Landlord entering at short notice or without permission - laws?

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Yet again you have provided a link to a case which you either misunderstand or has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, did you read it?

The reason the op's situation is a grey area is that from the start of the tenancy, and for some time there after, the daughter stayed there and the op was a licensee from the start. In the case you linked the appellant was a tenant from the start, paying rent along with another tenant to the landlord. The land lord only ever stayed there for 3 nites, 16 months after the appellant moved in and after notice was given. it would be nigh on impossible to claim a licensee arrangement existed in that case. The chairperson stated there is no definitive description of "resides" and even stated a case to back that.

If the op had a similar situation to the case you posted, this thread would be about 2 posts long, but the op doesn't have a case like that, it's very very different and if the LL says the daughter is still paying rent for the room she slept in for some time when the op moved in, then the chairperson not only would have to find that the op is not a licensee, but would also have to find that a rent paying tenant (daughter) is not legally a tenant. Now that would be an interesting turn of events.

The Chairman did not state a case. He cited a case. He says ordinarily resides must be given its ordinary meaning. He then went on to find there was not ordinary residence in that case. It is therefore the case that using a room as a store is not ordinary residence even if paying rent.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

http://rtb.ie/archive/2012%20Disputes/2012%20Tribunals/TR168.2011.DR92.2011/Report.pdf

What the Act says is that the landlord must "ordinarily reside" at the property in order to be outside the purvey of the RTB. Using a room as a store does not constitute ordinary residence.

One RTB ruling suggested that if rooms are let seperately then the people renting there don't have exclusive use of the common areas and thus the LL can enter as he wants and they are considered licences. That was without the LL even having a room at all in the property.

4ensic15

Bodie Loud Sister-in-law wrote: »

One RTB ruling suggested that if rooms are let seperately then the people renting there don't have exclusive use of the common areas and thus the LL can enter as he wants and they are considered licences. That was without the LL even having a room at all in the property.

That ruling was later overturned by the RTB.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

The Chairman did not state a case. He cited a case. He says ordinarily resides must be given its ordinary meaning. He then went on to find there was not ordinary residence in that case. It is therefore the case that using a room as a store is not ordinary residence even if paying rent.

Yes, in that case. And in that case the LL never lived there and both rooms were let to tenants. Are you able to see the difference between that case and the op's?

Would the RTB tell a renter that they are not actually entitled to rent a room even though they are paying rent and have not been evicted? Have they ever told a renter that along with paying rent, you also have to sleep there and if you don't, the LL can remove you because you don't ordinarily reside there so you have no rights? A lot of LLs would be very interested in that, it would allow easy and quick evictions of anyone who doesn't sleep in their property. Of course not, in the op's case the daughter is renting the room, has been since the op moved in, it just happens that living with a child of the LL is the same as living with the LL when it comes to defining the type of tenancy the op has.

Elliott S

Isn't the decent thing to do to give notice instead of just letting oneself in? Even in a licensee situation, it just seems like good manners to give notice. Not legally required but just the decent thing to do.

riclad

in a licensee situation ,the landlord is renting 1 or more rooms, while living in the house at least part of the week,
Therefore the landlord does not need to give notice to anyone.
in this case ,the landlord is not living there , she retains one room for storage.she gives notice by text,before entering the house
But i dont think its a good idea to go to the prtb in this case .

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Yes, in that case. And in that case the LL never lived there and both rooms were let to tenants. Are you able to see the difference between that case and the op's?

Would the RTB tell a renter that they are not actually entitled to rent a room even though they are paying rent and have not been evicted? Have they ever told a renter that along with paying rent, you also have to sleep there and if you don't, the LL can remove you because you don't ordinarily reside there so you have no rights? A lot of LLs would be very interested in that, it would allow easy and quick evictions of anyone who doesn't sleep in their property. Of course not, in the op's case the daughter is renting the room, has been since the op moved in, it just happens that living with a child of the LL is the same as living with the LL when it comes to defining the type of tenancy the op has.

A person can be a tenant without being ordinarily resident. The key issue in this scenario is ordinary residence.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Yes, in that case. And in that case the LL never lived there and both rooms were let to tenants. Are you able to see the difference between that case and the op's?

Would the RTB tell a renter that they are not actually entitled to rent a room even though they are paying rent and have not been evicted? Have they ever told a renter that along with paying rent, you also have to sleep there and if you don't, the LL can remove you because you don't ordinarily reside there so you have no rights? A lot of LLs would be very interested in that, it would allow easy and quick evictions of anyone who doesn't sleep in their property. Of course not, in the op's case the daughter is renting the room, has been since the op moved in, it just happens that living with a child of the LL is the same as living with the LL when it comes to defining the type of tenancy the op has.

Once the daughter moved out there is no difference. It is possible to be a tenant but not be ordinarily resident. On the facts given here the daughter does not ordinarily reside in the house. She uses a room as a store and visits from time to time. The entirfe turns on ordinary residence not on any rent the daughter might be paying. In my experience the RTB would be very sceptical of claims that rent was being paid by a non resident to a landlord who happened to be her father, and the purpose of which was to try and avoid the creation of a tenancy.

_Roz_

Oooh this thread just kept right on going after I stopped looking in on it!

Fun update: We're all getting turfed out, as I suspected, to let the landlord's daughter reclaim the entire house. It's legit, we're being given two months notice and the two housemates with actual leases (whatever their legal worth - the leases, not the housemates) are reaching the end of those leases in that time.

Landlord calling over this evening to discuss it. Yaaaay.

4ensic15

_Roz_ wrote: »

Oooh this thread just kept right on going after I stopped looking in on it!

Fun update: We're all getting turfed out, as I suspected, to let the landlord's daughter reclaim the entire house. It's legit, we're being given two months notice and the two housemates with actual leases (whatever their legal worth - the leases, not the housemates) are reaching the end of those leases in that time.

Landlord calling over this evening to discuss it. Yaaaay.

Are the leases still running? The RTB have a view on giving notice while there is still a lease in being.