Fr Peter McVerry wants licencees to be given tenancy rights

Harvey Normal

Yusuf Brave Pane wrote: »

Leaving aside the as yet grey area that people renting rooms are in many peoples opinion (including my own) actually licensees I would just prefer this setup as its more likley people will move on rather than dig their heals in and refuse to pay rent etc, if one person stops paying rent you still have the rent from others in the house coming in, it tends to be younger professionals doing it for a few years who often move on so again less chance of heels being dug in and over holding like say a family with kids might and many other reasons.

I've no idea what you mean by "renting rooms". Is this a house full of bedrooms or what? Do people pay extra to use the kitchen or living room? Is the corridor tolled?

Nor do I see much advantage to the landlord. You could wreck his room and how can he get recourse. Nor do I see an advantage to the room renter who would have no rights.

Hard to believe this goes on, a verbal contract to live in a house?

antoinolachtnai

campingcarist wrote: »

Furthermore, the landlord should return the deposit to a vacating tenant as legally that is the tenant's money. It is legally incorrect for tenants to pass deposits from one to the other though in Ireland this is the way it is done.

The landlord is extremely unlikely to return the deposit or part of it until he has been returned full vacant possession of the property. This will obviously only happen in a co-tenants situation if all the tenants leave. An individual tenant leaving is not entitled to his money back.

Clear documentation is a good idea. The only problem is that it entails work for the landlord and you should not be surprised if he expects to be paid a fee for doing it.

Harvey Normal

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The landlord is extremely unlikely to return the deposit or part of it until he has been returned full vacant possession of the property. This will obviously only happen in a co-tenants situation if all the tenants leave. An individual tenant leaving is not entitled to his money back.

Clear documentation is a good idea. The only problem is that it entails work for the landlord and you should not be surprised if he expects to be paid a fee for doing it.

Although tenants can swap deposits if they choose to do that the landlord does in fact legally owe the tenant taken off the lease his deposit.

antoinolachtnai

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Although tenants can swap deposits if they choose to do that the landlord does in fact legally owe the tenant taken off the lease his deposit.

That may be so, but he is unlikely to be willing to repay it except at the end of the tenancy. (Nor is he obliged to from what I know.)

4ensic15

Harvey Normal wrote: »

I've no idea what you mean by "renting rooms". Is this a house full of bedrooms or what? Do people pay extra to use the kitchen or living room? Is the corridor tolled?

Nor do I see much advantage to the landlord. You could wreck his room and how can he get recourse. Nor do I see an advantage to the room renter who would have no rights.

Hard to believe this goes on, a verbal contract to live in a house?

It is a common enough arrangement. A colleague of mine lives in a house with 6 bedrooms rented individually. No written agreements. Utility bills are divided by 6. Access to kitchen, bathrooms and sitting room is shared. One occupant acts as manager and collects the rent and passes it on to the landlord. The advantage for the LL is that the house is always 5/6 full and it is usually a very swift process to replace a departing occupant. Occupants have no joint and several liability and can move out when they want.

Harvey Normal

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is a common enough arrangement. A colleague of mine lives in a house with 6 bedrooms rented individually. No written agreements. Utility bills are divided by 6. Access to kitchen, bathrooms and sitting room is shared. One occupant acts as manager and collects the rent and passes it on to the landlord. The advantage for the LL is that the house is always 5/6 full and it is usually a very swift process to replace a departing occupant. Occupants have no joint and several liability and can move out when they want.

Hmm. There's no way I would rent out like that. Someone could wreck the place and disappear.

Nor would I be a renter. Could be kicked out at any time.

It's hard to imagine how this even starts off though. Even in Ireland when I rented I went through estate agents.

4ensic15

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Hmm. There's no way I would rent out like that. Someone could wreck the place and disappear.

A group can go in, wreck the place and refuse to move. Damage and losses can be far worse. generally the people already in the house are careful to vet any incomer and monitor them. It is their home after all.

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Nor would I be a renter. Could be kicked out at any time.

there is rarely any reason to kick someone out. In a group letting with joint and several responsibility another tenant moving can trigger a break up.

Harvey Normal wrote: »

It's hard to imagine how this even starts off though. Even in Ireland when I rented I went through estate agents.

It starts off by a few rooms being advertised in accommodation sharing.

Kings Inns or bust

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The constitutional issue would really arise in relation to a 'family' as much as in relation to the protection of the dwelling.

Sure, there are many aspects that are regulated, but they aren't regulated by tenancy law. And laws do not impose on how you run your household. For sure, criminal law does apply. (Tax law does not 'regulate' anybody's behaviour, except the Revenue Commissioners. It just places an obligation to pay tax.)

Ultimately if you are unhappy as a licensee, you are going to have to move out. I can't see any way around that reality.

I'm not an expert on the subject to be sure, but I've never seen a Constitutional case even hinting that the legislature couldn't impose similar or even identical rights on people who choose to rent a room in their home to 'regular' landlords. There is a foolproof solution: Don't.

Harvey Normal

Harvey Normal wrote: »

I've no idea what you mean by "renting rooms". Is this a house full of bedrooms or what? Do people pay extra to use the kitchen or living room? Is the corridor tolled?

Renting rooms is very common in Ireland, of course I mean renting bedrooms individually with shared access to common areas but you know that well.

As others have said it either starts out as an add in the sharing section of daft with multiple rooms advertised separately or in some cases it might have originally been rented as a full house to a group of people but over the years people have moved in and out multiple times so no original people are there and the original lease is long forgotten so rooms are now filled on an individual basis as someone moves out with them paying their own deposit and their own individual rent.

Unlike the other poster who mentioned one person collecting rent for the group in my experience the LL has been paid by each individual separately except in one place I live where he called for the rent in cash and we used to just put it in a jar and who ever was there gave it to him.

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Nor do I see much advantage to the landlord. You could wreck his room and how can he get recourse. Nor do I see an advantage to the room renter who would have no rights.

Hard to believe this goes on, a verbal contract to live in a house?

He has as much recourse as if he rented the full place to a group, why do you think he wouldn't? Having a signed lease makes no difference to the LL as far as getting back money if the place is wrecked. It has the advantage of usually attracting younger professional who will move on and can be replaced with similar so little or no chance of over-holding by people who see it as "their house". Trouble makers will often be encouraged out by the others in the house rather than the LL having to deal with it (they would be impossible to get rid of if they had the full house lease), there is also less risk of lost rent as even if one individual stops paying you have the rent from the others. In a rising market there is also more scope for rising rent as you can raise the rent for a new individual moving in as he there is no lease running which might have a 2 year period between rent increases.

Its a big advantage to the renter, they are only responsible for their own rent not the other people in the house that's a massive advantage if living with strangers imo. You also very rarely have to give much notice if moving out etc which is another big advantage and its all nice and smooth both moving in and out as there is no paper work.

Overall I'd much prefer this method as a person living in a house share or if I was a LL with a property to let.

LuckyLloyd

I'd certainly prefer this scenario if I was a Landlord alright (added bonus of skimping on Tax in such an arrangement).
As a tenant? No thanks. I like my paperwork, legal rights and clear definitions of what is expected and allowable on both sides.

Yusuf Brave Pane wrote: »

He has as much recourse as if he rented the full place to a group, why do you think he wouldn't? Having a signed lease makes no difference to the LL as far as getting back money if the place is wrecked.

Ehhh, in the arrangements you are describing how can you prove to legal certainty who was living where? I think the lack of a lease and more informal arrangements bring advantages from the Landlord perspective (and some minor positives for renters that you have articulated which are imo outweighed by negatives) but there is also a heightened risk involved. I think arguing otherwise is folly.

4ensic15

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'd certainly prefer this scenario if I was a Landlord alright (added bonus of skimping on Tax in such an arrangement).
As a tenant? No thanks. I like my paperwork, legal rights and clear definitions of what is expected and allowable on both sides.



Ehhh, in the arrangements you are describing how can you prove to legal certainty who was living where? I think the lack of a lease and more informal arrangements bring advantages from the Landlord perspective (and some minor positives for renters that you have articulated which are imo outweighed by negatives) but there is also a heightened risk involved. I think arguing otherwise is folly.

What are the risks for the tenant?

LuckyLloyd

4ensic15 wrote: »

What are the risks for the tenant?

Of the arrangement described?

Asked to vacate without appropriate notice
Tenancy not registered so no recourse in case of dispute
No control over who you're living with

4ensic15

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Of the arrangement described?

Asked to vacate without appropriate notice
Tenancy not registered so no recourse in case of dispute
No control over who you're living with

You can be asked to vacate anywhere without appropriate notice.
The PRTB require registration and in any case non registration does not mean the tenant can't invoke the protection of the RTB.
In most cases the landlord will allow the existing tenants to vet newcomers and if a tenant is obnoxious the others will force them out. A lot better than being liable jointly and severally with someone you can't stand.

LuckyLloyd

4ensic15 wrote: »

You can be asked to vacate anywhere without appropriate notice.
The PRTB require registration and in any case non registration does not mean the tenant can't invoke the protection of the RTB.
In most cases the landlord will allow the existing tenants to vet newcomers and if a tenant is obnoxious the others will force them out. A lot better than being liable jointly and severally with someone you can't stand.

So not being on a lease and just being rented a room makes no difference to your status? You're afforded the same Chapter IV rights regardless?

4ensic15

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So not being on a lease and just being rented a room makes no difference to your status? You're afforded the same Chapter IV rights regardless?

That is the RTB view. A written lease is not necessary. A tenancy can be made orally as well as by writing.