Reserved rooms and occupied owners

steddyeddy

JustAThought wrote: »

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

If it's a houseshare it's owner occupied. Some people here are saying it's not. Seems like a having your cake and eating it scenario.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

If it's a houseshare it's owner occupied. Some people here are saying it's not. Seems like a having your cake and eating it scenario.

Being owner occupied does not change the fact it's a houseshare. It would be wise to say noting about being the owner judging by many of the replies here.

Lumen

It seems to me to be fairly obvious that the reason we provide rent-a-room licensees with drastically fewer protections than tenants is because in the licensee case we are trying to balance two people's right to their home, whereas in a tenant case we balance the strong right to their home against the weaker right of a landlord to enjoy income from their business.

We all know instinctively what "the home" means. It's the principal place you retreat to for shelter. It's where you keep your most treasured personal belongings.

A holiday home is a home, not the home.

Some people have complicated lives which makes owning several properties for their personal use more convenient. That's not the same as saying that each one of these is their home.

I don't see anything posted which suggests an inconsistency between Revenue and RTB policy. You don't pay capital gains on your home. You don't pay income tax on reasonable amounts of rent from rooms in your home. You get to kick out tenants if a rented property is going to become your home.

76544567

Does the grounds for termination of tenancy use the word "Home" or "Use"?

Lumen

76544567 wrote: »

Does the grounds for termination of tenancy use the word "Home" or "Use"?

Try kicking out a tenant because you want to "use" the property for storage and let us know how you get on.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Try kicking out a tenant because you want to "use" the property for storage and let us know how you get on.

I'd be very confident that they could be "kicked out" for this reasons. The term is requiring the property for your own use, use does not mean making it your PPR.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Try kicking out a tenant because you want to "use" the property for storage and let us know how you get on.

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

I'd be very confident that they could be "kicked out" for this reasons. The term is requiring the property for your own use, use does not mean making it your PPR.

Really? Here's a RTB sample termination notice:

6. Notice of Termination for when Landlord Requires Dwelling for Own or Family Use
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0

4. The landlord requires the dwelling for own or family member occupation

And Section 34:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/34/enacted/en/html

4. The landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or her own occupation or for occupation by a member of his or her family and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—

(a) specifying—

(i) the intended occupant's identity and (if not the landlord) his or her relationship to the landlord, and

(ii) the expected duration of that occupation,

and

(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) the dwelling is vacated by the person referred to in subparagraph (a) within the period of 6 months from expiry of the period of notice required to be given by the notice or, if a dispute in relation to the validity of the notice was referred to the Board under Part 6 for resolution, the final determination of the dispute, and

(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Really? Here's a RTB sample termination notice:

6. Notice of Termination for when Landlord Requires Dwelling for Own or Family Use
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0



And Section 34:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/34/enacted/en/html

Occupation is a fairly broad term.

steddyeddy

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Being owner occupied does not change the fact it's a houseshare. It would be wise to say noting about being the owner judging by many of the replies here.

A previous poster stated it wouldn't have to be advertised as owner occupied. It either is or isn't.

Lumen

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Occupation is a fairly broad term.

Just to be clear, are you confident that the RTB would uphold a notice of termination which stated that the property was to be used for storage of the landlord's possessions?

Yes or no.

testaccount123

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Occupation is a fairly broad term.

No it isn't

steddyeddy

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Occupation is a fairly broad term.

In an academic sense not a legal sense.

testaccount123

testaccount123 wrote: »

No it isn't

If I am using an a property I'm occupying it.

If I wanted the use of a shed on a property that would be grounds to end the tenancy on the property imo. I'm not saying the RTB would defiantly agree but imo they should.

Lumen wrote: »

Just to be clear, are you confident that the RTB would uphold a notice of termination which stated that the property was to be used for storage of the landlord's possessions?

Yes or no.

Yes, termination of the tenancy as the property is require for my own use. Now if your asking would I say that on the notice probably no as it would be less hassle to just say I was moving in.

Lumen

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

If I am using an a property I'm occupying it.

If I wanted the use of a shed on a property that would be grounds to end the tenancy on the property imo. I'm not saying the RTB would defiantly agree but imo they should.

And therein less the problem. You're arguing from a position of how you personally would like the world to be rather than the intent of the law or how it is applied in practice.

Nobody in their right mind would kick out a tenant on the grounds of using a property for storage, and nobody in their right mind would take a case against the Revenue claiming rent a room relief on a property in which their only "occupation" was the use of a spare bedroom for storage.

steddyeddy

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

If I am using an a property I'm occupying it.

If I wanted the use of a shed on a property that would be grounds to end the tenancy on the property imo. I'm not saying the RTB would defiantly agree but imo they should.



Yes, termination of the tenancy as the property is require for my own use. Now if your asking would I say that on the notice probably no as it would be less hassle to just say I was moving in.

Well then it's simple. Any property with a reserved room is owner occupied and should be advertised as such.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

And therein less the problem. You're arguing from a position of how you personally would like the world to be rather than the intent of the law or how it is applied in practice.

Nobody in their right mind would kick out a tenant on the grounds of using a property for storage, and nobody in their right mind would take a case against the Revenue claiming rent a room relief on a property in which their only "occupation" was the use of a spare bedroom for storage.

You can't use rent a room relief as a reason for deciding on issues as it is perfectly possible to have a situation where it doesn't apply as the people are still licensees.

steddyeddy

To be honest I don't find the whole reserved room thing acceptable unless it's advertised as owner occupied. It seems very dodgy.

Samuel T. Cogley

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

You can't use rent a room relief as a reason for deciding on issues as it is perfectly possible to have a situation where it doesn't apply as the people are still licensees.

I'm not so sure of that any more and I think you'd have to have very regular and frequent use. For example someone who was only up in Dublin at the weekends using a room. Popping an old bed and a sofa in a room locking it and saying "Ah shure you're a licencee" is very unlikely to cut it IMHO. The same as turning up once in a blue moon will likely be seen as nothing but a cynical ploy to defeat the RTA.

Normally I'd say your interpretation is a good as mine, but I wonder if you've fully appreciated how pro-tenant the prevailing attitudes are these days?

76544567

Lumen wrote: »

Try kicking out a tenant because you want to "use" the property for storage and let us know how you get on.

Oh, you mean the way landlords are held to the letter of the law, but it is bent for tenants with ease.

I hear ya.

Samuel T. Cogley

76544567 wrote: »

Oh, you mean the way landlords are held to the letter of the law, but it is bent for tenants with ease.

I hear ya.

To be fair, even a cursory glance (because that's all I gave it) you see a very common sense approach taken to similar situations in England and Ireland over the last 100 or more years. For want of a better term, it's clear to everyone when a LL is taking the p***.

76544567

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

To be fair, even a cursory glance (because that's all I gave it) you see a very common sense approach taken to similar situations in England and Ireland over the last 100 or more years. For want of a better term, it's clear to everyone when a LL is taking the p***.

The problem is when tenants are taking the piss in Ireland though. That's the big problem.
Back to the subject thiugh, I reckon an agreement where you split the bills is enough to say you are occupying or using the property, no matter how often you stay in it. And who is to say you don't stay in it more often than the tenant thinks, unless they are there and awake 24 hours a day filming it for proof.

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm not so sure of that any more and I think you'd have to have very regular and frequent use. For example someone who was only up in Dublin at the weekends using a room. Popping an old bed and a sofa in a room locking it and saying "Ah shure you're a licencee" is very unlikely to cut it IMHO. The same as turning up once in a blue moon will likely be seen as nothing but a cynical ploy to defeat the RTA.

Normally I'd say your interpretation is a good as mine, but I wonder if you've fully appreciated how pro-tenant the prevailing attitudes are these days?

If for instance you own a home where your wife and kids live and a second property that you stay in a few days a week as it's in the city or whatever then you cannot use rent a room relief but the people renting t he rooms are mos certainly licensees. This wouldn't be an uncommon occurrence nowadays with so many people working in Dublin but with their family settleled somewhere else in Ireland.

Also it's only one persons word against another in how often the owner stays there.

76544567

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

If for instance you own a home where your wife and kids live and a second property that you stay in a few days a week as it's in the city or whatever then you cannot use rent a room relief but the people renting t he rooms are mos certainly licensees. This wouldn't be an uncommon occurrence nowadays with so many people working in Dublin but with their family settleled somewhere else in Ireland.

Also it's only one persons word against another in how often the owner stays there.

I was in exactly that situation myself for a couple of years. The tenant never saw me but I was in and out and staying overnight fairly often.
Some days I'd even be in just for a kip during the day when I was travelling.

Samuel T. Cogley

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

If for instance you own a home where your wife and kids live and a second property that you stay in a few days a week as it's in the city or whatever then you cannot use rent a room relief but the people renting t he rooms are mos certainly licensees. This wouldn't be an uncommon occurrence nowadays with so many people working in Dublin but with their family settleled somewhere else in Ireland.

Absolutely no argument there, not a PPR but certainly licensees.

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Also it's only one persons word against another in how often the owner stays there.

Bear in mind with sworn testimony it is within the purview of the arbiter to decide who he or she believes. It's very rare that one party is not more believable than the other.

Robineen

steddyeddy wrote: »

A previous poster stated it wouldn't have to be advertised as owner occupied. It either is or isn't.

Absolutely. If the landlord will be staying there, it's owner-occupation and needs to be advertised as such. It's alarming how little regard some people seem to have for future prospective tenants. I hate to have some of ye as a landlord. And it's because of such landlords that tenant rights are so strong now. The laws are unfair on many landlords but when I see some of the posts in this forum, I realise why tenants need such robust protection.

steddyeddy

76544567 wrote: »

I was in exactly that situation myself for a couple of years. The tenant never saw me but I was in and out and staying overnight fairly often.
Some days I'd even be in just for a kip during the day when I was travelling.

Well then that's owner occupied.

Robineen

To add, the reason the residents should be told that the occasional housemate turning up is actually the landlord is so that they are clear that they might not be full tenants. I'm not convinced that popping in every so often extinguishes tenant rights but if it is the case, people moving into the house deserve to have that information. And to not inform people is treating them with contempt, IMO. And indeed, not being informed could work in their favour, I think, if they wanted to take a case with the PRTB.

76544567

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well then that's owner occupied.

It was indeed. And the tenant was a licencee and the tenant had the run of the house to themselves apart from my one room that I kept for myself.
And were told this at the outset. Basically they were renting a 1 bed apartment with an occasional guest in the other room and got it for the price of a 1 bed apartment instead of a 2 bed. So all was fair.

4ensic15

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

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.

You are pointing to a future case where your superior forensic ability will reverse what has been held by the High Court. The law is as has been held, not as you would like it to be. You are delusional. You should buy a property and rent it out. It might shatter some of your illusions.

athtrasna

Mod note

Nox001 and 4ensic15 please take it to pm.