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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Renting a room...Ripped off?

1246

Comments

  • #92
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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.


  • #93
    zeebre12
    Registered Users Posts: 537 ✭✭✭zeebre12


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


  • #94
    Ronin247
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    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/


  • #95
    Ronin247
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    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/


  • #96
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 13,982 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,240 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    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


  • #98
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,240 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Ronin247 wrote: »
    https://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/illegal-eviction/

    That relates to tenancies. This is not a tenancy


  • #99
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    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?


  • #100
    Ronin247
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    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.


  • #101
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 13,982 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    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.


  • #103
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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


  • #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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?


  • #105
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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


  • #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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.


  • #107
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    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?


  • #108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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


  • #109
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    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".


  • #110
    Ronin247
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    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.


  • #111
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,240 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Ronin247
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    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/


  • #113
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,240 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    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.


  • #114
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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?


  • #115
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    davindub wrote: »
    Find it and read it...

    Teaser:
    "Cannot reasonably refuse".

    It's your evidence, you provide it


  • #116
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    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?


  • #117
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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?


  • #118
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    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.


  • #119
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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?


  • #120
    dartboardio
    Registered Users Posts: 2,436 ✭✭✭dartboardio


    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


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    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)


Advertisement