Landlord want me Out!!!!

antoinolachtnai

It is a really difficult area. The landlord doesn't have to reside. If the landlord resides in the property, the act definitely doesn't apply. Residing doesn't mean that he has to be there all the time. An individual can have a number of residences for different purposes. There is a concept of 'principal private residence' for sure, but that is a tax concept, and not a land/tenancy law concept, and certainly nothing to do with the RTA. The Revenue Commissioners themselves famously argued that a famous businessman had a house in Dublin which was a residence of his, even though his principal private residence was in another jurisdiction.

The Act only applies to dwellings subject to a tenancy. If you rent a room, do you really have a tenancy? I don't really know. You can certainly argue it, but I really don't think the arrangement is in the nature of a tenancy, because most facilities are shared. Certainly, tenancy rights would give the other occupiers and the landlord very few rights to deal with a sharer who is extremely ill-mannered but whose behaviour falls short of antisocial behaviour.

It is great to look at cases, and it is a guideline, but these cases don't really set a precedent in any legal sense, one way or the other.

davindub

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It is a really difficult area. The landlord doesn't have to reside. If the landlord resides in the property, the act definitely doesn't apply. Residing doesn't mean that he has to be there all the time. An individual can have a number of residences for different purposes. There is a concept of 'principal private residence' for sure, but that is a tax concept, and not a land/tenancy law concept, and certainly nothing to do with the RTA. The Revenue Commissioners themselves famously argued that a famous businessman had a house in Dublin which was a residence of his, even though his principal private residence was in another jurisdiction.

The Act only applies to dwellings subject to a tenancy. If you rent a room, do you really have a tenancy? I don't really know. You can certainly argue it, but I really don't think the arrangement is in the nature of a tenancy, because most facilities are shared. Certainly, tenancy rights would give the other occupiers and the landlord very few rights to deal with a sharer who is extremely ill-mannered but whose behaviour falls short of antisocial behaviour.

It is great to look at cases, and it is a guideline, but these cases don't really set a precedent in any legal sense, one way or the other.

First reasonable argument presented regarding this, thank you.

There are other meanings of resides under tax acts, litter acts, etc. All are slightly different. But you consider the meaning and intention of the word within the context of the act.

Cases from the tribunal are indicative of what will happen at that process, you could even get the same adjudicators.

But look there are also a few high court cases to read, some of the judges go into a lot of detail in their judgements and their thoughts about the above.

But you are right, it is very hard to distinguish between the types of property rentals that exist and I don't really feel justice is served in a lot of cases, it is pretty easy to tell lies when there is no penalty if caught.

But the few judgements from the HC indicate that judges actually consider the amount of time spent there and amount of control exercised over the common areas. I don't know, if i was a LL I wouldn't risk it, I would serve notice to terminate the tenancy to all the tenants and let them appeal it if they want. Better that than a illegal eviction ....

antoinolachtnai

Where is there a list of high court judgements about the RTA?

davindub

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Where is there a list of high court judgements about the RTA?

Sorry you mean RTB?

There is no list you just have to search yourself but go to courts.ie, bailii.org or one of the paid databases, but here are a few http://courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/(GlobalSearch)?Openagent&SearchTerm=prtb&Scope=GLOBAL&l=EN&id=425 but you can be sure there are more not listed there, sometimes the search will miss out on them.

There was a case I remember from a project, Xhang v holohan or something similar, i dont see it on the list but i could be remembering the name wrong by now.

antoinolachtnai

RTA = Residential Tenancies Act!

The_Conductor

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Where is there a list of high court judgements about the RTA?

There aren't any (that I'm aware of)- because under the act- you *have* to go through the RTB- the high court only gets involved when a party lodges an application because of non-compliance with an adjudication or tribunal decision (and in about 98% of cases, even with non-compliance, there is still no case lodged, as the costs involved greatly exceed any recompense likely to be gained through the judicial system).

Michael D Not Higgins

The_Conductor wrote: »

There aren't any (that I'm aware of)- because under the act- you *have* to go through the RTB- the high court only gets involved when a party lodges an application because of non-compliance with an adjudication or tribunal decision (and in about 98% of cases, even with non-compliance, there is still no case lodged, as the costs involved greatly exceed any recompense likely to be gained through the judicial system).

Or in bringing a case on a point of law which is outside the remit of the RTB to answer.