Landlord moving in, tenancy rights

tommy100

Hi, im living in a 2 bed apartment, with another tenant. We both have part 4 tenancy. (We are renting rooms separately, not the apartment, as we moved in a year apart). The landlord has given notice of termination to flat mate as apart is his Principle Private Residence, and he is looking to move back in. Since im part 4 tenacy now, does that change the day he steps inside door, (do i loose part4 tenancy rights, and my tenancy become Rent a Room Scheme). Also, is he allowed to give notice of termination just like that (we have no fixed term contracts). Is there any conditions he has to meet, for him to serve this notice.

Michael D Not Higgins

A landlord can give notice of termination for a periodic part 4 tenancy with the right notice period if he intends to move in. I am unsure on how this works with another tenant as well. I would assume since you are then living with the landlord that changes your tenancy too and you would need to be served notice too. It would then be your choice whether to stay and pay as a licencee living with your landlord.

A bit of advice, there is less security of tenure as a licencee and since you're living with your landlord, I'd be asking for a discount in the rent. On the other hand I'd just leave if you can find somewhere else.

campingcarist

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

A landlord can give notice of termination for a periodic part 4 tenancy with the right notice period if he intends to move in. I am unsure on how this works with another tenant as well. I would assume since you are then living with the landlord that changes your tenancy too and you would need to be served notice too. It would then be your choice whether to stay and pay as a licencee living with your landlord.

A bit of advice, there is less security of tenure as a licencee and since you're living with your landlord, I'd be asking for a discount in the rent. On the other hand I'd just leave if you can find somewhere else.

I would contend that the landlord cannot move into the house as the OP, as a tenant, has exclusive use of the communal areas - kitchen, bathroom, living room with his housemate.

Unless the OP agrees to become a licensee, the landlord would have to terminate his Part 4 tenancy before moving in.

campingcarist

campingcarist wrote: »

I would contend that the landlord cannot move into the house as the OP, as a tenant, has exclusive use of the communal areas - kitchen, bathroom, living room with his housemate.

Unless the OP agrees to become a licensee, the landlord would have to terminate his Part 4 tenancy before moving in.

The op has rights to the communal areas as does the person renting the other room so in other words the op does not have exclusive rights to the communal areas. The LL can rent the other room to any random person so what's the difference if he decides to move in himself rather than rent the room to another tenant.

dudara

If the landlord has not been living there, then I don't see how it could be his PPR.

Anyway, if the landlord moves back in, then you become a licensee, which comes with lesser rights.

Michael D Not Higgins

campingcarist wrote: »

I would contend that the landlord cannot move into the house as the OP, as a tenant, has exclusive use of the communal areas - kitchen, bathroom, living room with his housemate.

Unless the OP agrees to become a licensee, the landlord would have to terminate his Part 4 tenancy before moving in.

Which if you reread what I said is the same as what you said.

The_Conductor

campingcarist wrote: »

I would contend that the landlord cannot move into the house as the OP, as a tenant, has exclusive use of the communal areas - kitchen, bathroom, living room with his housemate.

Unless the OP agrees to become a licensee, the landlord would have to terminate his Part 4 tenancy before moving in.

Thats part of the problem with letting rooms- rather than a property- neither tenant has exclusive use of the communal areas- and as they are party to separate leases- rather than a joint lease on the property- arguably- they are in fact licensees at present- never mind after the owner moves in.

Similar queries pop up regularly- and indeed feature in PRTB cases...........

Despite what the OP imagines- and indeed- a lot of people here seem to think- he does not have exclusive use of the property- he has shared facilities and amenities- and his sole exclusive use- is of the bedroom itself.........

He is not renting the property with another person- he is renting a room in a property- and the other person is also renting a room in the property- and they have separate leases for said bedrooms.

Its a messy way of doing things- and fraught with issues- not least the current one........

4ensic15

Once the landlord moves in the property ceases to be subject to the Residential Tenancies Act. This effectively ends any tenancy the op has. It is arguable that the op has a part 4 tenancy and that it hasn't been terminated by the means provided for in the act and therefore it continues notwithstanding. On this basis bot tenants should have been given notice of termination and the op been invited to continue residing as a licencee.
The reality is that the op will be sharing with his landlord and trying to insist on legalities which only affect the amount of notice he is entitled to is not practical.

Michael D Not Higgins

The_Conductor wrote: »

Thats part of the problem with letting rooms- rather than a property- neither tenant has exclusive use of the communal areas- and as they are party to separate leases- rather than a joint lease on the property- arguably- they are in fact licensees at present- never mind after the owner moves in.

Similar queries pop up regularly- and indeed feature in PRTB cases...........

Despite what the OP imagines- and indeed- a lot of people here seem to think- he does not have exclusive use of the property- he has shared facilities and amenities- and his sole exclusive use- is of the bedroom itself.........

He is not renting the property with another person- he is renting a room in a property- and the other person is also renting a room in the property- and they have separate leases for said bedrooms.

Its a messy way of doing things- and fraught with issues- not least the current one........

I still haven't seen anything concrete on the arrangements in this situation. Has the PRTB made any rulings that cover this and whether it's a licencee or tenant situation?

I have also read in another thread that the same reasoning is used in some student houses where the rooms are rented and the landlord retains the right to access the communal areas. It's a difficult situation as it's not explicitly stated in RTA 2004.

The_Conductor

The_Conductor wrote: »

Thats part of the problem with letting rooms- rather than a property- neither tenant has exclusive use of the communal areas- and as they are party to separate leases- rather than a joint lease on the property- arguably- they are in fact licensees at present- never mind after the owner moves in.

Similar queries pop up regularly- and indeed feature in PRTB cases...........

Despite what the OP imagines- and indeed- a lot of people here seem to think- he does not have exclusive use of the property- he has shared facilities and amenities- and his sole exclusive use- is of the bedroom itself.........

He is not renting the property with another person- he is renting a room in a property- and the other person is also renting a room in the property- and they have separate leases for said bedrooms.

Its a messy way of doing things- and fraught with issues- not least the current one........

You are spot on with this imo particularly that you don't have exclusive rights to communal areas in a rooms let separately scenario as how can you when the other housemates have use also.You cant have exclusive use of rooms when someone else has use of them, particularly as that person can change. There is at least one PRTB cases which has ruled that people are licensees in the situations even if the LL doesn't live there.

I'd find it difficult to see a reason that a LL could not just move into a spare room in house with rooms being let like this in place of getting some other random person from the street. Its a spare room that needs to be filled after all and that room has no tenant in it and the other tenant has no rights over that room.

I'd disagree on the last bit though, its always the way I've rented in house shares i.e. renting a room in a shared house and I'd much prefer this way of doing things as you are only responsible for your rent not the full house, you aren't tied to a lease (well I was never anyway) and you can move out without any hassle at short notice (always been a months notice to move where I've lived) by simply finding someone to replace you.

Mrs OBumble

I think The Conductor is spot on.

But I don't really understand how it's legal to do this with rooms that only have shared living-room, cooking facilities and bathroom (ie bedrooms in a house) - but illegal to do it with rooms that do have their own cooking facilities but only shared bathroom and no living-room (ie bed-sits).

Michael D Not Higgins

Clyde Helpful Suspense wrote: »

There is at least one PRTB cases which has ruled that people are licensees in the situations even if the LL doesn't live there

Interesting, I'd like to see the law requiring leases to specify what kind of tenancy is undertaken. If the OP has a lease saying the tenancy is covered by RTA 2004, then I presume the PRTB would rule it is a tenancy rather than a licence.

Michael D Not Higgins

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I think The Conductor is spot on.

But I don't really understand how it's legal to do this with rooms that only have shared living-room, cooking facilities and bathroom (ie bedrooms in a house) - but illegal to do it with rooms that do have their own cooking facilities but only shared bathroom and no living-room (ie bed-sits).

Sounds like some landlords are exploiting holes in the legislation to suit themselves.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I think The Conductor is spot on.

But I don't really understand how it's legal to do this with rooms that only have shared living-room, cooking facilities and bathroom (ie bedrooms in a house) - but illegal to do it with rooms that do have their own cooking facilities but only shared bathroom and no living-room (ie bed-sits).

Probably a lot more to do with the standards of bed sits etc than anything.

A house shared by a group of people all on the lease or one with rooms let individually will have to meet the same standards etc it's just there is technical differences in the paper work of how it's let. A bedsit is a different style of property altogether although I personally don't see why they aren't allowed too once they are kept to a certain standard.

campingcarist

Clyde Helpful Suspense wrote: »

The op has rights to the communal areas as does the person renting the other room so in other words the op does not have exclusive rights to the communal areas. The LL can rent the other room to any random person so what's the difference if he decides to move in himself rather than rent the room to another tenant.

The apartment was let on a room by room basis thus the tenants have exclusive use of their rooms and joint exclusive use of the rest of the apartment. By exclusive use, it means that the landlord has to get permission from the tenants to enter the property.

There was, a couple of years ago a High Court ruling about this which overruled a PRTB tribunal resolution where the landlord believed he had the right to enter the property at will because the tenants did not have exclusive use of the property. He lost his case.

Therefore, I believe that when one tenant leaves, the other tenant still has joint exclusive use of the property with whoever is entitled to live in the other bedroom. Thus, the landlord still has no right to enter the apartment while there is still a tenant living in the apartment.

campingcarist

campingcarist wrote: »

Therefore, I believe that when one tenant leaves, the other tenant still has joint exclusive use of the property with whoever is entitled to live in the other bedroom. Thus, the landlord still has no right to enter the apartment while there is still a tenant living in the apartment.

I don't see why the LL cant be this other person though, if any random person can get the room why not the LL? He can rent the room to himself essentially.

The_Conductor

Clyde Helpful Suspense wrote: »

I don't see why the LL cant be this other person though, if any random person can get the room why not the LL? He can rent the room to himself essentially.

Yup- thats my take on it too.

Michael D Not Higgins

Clyde Helpful Suspense wrote: »

I don't see why the LL cant be this other person though, if any random person can get the room why not the LL? He can rent the room to himself essentially.

But then the OP is living with his landlord and can't be a tenant under RTA 2004 but a licencee. This means the tenancy would have to be dissolved with the proper notice surely.

Mrs OBumble

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

This means the tenancy would have to be dissolved with the proper notice surely.

Think of it as more like turned into slush, rather than properly dissolved.

Seriously, as far as posters here know, the law is silent on this variation. (Possibly because technically it's illegal in the first place, as per my previous post.)

It would be crazy to say "no the LL is the only person in the whole world who cannot move into the other room without 112 (or whatever) days notice.

OTOH it's not really fair that the tenant loses all rights either.

Best solution is probably some kind of gentleman/woman's agreement between them to hold to the Part IV rights. Not legally enforcable, agreed, but better than nothing.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It would be crazy to say "no the LL is the only person in the whole world who cannot move into the other room without 112 (or whatever) days notice.

Another interesting scenario is if the LL lets the room to a friend or family member and then calls regularly as a guest.

In the case of a normal tenancy the LL had to give notice and is very limited to when he can call etc but in the above scenario the person renting the room can invite the LL in whenever they want (within the normal fair limits in a houseshare), have him sitting in the living room watching tv etc.

tommy100

Thanks for alk your comments. Interesting reading. Ive another question. For a 6 month fixed term tenancy, at what point can a landlord submit a termination notice. It says 28 days notice has to be given.
for arguement sake if tenancy began on 1st january and ends 1st july. Can landlord give notice sometime in May (4 weeks notice), to say tenancy will end as agreed in 6 months term contract. PRTB says no,landlord cant give notice till 6 months are up, i.e tenant actually gets 7 months for a 6 month contract (this doesn't sound right to me). Citizens information said (they had quick office discussion on this) landlord can give notice in May saying tenancy is ending as agreed on the 6 month mark. Ive read PRTB Threshold and citizens advice websites, but nothing there to determine whats right or wrong. The Residential Tenancys Act 2004 (LAW) is also also vague, and does not indicate when a landlord can give notice.
Can someone set this in stone, WHAT IS THE LAW (Not looking for opinions).

tommy100

Explain OP?????

The_Conductor

Technically- a 6 month fixed term contract is just that- its a 6 month fixed term contract. The landlord cannot evict you during the 6 months- as there is a legally binding contract in situ (which may, or may not, specify terms for ending the lease). Also- the tenant has no right to stay beyond the 6 months- as they have not acquired Part IV rights under the 2004 Act. If the tenant intends to stay beyond the 6 months- normally they would give at least one month's notice to the landlord of their intention to stay- however, it would be at the discretion of the landlord whether or not to entertain their request- as they are not protected under the Act (until after 6 months have passed). If the landlord seeks to end the lease inside the first 6 months (in the example you've given- that would be before the 1st of July)- the fact that the tenant overholds (for however long)- does not entitle the tenant to acquire rights at a later date, that they did not have at the date on which the landlord sought to terminate the tenancy.

If the 6 month lease specifies 28 days notice- that is then the notice period (other than that- you're subject to the notice periods as prescribed by the Act).

Hope this helps.

4ensic15

tommy100 wrote: »

Thanks for alk your comments. Interesting reading. Ive another question. For a 6 month fixed term tenancy, at what point can a landlord submit a termination notice. It says 28 days notice has to be given.
for arguement sake if tenancy began on 1st january and ends 1st july. Can landlord give notice sometime in May (4 weeks notice), to say tenancy will end as agreed in 6 months term contract. PRTB says no,landlord cant give notice till 6 months are up, i.e tenant actually gets 7 months for a 6 month contract (this doesn't sound right to me). Citizens information said (they had quick office discussion on this) landlord can give notice in May saying tenancy is ending as agreed on the 6 month mark. Ive read PRTB Threshold and citizens advice websites, but nothing there to determine whats right or wrong. The Residential Tenancys Act 2004 (LAW) is also also vague, and does not indicate when a landlord can give notice.
Can someone set this in stone, WHAT IS THE LAW (Not looking for opinions).

The law is not set in stone. The RTA states that a tenancy can't be terminated during a fixed term lease. This is interpreted (by the PRTB) as meaning that notice can't be served during the fixed term. This has not been tested by the courts. Until it is, the current situation continues.

Mrs OBumble

4ensic15 wrote: »

This has not been tested by the courts.

And this is why the best anyone can give you is an opinion, not 100% facts.

What's more, when it is tested by the courts, what answer they come up with will partly depend on how good the lawyers involved are.

All in all, the law is sometimes a bit of an ass.

tommy100

4ensic - u are correct in saying this. Citizen info and property management companies says u can give notice before the 6 months is up, to end it at 6 months. The Residential tenancy act 2004 is vague and does not say this at all. The PRTB, are very pro tenant, and they like to interpert the law what ever way they want. If this issue goes to court i believe PRTB will loose.

4ensic15

tommy100 wrote: »

4ensic - u are correct in saying this. Citizen info and property management companies says u can give notice before the 6 months is up, to end it at 6 months. The Residential tenancy act 2004 is vague and does not say this at all. The PRTB, are very pro tenant, and they like to interpert the law what ever way they want. If this issue goes to court i believe PRTB will loose.

The PRTB have lost a few cases but it is unlikely that this will be challenged. Only a landlord can do it and it would be cheaper and faster to issue a new notice of termination that run the risk of an expensive court case.

It makes damn all difference anyway so don't know what people are getting tied up up in it. Move out after 6 months or after 7 hardly any difference if you have to look for somewhere else either way.

4ensic15

Clyde Helpful Suspense wrote: »

It makes damn all difference anyway so don't know what people are getting tied up up in it. Move out after 6 months or after 7 hardly any difference if you have to look for somewhere else either way.

It makes a lot of difference. Once the 6 moths expires it is a part 4 tenancy and the landlord has to give a reason for the termination.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

It makes a lot of difference. Once the 6 moths expires it is a part 4 tenancy and the landlord has to give a reason for the termination.

If you have a 6 month contract the LL has to be allowed to give notice to the person to move out. What I'm saying is it doesn't really matter if that notice is given before the 6 months is up or when the 6 months is up (which would mean the tenant stays 7months).

As far as I'm aware once notice is given part 4 rights don't kick in even if the person is still in the property into the 7th month.

I don't really know why notice has to be given at all. It's a 6 month contract so unless the LL agrees to it the tenant should just have to move out as soon as the contract is up.

4ensic15

Clyde Helpful Suspense wrote: »

If you have a 6 month contract the LL has to be allowed to give notice to the person to move out. What I'm saying is it doesn't really matter if that notice is given before the 6 months is up or when the 6 months is up (which would mean the tenant stays 7months).

As far as I'm aware once notice is given part 4 rights don't kick in even if the person is still in the property into the 7th month.

I don't really know why notice has to be given at all. It's a 6 month contract so unless the LL agrees to it the tenant should just have to move out as soon as the contract is up.

The Act provides that if a fixed term expires, no new fixed term is entered into, and the tenant remains, then a month to month letting starts.
Since the landlord cannot issue a notice during the six month period (per the PRTB) a month to month letting with part 4 rights has started even if he gives notice the day after the lease expires.
That is the way the legislation is working at the moment.