nope, I'm not saying the OP can stay there indefinitely but I wouldn't dismiss the notion that he cant be turfed out until due process is complete against the actual tenant. While this tenancy remains "officially" in place, maybe the invited licensees of the tenant could have a claim? I dont think that's beyond the realms of possibility.

09-10-2020 9:03am

theteal wrote: »

Nope, I'm not saying the OP can stay there indefinitely but I wouldn't dismiss the notion that he cant be turfed out until due process is complete against the actual tenant. While this tenancy remains "officially" in place, maybe the invited licensees of the tenant could have a claim? I dont think that's beyond the realms of possibility.

Ok. Well let's look at that. A claim of what? under what law or right?

Or put another way, if the landlord changed the locks. What law would he be breaching that the op (a licensee of a silent tenant) could use as the basis of his complaint?

Also, you do agree that I can turf my licensee out tonight on a whim, yes?

davindub · 09-10-2020 9:33am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Your knowledge of the law is ridiculous. You cannot just make that claim. You can only make an adverse possession claim after being present for 12 continuous years ffs. You cannot just walk into someone's house and voila, you have squatters rights. It's actually laughable that you think this. It shows how basic your grasp of law is.

Listen to an actual real solicitor with an actual real law degree here: http://www.cahirsolicitors.com/adverse-possession

Yo see what I have done? Provided proof of my claim. You try it.

Being in someone's house without permission is trespass. Trespass as per the actual law that you never once actually quote I notice. Whereas I quoted to the actual exact section of law. I can do it again. It's section 13, Criminal Justice (public order) act 1994 and it states "It shall be an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to trespass on any building or the curtilage thereof in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another person." (Citation, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/13/enacted/en/html#sec13)

Where the trespass is purely civil / tort it is still trespass where and again I quote an actual qualified and practising solicitor here:

"Trespass as defined in common law. Where a person enters or remains on land without the permission of the owner. This can also occur where permission to remain is removed. There is a common law right to remove trespassers from your property. " (Citation: http://mcmahonsolicitors.ie/trespass-issues/)

Please pay particular attention to the part that states "this can also occur where permission to remain is removed".

Again, a licensee enjoys no legal protection. None. It doesn't matter a fiddler's **** who invited him into the house. The owner is removing permission to remain with absolutely no opposition from the tenant.

Last word on this.

You do not know what adverse possession is...

12 years later an action does happen, the person acquires the title and adverse possession ceases. Basic. I didn't need to look that up but others can.

The rest is just as bad.

Lol, and you sweared?

L1011 · 09-10-2020 9:40am

davindub - do not post in this thread again

theteal · 09-10-2020 10:16am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Ok. Well let's look at that. A claim of what? under what law or right?

Or put another way, if the landlord changed the locks. What law would he be breaching that the op (a licensee of a silent tenant) could use as the basis of his complaint?

Some form of illegal eviction. To whom and how? Not a clue. Maybe it's not an illegal eviction in Ireland, maybe I've just been in the UK too long.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Also, you do agree that I can turf my licensee out tonight on a whim, yes?

Absolutely. If they're licensee to you, have at it.
The OP however is licensee to the registered tenant, not the LL. That tenancy still officially stands as far as we know and until the LL takes legal possession of the property I'm not sure he can kick anybody out or change locks. What if the silent tenant rocks up again next week and can't get in? Again, that's just with my UK hat on.

It's just that what some of what davindub says sounds very familiar in that context and I find it strange that he's being dismissed so easily.

09-10-2020 10:33am

theteal wrote: »

Some form of illegal eviction. To whom and how? Not a clue. Maybe it's not an illegal eviction in Ireland, maybe I've just been in the UK too long.

Absolutely. If they're licensee to you, have at it.
The OP however is licensee to the registered tenant, not the LL. That tenancy still officially stands as far as we know and until the LL takes legal possession of the property I'm not sure he can kick anybody out or change locks. What if the silent tenant rocks up again next week and can't get in? Again, that's just with my UK hat on.

It's just that what some of what davindub says sounds very familiar in that context and I find it strange that he's being dismissed so easily.

I was very clear on this issue. I asked you for some specifics. If you are going to make a claim, back it up.

I asked you what he could claim and under what.

I'll ask very very clearly here. How can the OP complain about the locks being changed and being illegally evicted? How can he prove such a case when his only witnesses that he even lived there is AWOL? When he has zero legal rights to the property?

Under what law when it's accepted that LICENSEES have no legal protection? All illegal eviction is illegal because an actual law says it's illegal. Because it's clearly written.

The TENANT can make plenty of complaints because there's laws protecting him. The tenant can even make a complaint about how the landlord treats the licensee. The licensee can make criminal complaints if he's manhandled, his property damaged and so on and so forth.

What I'm saying is that without the tenant, the licensee can do **** all because he can't point to any law that shows his rights are being breached and more importantly, can't prove anything. He couldn't even prove the locks have been changed in the first place. All he could prove is that his key doesn't work.

Unlike the method adopted by davindub, a judge will actually require you to point to a law, show the law exists, that it applies to the case and then produce proof that the landlord is in breach of that law.

In this thread as an example, you will see where I have given direct links.

Taking a recent one, adverse possession. Davindub claims that if a random person goes into your house tonight while you are asleep, that's adverse possession and that person can't be removed until you get a court order against them. Not logical, papers are full of people doing that and being arrested and he hasn't provided any proof of his claim.

I'm saying that person is at best, simple trespassing and you have a common law right to remove that trespasser or at worst, they intent to commit a crime and that they are in fact, a burglar and can be both removed and arrested. To back my position, I have given direct links to the exact laws involved and also to numerous qualified and experienced legal professionals who speak on the subject.

Your entitled to your opinion of course, as he is but we can't discuss the subject any further without a little more meat on your arguments bones

Renting a room...Ripped off?

Comments