Owner Occupied / Tenant

corelon

anybody any idea where to go to next?

corelon

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It's not an angle, it is the legal principle behind joint owners.
They don't have to be related to be joint owners.

The tenancy being registered with the PRTB seems odd. You are not leasing the whole house so all occupants should be registered and you can't register an owner as a tenant.

My tenancy is the only one regsitered to this house

The_Morrigan

corelon wrote: »

anybody any idea where to go to next?

Your landlord and ask for extra time to move given the season that's in it.

The_Morrigan

corelon wrote: »

My tenancy is the only one regsitered to this house

I'd hazard a guess it's invalid then.

djimi

corelon wrote: »

Thanks for feedback. I see your angle but my argument would be I have a tenancy agreement with LL who does not live here I always paid to LL who does not live here and also he registered the tenancy with the PRTB. They are not related also..

If the tenancy is registered with the PRTB, and they were made aware of the situation at the time, then I dont see where there is any confusion. However, if they were not made aware of the situation, and were not aware that an owner was also living in the property, then it might be €90 down the drain and a registration that is not valid.

I think you need to speak to a solicitor before going any further. The lease that you have might not mean a whole lot if you are a licensee.

corelon

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess it's invalid then.

Anyone know my legal rights then if i am a licensee.. Not that i believe i am

djimi

corelon wrote: »

Anyone know my legal rights then if i am a licensee.. Not that i believe i am

As a licensee you dont really have many legal rights. Youre not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act, nor can you deal with the PRTB.

corelon

All the legislation seems to indicate that if the Landlord resides in the same property I am not covered. So therefore if the landlord doesn't live in the same property I am covered.

The definition of a landlord and tenant is
"An association between two individuals arising from an agreement by which one individual occupies the other's real property with permission, subject to a rental fee"

i have an agreement with the owner who does not live here therefore making him my landlord and not the other owner!!

The_Morrigan

corelon wrote: »

All the legislation seems to indicate that if the Landlord resides in the same property I am not covered. So therefore if the landlord doesn't live in the same property I am covered.

The definition of a landlord and tenant is
"An association between two individuals arising from an agreement by which one individual occupies the other's real property with permission, subject to a rental fee"

i have an agreement with the owner who does not live here therefore making him my landlord and not the other owner!!

By virtue of the fact that your landlord is only a partial owner and the other resident is the other owner....you live with an owner occupier.

corelon

The_Morrigan wrote: »

By virtue of the fact that your landlord is only a partial owner and the other resident is the other owner....you live with an owner occupier.

Another update.. Talked with PRTB again and they are now saying it will take between 1 or 2 weeks for them to determine if my tenancy agreement is covered or not....

Aye Bosun

I don't think it really makes any difference if you pay the landlord that doesn't live in the house. Once one of the owners is resident you are in the house by their invitation only and as such can be asked to leave at anytime regardless of the reason.
As for paying rent to the landlord not living there, this could be a simple case of money management. 2 friends brought a house together. 1 moves on but still needs to cover their share of the mortgage. Decides to rent their room out, rent is higher that current mortgage and they are making a profit from the arrangement. The rent is their money and makes sense that you pay them directly. This could just as easily work the other way..rent is lower than mortgage repayment and they are topping it up before it is lodge in the mortgage account.
Either way it doesn't effect you as you are living with an owner occupier and as such are a licensee.

corelon

I really don't think its as black and white as all that guys. I have a tenancy agreement, stating landlord (name) tenant's (name). Money was always paid to landlord, the agreement was always operated as a tenancy agreement and the tenancy was regsitered with PRTB.... The law must cover me to some degree, even if the law would say " I was misled " therefore I would still have rights

gibo_ie

if you are not renting the whole house then surely its just rent a room?? Is your lease for the entire property or just a room and use of common areas? This should be quite easy to find out where you stand so.

corelon

gibo_ie wrote: »

if you are not renting the whole house then surely its just rent a room?? Is your lease for the entire property or just a room and use of common areas? This should be quite easy to find out where you stand so.

I rent a room and use common areas. I don't believe that makes me a licensee though. A landlord can rent out all the rooms in his/her house to multiple individuals and therefore this would not be rent a room..

djimi

corelon wrote: »

I really don't think its as black and white as all that guys. I have a tenancy agreement, stating landlord (name) tenant's (name). Money was always paid to landlord, the agreement was always operated as a tenancy agreement and the tenancy was regsitered with PRTB.... The law must cover me to some degree, even if the law would say " I was misled " therefore I would still have rights

Having a tenancy agreement alone does not give you rights under the RTA. Anyone could write up a piece of paper that claims that you are covered by X, Y and Z, but it doesnt necessarily mean that its the case.

Similarly, if the PRTB registration was carried out on the understanding that you are renting the entire tenancy then the fact that the tenancy is registered might not mean a whole lot legally.

At this point I think you need to wait for the PRTB to come back to you; anything else is only guesswork. I dont think that you are covered, but if they come back to you and say the opposite then all the better for you. You can also seek the advice of a solicitor, who will give you their opinion.

foggy_lad

corelon wrote: »

Only since the dispute started. But in saying that he is not a stupid guy and would probably know that PRTB would look for proof of this.

What proof of ownership was offered to show that he is the joint/part owner?

I could claim to be part owner if it serves a purpose and with an arrangement with the Landlord! if the LL wants you out the only way is to move in himself or sell up because you have part 4 rights, or he can make you believe that you don't have part 4 rights!!

corelon

foggy_lad wrote: »

What proof of ownership was offered to show that he is the joint/part owner?

I could claim to be part owner if it serves a purpose and with an arrangement with the Landlord! if the LL wants you out the only way is to move in himself or sell up because you have part 4 rights, or he can make you believe that you don't have part 4 rights!!

No proof as of yet. I assume PRTB will be looking for this and if they rule my tenancy is not covered by the part 4 Legislation I will be asking for the proof that was submitted....

foggy_lad

corelon wrote: »

No proof as of yet. I assume PRTB will be looking for this and if they rule my tenancy is not covered by the part 4 Legislation I will be asking for the proof that was submitted....

Tell the PRTB that you suspect that the person you share with is just a tenant because you were never told they were part owner until the landlord wanted you out.

djimi

It wouldnt be too hard for either party to prove that they are a part owner in fairness; one bank statement showing mortgage payments would clear that up in a hurry. By all means ask for proof (as it would go a long way to clarifying the situation), but Id be very surprised if the landlord thought that they could get away with spoofing you in this manner.

runawaybishop

djimi wrote: »

Having a tenancy agreement alone does not give you rights under the RTA. Anyone could write up a piece of paper that claims that you are covered by X, Y and Z, but it doesnt necessarily mean that its the case.

Similarly, if the PRTB registration was carried out on the understanding that you are renting the entire tenancy then the fact that the tenancy is registered might not mean a whole lot legally.

At this point I think you need to wait for the PRTB to come back to you; anything else is only guesswork. I dont think that you are covered, but if they come back to you and say the opposite then all the better for you. You can also seek the advice of a solicitor, who will give you their opinion.

This is interesting, i wonder is there something in the fact that it was not disclosed that the OP would be living with a part owner when he moved in?

corelon

runawaybishop wrote: »

This is interesting, i wonder is there something in the fact that it was not disclosed that the OP would be living with a part owner when he moved in?

To be honest it all seems wishy washy with the PRTB, obviously the legislation doesn't specifically cover this exact scenario and therefore PRTB do not know where they sit. If they did know they would have already made a decision!!!

The_Morrigan

runawaybishop wrote: »

This is interesting, i wonder is there something in the fact that it was not disclosed that the OP would be living with a part owner when he moved in?

Possibly, but that is a breach of contract law, not the RTA, and would require the OP to seek the services of a solicitor to advise on that point.

corelon

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Possibly, but that is a breach of contract law, not the RTA, and would require the OP to seek the services of a solicitor to advise on that point.

UPDATE 3/12/13
Got a phone call from PRTB to explain they have decided this should go for "Adjudication" which means in about 2-3 weeks i will get a letter stating when they will hear boths sides of the tenancy.. How unusual is all this !!!!!!!!!!?????

djimi

Sounds like they basically havent got a clue, so are fobbing you off in the hope that it sorts itself out in the meantime!

Dont hold your breath for the adjudication to happen any time soon; they usually take months to get around to hearing cases.