Took in a cat, landlord's wife causing trouble

TheDoc

the_syco wrote: »

Highlighted the part, as it seems most posters so far have missed the part where the landlord is totally okay with the cat, but his wife isn't.

Also, for anyone that thinks there are any issues with pets, see the below;

I was just going to post this.

OP mentioned landlord indicated cat was fine and made no comment, the wife then commented to get rid. OP has a distinctive landlord, not a couple to deal with. While I've had no issues with landlords, they have always been couples, and I've always asked who is the actual landlord for clarity. First time round was the husband, second time was the wife, current landlord is the husband of a couple.

And as the OP says, there is no lease, its a casual verbal agreement. So all this "go check your lease" is just typical jumping the facts of the post.

I'd a similar arrangement in our first rented property. No lease, asked for landlords do's and don't and he said treat it like your home, and don't paint the place black. We got a dog, landlord became aware of it and thought nothing of it.

Second landlord lease had no pets, but verbal agreement our dog was cool.

In fairness OP you should at some point be getting in touch with Animal services. Granted you might be attached to the cat, it might be someone elses who are worried sick its missing.

And if push does come to shove, and you like where you live, just bite the bullet and contact pet services who will take the cat into care.

I also love the speculation so many people jump to on threads like this. You can have a landlord/ tenant relationship with a shake of a hand, and no lease. It happens people, it doesn't mean you are a licensee or some weird dodgy dealing. It just means both parties got a good vibe and neither pushed with paperwork.

Tar.Aldarion

Paulw wrote: »

There may be rules forbidding pets. The landlady may simply be informing you that they are enforcing that, and you must get rid of the pet.

The fact that her husband thinks it's cute is not the point.

Check what your lease says about pets, and also check if there are "House Rules" that forbid pets.

You may have no right to keep the pet.

What happens after a lease runs out and somebody is on a part IV? I would imagine added things like pets in the lease would be void?

At the end of the day it is not legislated for so the landlord can't really do anything?

Claw Hammer

Santana Orange Photography wrote: »

If there was a locked internal door between where they live they would never meet each other inside but they would still be licensees.

No they wouldn't. The fact that the landlord can walk between the two but chooses not to means that he does not liven in the same dwelling as the tenants. Dwelling does not mean building.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

No they wouldn't. The fact that the landlord can walk between the two but chooses not to means that he does not liven in the same dwelling as the tenants. Dwelling does not mean building.

Yes they would, they are living in the same dwelling the LL choosing not to go into their part of the building means nothing. By your logic a person renting a room is a tenant because the fact the LL chooses not to enter their bedroom means he has no right to.

An interior door on a hallway does not separate the building into two different dwelling, they are under the same roof, its all the same house, the licensee is just left alone in their part of it the same as a person renting a bedroom is left alone in their room.

From revenue:

"4.2 Self-contained unit
It is not possible to let an entire residence because the room or rooms that are let must
form part of the residence and the residence must be occupied by the individual
receiving the rent as his/her sole or main residence. The room or rooms can comprise
a self-contained unit within the residence such as a basement flat or a converted
garage attached to the residence. However, a self-contained unit that is adjacent to the
residence but not actually attached to it cannot qualify for the relief."

If you are claiming rent a room relief then naturally the person is a licensee and not a tenant as to claim rent a room relief you have to live in the same residence as the owner and if you live with them you are a licensee.

athtrasna

Santana Orange Photography wrote: »

Yes they would, they are living in the same dwelling the LL choosing not to go into their part of the building means nothing. By your logic a person renting a room is a tenant because the fact the LL chooses not to enter their bedroom means he has no right to.

An interior door on a hallway does not separate the building into two different dwelling, they are under the same roof, its all the same house, the licensee is just left alone in their part of it the same as a person renting a bedroom is left alone in their room.

From revenue:

"4.2 Self-contained unit
It is not possible to let an entire residence because the room or rooms that are let must
form part of the residence and the residence must be occupied by the individual
receiving the rent as his/her sole or main residence. The room or rooms can comprise
a self-contained unit within the residence such as a basement flat or a converted
garage attached to the residence. However, a self-contained unit that is adjacent to the
residence but not actually attached to it cannot qualify for the relief."

If you are claiming rent a room relief then naturally the person is a licensee and not a tenant as to claim rent a room relief you have to live with the owner and if you live with them you are a licensee.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter. It's the landlord's property.

Claw Hammer

Santana Orange Photography wrote: »

Yes they would, they are living in the same dwelling the LL choosing not to go into their part of the building means nothing. By your logic a person renting a room is a tenant because the fact the LL chooses not to enter their bedroom means he has no right to.

An interior door on a hallway does not separate the building into two different dwelling, they are under the same roof, its all the same house, the licensee is just left alone in their part of it the same as a person renting a bedroom is left alone in their room.

From revenue:

"4.2 Self-contained unit
It is not possible to let an entire residence because the room or rooms that are let must
form part of the residence and the residence must be occupied by the individual
receiving the rent as his/her sole or main residence. The room or rooms can comprise
a self-contained unit within the residence such as a basement flat or a converted
garage attached to the residence. However, a self-contained unit that is adjacent to the
residence but not actually attached to it cannot qualify for the relief."

If you are claiming rent a room relief then naturally the person is a licensee and not a tenant as to claim rent a room relief you have to live in the same residence as the owner and if you live with them you are a licensee.

That is the Revenue position. The RTA position is different. If it is a separate dwelling then the occupants are tenants. What the Revenue want to do about the tax is entirely different.

Residential Tenancies Act 2004
25.—(1) This Part does not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling where the conditions specified in subsection (2) are satisfied if the landlord of the dwelling opts, in accordance with subsection (3), for this Part not to apply to it.

(2) Those conditions are—

(a) the dwelling concerned is one of 2 dwellings within a building,

(b) that building, as originally constructed, comprised a single dwelling, and

(c) the landlord resides in the other dwelling.

(3) A landlord's opting as mentioned in subsection (1) shall be signified in writing in a notice served by him or her on the tenant before the commencement of the tenancy.

(4) This Part does not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling—

(a) if the landlord of the dwelling is entitled, in relation to expenditure incurred on the construction of, conversion into, or, as the case may be, refurbishment of, the dwelling, to a deduction of the kind referred to in section 380B(2), 380C(4) or 380D(2) (inserted by the Finance Act 1999 ) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 , or

(b) if the entitlement of the tenant to occupy the dwelling is connected with his or her continuance in any office, appointment or employment.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is the Revenue position. The RTA position is different. If it is a separate dwelling then the occupants are tenants. What the Revenue want to do about the tax is entirely different.

Residential Tenancies Act 2004
25.—(1) This Part does not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling where the conditions specified in subsection (2) are satisfied if the landlord of the dwelling opts, in accordance with subsection (3), for this Part not to apply to it.

(2) Those conditions are—

(a) the dwelling concerned is one of 2 dwellings within a building,

(b) that building, as originally constructed, comprised a single dwelling, and

(c) the landlord resides in the other dwelling.

(3) A landlord's opting as mentioned in subsection (1) shall be signified in writing in a notice served by him or her on the tenant before the commencement of the tenancy.

(4) This Part does not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling—

(a) if the landlord of the dwelling is entitled, in relation to expenditure incurred on the construction of, conversion into, or, as the case may be, refurbishment of, the dwelling, to a deduction of the kind referred to in section 380B(2), 380C(4) or 380D(2) (inserted by the Finance Act 1999 ) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 , or

(b) if the entitlement of the tenant to occupy the dwelling is connected with his or her continuance in any office, appointment or employment.

I would disagree with the RTA definition and would imagine it wouldn't stand up if challenged, there is no place for tenancy rules when you are living under the LLs roof. In any case all you would need to do is tell the person renting the self contained unit that they don't have exclusive use and pop in and make a cup of tea in the kitchen of the unit every now and again and that's any notion of a tenancy out the window.

Grolschevik

Ellie Quiet Grout wrote:

I would disagree with the RTA definition and would imagine it wouldn't stand up if challenged, there is no place for tenancy rules when you are living under the LLs roof. In any case all you would need to do is tell the person renting the self contained unit that they don't have exclusive use and pop in and make a cup of tea in the kitchen of the unit every now and again and that's any notion of a tenancy out the window.

Nonsense.

1. You disagree with the definition set out in the established law relating to tenancies, and you don't think it would stand up to a challenge. Good for you.

2. Technically, the phrase "under the landlord's some" could be taken to refer to any property owned by the landlord. So does that mean that there is no place for tenancy rules in any rental agreement? Your argument is tending that way because...

3. All a landlord apparently has to do to establish a licensee arrangement rather than a tenancy is to let himself in and make a cup of tea every so often, regardless of where the landlord actually lives. And regardless of the rights of the tenant to quiet enjoyment.

We've had this discussion before, and I'm not going to engage with you on it further, except to say that repeating something ad nauseam does not make it correct.

And that your argument is dangerous, in that some landlord might actually take it seriously.

Claw Hammer

Santana Orange Photography wrote: »

I would disagree with the RTA definition and would imagine it wouldn't stand up if challenged, there is no place for tenancy rules when you are living under the LLs roof. In any case all you would need to do is tell the person renting the self contained unit that they don't have exclusive use and pop in and make a cup of tea in the kitchen of the unit every now and again and that's any notion of a tenancy out the window.

You disagree with the RTA definition? The RTA definition is the law. Where would you challenge it?

Michael D Not Higgins

Thread Closed.

I think the OP has enough advice. They can PM me if they wish the thread to be re-opened with any additional information that would change the already provided advice.