Renting a room...Ripped off?

zeebre12 · 06-10-2020 12:11am

Was just talking to landlord and he said lad who I am renting room off was renting house off him and then subletting rooms (is this normal for a landlord to let someone who is leasing a house do?). (The lad said he was almost like the 'head tenant', more lies i suppose)
He said lad who was renting house off him can't be contacted and he owes him lots of money. She landlord says he owes him for September and kept giving him excuses why he wasn't able to pay it and now he has fled. Landlord said to me my deposit has nothing got to do with him and wants me out pronto so he can rent the full house. Now I have to search for somewhere else and pay for this weeks rent. I had an inkling when I moved in in September there was something strange going on with the way bills were split.

Thargor · 06-10-2020 9:12am

zeebre12 wrote: »

Was just talking to landlord and he said lad who I am renting room off was renting house off him and then subletting rooms (is this normal for a landlord to let someone who is leasing a house do?). (The lad said he was almost like the 'head tenant', more lies i suppose)
He said lad who was renting house off him can't be contacted and he owes him lots of money. She landlord says he owes him for September and kept giving him excuses why he wasn't able to pay it and now he has fled. Landlord said to me my deposit has nothing got to do with him and wants me out pronto so he can rent the full house. Now I have to search for somewhere else and pay for this weeks rent. I had an inkling when I moved in in September there was something strange going on with the way bills were split.

You don't have to be out of anywhere pronto, you have rights and with covid you're well protected.

06-10-2020 10:15am

Thargor wrote: »

You don't have to be out of anywhere pronto, you have rights and with covid you're well protected.

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.

ted1 · 06-10-2020 11:08am

Thargor wrote: »

You don't have to be out of anywhere pronto, you have rights and with covid you're well protected.

No he doesn’t he is a licencee not as tenant

Mrs OBumble · 06-10-2020 11:23am

ted1 wrote: »

No he doesn’t he is a licencee not as tenant

Exactly, the OP is lucky that the LL has not called the guards to get the squatters ( cos that what they look like to the LL) removed.

pc7 · 06-10-2020 12:37pm

I wouldn't pay this weeks rent, why would you if your agreement was with the other person and not the landlord. If the landlord is treating you as a licensee you are the licensee of the person who did a runner surely? (Not advocating rule breaking, but if landlord is saying get out with no notice they cannot expect payment)

JoChervil · 06-10-2020 1:12pm

In my lease agreement I had agreed that I can take two tenants in. So if it was agreed with a landlord, so he has rights then, but had no proof of it. I wouldn't pay one week rent, if they don't give you a proper notice. Why should you be the only person playing by the rules?

ted1 · 06-10-2020 1:53pm

JoChervil wrote: »

In my lease agreement I had agreed that I can take two tenants in. So if it was agreed with a landlord, so he has rights then, but had no proof of it. I wouldn't pay one week rent, if they don't give you a proper notice. Why should you be the only person playing by the rules?

Anybody you took in with be licencees if yours snd not tenants of the landlord

Browney7 · 06-10-2020 2:49pm

zeebre12 wrote: »

Was just talking to landlord and he said lad who I am renting room off was renting house off him and then subletting rooms (is this normal for a landlord to let someone who is leasing a house do?). (The lad said he was almost like the 'head tenant', more lies i suppose)
He said lad who was renting house off him can't be contacted and he owes him lots of money. She landlord says he owes him for September and kept giving him excuses why he wasn't able to pay it and now he has fled. Landlord said to me my deposit has nothing got to do with him and wants me out pronto so he can rent the full house. Now I have to search for somewhere else and pay for this weeks rent. I had an inkling when I moved in in September there was something strange going on with the way bills were split.

Who advertised the room in the first place and who was your contact with originally?

I'm assuming from your posts the LL has nothing to do with this and the previous "head tenant" rented the place off the LL on their own and sublet rooms? In this case your remedy is realistically small claims court against the original head tenant (and possibly guards for fraud/deception)

Or is the arrangement one where the LL advertised the rooms but told you to pay money to the head tenant to pay them?

zeebre12 · 06-10-2020 3:32pm

Browney7 wrote: »

Who advertised the room in the first place and who was your contact with originally?

I'm assuming from your posts the LL has nothing to do with this and the previous "head tenant" rented the place off the LL on their own and sublet rooms? In this case your remedy is realistically small claims court against the original head tenant (and possibly guards for fraud/deception)

Or is the arrangement one where the LL advertised the rooms but told you to pay money to the head tenant to pay them?

The 'head tenant' advertised the room. I took a room. He sublet the rooms. The landlord knew that he was as the 'head tenant' and the other person I am sharing with have been in the house for the past year.

zeebre12 · 06-10-2020 3:33pm

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.

ted1 · 06-10-2020 4:58pm

zeebre12 wrote: »

The landlord was aware that he was subletting the rooms.

As a licence we not as a tenant

Lux23 · 06-10-2020 9:07pm

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

zeebre12 · 06-10-2020 9:28pm

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.

zeebre12 · 06-10-2020 9:29pm

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.

ted1 · 06-10-2020 9:37pm

zeebre12 wrote: »

The landlord was aware that the rooms were being sublet.

Irrelevant

davindub · 06-10-2020 11:01pm

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.

JimmyVik · 07-10-2020 2:18pm

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

zeebre12 · 07-10-2020 3:45pm

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.

07-10-2020 4:03pm

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!

07-10-2020 4:06pm

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

07-10-2020 4:07pm

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

07-10-2020 4:08pm

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

zeebre12 · 07-10-2020 4:18pm

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.

07-10-2020 4:46pm

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

davindub · 07-10-2020 5:02pm

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?

07-10-2020 5:17pm

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?

Ronin247 · 07-10-2020 5:47pm

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.

JoChervil · 07-10-2020 6:09pm

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.

JimmyVik · 07-10-2020 6:16pm

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

davindub · 07-10-2020 6:28pm

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.

07-10-2020 6:33pm

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

Ronin247 · 07-10-2020 7:11pm

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.

zeebre12 · 07-10-2020 7:12pm

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.

Ronin247 · 07-10-2020 7:15pm

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.

ted1 · 07-10-2020 7:15pm

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

Ronin247 · 07-10-2020 7:31pm

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.

07-10-2020 7:32pm

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?

07-10-2020 7:34pm

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?

davindub · 07-10-2020 7:42pm

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.

07-10-2020 7:48pm

davindub wrote: »

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

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

and I answered wy I think you are incorrect. Again, can you pointto anything suggesting your view is correct?

I love the way people turn things. I didnt mention evicting a squatter did I? I said you may as well try and suggest a tenancy agreement also applies to them. Is that not what I said?

and yes, you absolutely can if they only strolled in off the street. It takes time and certain conditions to obtain squatters rights. Are you now going to suggest that if I arrive home from holiday and find someone living here that I cant horse them out? Its called trespass and possible burglary under the right conditions and is allowed for in law.

zeebre12 · 07-10-2020 8:15pm

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

Ronin247 · 07-10-2020 8:28pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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?

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/

Ronin247 · 07-10-2020 8:43pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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?

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

07-10-2020 9:14pm

davindub wrote: »

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

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

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.

ted1 · 07-10-2020 9:59pm

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.

The landlord shouldn’t suffer either.
Yes the landlord can change the lock. The tenant not the licencee would need to complain.

The RTB have no responsibility for licencees

ted1 · 07-10-2020 10:00pm

Ronin247 wrote: »

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

That relates to tenancies. This is not a tenancy

davindub · 07-10-2020 10:19pm

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.

Oh great. It's a bit like the other things you get wrong, joint and severely liable, etc. That was good for a laugh.

You can read in the RTA and there is a flac leaflet that will explain most of this for you....there actually is a section regarding licensees applying to become tenants.

But at the most basic level, surely you understand the op is not a licensee of the landlord?

Ronin247 · 07-10-2020 10:26pm

ted1 wrote: »

That relates to tenancies. This is not a tenancy

That is where our opinions differ.

The (head) tenant has a legal and binding tenancy with the landlord until such time as that tenancy is ended correctly.

The OP is a licensee of the (head) tenant with the landlords knowledge, all 100%legal and above board so far.

The landlord serves correct notice on the (head) tenant and at the end of that notice that tenancy is ended. If the OP overholds after that date I would think he is on shaky grounds, but until then there isn't much the landlord can do.

07-10-2020 10:29pm

davindub wrote: »

Oh great. It's a bit like the other things you get wrong, joint and severely liable, etc. That was good for a laugh.

You can read in the RTA and there is a flac leaflet that will explain most of this for you....there actually is a section regarding licensees applying to become tenants.

But at the most basic level, surely you understand the op is not a licensee of the landlord?

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.

Renting a room...Ripped off?

Comments