Giving notice to a tenant

rocky

Hi, this is the situation:

I started renting a bedroom in this house in 2003, a few months after me a new tenant moved in, renting another bedroom.

In 2006 I talked to the landlord and asked him if I could pay the rent for the whole house, and the other tenant would pay me; the landlord agreed.

Now I want to live with the girlfriend on our own in this same house.

I understand that notice of 112 days has to be given for tenements longer than 4 years.

Do I need to give the notice, or the landlord? The landlord agreed to this, he would get the same rent, only one less person in the house.

Does the notice have to have a reason like selling the house or the landlord himself ( or a relative) moving in?


We don't have any written contracts or leases, it's all done by verbal agreement - I don't think this makes any difference.

Thanks.

MarkR

From threshold.ie, it seems it's 112 days, but only for a limited number of reasons.

Security of Tenure

The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 affords greater security of tenure to tenants in the private rented sector. The landlord can terminate the tenancy without reason during the initial six months but once the tenancy has lasted six months, the landlord will only be able to end it on specific grounds. Acceptable grounds include the tenant not complying with their obligations (e.g. not paying their rent), the landlord intending to sell the dwelling and the landlord requiring the dwelling for his own occupation or for a family member. For a complete list of the acceptable reasons, contact Threshold.

The landlord must also give the tenant written notice of termination. The period of notice will depend on the duration of the tenancy.

Have you spoken to the other tenant about it?

rocky

Yep, the tenant wants a written notice, so I thought I'd ask here, would I or the 'real' landlord need to write it?

MarkR

I'll put the hand up and say i know F all about law, but that website seemed to imply that the land lord couldn't serve notice on the tenant, unless there was a reason like he was selling, or had family move in.

Reckon it would have to be the landlord.

athtrasna

As OP is actually the tenant and is sub-letting the room to the other tenant (A) it is more like a licensee situation than A being a direct tenant of the landlord. In that case A would have little to no rights. A call to Threshold would be no harm but other posts on this and another board suggest the best way to get info from Threshold in such cases is to identify yourself as A and find out what A's rights are

the_syco

athtrasna wrote: »

As OP is actually the tenant and is sub-letting the room to the other tenant (A) it is more like a licensee situation than A being a direct tenant of the landlord.

From reading the first post, I'm agreeing with this. Contact Threshold anyhoo's.

quozl

I disagree that the 2nd tennant is sub-letting from the poster.
This arrangement came about 3 years after the 2nd tennant moved in, and appears to be simply a matter of the 2nd tennant giving the money to the OP to pass on to the landlord.

That doesn't seem to me like you can claim that is a definite change to sub-leasing.

I'd talk to threshold. I disagree with the 2 above posters' view and we are really just speculating here.

antoinolachtnai

It looks like a licence to me.

I am taking it (perhaps wrongly) that the other person in the house is not on the lease, and is not registered as a tenant with prtb?

In practice, this person will probably not have a problem in this situation.

It is not quite true to say that 112 days notice is required after 4 years where there is a tenancy. It's a bit more complicated than that. After 4 years the time starts rolling again, i.e., between the 49th and 53rd month, the landlord can give notice without giving any reason. Also, as I understand it, the notice periods also go back to 28 days and start building again.

But if it's a licence none of this applies.

In practice, the two people are living in a single household. I would say it is unlikely that the law will intervene in the workings of a household. It certainly has nothing to do with the landlord. The landlord will almost certainly not want to give notice in these circumstances, since there is no benefit for them in doing so. If you are indeed both tenants under one tenancy, then he will really have to evict both of you. He can't half-terminate the tenancy.

It is really up to the people involved to agree.

rocky

Thanks for your comments.

Like I said in my first post, there's no written lease, rent book etc. I think the landlord is registered with PRTB (he had no issues giving me his PPS no for claiming rent relief, and this tenant I'm trying to give notice to gets rent allowance). The benefit for the landlord would be that he keeps receiving the same rent per week as before, but with one less person in the house (less wear and tear). Otherwise, we'll move out, and he'll get less than half the rent, until he finds new tenants.

doctor evil

Whose names are on the lease? It sounds like at first that you were both paying rent to the landlord than three years later the money from the other tenant was given to you to pass on.

Xiney

My interpretation is this:

The original tenant is a licensee, since the current arrangement has existed since 2006. In 2007 or thereabouts, his part 4 lease rolled over. He is now a licensee and has very few rights, you can ask him to leave tomorrow if you like. Obviously the decent thing to do would be to give him a month or a month and a half's notice.

antoinolachtnai

Well if he was a tenant, and his part 4 tenancy rolled over, he is still a tenant, on a new part 4 tenancy.

rocky

Are there any tax implications if it's considered I'm subletting to this tenant?

The rent I get is 2600 pa

Victor

If you are making a profit, then there may be implications, yes.

antoinolachtnai

If you aren't making a profit on the deal there isn't any implication.

If you are living in the house, you can rent-a-room for up to 10k without any implications, even if you do make a profit, so it's not an issue anyway.

The_Conductor

rocky wrote: »

Are there any tax implications if it's considered I'm subletting to this tenant?

The rent I get is 2600 pa

As you are *not* the owner of the property and are subletting- the entirety of the income is taxable income and would have to be declared in an annual tax return. You can in due course claim rent relief on the gross rent paid- however it only comes to a net 320 (or so) a year- so you are out by net ~700 a year (presuming you are paying tax at the higher rate). You cannot mitigate this with mortgage interest relief etc- as you don't own it.......

Sorry.

w123

smccarrick wrote: »

As you are *not* the owner of the property and are subletting- the entirety of the income is taxable income and would have to be declared in an annual tax return. You can in due course claim rent relief on the gross rent paid- however it only comes to a net 320 (or so) a year- so you are out by net ~700 a year (presuming you are paying tax at the higher rate). You cannot mitigate this with mortgage interest relief etc- as you don't own it.......

Sorry.

No, No, No.

No tax implication - simply collecting the rent for the landlord.

Even if there was a 'business' in renting conducted the rent paid to the landlord would constitute an allowable expense - as it would be the same as he rent recieved no profit - no tax.

The_Conductor

w123 wrote: »

No, No, No.

No tax implication - simply collecting the rent for the landlord.

Even if there was a 'business' in renting conducted the rent paid to the landlord would constitute an allowable expense - as it would be the same as he rent recieved no profit - no tax.

Revenue Commissioners disagree with you on this one- and it has popped up several times previously in this forum.

The OP is the sole person on the lease for the property- and however he likes to phrase it- he is subletting a room to a lodger (who is not defined as a tenant, and does not have normal tenancy rights).

Its not black and white unfortunately- but it has gotten shot down in the past.

w123

smccarrick wrote: »

Revenue Commissioners disagree with you on this one- and it has popped up several times previously in this forum.

The OP is the sole person on the lease for the property- and however he likes to phrase it- he is subletting a room to a lodger (who is not defined as a tenant, and does not have normal tenancy rights).

Its not black and white unfortunately- but it has gotten shot down in the past.

I stand corrected.

However, there are a number of things to consider - is the 'lodger' receiving rental tax credit - if so then it is clear that the landlord is the landlord and not the tenant subletting.

If the tenant subletting is not marking up the rent then the rent that they pay is still an allowable expense, submitting a tax return for this would be a waste of time. In my experience the Rev Comm are pragmatic.

Oh the fun of landlord tenant issues - Glad I'm not too involved.