How to handle this.

Irishcrx

I'll clear this as best i can. When they viewed the room they saw what the house was like (Construction site really) I said I'd be getting all the major thing's done IE re-wiring the house, new bathroom, door, floors , etc etc. Which are all now done, the electricity tripped out cause of a touching copper wire, the electrician was coming later that day and I explained it would be sorted in 8 hours max, he came and did it in time but before that she had a go at me and that's when she says she is pregnant which she NEVER even brought up with me.

The gas needs to be turned on by Bord Gais and they are slow at coming out, I provided electric heaters while they wait and when the electricity went it was only in one room the rest was fine. They asked me to get them a bigger wardrope as they had a mountain of stuff, I provided it, then they asked me to smoke outside, I didn't really want to agree to this as I've spend a fortune on this house and enjoy sitting down and watching TV and being able to have the option of having one, they knew I smoked before they moved in. All major works are done i do need to paint covings, skirting in parts and a few door frames that's all but they are things I want to get finished and anyone could see this could go on a while when viewing but they were entuisastic at first and wanted to take the room.

Ste.phen

plasmaguy wrote: »

Is there any way to compromise?

electric heaters, etc.

See post #7, he gave them portable heaters

Pat Mustard

subway wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/housing/renting-a-home/sharing-accommodation-with-your-landlord

Sharing accommodation with your landlord

Tenants in Ireland who share accommodation with landlords are not covered by landlord and tenant legislation. Many tenants are not aware of this so this document aims to sets out the differences between this living arrangement and other types of rented accommodation

• Your landlord is not obliged to provide you with a rent book or a statement of rent paid
• They do not have to ensure that your accommodation meets any minimum physical standards
• Any notice you may get of the termination of the tenancy is at the discretion of your landlord (although they are obliged to give reasonable notice, the specifics of this notice may vary)
• Your landlord is not obliged to register with the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB)
• You cannot use the dispute resolution service of the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB) if a disagreement arises between you and your landlord
• You are not protected by the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 which prohibit discrimination on grounds of age, sex, religion, race and disability.

The Private Residential Tenancies Act does not apply - that is clear. Particular parts of other landlord and tenant legislation does not apply, fair enough. However, there is a lot of case law out there relating to tenants rights, and I still haven't seen any law (as opposed to a website) that says that these rights should not apply. So what law says that someone cannot complain to a judge that his landlord has kicked him out of his accommodation, that he pays rent to live in that house, that he must therefore have a tenancy, and that he has all the rights of a tenant?

subway

The Mustard wrote: »

The Private Residential Tenancies Act does not apply - that is clear. Particular parts of other landlord and tenant legislation does not apply, fair enough. However, there is a lot of case law out there relating to tenants rights, and I still haven't seen any law (as opposed to a website) that says that these rights should not apply. So what law says that someone cannot complain to a judge that his landlord has kicked him out of his accommodation, that he pays rent to live in that house, that he must therefore have a tenancy, and that he has all the rights of a tenant?

see post #29 by Seamus.

anyway, if you would take the risk of visiting citizensinformation you would see that they are not a tenant, they are a licensee.
they can take a complaint to the SCC
Common claims that are heard by the Small Claims Court include:

Disputes about the retention of a tenant's deposit for what they consider unfair reasons
Disputes about the amount of notice you have received, in the case of termination of tenancy
Disputes about deductions from rent for damage to property that is over and above normal 'wear and tear

if you disagree with what i am saying post something to refute it, rather than saying you think i am wrong. if you dont post anything other than your opinion on the matter i wont be replying to you again as i have backed up what i am saying with trusted sources.
maybe you should ring threshold yourself and confirm what i am saying.

Fatloss08

Irishcrx wrote: »

I'll clear this as best i can. When they viewed the room they saw what the house was like (Construction site really) I said I'd be getting all the major thing's done IE re-wiring the house, new bathroom, door, floors , etc etc. Which are all now done, the electricity tripped out cause of a touching copper wire, the electrician was coming later that day and I explained it would be sorted in 8 hours max, he came and did it in time but before that she had a go at me and that's when she says she is pregnant which she NEVER even brought up with me.

The gas needs to be turned on by Bord Gais and they are slow at coming out, I provided electric heaters while they wait and when the electricity went it was only in one room the rest was fine. They asked me to get them a bigger wardrope as they had a mountain of stuff, I provided it, then they asked me to smoke outside, I didn't really want to agree to this as I've spend a fortune on this house and enjoy sitting down and watching TV and being able to have the option of having one, they knew I smoked before they moved in. All major works are done i do need to paint covings, skirting in parts and a few door frames that's all but they are things I want to get finished and anyone could see this could go on a while when viewing but they were entuisastic at first and wanted to take the room.

Them requests right there id just say a plain " **** OFF "

i bet there polish or something

i had this trouble before , but the point is people he explained all details to them and they neglected to state she was pregnant , that in itself i think makes any agreement null and void

OP , seriously just tell them they have 2 weeks , theres ****loads of places to rent , not as if they wont find anywhere and anyway its not ur problem

i have a couple moving in next month and they now the details etc and if they try squeeze a wardrobe or tell my other tenants to stop smoking , sorry its " listen you have 2 weeks notice " and believe me if they didnt wanna leave after that time , i would use brute force , no problems , nobody is gonna f up my house that ive gone through a lot of Shiite to get , no way

the_syco

Leave a few strong smelling paint cans in the hall where they can see them, and then tell them as it's not working out, so they'll have to leave.

Pat Mustard

subway wrote: »

see post #29 by Seamus.

anyway, if you would take the risk of visiting citizensinformation you would see that they are not a tenant, they are a licensee.
they can take a complaint to the SCC
Common claims that are heard by the Small Claims Court include:

Disputes about the retention of a tenant's deposit for what they consider unfair reasons
Disputes about the amount of notice you have received, in the case of termination of tenancy
Disputes about deductions from rent for damage to property that is over and above normal 'wear and tear

if you disagree with what i am saying post something to refute it, rather than saying you think i am wrong. if you dont post anything other than your opinion on the matter i wont be replying to you again as i have backed up what i am saying with trusted sources.
maybe you should ring threshold yourself and confirm what i am saying.

Okay. I think Citizens Information may very well be wrong. At the risk of boring people with law talk, all tenancies are founded on contract (whether written or not). This is set out in Deasy's Act, otherwise known as the Landlord & Tenant Law Amendment Act 1860 - see section 3. Deasy's Act cannot be contracted out of so a tenant's rights remain, despite what a lease may set out. Deasys Act specifies that the relationship of landlord and tenant is deemed to subsist where there is an agreement by one party to hold land from or under another in consideration of any form of rent. The Private Residential Tenancies Act does not say that Deasys Act does not apply in the case of a tenant living with their landlord.

I have also seen the argument that a person living under the same roof of the landlord is there as a licensee, not a tenant. I know that Citizen's Information also agrees with that. People make that argument on the basis that the 'licensee' does not 'hold land' (per Deasys Act), but I have yet to see that tested out by a court to see how solid that argument is.

So you may be right, but you may be wrong. I'm not so sure.

seamus

The Mustard wrote: »

People make that argument on the basis that the 'licensee' does not 'hold land' (per Deasys Act), but I have yet to see that tested out by a court to see how solid that argument is.

Tbh, I can see it being very solid. The primary factor being that the landlord occupies the land at all times, therefore how can a tenant be seen to hold or occupy even a part of that land exclusively without some form of documentation?

Yes, there is a contract formed. If both parties have actually signed something, then that takes precendence (generally). If one party has paid rent in advance, say for a month, then there's a contract there which allows the tenant to remain for the rest of that month.

Jo King

The Mustard wrote: »

d.

I have also seen the argument that a person living under the same roof of the landlord is there as a licensee, not a tenant. I know that Citizen's Information also agrees with that. People make that argument on the basis that the 'licensee' does not 'hold land' (per Deasys Act), but I have yet to see that tested out by a court to see how solid that argument is.

So you may be right, but you may be wrong. I'm not so sure.

There are numerous English cases dealing with the lease licence distinction in residential lettings. The Irish cases are all related to business lettings.
Abbeyfield (Harpenden) Society Ltd, v. Woods [1968] 1
W.L.R. 374 the occupier of a room in an old peoples home was
held to be a licensee and not a tenant.

It is clear to me that anyone renting from an owner and sharing the services of the rest of the house is a lodger and therefore a licencee as held by the English authorities.

The PRTB will not deal with someone who is residing in the house with the landlord. The chances of someone renting a room in a house going to court for an injunction and/or seeking damages for wrongful eviction are minuscule. The chances of them winning eventually are even smaller. If they have the money for the legal expenses involved they would not be renting a room.
The o/p would be well advised to oust them as soon as possible and not be worried about remote fanciful legal challenges.

beertons

Not allowed smoke in your own home! 3 words, Do It Now.

Pat Mustard

Jo King wrote: »

There are numerous English cases dealing with the lease licence distinction in residential lettings. The Irish cases are all related to business lettings.
Abbeyfield (Harpenden) Society Ltd, v. Woods [1968] 1
W.L.R. 374 the occupier of a room in an old peoples home was
held to be a licensee and not a tenant.

It is clear to me that anyone renting from an owner and sharing the services of the rest of the house is a lodger and therefore a licencee as held by the English authorities.

The PRTB will not deal with someone who is residing in the house with the landlord. The chances of someone renting a room in a house going to court for an injunction and/or seeking damages for wrongful eviction are minuscule. The chances of them winning eventually are even smaller. If they have the money for the legal expenses involved they would not be renting a room.
The o/p would be well advised to oust them as soon as possible and not be worried about remote fanciful legal challenges.

I think we are all in agreement the PRTB will not deal with the matter.

What we are down to is: is it a lease or a licence (licensee or tenant)? There is plenty of caselaw that a guest in a hotel is not a tenant, but holds under a licence, so we can agree on that too. However, an old folks home is in the business of taking in guests under very specific conditions, not a million miles away from a hotel situation, and quite a bit different from the OP's situation.

Quote me a (decent) Irish or English case where a lodger, paying rent in a residential house in which the owner lived, was found to be a licensee and not a tenant in circumstances like the OP's, and I will shut the hell up. I promise!

radioactiveman

To be honest it's not really relevant unless it ends up in court which neither party is likely to want

Jo King

The Mustard wrote: »

I think we are all in agreement the PRTB will not deal with the matter.



Quote me a (decent) Irish or English case where a lodger, paying rent in a residential house in which the owner lived, was found to be a licensee and not a tenant in circumstances like the OP's, and I will shut the hell up. I promise!

In order to quote a case someone must have taken a case. All of the decided case have been where the owner was non resident. Some of them were held to be licences. A fortiori the situations where the owner is resident are infinitely more likely to be licences. Nobody has been stupid enough to go to court and argue that they were a tenant whilst living in the owner's house.
To paraphrase your point
"Quote me a (decent) Irish or English case where a lodger, paying rent in a residential house in which the owner lived, was found to be a tenant and not a Licencee in circumstances like the OP's"

taram

The smoke issue is going become a big wedge once the nights get colder and all you want is a fag and it's freezing out. I know it's horrible, but it wasn't declared or your issue that she's pregnant, soon it might be 'turn the tv off, the baby is sleeping' etc, it'll quickly become you versus them and the baby. Sorry it's turned out like this, but it's better to suffer a little problem now that a lot of hassle and ill will a few months after the baby comes.

Irishcrx

True, I can't imagine they'd be considering staying when the baby is born but then again they did say they rented to rent a year, there is no way I am having a baby in the house no offence but i'm only 22 and it would completely take over my house and I'm not having it totally unacceptable.

spockety

You are right. Bringing a baby into the house would not be good for you, for the parents, or for the baby itself. It's lose lose all around. The rental market is wide open, they will have no problem finding somewhere very quickly, feel no guilt.

seamus

Irishcrx wrote: »

True, I can't imagine they'd be considering staying when the baby is born but then again they did say they rented to rent a year, there is no way I am having a baby in the house no offence but i'm only 22 and it would completely take over my house and I'm not having it totally unacceptable.

You would find it completely taking over your life, not just your house.

Aside from the crying and screaming, before you knew it they'd be giving out to you for waking the baby when you came in drunk and turned the TV on too loud, or started complaining when you took the drill out at lunchtime on a Saturday to do some work.

You'd actually find yourself getting out of your own house to find solitude.

Pat Mustard

Jo King wrote: »

A fortiori the situations where the owner is resident are infinitely more likely to be licences.

Well, perhaps we will agree to disagree.

You are sure that they will be found to be licensees and therefore will have no rights. I have doubts about whether that is the case, because it has not been conclusively decided, to my knowledge.

You say that no-one has been stupid enough to take such a case. In many cases, lodgers like that don't have as much to lose as the house owner. If legal costs are awarded against a lodger, they can sometimes disappear without a forwarding address. Also, if you get a pregnant woman saying that she has a lease of a room in a house, with rights of way over hall, stairs and landing and use of the kitchen/dining/living rooms, I would be concerned that a judge will look on her case sympathetically. I don't think that it is 'fanciful' to take account of these possibilities at all, even if they may be less than probable. Hard cases make bad law, etc.

In any case, I think that most of us would agree that the OP should get that couple out, one way or another. You say kick her out, I say encourage her to leave when the month is up, to be on the safe side. Anyways, I don't have anything else to add on this.

Good luck OP.

The_Conductor

I'm closing this thread on that note.

S.