Landlord want me Out!!!!

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Definitely not, the LL needs to actually reside there. You cannot claim you reside there if you have another residence which is your main residence. There are no loopholes to exploit here, the act applies to all residential property unless excluded

Of course you can reside in more than one place. You can't claim rent a room relief if its not your main residence but you can certainly reside in more than one place.

davindub wrote: »

The tenancy is a shared situation, they share part 4 rights. Yes the LL can give notice to all the tenants, it has not been litigated yet where the LL can select a single tenant to terminate. I would think that he would be required to give notice to all tenants as when the LL moves back in, their tenancy will also end and they will no longer have the protections of the act to rely on. If they choose to remain they will become "licensees" as some people call it.

Why would they share part 4 right when if they are tenants they have separate rental agreements with the LL and are only paying rent for their room with no obligation to pay the rest of the rent were say another tenant to do a runner.

If 4 people move into a house as a group and they all have one single lease with the LL, are named on this and pay their combined rent to the LL then they have a shared part 4 rights and are essentially one entity where one could not be asked to move out etc. Each one of them is also responsible for the entire rent were the other 3 to move out, they have to re-write the lease if someone moves out in order to account for a new person etc etc.

On the other hand if the LL rents 4 rooms separately, with each person having their own agreement to pay their rent separately to the LL, they are only liable for their rent etc then while the first 4 people who move into the house may acquire part 4 rights at the same time they are in no way linked and the LL could ask one tenant to move out (if they are in fact tenants not licensees). Then after a few years the house may have one person renting a room from the original 4, but the other 3 may have moved out and you now have 3 people renting rooms for various different time periods so how can they possibly share part 4 rights? How can a new person moving in, renting just a room have the same rights as the person renting a room for years?

They can't is the answer.

Marcusm wrote: »

I fundamentally disagree with your point 2) and have explained my reasoning based on the law. What is your reasoning? You cannot simply make up facts such as treating them as separate apartments. A "dwelling" is a self contained unit comprising living, sleeping, cooking and sanitary facilities. At no stage has the OP suggested that sort of set up.

You cannot simply import facts or create new aspects of the law which don't exist. It neither helps the OP nor the flow of the discussion.

My reasoning is very simple and explained above, how can 4 people unconnected to each other, all having separate agreements with the LL and living in the house for various different amounts of time possibly have mutual rights. Further if one moves out by choice the LL can move in anybody he likes (or himself) to replace them. This cannot be done in a situation where a full house has been rented under one agreement is an additional considerable difference between the two situations. All bar one of the places I've lived were rooms let separately house shares, people could move out when they wanted the LLs could move in new people to replace them, if there was vacant time my rent was still the same never having to make up the missing rent etc etc. Its totally different to renting a full house under one agreement' particularly as I've said numerous times the lack of exclusive use of the property by any of the people renting the room could actually mean they are licensees as it has yet to be fully clarified and the RTB have found in the past that people in this set up are licensees.

_Jamie_

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

Of course you can reside in more than one place. You can't claim rent a room relief if its not your main residence but you can certainly reside in more than one place.

You need to be ordinarily resident in the house for the occupants to be licensees. Showing up the odd weekend wouldn't cut it. If it was so easy to extinguish tenant rights by keeping a room free in the house, why don't more landlords do it?

_Jamie_

_Jamie_ wrote: »

You need to be ordinarily resident in the house for the occupants to be licensees. Showing up the odd weekend wouldn't cut it. If it was so easy to extinguish tenant rights by keeping a room free in the house, why don't more landlords do it?

Staying there a day here and a day there and coming and going from the house thus retaining your right of access would make the other people in the house licensees. How could they be tenants since the LL having access is not allowed under tenancy rules and there is certainly no way you can prevent a LL who has kept a room from day 1 and uses it from accessing his room or having to give notice to other people in the house when he is calling.

Why don't more do it? I think an awful lot of people don't understand the finer details of tenancy law etc well most dont even understand the major details to be fair so wouldn't even know this. Most people wouldn't even know what a licensee is. There is a bit of extra work involved with it and a bit less rent also which would put people off too along with many other reasons. There is no doubt that if I were renting a place it would be an avenue I would be looking to go down to avoid being stuck with bad/no paying tenants etc etc.

Graham

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

Staying there a day here and a day there and coming and going from the house thus retaining your right of access would make the other people in the house licensees. How could they be tenants since the LL having access is not allowed under tenancy rules and there is certainly no way you can prevent a LL who has kept a room from day 1 and uses it from accessing his room or having to give notice to other people in the house when he is calling.

There are determinations on the RTB website where a landlord has claimed they maintain a room (such that occupants are licensees) but the RTB have determined a tenancy (or multiple tenancies) exist.

_Jamie_

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

Staying there a day here and a day there and coming and going from the house thus retaining your right of access would make the other people in the house licensees. How could they be tenants since the LL having access is not allowed under tenancy rules and there is certainly no way you can prevent a LL who has kept a room from day 1 and uses it from accessing his room or having to give notice to other people in the house when he is calling.

The tenants can say that the landlord doesn't live there and the onus would be on the landlord to prove that he does. A few days a month would not be enough to claim residence and the establishment of residence is the difference between them being tenants and licensees. I believe the most recent court ruling in this area showed this to be the case.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

There are determinations on the RTB website where a landlord has claimed they maintain a room (such that occupants are licensees) but the RTB have determined a tenancy (or multiple tenancies) exist.

How can the LL enter and leave as he pleases (which he is entitled to do if he uses a room in the house) if the others are tenants as he would be breaching the conditions in the RTA.

On the other hand even if it is the case it does prove my point that renting room separately is a very different set up to renting a full house under one agreement.

also if I'm remembering that case correctly the property owner almost never stayed there nor regularly entered the dwelling. You can't use that case to be sure the same out come in another case especially if the person makes it their business to be in the property regularly.

_Jamie_ wrote: »

The tenants can say that the landlord doesn't live there and the onus would be on the landlord to prove that he does.

The onus would be very much on the tenants to prove he doesn't. Keeps all bills there, visit and stay fairly regularly and "sure doesn't he leave early and arrive late all the time" and how can the others in the house say with any certainty when and when not he slept there.

Graham

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

also if I'm remembering that case correctly the property owner almost never stayed there nor regularly entered the dwelling. You can't use that case to be sure the same out come in another case especially if the person makes it their business to be in the property regularly.

you also can't categorically state that because a landlord maintains a room, the other occupants are going to be found to be licensees.

Being realistic here, you can argue a specific interpretation of the law until you're blue in the face, it's largely irrelevant. Unless you have incredibly deep pockets, it's the RTBs interpretation of the law that matters.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

you also can't categorically state that because a landlord maintains a room, the other occupants are going to be found to be licensees.

Being realistic here, you can argue a specific interpretation of the law until you're blue in the face, it's largely irrelevant. Unless you have incredibly deep pockets, it's the RTBs interpretation of the law that matters.

Hence why I called it a grey area from the beginning. It could go either way but its better for people to understand this rather than be extremely confident one way or the other.

Graham

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

Hence why I called it a grey area from the beginning. It could go either way but its better for people to understand this rather than be extremely confident one way or the other.

If I were a tenant, I'd certainly fancy my chances that the RTB Magic 8-Ball of determinations would roll in my favour.

The_Conductor

Graham wrote: »

If I were a tenant, I'd certainly fancy my chances that the RTB Magic 8-Ball of determinations would roll in my favour.

Why?
The landlord has stated its for personal use- all he/she has to do is give a valid notice of the end of the tenancy to the tenant- and they have dotted their 'i's and crossed their 't's......

The landlord has actively stated he requires the room for personal use- as he is moving job back into the area.

A valid reason to end the tenancy has been given.

The people who are out of joint here- are the remaining tenants- who will loose their tenancy rights if/when the landlord formally moves back into the property fulltime.

Whether or not the OP is a tenant or a licensee- doesn't really come into it- if the landlord is exercising the right to end the tenancy based on a personal need of the property- which they apparently are doing.

OP- from what you've said here- the landlord should by rights be notifying all the tenants- however, the only people with a valid case- are the 3 people he hasn't notified- not you (providing of course he formally notifies you).

The fact that you have lived there for 7 years (or however long) does not preclude the landlord reclaiming the property for personal use- its a specific right enshrined in the act.

If your tenancy is ended on the grounds the landlord requires the property for personal use- and you move out- and he/she does not move in- then you have a case for an invalid notice of termination of tenancy- but not until such time as he/she does not move in- or someone other than they moves in.

_Jamie_

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

The onus would be very much on the tenants to prove he doesn't. Keeps all bills there, visit and stay fairly regularly and "sure doesn't he leave early and arrive late all the time" and how can the others in the house say with any certainty when and when not he slept there.

Dear lord, if this is your own plan, how dumb will your future tenants have to be to think that? If they raised an objection, it would be up to you, not them, to prove you are ordinarily resident there. And as you'd be paying income tax and filling out tax returns on the income, I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to figure out that it is not your main residence.

Graham

The_Conductor wrote: »

Why?
The landlord has stated its for personal use- all he/she has to do is give a valid notice of the end of the tenancy to the tenant- and they have dotted their 'i's and crossed their 't's......

For the appropriate notice periods if nothing else.

The_Conductor

Graham wrote: »

For the appropriate notice periods if nothing else.

Yes, of course- the correct period of notice must be given.

_Jamie_

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Dear lord, if this is your own plan, how dumb will your future tenants have to be to think that? If they raised an objection, it would be up to you, not them, to prove you are ordinarily resident there. And as you'd be paying income tax and filling out tax returns on the income, I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to figure out that it is not your main residence.

How? Again it does not have to be your main residence this is a requirement for availing of the rent a room scheme.

For example if I owned a house down the country and a house in Dublin and was in Dublin for business twice a week and stayed in a room in the house while renting out the others then I could under no circumstance claim the rent a room relief on the income (so would have to make a return etc) but the others in the house would be licensees as the owner is very regularly living, eating and sleeping in the property.

Look on it another way, a place could be your primary residence and you might stay there less than in the above scenario if you say travelled a lot of business and stayed in hotels etc most weeks only returning at the weekend. You can even claim rent a room relief in this scenario.

Graham

The_Conductor wrote: »

Yes, of course- the correct period of notice must be given.

Which could be months of notice given the length of time the OP has lived there.

Cuddlesworth

From your posts.

The landlord comes and goes when he wants.
Stays over when he wants.
Rents rooms to people in which you have no say over.

I'm also going to assume that the bills are in his name.


Sorry, but your a licensee.

What is a Licensee?
2-persons sharing a house/apartment with its owner e.g. under the ‘rent a room’ scheme or ‘in digs’
3-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

I've looking into this in depth for some of my past employers and out of curiosity on this forum, the RTB would consider somebody in your situation as nto being under their remit(if the landlord contests). And I've never seen a contradictory judgement from them about this.

Graham

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Sorry, but your a licensee.

What is a Licensee?
2-persons sharing a house/apartment with its owner e.g. under the ‘rent a room’ scheme or ‘in digs’
3-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

I've looking into this in depth for some of my past employers and out of curiosity on this forum, the RTB would consider somebody in your situation as nto being under their remit(if the landlord contests). And I've never seen a contradictory judgement from them about this.

It would be interesting to see what the RTB definition of a 'formal license arrangement' is. OP considers themselves a tenant which may suggest no such 'formal license arrangement' exists.

Cuddlesworth

Graham wrote: »

It would be interesting to see what the RTB definition of a 'formal license arrangement' is. OP considers themselves a tenant which may suggest no such 'formal license arrangement' exists.

If they are renting the exclusive use of only a room, then its a formal license arrangement. Regardless of the OP being aware of it or not.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

It would be interesting to see what the RTB definition of a 'formal license arrangement' is. OP considers themselves a tenant which may suggest no such 'formal license arrangement' exists.

There is no such thing as a "formal licensee arrangement". Renting as a licensee is by its nature a very informal setup. It's up to the person to know their rights or lack of them they don't have to be informed upfront.

I'd guess that the vast majority of people who are licensees don't know it.

Graham

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

There is no such thing as a "formal licensee arrangement".

You should tell the RTB, the link Cuddlesworth posted is the RTB "What is a licensee" question/answer.

Lui_meme_Elle

Hi All,

Thank you all for your replies.

Yes - LL comes to the house once in 3 months time, could be longer before he visit the house (he could be around but then at his 2nd propriety)

Yes- we all pay rent+bills directly to LL, and he pays the bills (LL is not willing to leave it to one tenant, as if 1 or 2 leave the house, the remained 2 would have to pay the bills this might cause some issues, higher bill contribution) so LL is controlling this, and Yes all bills letters are sent to the rented house with LL name on it.

We have access to all common area kitchen/living room/garden ect...

And when i first moved there the room was listed on daft as NOT owner occupied, and he was still advertising the others room the same way, so he is NOT a resident at this address (officially), reason why i consider myself as a Tenant and NOT a Licensee.

LL doesn't live there.

3-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

From the horses mouth so to speak (the rta) basically backing up my earlier point that the LL does not have to live there for the people to be licensees if they are renting rooms seperately and he retains his access to the property.

Graham

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

From the horses mouth so to speak (the rta) basically backing up my earlier point that the LL does not have to live there for the people to be licensees if they are renting rooms seperately and he retains his access to the property.

You are ignoring what you quoted "under a formal license arrangement".

Graham

Graham wrote: »

You are ignoring what you quoted "under a formal license arrangement".

Because it states "not resident under a formal license arrangement". i.e. there is no formal licensee agreement. As has been stated before there is no need for any formalities from the person renting out the room.

Its the same as not having a written lease does not mean you aren't a tenant or can not acquire part 4 right. A person living in an arrangement where they are a licensee is a licensee whether they know it or not, they dont have to be informed of the situation.

Graham

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

Because it states "not resident under a formal license arrangement". i.e. there is no formal licensee agreement.

where the owner is not resident under a formal license arrangement

Again, it's irrelevant how you or I interpret the OPs status. It's the RTB that matters should the OP decide to pursue the matter.

Lui_meme_Elle

Lui_meme_Elle wrote: »

i consider myself as a Tenant and NOT a Licensee

In your case, the most relevant distinction between a tenant and licensee is that as a tenant you are entitled to a hefty 28 weeks notice to leave, has your landlord given you a timeframe? Either way, he can evict you.

Why don't you believe that he wants the room for himself? It would be incredibly stupid to illegally evict you while retaining your housemates just to get a bit more rent.

Cuddlesworth

Graham wrote: »

where the owner is not resident under a formal license arrangement

Again, it's irrelevant how you or I interpret the OPs status. It's the RTB that matters should the OP decide to pursue the matter.

Do you sign a formal license arrangement when you sign into a hotel? Or when you rent a B&B room? Or rent a air B&B? Or stay in a owners house?

She rented a room in the house. That's her formal licensee agreement. You seem to have this idea that unless she signed some non-existent agreement, she will always be considered a tenant.

This is the important part
"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"
She went in knowing she was renting a room for x amount. That's her license arrangement. She had no bills, she shared the house with others, she had no say on who came and went.

Lui_meme_Elle wrote: »

Hi All,

Thank you all for your replies.

Yes - LL comes to the house once in 3 months time, could be longer before he visit the house (he could be around but then at his 2nd propriety)

Yes- we all pay rent+bills directly to LL, and he pays the bills (LL is not willing to leave it to one tenant, as if 1 or 2 leave the house, the remained 2 would have to pay the bills this might cause some issues, higher bill contribution) so LL is controlling this, and Yes all bills letters are sent to the rented house with LL name on it.

We have access to all common area kitchen/living room/garden ect...

And when i first moved there the room was listed on daft as NOT owner occupied, and he was still advertising the others room the same way, so he is NOT a resident at this address (officially), reason why i consider myself as a Tenant and NOT a Licensee.

LL doesn't live there.

The landlord living there doesn't matter. You didn't rent a house, you rented a room and he never gave a inch in the years against that. The RTB has to this point viewed that as a licensee arrangement.

And regardless, even if you were a tenant(your not), he has invoked a valid rule for you to leave.

I'd suggest taking the notice, getting a new place to live with your deposit going with you.

Graham

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

She rented a room in the house. That's her formal licensee agreement. You seem to have this idea that unless she signed some non-existent agreement, she will always be considered a tenant.

OK, I'll try again.

That is verbatim the RTBs interpretation not mine.

That aside, your assertion that a formal license agreement can exist informally is a curious concept.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

And regardless, even if you were a tenant(your not), he has invoked a valid rule for you to leave.

I don't think anyone disagreed, it's potentially the amount of notice that's at issue.

Lui_meme_Elle

Thank you All.

I think i will move on, going to move somewhere else, even tho i am still surprised that none of the others tenants have been informed about his future plan.... well now they all know via me , by asking them...

I could get up to 5 months notice period before vacating the place ... not going down that road, i will just look for a new place and move on asap, if even i am not a fan of changes.

davindub

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Do you sign a formal license arrangement when you sign into a hotel? Or when you rent a B&B room? Or rent a air B&B? Or stay in a owners house?

She rented a room in the house. That's her formal licensee agreement. You seem to have this idea that unless she signed some non-existent agreement, she will always be considered a tenant.

This is the important part
"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"
She went in knowing she was renting a room for x amount. That's her license arrangement. She had no bills, she shared the house with others, she had no say on who came and went.




The landlord living there doesn't matter. You didn't rent a house, you rented a room and he never gave a inch in the years against that. The RTB has to this point viewed that as a licensee arrangement.

And regardless, even if you were a tenant(your not), he has invoked a valid rule for you to leave.

I'd suggest taking the notice, getting a new place to live with your deposit going with you.

You do know that the information on the website there is just a quick guide?

The act specifically states that the LL must reside there, it is the act that is actually considered for the purposes of the legislation. Not someones attempt to explain the situation on a website. All the person is stating there is that there are some cases not covered by the RTB act, this does not form a legal opinion you can rely on, and I believe the point is that if you rent a room in the landlords house / home , where he normally resides, you do not gain tenancy rights.

Have you actually looked at cases to prove your point? Have a read of some of these, http://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/prtb-dispute-outcomes?year=0&key1=licensee&key2=&key3=&exactMatch=false&dt=all