Reserved rooms and occupied owners

steddyeddy · 08-02-2017 9:05pm #1

Hi everyone, I'm just wondering what are people's opinions on landlords "reserving a room" in a house. If they do this do they have to advertise the property as owner occupied? I've been renting in the UK for a while now, and it seems to me that Irish landlords are more resistant to the idea of staying away from the property.

Gumbo · 08-02-2017 9:31pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Hi everyone, I'm just wondering what are people's opinions on landlords "reserving a room" in a house. If they do this do they have to advertise the property as owner occupied? I've been renting in the UK for a while now, and it seems to me that Irish landlords are more resistant to the idea of staying away from the property.

Probably to claim rent a room tax relief?
Or simply to keep some personal belongings so they don't pay storage and don't have room for themselves?
Perfect excuse to drop in and out and inspect property without been over the top?

FishOnABike · 08-02-2017 9:47pm

Add to kceire's points that the landlord may also be trying to avoid the obligations of the residential tenancies act by creating a licencee situation rather than a tenancy.

Eric Cartman · 08-02-2017 9:50pm

no matter what the reason, I wouldn't be living there. You'd be on eggshells about everything.

steddyeddy · 08-02-2017 9:58pm

FishOnABike wrote: »

Add to kceire's points that the landlord may also be trying to avoid the obligations of the residential tenancies act by creating a licencee situation rather than a tenancy.

But do they have to advertise as occupied owner.

FishOnABike · 09-02-2017 1:18am

steddyeddy wrote: »

But do they have to advertise as occupied owner.

Most estate / letting agent ads have some form of disclaimer stating that the ad does not form part of a contract or words to that effect so I wouldn't rely 100% on anything in an ad. It might be advertised as a house share or rooms to let but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

I'd be fairly annoyed if it wasn't disclosed when initial enquiries were made and I wasted time by only finding out at a later stage.

Mrs OBumble · 09-02-2017 8:20am

steddyeddy wrote: »

But do they have to advertise as occupied owner.

No.

padd b1975 · 09-02-2017 4:57pm

I do it if I have a room rented. I work as an international national truck driver so I stay away for at least a month at a time.

Ideally I'd like to rent the property as a whole but if I leave my job then obviously I'll have nowhere to live.

I'd always give a quick text to the tenant a couple of days in advance of my return out of courtesy.

Samuel T. Cogley · 09-02-2017 7:47pm

Incidentally it's an idea that been completely invented in the Pub by a couple of Barrack Room Lawyers* and an accountant, whose formal qualification was a leaving cert maths. Reserving a room does absolutely nothing to negate the lease or remove rights under the RTA. The actual situation on the ground will always be looked at.

*no one of them wasn't me, I'm not that smart.

Spanish Eyes · 09-02-2017 7:55pm

If someone owns a house and has licencees there, there is no obligation on the house/apartment owner to live there full time to avail of the rent a room scheme. As long as the property is the owner's PPR that's fine.

Anyone can let out rooms, and keep a room for themselves if they are moving around.

They are owner occupiers and can do this.

Different scenario if someone lives elsewhere as their PPR and the rooms let out are in a property that is not the PPR of the owner.

This is from Citizen Advice.

"Your home must be located in the State and you must occupy it as your sole residence during the year of assessment. This means that it is your home for the greater part of the year and is where people would normally expect to make contact with you."

4ensic15 · 09-02-2017 9:18pm

The Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to a property in which the landlord also resides. That is a question of fact applied by the RTB. The revenue may take a different view. keeping a room available in a house and residing in a house are two different things. It would be very foolish to assume that keeping an empty room is a magic formula for avoiding the Tenancies Act.

09-02-2017 10:16pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Incidentally it's an idea that been completely invented in the Pub by a couple of Barrack Room Lawyers* and an accountant, whose formal qualification was a leaving cert maths. Reserving a room does absolutely nothing to negate the lease or remove rights under the RTA. The actual situation on the ground will always be looked at.

*no one of them wasn't me, I'm not that smart.

Keeping a room and never using it/visiting the house may not (or it might*) be enough to make the people licences if they were to take a case to the RTB but they would have to go all the way with it. On the other hand keeping a room and using it now and again, coming and going from the house regularly will be enough to do so. You don't have to live there full time by any means to have the people living there licensees.

*The fact is rooms let seperately where the LL doesn't even keep a room is still a grey area as to whether the people living there are licensees as it doesn't meet one of the first requirements for a tenancy - exclusive use.

Samuel T. Cogley · 09-02-2017 10:29pm

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Keeping a room and never using it/visiting the house may not (or it might*) be enough to make the people licences if they were to take a case to the RTB but they would have to go all the way with it. On the other hand keeping a room and using it now and again, coming and going from the house regularly will be enough to do so. You don't have to live there full time by any means to have the people living there licensees.

Emphasis added.

I'd suggest they may need to go further than the RTB but I'm happy to be corrected there. Could the RTB make a decision on this?

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

*The fact is rooms let seperately where the LL doesn't even keep a room is still a grey area as to whether the people living there are licensees as it doesn't meet one of the first requirements for a tenancy - exclusive use.

Chapter Six of the RTA would seem to make it a little less grey?

Robineen · 09-02-2017 11:34pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

no matter what the reason, I wouldn't be living there. You'd be on eggshells about everything.

Yes, owner-occupier situations are just that. Lived in one myself, a bit different to what the OP describes, in mine, she was a full time occupier. I put a much needed lamp in the sitting room. The next day when I came from work, I found it left outside my bedroom door. But she didn't like us staying in our rooms all the time, she wanted us to be in the sitting room chatting with her the whole time. Just not to have any personal effects in there, no siree. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't be keen on the situation the OP describes and a room coming available in such a situation should still be described as an owner-occupied house, just so it's all out in the open. I wouldn't like the landlord popping up randomly personally. I'm not sure why it's done really. Rent-a-room can't be claimed and I thought the landlord had to be ordinarily resident there for the tenants to be licensees. I'm not sure really? Just to keep an eye on the gaff, I guess. Bit too micro-managey for my liking.

Samuel T. Cogley · 09-02-2017 11:38pm

Some points:

*Not all owner occupiers are difficult to live with,
*Not all non-owner occupier housemates are house trained,
*Rent a room (RAR) requires the house to be the LL's PPR,
*Being a licencee does not require the LL to be claiming RAR, or for it to be his PPR, he might just keep a room as a shag-pad or for when he's down from Cavan, however it would have to be used regularly and I'd suggest frequently.
*I'm getting confused by my own acronyms.

Spanish Eyes · 09-02-2017 11:46pm

Surely for a lot of reasons it is easy to get around.

Especially in a house situation where there are three or four bedrooms and the boxroom, for example is put by for the owner occupier. Thus they qualify for rent a room and no impositions from PRTB etc.

There is no rule AFAIK that insists that the owner of the property should live there full time, as long as it is the owner's PPR.... is there?

Samuel T. Cogley · 09-02-2017 11:48pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Surely for a lot of reasons it is easy to get around.

Especially in a house situation where there are three or four bedrooms and the boxroom, for example is put by for the owner occupier. Thus they qualify for rent a room and no impositions from PRTB etc.

There is no rule AFAIK that insists that the owner of the property should live there full time, as long as it is the owner's PPR.... is there?

The revenue are well know for deciding they're right, some times for years, requiring very long court battles to, the majority of the time, be told they're right. It's extremely satisfying (like recently with property tax) when they're told they're wrong but I wouldn't want to be the one paying the barristers.

Also on this PPR is not some where you spend a drunken Friday night.

Robineen · 09-02-2017 11:53pm

Oh thanks, Spanish Eyes, didn't see your post before posting mine. Yes, I thought it had to be the landlord principal primary residence for the people living there to be licensees, I just couldn't find where I had read about it.

Robineen · 10-02-2017 12:01am

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Some points:

*Not all owner occupiers are difficult to live with,
*Not all non-owner occupier housemates are house trained,
*Rent a room (RAR) requires the house to be the LL's PPR,
*Being a licencee does not require the LL to be claiming RAR, or for it to be his PPR, he might just keep a room as a shag-pad or for when he's down from Cavan, however it would have to be used regularly and I'd suggest frequently.
*I'm getting confused by my own acronyms.

I'm sure some owner-occupiers are grand but in my house-sharing days, after my owner-occupier experience, I had zero interest in living in that situation again. No interest in finding a sound owner-occupier. If needs must, I would have but it would never be something I'd go for I had plenty of choice. I much preferred being on equal footing with the people I lived with.

4ensic15 · 10-02-2017 7:55am

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Emphasis added.

I'd suggest they may need to go further than the RTB but I'm happy to be corrected there. Could the RTB make a decision on this?

Chapter Six of the RTA would seem to make it a little less grey?

The RTB have ruled on this and have held that the letting of individual rooms meant that there was collectively a lease. This has been ventilated frequently on this forum.

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

Optimalprimerib · 10-02-2017 8:17am

I am one of these owner occupiers who has a room reserved as I travel home to it at the weekends. The reason I do this is because my life still revolves around that area, and my career move was a risk at the time incase it didn't work out.

One resident was there two years before this, so I just needed one more in which I was very clear that I would be back most weekends and occasionally during the week. They seem happy enough with that. Plus I keep the rent relatively low for the area it's in.

Samuel T. Cogley · 10-02-2017 10:15am

4ensic15 wrote: »

The RTB have ruled on this and have held that the letting of individual rooms meant that there was collectively a lease. This has been ventilated frequently on this forum.

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

Thanks 4ensic, very enlightening. Am I also wrong on my assertion, and putting aside RAR for a second, the LL can not create a licensee relationship even by being there regularly - it would have t be their PPR to dislodge 'RTA rights'?

Thanks again for your info.

10-02-2017 11:40am

4ensic15 wrote: »

The RTB have ruled on this and have held that the letting of individual rooms meant that there was collectively a lease. This has been ventilated frequently on this forum.

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

This is a specific case and it does no confirm anything. Other cases have ruled the opposite and you have no way of knowing that properly argued case would not be ruled in favour off again as I can see flaws in the finding of the case above myself, it's a very tenant biased finding as usual.

Make that a house rather than an apartment and have 3 rooms fully occupied rather than the person in the case above basically living there alone for most of the time and it looks a very different prospect.

Also it actually has to be taken to the RTB in the first place a lot of people will just agree if they are told they are licensees because they rent rooms seperately.

newacc2015 · 10-02-2017 11:42am

Robineen wrote: »

Oh thanks, Spanish Eyes, didn't see your post before posting mine. Yes, I thought it had to be the landlord principal primary residence for the people living there to be licensees, I just couldn't find where I had read about it.

People can be licensees in other ways. If you rent them a room, put a cleaner in weekly and give them a short term lease, they are licensees in the eye of the law. As they 'dont have exclusive use'.

JustAThought · 10-02-2017 11:55am

If only jobs didn't want you to work at the other end of the country, or to travel 5O% of your time, or your OH lived somewhere terribly close so you could drop in & out like when things were reasonable or you knew your employer would be loyal to you for longer than the lengh of the new contract he had just got you to work for. 'Flexibility' in work is a nightmare for anyone owning a house & having to rent it out to pay the mortgage - of course if you wern't cruxified with all kinds of charges and taxes running into tens of thousands to move it would be a lot easier - but thats only something you learn after you buy and are trapped by an inflexible system & circumstances beyond your control. A two or three way share is also usually less expensive on everyone sharing - bills & rent.

Robineen · 10-02-2017 6:22pm

padd b1975 wrote: »

I do it if I have a room rented. I work as an international national truck driver so I stay away for at least a month at a time.

Ideally I'd like to rent the property as a whole but if I leave my job then obviously I'll have nowhere to live.

I'd always give a quick text to the tenant a couple of days in advance of my return out of courtesy.

Yeah, that's grand. I also lived in a house with a reserved room and it was the same.

In the scenario where the landlord wants to use the room whenever with no notice, I think they would need to be upfront about that with new tenants. Let them know from the outset that he/she might appear randomly. At least they're informed then and there'd be no strife and the prospective tenant can decide of that living situation is for them.

JustAThought · 10-02-2017 8:03pm

What - having the person they share with turn up & use the houseshare? How bizzare .

Robineen · 10-02-2017 9:57pm

JustAThought wrote: »

What - having the person they share with turn up & use the houseshare? How bizzare .

I'm talking about a landlord turning up to use the extra room irregularly. If the house-share isn't advertised as an owner-occupied house, that would be a bit of a shock if you didn't know. And I'm sure you well know that the landlord isn't the same as any other housemate. It's a different dynamic and a living situation not everyone would be keen on. I know I wouldn't be. So, I'd want to know at the beginning so that I can say "Thanks but no thanks!".

4ensic15 · 11-02-2017 9:21am

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

This is a specific case and it does no confirm anything. Other cases have ruled the opposite and you have no way of knowing that properly argued case would not be ruled in favour off again as I can see flaws in the finding of the case above myself, it's a very tenant biased finding as usual.

You are refusing to accept the decision. It has been approved by the High Court.

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Make that a house rather than an apartment and have 3 rooms fully occupied rather than the person in the case above basically living there alone for most of the time and it looks a very different prospect.

The principle is exactly the same. A bedroom can be a dwelling.

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Also it actually has to be taken to the RTB in the first place a lot of people will just agree if they are told they are licensees because they rent rooms seperately.

Irrelevant to this discussion. This is about landlords trying to avoid a lease situation in the first place. People can agree something and then when there is trouble, off they go to the RTB. The owner has no way of ensuring that his argument will succeed. Given the High Court decision, it looks very unlikely.

11-02-2017 9:37am

A mate of mine has a 2 bed apartment that was rented out and his is now stuck at below market rate rent since the new rules.

His tenants are going home to Poland so now he has to rent again at below market rate.

His plan is to just rent a room in the apartment at max he is allowed to rent for the entire apartment at and use the other room for when he is in town and it's easier to stay there than go home.

He reckons this way he gets as much as he is allowed to but also gets his crash bad for himself and keeps control of his Property should he want it back. If he does this for a couple.of years he removes the unfair lock on the rent.

I was advising him to just sell up before the rush starts but he likes the idea of his crash pad too much now.

11-02-2017 9:50am

4ensic15 wrote: »

The principle is exactly the same. A bedroom can be a dwelling.

Which is total bull imo and wide open to be challenged. I will gladly point you to the case if I rent a place by the room in future and a licensee thinks they are otherwise and take a case to the RTB.

Reserved rooms and occupied owners

Comments