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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

My flatmate is moving out

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,441 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Well it's pretty clear, he's there on the invitation of the head tenant. Do you deny that? He said it himself.



    They are, doesn't make your statement correct. To prove your statement, quote the section that you are relying on. Can you even refuse a bank transfer into your account? It's there any proof the landlord ever agreed to this?

    I'm lost? If, by his conduct, the landlord has accepted rent from him with respect to the particular dwelling then the individual is a tenant and thus is entitled to whatever protection the RTA affords affords. That's the nature of the law. A different situation arises where the other tenant intermediates the position between the occupier and the landlord.

    Based on the facts as stated, there are multiple tenants in occupation of the dwelling and the departure of one does not negate the rights of the other(s) (ss48-53 RT 2004).

    Liability for the full rent would have to be established by the landlord in the absence of a written lease. HE would have to establish that the second tenant agreed to such liability. No statute law imposes it. In the absence of a written agreement, I believe it would hard to be enforced. The tenant does not and has never had (or indeed expected to have ) exclusive occupation of the dwelling. I.e. absence security or other concerns, he is not in a position to object to other tenants whom the landlord might seek to introduce.


  • #53
    punisher5112
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,644 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    ted1 wrote: »
    If the original tenant is still there, then that’s not sub letting.

    Sun letting requires the tenant to move out.

    But the original one has left, the op was the Tennant's licencee but that changed when the actual LL/property owner was getting the money for rent straight from the Tennant's licencee.....


  • #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    But the original one has left, the op was the Tennant's licencee but that changed when the actual LL/property owner was getting the money for rent straight from the Tennant's licencee.....

    My reading of it is the op was paying the LL monthly in cash until Covid, then bank transfer after. Unless I missed it, the op has posted nothing which indicates a licensee arrangement, has the op mentioned anything about renting from the lead tenant?

    If I was the op, I would get the deposit back off the flatmate or contact the LL to ensure his/her deposit is deducted from the flatmate deposit before it is returned.


  • #55
    ted1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,658 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    But the original one has left, the op was the Tennant's licencee but that changed when the actual LL/property owner was getting the money for rent straight from the Tennant's licencee.....

    Your they guy who doesn’t know what subletting is, right?

    If he was paying the landlord he wasn’t a licencee.
    He agreed to move in a place that was advertised as x.
    The landlord needs the other tenant to pay for his notice period till he reassigns the lease or let the tenant go, and takes the hit himself.


  • #56
    punisher5112
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,644 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    ted1 wrote: »
    Your they guy who doesn’t know what subletting is, right?

    If he was paying the landlord he wasn’t a licencee.
    He agreed to move in a place that was advertised as x.
    The landlord needs the other tenant to pay for his notice period till he reassigns the lease or let the tenant go, and takes the hit himself.

    Oh Christ on a bike.

    I know he wasn't a licencee as he was paying the LL hence what I said but they were brought in 1st technically as a licencee but obviously advice mentioned as has others as soon as the LL got payment directly by them then that changed....


  • #57
    The DayDream
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 513 ✭✭✭The DayDream


    Have you asked the LL if he has your deposit OP?

    Cuz in situations like this you need to be careful that your deposit doesn't go walkies!


  • #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Marcusm wrote: »
    I'm lost? If, by his conduct, the landlord has accepted rent from him with respect to the particular dwelling then the individual is a tenant and thus is entitled to whatever protection the RTA affords affords. That's the nature of the law. A different situation arises where the other tenant intermediates the position between the occupier and the landlord.

    Based on the facts as stated, there are multiple tenants in occupation of the dwelling and the departure of one does not negate the rights of the other(s) (ss48-53 RT 2004).

    Liability for the full rent would have to be established by the landlord in the absence of a written lease. HE would have to establish that the second tenant agreed to such liability. No statute law imposes it. In the absence of a written agreement, I believe it would hard to be enforced. The tenant does not and has never had (or indeed expected to have ) exclusive occupation of the dwelling. I.e. absence security or other concerns, he is not in a position to object to other tenants whom the landlord might seek to introduce.

    You have taken a massive jump. At no stage has the OP stated he had any form of agreement with the LL. None.

    What he has stated is that he was brought into the property by the tenant and paid him a deposit. Then was paying his rent as cash in hand. We dont know that any formal agreement was ever made regarding the landlord and OP.

    He then states that he paid via bank transfer. Again we dont know that the landlord actually entered into any agreement.

    My licensee at this very moment in time could ask her parents or friend to transfer the rent or part of the rent into my bank account. Does this convey rights upon them? Signify an agreement with myself? No, no it doesnt.

    In order for your assertion to be true, you rely on information not provided and simple assume. Without that assumption, he is a licensee.


  • #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    You have taken a massive jump. At no stage has the OP stated he had any form of agreement with the LL. None.

    What he has stated is that he was brought into the property by the tenant and paid him a deposit. Then was paying his rent as cash in hand. We dont know that any formal agreement was ever made regarding the landlord and OP.

    He then states that he paid via bank transfer. Again we dont know that the landlord actually entered into any agreement.

    My licensee at this very moment in time could ask her parents or friend to transfer the rent or part of the rent into my bank account. Does this convey rights upon them? Signify an agreement with myself? No, no it doesnt.

    In order for your assertion to be true, you rely on information not provided and simple assume. Without that assumption, he is a licensee.

    Do you live with your licensee?

    The op apparently has been paying rent to the LL from the beginning, cash first, then bank transfer.

    The op has posted nothing about renting from the lead tenant, nothing about being told she was a licensee on moving in, and we know leases don’t have to be written, why are you assuming a license agreement exists? There is nothing to support this.

    My guess is, and it’s only a guess, the flatmate who was there rented by himself and paid the full deposit, when op moved in to share apartment in 2018, he/she gave half deposit to the flatmate, so both now have paid deposits. A quick call to the LL would confirm the situation.


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Do you live with your licensee?

    The op apparently has been paying rent to the LL from the beginning, cash first, then bank transfer.

    The op has posted nothing about renting from the lead tenant, and we know leases don’t have to be written, why are you assuming a license agreement exists? There is nothing to support this.

    I do, as does the OP who was brought in by the actual tenant and not the landlord. THe OP also, like my licensee, paid a deposit to the person they are renting from.

    Incorrect in the bold section, its in the OP. THe OP is also why its a licensee situation. Asssume nothing and you arrive at licensee.

    Heres the facts as stated by the OP. Dont add anything yourself.
    yadott wrote: »
    The tenant was the one that brought me in
    yadott wrote: »
    I am not in the lease only my actual flatmate is in the lease.
    yadott wrote: »
    I pay the rent to the landlord bank account.
    yadott wrote: »
    I paid half of the rent to the landlord bank account since april 2020 before the coronavirus we paid in cash to the landlord
    yadott wrote: »
    I paid the deposit to the other flatmate

    So we know that
    A, There is a lease and the OP is not mentioned on it
    B, That the OP was brought into the property by the actual tenant
    C, That the deposit was paid directly to the actual tenant
    D, That a cash payment made up by 2 people together was paid to the landlord.
    E, That rent is now paid by bank account

    The OP has NOT stated that he paid his share of the rent in D seperately to the landlord. Yes, to his share or precentage now via bank transfer but thats not binding, at all. The information that we actually have, says licensee. As I said above, if my licensee gets someone to pay her rent this month by bank transfer, is that person now renting the room? No.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    I do, as does the OP who was brought in by the actual tenant and not the landlord. THe OP also, like my licensee, paid a deposit to the person they are renting from.

    No, we dont know it was cash to the landlord direct from the start. He just said he was paying cash. It could have been cash left on the table for all we know.

    Incorrect in the bold section, its in the OP. THe OP is also why its a licensee situation. Asssume nothing and you arrive at licensee.

    Jesus wept.
    yadott wrote: »
    I paid half of the rent to the landlord bank account since april 2020 before the coronavirus we paid in cash to the landlord
    I paid the deposit to the other flatmate

    Where in the op does it say anything about renting from the tenant?


    Are you the property owner where your licensee lives?


  • #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Jesus wept indeed. I have made my case very clear. Try actually reading


  • #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Jesus wept indeed. I have made my case very clear. Try actually reading

    Ok.

    Where does the op say he/she is renting from the tenant?

    Where does it say he/she was informed it was a licensee arrangement since moving in in 2018?

    On the other hand, we know he/she has been paying rent to the landlord from day one, at the same time/method as the other tenant he/she shares with.

    We know that there is no need for a written/signed lease, and the fact that the other flatmate has one and the op doesn’t, does not affect tenancy rights.

    And, do you own the property where “your” licensee lives?


  • #64
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Ok.

    Where does the op say he/she is renting from the tenant?

    Where does it say he/she was informed it was a licensee arrangement since moving in in 2018?

    On the other hand, we know he/she has been paying rent to the landlord from day one, at the same time/method as the other tenant he/she shares with.

    We know that there is no need for a written/signed lease, and the fact that the other flatmate has one and the op doesn’t, does not affect tenancy rights.

    And, do you own the property where “your” licensee lives?

    Where does it say he was informed it was a tenancy? Where does it say he had an agreement of any description with the landlord?

    Your entire premises is a bank transfer and we know that a third party transfer can happen.

    All you can do is presume to suit your narrative.

    Im out


  • #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Where does it say he was informed it was a tenancy? Where does it say he had an agreement of any description with the landlord?

    Your entire premises is a bank transfer and we know that a third party transfer can happen.

    All you can do is presume to suit your narrative.

    Im out

    Do you own and live in the property “your” licensee rents in?

    And yes, if the tenant shares a rented apartment, pays rent directly to the LL, and was never informed that the tenant was the LL/ that it was a licensee arrangement , it’s fair to assume a tenancy exists.


  • #66
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,441 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    You have taken a massive jump. At no stage has the OP stated he had any form of agreement with the LL. None.

    What he has stated is that he was brought into the property by the tenant and paid him a deposit. Then was paying his rent as cash in hand. We dont know that any formal agreement was ever made regarding the landlord and OP.

    He then states that he paid via bank transfer. Again we dont know that the landlord actually entered into any agreement.

    My licensee at this very moment in time could ask her parents or friend to transfer the rent or part of the rent into my bank account. Does this convey rights upon them? Signify an agreement with myself? No, no it doesnt.

    In order for your assertion to be true, you rely on information not provided and simple assume. Without that assumption, he is a licensee.

    An agreement can be formed by conduct. The landlord has not rejected the funds nor returned them, the landlord has not ejected the putative tennant, the landlord has formally indicated the existence of the tenancy by telling the tenant that he has to find a replacement. These are all statements or inferences drawn from the statements made by the OP.

    Your example of a parent settling the rental obligations of your licencee does not, of course, create a relationship between you and the parent. The OP’s facts are different, principally because the funds are received from the person in occupation and the landlord has acknowledged that by asking them to find a replacement. If you cannot understand the distinction, there’s no point in continuing.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement