licensèe/Tenant belongings furnishings removal

tommy100

I have a licensee whom im evicting frim from own home. I have given them more than enough notice. They have refused to leave so i am gonna change the locks. they have also refused to remove their belongings and furnishings (clothes, 2 book case, table, bits of cooking ware, etc). What is the law (and where can i read it) on this as, i would like to abide it. I dont want this items, at what stage can i throw them out, sell them ....what procedures should i take.

Wabbit Ears

First, Is the person a tenant or a licensee? is the eviction 100% legal and by the books?

if not its a tricky situation.

citizens info seem to think that, even if rent is unpaid, you cannot hold onto possessions. I know this isnt your situation, quite the reverse, its just that it would seem that you cannot take ownership or dispose of tenant's property easily.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/tenants_rights_and_obligations.html

The landlord may not hold your possessions against money that you owe, but he can apply to the PRTB if he feels that your deposit does not cover rent arrears or the cost of damage to the property.

A lot of law would hinge on 'reasonable'. of course reasonable is subjective and often far from what anyone would consider reasonable so consider complete worst case scenario. You probably must have made all and every reasonable attempt to return the goods to the tenant, even if this is at your own expense. Giving 30 days notice and throwing in a skip would not be considered reasonable. Selling it would probably be criminal on your part.

Wabbit Ears

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

First, Is the person a tenant or a licensee? is the eviction 100% legal and by the books?

if not its a tricky situation.

citizens info seem to think that, even if rent is unpaid, you cannot hold onto possessions. I know this isnt your situation, quite the reverse, its just that it would seem that you cannot take ownership or dispose of tenant's property easily.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/tenants_rights_and_obligations.html

The landlord may not hold your possessions against money that you owe, but he can apply to the PRTB if he feels that your deposit does not cover rent arrears or the cost of damage to the property.

A lot of law would hinge on 'reasonable'. of course reasonable is subjective and often far from what anyone would consider reasonable so consider complete worst case scenario. You probably must have made all and every reasonable attempt to return the goods to the tenant, even if this is at your own expense. Giving 30 days notice and throwing in a skip would not be considered reasonable. Selling it would probably be criminal on your part.

If the person is renting a room in the op's house and the op lives there then they are a licensee without doubt.

4ensic15

tommy100 wrote: »

I have a licensee whom im evicting frim from own home. I have given them more than enough notice. They have refused to leave so i am gonna change the locks. they have also refused to remove their belongings and furnishings (clothes, 2 book case, table, bits of cooking ware, etc). What is the law (and where can i read it) on this as, i would like to abide it. I dont want this items, at what stage can i throw them out, sell them ....what procedures should i take.

The law is unlikely to be written anywhere. The usual thing to do is change the locks, tell the person you will deliver their items to them, in default of this you will put them in storage at a rate of €100 per month and if not collected within 3 months and the storage charge paid, you will dispose of all items.

Wabbit Ears

Blaine Uptight Poker wrote:

If the person is renting a room in the op's house and the op lives there then they are a licensee without doubt.

It's really not clear if this is the case

Lantus

I wouldn't bother with storage unless items are high value. IKEA and penny's makes re purchase of most things cheap.

If there are just a few items then bag up everything in strong bin bags and leave outside along with furniture.

I'd give the person an extra 7/14 days to collect before you bin/dispose of the rubbish. Seems fair enough as its well beyond whatever date you gave for the to leave.

Disregard any references to prtb by others. Nothing to do with them. Tenancies act doesn't cover licencee arrangements.

The_Conductor

Keep all the documentation regarding this- the individual concerned seems a right character- it could well be the case that you need to justify your actions down the road.......

TheChizler

Are you confident that the tenancy automatically changed to a licence when you moved in OP? Sure they were overholding, but I wonder is the tenancy still considered as valid until they move out.

TheChizler

TheChizler wrote: »

Are you confident that the tenancy automatically changed to a licence when you moved in OP? Sure they were overholding, but I wonder is the tenancy still considered as valid until they move out.

I don't see how it could still be a tenancy as you cannot be a tenant if living with an owner occupier.

TheChizler

Esteban Odd Collie wrote: »

I don't see how it could still be a tenancy as you cannot be a tenant if living with an owner occupier.

Sorry, I'm aware of details from another thread. The now licencee (hopefully) was previously a tenant before the landlord sent them notice of termination and moved in after. I would hope for the OP's sake that moving in while the tenant is overholding after observing the correct notice period automatically converts them to a licencee, or does it always need to be vacant before you move in unless the overholding tenant agrees otherwise.

Wabbit Ears

Well that's changes everything
We are in illegal eviction territory now.

athtrasna

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Well that's changes everything
We are in illegal eviction territory now.

Not necessarily. The "tenant" had a lease for their room only as did another tenant who moved out. The OP had a room to move back to. It would be different if the two tenants had a whole apartment/house lease.

Wabbit Ears

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Well that's changes everything
We are in illegal eviction territory now.

The tenant was renting a room not the house, the op simply moved into the vacant room which was available rather than moving in some other random person.

TheChizler

athtrasna wrote: »

Not necessarily. The "tenant" had a lease for their room only as did another tenant who moved out. The OP had a room to move back to. It would be different if the two tenants had a whole apartment/house lease.

The question that brings us is the OP entitled to move them out of the single room they were renting if they didn't need the whole property themselves? As they have only moved into a vacant room. I think it's either vacate the entire property so you can move in yourself, or move into a separate room and leave the original agreement intact, I don't think get to move into a room not covered by the tenant's agreement and then boot them out of their own room. I could be wrong.

athtrasna

TheChizler wrote: »

The question that brings us is the OP entitled to move them out of the single room they were renting if they didn't need the whole property themselves? As they have only moved into a vacant room. I think it's either vacate the entire property so you can move in yourself, or move into a separate room and leave the original agreement intact, I don't think get to move into a room not covered by the tenant's agreement and then boot them out of their own room. I could be wrong.

Moving back to your property is cause for breaking a part iv lease and it looks like the OP wants the entire premises but this person won't move out despite having been issued with the correct notice.

Wabbit Ears

I sincerely doubt the PTRB or anyone else would side with the landlord here on their version of this being all ok on a technicality...

Wabbit Ears

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

I sincerely doubt the PTRB or anyone else would side with the landlord here on their version of this being all ok on a technicality...

There is no technicality.

The op rents rooms in his house individually. A person moved out and there is now a spare room. Rather than renting the room to one of the other 7 billion people on the planet which would not even raise a question the op has decided to take on the room himself as he needs a place to stay.

However as the op is the owner and you can't be a tenant if living with the owner the person in the other room is now a licensee and can be asked to move out. This is leaving aside the fact that the person is over holding and have refused to move out despite being given notice which has now expired.

If there was any ounce of sense in the PRTB they wouldn't entertain any communication from tenants who are over holding and are kicked out. The op is in a far stronger position though to someone who has been renting a full house and then tries to throw someone out as the tenant never had exclusive use of the property in the first place.

Michael D Not Higgins

As previously advised, the PRTB have ruled before on this being a tenancy in at least one instance. Notwithstanding the already served notice of termination that was not abided by, moving in and forcefully evicting a tenant could be a costly mistake for the OP and I hope he consulted legal advice before doing this.

TheChizler

athtrasna wrote: »

Moving back to your property is cause for breaking a part iv lease and it looks like the OP wants the entire premises but this person won't move out despite having been issued with the correct notice.

Absolutely. The question is; in the case of an overholding tenant is it illegal or not to move into a spare room and treat them as a licencee as a loophole to force them out, rather than going the lenghty way through the PRTB and court enforcement.

esforum

TheChizler wrote: »

Absolutely. The question is; in the case of an overholding tenant is it illegal or not to move into a spare room and treat them as a licencee as a loophole to force them out, rather than going the lenghty way through the PRTB and court enforcement.

If the rooms were rented one at a time were they all licensees or all tenents? Which is more important, the use of communal areas and individual rentals or the owner being present?

Bejaysus its a sticky one. cant believe this character is still refusing to move.

Michael D Not Higgins

I'd love a clarification on this one. Many people have stated and the PRTB even have it in their info that one of the conditions of a licensee is

"persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal license arrangement with the owner where the occupants are not entitled to its exclusive use and the owner has continuing access to the accommodation and/or can move around or change the occupants"

Now the PRTB go on to give examples only of licensees living with tenants and licensees with landlords resident. There's no clarification on what the distinction between and licensee and a tenant is when there's no tenants or landlords living with the licensee. Does this boil down to what was agreed when they moved in? Does the OP giving notice of termination in line with the RTA2004 not imply a tenancy by the act of giving such notice?

Wabbit Ears

In the OPs case the tenants paid for the house by the room but they were paying for the use of the house as a whole which would have made them tenants in the eyes of the PTRB.

the_syco

athtrasna wrote: »

Not necessarily. The "tenant" had a lease for their room only as did another tenant who moved out. The OP had a room to move back to. It would be different if the two tenants had a whole apartment/house lease.

But can the LL change the lease because he moved in?

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

In the OPs case the tenants paid for the house by the room but they were paying for the use of the house as a whole which would have made them tenants in the eyes of the PTRB.

Depending on the lease, I'd say. Most leases that are per rooms, are for the rooms only, with use of the common areas.

athtrasna

the_syco wrote: »

But can the LL change the lease because he moved in?


Depending on the lease, I'd say. Most leases that are per rooms, are for the rooms only, with use of the common areas.

The Landlord had terminated the lease, this person is overholding.

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I'd love a clarification on this one. Many people have stated and the PRTB even have it in their info that one of the conditions of a licensee is

"persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal license arrangement with the owner where the occupants are not entitled to its exclusive use and the owner has continuing access to the accommodation and/or can move around or change the occupants"

Now the PRTB go on to give examples only of licensees living with tenants and licensees with landlords resident. There's no clarification on what the distinction between and licensee and a tenant is when there's no tenants or landlords living with the licensee. Does this boil down to what was agreed when they moved in? Does the OP giving notice of termination in line with the RTA2004 not imply a tenancy by the act of giving such notice?

The legislation also provides only one way of ending a tenancy. It does not allow a tenancy to end by converting it to a licence.

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

Depending on the lease, I'd say. Most leases that are per rooms, are for the rooms only, with use of the common areas.

Id be very surprised if there was a lease. My experience of renting has been exclusively renting a room in a houseshare and I've never seen a lease nor signed anything.

Lantus

This was a licencee arrangement before the landlord moved in. Even if the landlord called the contract a 'lease' its not really. Just a private contract. The licencee (let's avoid the confusion of the word tenant) rented a room in an apartment with access to a shared common area. The owner rented each room seperatley and decided who would live in each room. The other renters had no say in this.

There is no prtb overlord and no part iv activation of rights. They are not tenants in the normal legal definition and did not have an exclusive lease for the property.

The owner is free to move back in at any time which we think the op has already done. This was clarified by the op as being legal based on advice they obtained. The existing arrangement with the other tenant has lapsed. They are now a non paying guest in the owners house.

I wouldn't want to be this room renter with no protection under prtb and an expired worthless paper private agreement for a lucencee. The fact they are ignorant chances does not give them any basis for being able to stay as an unpaid guest in the ops own property where they reside.


As the op can do as they please in their own house I would be disabling services and throwing out all food in kitchen as well as all plates etc.remove TV. Make it look like your doing a refurb and your spare room is next.

We come overstayed. Move or lose.

4ensic15

Lantus wrote: »

This was a licencee arrangement before the landlord moved in. Even if the landlord called the contract a 'lease' its not really. Just a private contract. The licencee (let's avoid the confusion of the word tenant) rented a room in an apartment with access to a shared common area. The owner rented each room seperatley and decided who would live in each room. The other renters had no say in this.

There are PRTB decisions which contradict this. That is the problem from the landlords point if view.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lantus wrote: »

This was a licencee arrangement before the landlord moved in. Even if the landlord called the contract a 'lease' its not really. Just a private contract.

You have no idea what the lease said, this is pure speculation. In the other thread you walked the OP into saying he rented the rooms separately, even though he mentioned: Part 4 tenancy, giving the right notice for wanting to move back in (i.e. Part 4 notice), exclusive use of the property ("full access to rent of apartment"). From what the OP was saying it's pretty much a tenancy, especially with the precedent of other PRTB rulings.

Lantus

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You have no idea what the lease said, this is pure speculation. In the other thread you walked the OP into saying he rented the rooms separately, even though he mentioned: Part 4 tenancy, giving the right notice for wanting to move back in (i.e. Part 4 notice), exclusive use of the property ("full access to rent of apartment"). From what the OP was saying it's pretty much a tenancy, especially with the precedent of other PRTB rulings.

Op almost certainly mistaken when he mentioned part 4. A few posts later he confirmed that rooms were rented separate direct to each licencee with separate deposits. Also confirmed he had obtained legal advice and could move back in independant of any third party advice.

That's not a part 4 arrangement. A licences doesn't magically gain tenant rights if the others move out.

So I don't see a tenancy there based on the info in this thread and the other it originated from.

4ensic15

Lantus wrote: »

Op almost certainly mistaken when he mentioned part 4. A few posts later he confirmed that rooms were rented separate direct to each licencee with separate deposits. Also confirmed he had obtained legal advice and could move back in independant of any third party advice.

That's not a part 4 arrangement. A licences doesn't magically gain tenant rights if the others move out.

So I don't see a tenancy there based on the info in this thread and the other it originated from.

There are PRTB decisions which hold that renting rooms separately creates a lease. If there is a lease there may be a Part 4. It is irrelevant anyway if there is a Part 4 or not. The only means of termination of a lease do not include conversion to a licence.