How to get rid of a licensee

sean29

Hi,
A friend of mine (let's call him John) has been renting a house for the last 8 years. 7 years ago he let a room to his friend (let's call him Jamie). Now John wants Jamie to leave the house as soon as possible. The lease is just between John and landlord. What is the minimum notice he has to give? Thanks

3DataModem

sean29 wrote: »

Hi,
A friend of mine (let's call him John) has been renting a house for the last 8 years. 7 years ago he let a room to his friend (let's call him Jamie). Now John wants Jamie to leave the house as soon as possible. The lease is just between John and landlord. What is the minimum notice he has to give? Thanks

He's subletting? I'd say there's little comeback for Jamie if he just asks him to go immediately.

MarkAnthony

He's required to give 'reasonable notice' a week is enough IMO.

sean29

I just found on daft forum that it is not called subletting, it is renting a room under a licence agreement (usually verbal in Ireland), similar to a hotel or guest house. This person is called a licensee (because they are only invited by licence to stay in the apartment) or lodger. I also read that he really has no rights and John may ask him to leave at any time. The notice period is usually considered as the same period that they pay the rent - rent paid monthly = 1 month\'s notice; (rent paid weekly = i week\'s notice).

However, if the lodger is being anti-social or putting the property in danger (not locking the doors, for example) or s/he is making you feel unsafe in your home, then you could give them 1 week\'s notice. In very serious cases, you caould even ask/tell them to leave immediately.

I also found minimum notice periods but I'm not sure if they apply to Jamie

citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html

Grolschevik

MarkAnthony wrote:

He's required to give 'reasonable notice' a week is enough IMO.

I would have thought that a reasonable interpretation of 'reasonable notice' would need to take account of the possibility of acquiring alternative accommodation in that timeframe, and would thus be related in some form to the state of the rental market in that area? Thoughts?

sean29

Grolschevik wrote: »

I would have thought that a reasonable interpretation of 'reasonable notice' would need to take account of the possibility of acquiring alternative accommodation in that timeframe, and would thus be related in some form to the state of the rental market in that area? Thoughts?

I don't think it matters, anyway it is a popular area, there were 55 ads posted in the last week on daft

MarkAnthony

Grolschevik wrote: »

I would have thought that a reasonable interpretation of 'reasonable notice' would need to take account of the possibility of acquiring alternative accommodation in that timeframe, and would thus be related in some form to the state of the rental market in that area? Thoughts?

Until there's a case that goes before the High Court we won't know for sure. I can't see a case of this nature doing that, there might be an unreported case one could point too if the plaintiff was able to get someone along to the DC.

My thoughts are that it's a room, there are alternatives available at short notice such as AirBnB and immediately available house shares. Note that it has to be reasonably possibly not convenient or indeed cheap. One is on notice when sharing in the first place.

That said it is certainly arguable for the other side. Although 14, 21 or 30 days would be increasingly generous IMO. One would probably want to factor in the length of tenancy, in this case 7 years, but I've nothing to hang that argument on other than looking at tenancy law, which this isn't it's a licensee agreement. The reasonable notice element comes from such agreements. You've reasonable time to extricate yourself from somewhere with an implied licence (such as a shop) but IIRC that's pretty short.

Grolschevik

MarkAnthony wrote:

Until there's a case that goes before the High Court we won't know for sure. I can't see a case of this nature doing that, there might be an unreported case one could point too if the plaintiff was able to get someone along to the DC.

We should really be able to lob hypotheticals at them, just for the crack!

newacc2015

Grolschevik wrote: »

I would have thought that a reasonable interpretation of 'reasonable notice' would need to take account of the possibility of acquiring alternative accommodation in that timeframe, and would thus be related in some form to the state of the rental market in that area? Thoughts?

Well look at it this way. A licensee has as much rights as a guest in hotel or a B&B. Say a guest in the B&B was told it was non-smoking, no guests late at night and to keep noise to a minimum ( reasonable IMO since it is a family). He is staying there for 3 weeks with a project from work. Say the guest brings a one night back at 3am, smokes in the room and starts playing music.

The B&B asks them to leave the following day as they didnt follow the terms of the agreement. The guest discovers there is nothing free for 2 weeks in the area. Should the guest dispute not following the rules be allowed to live there for the next 2 weeks? I think you would agree it is reasonable for the guest to leave that day regardless of the availability in the area

Likewise why should a licensee in a house who knows they have no tenancy rights and basically are a guest in the eyes of the law like a hotel guests be giving anymore than a week to find a new place? If you want the security of a tenancy agreement, enter into one. It was not hard to find a place in 2009

Grolschevik

That just underlines my suggestion that the meaning of 'reasonable notice' might well be reasonably interpreted as context-dependent.

In the absence of a definitive legal determination, as MA notes, it's pretty much a moot point, but surely arguable.

But since pretty much the only avenue for a licensee's grievance is through the small claims procedure, I doubt it's an argument that will be tested any time soon.

Dial Hard

Grolschevik wrote:

But since pretty much the only avenue for a licensee's grievance is through the small claims procedure, I doubt it's an argument that will be tested any time soon.

Pretty sure the SCC wouldn't deal with such a claim. Their remit is very specific when dealing with private rental matters .

Grolschevik

Dial Hard wrote:

Pretty sure the SCC wouldn't deal with such a claim. Their remit is very specific when dealing with private rental matters .

I read somewhere recently that they could, and it was pretty much the only place for licensees. Could have been the RTB website or citizens info.

No guarantee it's accurate, though, but if you can pursue hotels etc through the small claims procedure, and licensees are deemed to be analogous to such guests, then...

Grolschevik

Grolschevik wrote:

I read somewhere recently that they could, and it was pretty much the only place for licensees. Could have been the RTB website or citizens info.

Grolschevik wrote:

No guarantee it's accurate, though, but if you can pursue hotels etc through the small claims procedure, and licensees are deemed to be analogous to such guests, then...

Edit: probably only relevant to deposit disputes, which would be clear more limited set of circumstances.

Grolschevik

So who is the arbiter of what constitutes 'reasonable notice'? And specifically 'reasonable notice' for a licensee?

There must have been disputes on this in the past?

MarkAnthony

The Small Claims procedure in the district courts deals with house share disputes.