Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Reserved rooms and occupied owners

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Robineen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 300 ✭✭Robineen


    Article here about 'housing specialists' calling for more rights for rent-a-room tenants, saying they are the most vulnerable tenants in the state.

    It's behind a paywall for me, so can anyone else say what the article says in more detail? Who are the housing specialists?

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/renters-with-live-in-landlords-have-few-rights-experts-warn-1.2975743

    It'll be interesting to see if any changes come about in this area. It's maybe been a neglected area before now. Maybe the rental shortage is bringing it into focus.


  • Options
    #63
    JillyQ
    Registered Users Posts: 2,382 ✭✭✭JillyQ


    Robineen wrote:
    Article here about 'housing specialists' calling for more rights for rent-a-room tenants, saying they are the most vulnerable tenants in the state.

    Robineen wrote:
    It's behind a paywall for me, so can anyone else say what the article says in more detail? Who are the housing specialists?

    Robineen wrote:
    Article here about 'housing specialists' calling for more rights for rent-a-room tenants, saying they are the most vulnerable tenants in the state.

    Robineen wrote:
    It's behind a paywall for me, so can anyone else say what the article says in more detail? Who are the housing specialists?

    Robineen wrote:
    It'll be interesting to see if any changes come about in this area. It's maybe been a neglected area before now. Maybe the rental shortage is bringing it into focus.

    If this happens I think you will see a mass exodus of owner occupiers leaving the market.


  • Options
    #64
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Robineen wrote: »
    Article here about 'housing specialists' calling for more rights for rent-a-room tenants, saying they are the most vulnerable tenants in the state.

    It's behind a paywall for me, so can anyone else say what the article says in more detail? Who are the housing specialists?

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/renters-with-live-in-landlords-have-few-rights-experts-warn-1.2975743

    It'll be interesting to see if any changes come about in this area. It's maybe been a neglected area before now. Maybe the rental shortage is bringing it into focus.

    It is scare-mongering.
    "chief executive of Threshold, said this was a “hidden and growing sector of the rental market.
    “It defies belief that there are almost no regulations for this sector.”
    He said there should be minimum standards as well as regulated rights and responsibilities of tenants and homeowners in the sector."


    Owner occupiers are living in the dwelling themselves so it is hard to see how they would not keep it up to a reasonable standard. Anecdotally many people find that the standard is better with an owner-occupier flatmate. introducing regulation would act as a disincentive. The rent a room tax relief was designed to increase the supply of rented accommodation. Bringing in registration and an RTB regime regarding disputes would have an adverse effect on supply making things worse overal.
    When will these do-gooders realise that their proposed solutions will only make the situation worse?


  • Options
    #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Robineen wrote: »
    Article here about 'housing specialists' calling for more rights for rent-a-room tenants, saying they are the most vulnerable tenants in the state.

    It's behind a paywall for me, so can anyone else say what the article says in more detail? Who are the housing specialists?

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/renters-with-live-in-landlords-have-few-rights-experts-warn-1.2975743

    It'll be interesting to see if any changes come about in this area. It's maybe been a neglected area before now. Maybe the rental shortage is bringing it into focus.

    People will just stop renting rooms.

    I wouldn't be too worried about it anyway, it will be virtually impossible to impose rules on people in their own homes giving rights to people who are nothing more than guests. Any sort of challenge would have a stop put to it.


  • Options
    #66
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,759 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Robineen wrote: »
    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.

    I learned very quickly to let the renter know my circumstances and it was still very much my principal residence.
    With my first tenant, I ended up feeling like an unwanted guest in my own home whenever I returned home.

    From then on I made sure to have a good chat with them before they move in and explain exactly how things are going to be.

    Most are thrilled to have the place to themselves 99% of the time-not really the norm in that type of arrangement.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    It's not really that they need more rights, it's just that the current position needs to be made enforceable. It's an easy fix - let the Small Claims Procedure deal with damages (and damages only, they can't consider keeping people in place) and publish guidelines on 'reasonable notice'.

    Any other interference with it would be absolutely intolerable and would result in an exodus from the market, myself included.


  • Options
    #68
    JillyQ
    Registered Users Posts: 2,382 ✭✭✭JillyQ


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote:
    Any other interference with it would be absolutely intolerable and would result in an exodus from the market, myself included.


    As an owner occupier I completely agree with this. Having had experience of a disruptive licencee I would say 24hrs notice is enough


  • Options
    #69
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    JillyQ wrote: »
    If this happens I think you will see a mass exodus of owner occupiers leaving the market.

    But to be fair this "reserved room" thing seems to be a case of some landlords exploiting the owner occupier concept. Previously owner occupier meant living with a landlord renting out rooms in his primary occupancy. Now some people reserve rooms in a house which isn't there primary residence. This is very much a gray area IMHO and open to abuse. Is the tenant then a licencee or tenant.


  • Options
    #70
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    JillyQ wrote: »
    As an owner occupier I completely agree with this. Having had experience of a disruptive licencee I would say 24hrs notice is enough

    It has to come down to a number of factors, mostly how long they've lived there. I'm not suggesting the LL be forced to keep them, just that the situation is looked at by an impartial 3rd party. Of course someone becoming disruptive should be a reason to remove them with very minimal delay.
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    But to be fair this "reserved room" thing seems to be a case of some landlords exploiting the owner occupier concept. Previously owner occupier meant living with a landlord renting out rooms in his primary occupancy. Now some people reserve rooms in a house which isn't there primary residence. This is very much a gray area IMHO and open to abuse. Is the tenant then a licencee or tenant.

    It's a bit of a red herring in my view. There are some genuine cases but I'd say they are few and far between.


  • Options
    #71
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    It has to come down to a number of factors, mostly how long they've lived there. I'm not suggesting the LL be forced to keep them, just that the situation is looked at by an impartial 3rd party. Of course someone becoming disruptive should be a reason to remove them with very minimal delay.

    The thing is that its renting a room in your home, its very debatable imo if there should even be a discussion on anything changing as all it will do is attempt to give less control to a home owner in their own home.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »
    The thing is that its renting a room in your home, its very debatable imo if there should even be a discussion on anything changing as all it will do is attempt to give less control to a home owner in their own home.

    Well if I rented out my car I have less control over it. In renting out something you are leasing a portion of it out for money. I know that's stating the obvious but it needs to be said. By definition you have to give out some control.


  • Options
    #73
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    It has to come down to a number of factors, mostly how long they've lived there. I'm not suggesting the LL be forced to keep them, just that the situation is looked at by an impartial 3rd party. Of course someone becoming disruptive should be a reason to remove them with very minimal delay.



    It's a bit of a red herring in my view. There are some genuine cases but I'd say they are few and far between.

    It is a red herring. So far we've heard: you don't have to advertise as owner occupied, the owner needs a place to crash after a few drinks and the owner needs storage space. If you need all that rent out your house. I'd be very suspect about the tax status of some of these landlords.


  • Options
    #74
    JillyQ
    Registered Users Posts: 2,382 ✭✭✭JillyQ


    Why would you say a 3rd party has to become involved. If the owner wants to let rooms out in there house it is there rules. I certainly wouldn't let any rooms if I thought a 3rd party was going to be involved in any dispute resolution i wouldn't be letting any rooms in my home. I do agree that when you are advertising a room you should be required to state that the house is owner occupied.


  • Options
    #75
    riemann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,063 ✭✭✭riemann


    JillyQ wrote: »
    If this happens I think you will see a mass exodus of owner occupiers leaving the market.

    Yeah I don't think most reasonable home owners will give up thousands of euro a year on a whim.

    Once the legislation is reasonable I don't see how this would do anything only remove the minority of people who abuse the current system.


  • Options
    #76
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Well if I rented out my car I have less control over it. In renting out something you are leasing a portion of it out for money. I know that's stating the obvious but it needs to be said. By definition you have to give out some control.

    No you are inviting a guest to stay in exchange for money for as long as you welcome them to stay, they are leasing nothing. It can't be compared to renting a car.

    A better comparison would be loaning your private car to someone temporarily and them then trying to claim some rights over the car after driving it for a few days.


  • Options
    #77
    76544567
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭76544567


    Imagine getting stuck I your own house with a psycho and not be able to have them leave. You would end up being the one to leave your own house and the psycho gets to keep it as long as they can drag it through the legal system.


  • Options
    #78
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    76544567 wrote: »
    Imagine getting stuck I your own house with a psycho and not be able to have them leave. You would end up being the one to leave your own house and the psycho gets to keep it as long as they can drag it through the legal system.

    There's a difference between not being able to evict (which would not arise with licensees), being forced to keep them in your home (through injunction - very, very unlikely to happen) and a scenario where you're liable for a few hundred quid in damages.


  • Options
    #79
    jsd1004
    Registered Users Posts: 719 ✭✭✭jsd1004


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    There's a difference between not being able to evict (which would not arise with licensees), being forced to keep them in your home (through injunction - very, very unlikely to happen) and a scenario where you're liable for a few hundred quid in damages.

    Rented a room last year. Turns out the landlord is not the owner but his name is on the lease. Rang prtb and they say i have no right as i am only a licencee and i can be kicked out tomorrow. My only recourse is the small claims court?


  • Options
    #80
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    jsd1004 wrote: »
    Rented a room last year. Turns out the landlord is not the owner but his name is on the lease. Rang prtb and they say i have no right as i am only a licencee and i can be kicked out tomorrow. My only recourse is the small claims court?

    No even the Small Claims Procedure unless you suffer some easily quantifiable loss. If you have three properties coming vacant surely you can move into one of those? The parties issue might be an interesting one. The LL does not need to be the owner.

    You might want to be wary of relying on the RTB for legal advice. See 4ensic's post #20 and, the decision he generously went looking for, in this thread and also they don't deal with licensee agreements unless it's a lease trying to masquerade as such.

    True licensee agreements haven't had any recent case law I'm aware of, the last case I found on this suggested that 4 months was reasonable notice in that case, 'reasonable notice' being the nebulous standard for licensee agreements. I can't imagine anything more than a few days would be required for less than a year and you'd have a number of options such as a cheap B&B.


  • Options
    #81
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    jsd1004 please do not post on this thread again.

    Mod


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    jsd1004 wrote: »
    Rented a room last year. Turns out the landlord is not the owner but his name is on the lease. Rang prtb and they say i have no right as i am only a licencee and i can be kicked out tomorrow. My only recourse is the small claims court?

    Nonsense. You can have yourself made a tenant if you have been there 6 months.


  • Options
    #83
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Nonsense. You can have yourself made a tenant if you have been there 6 months.

    You can request but it can be refused and if you press the issue expect to be asked to leave.


  • Options
    #84
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »
    You can request but it can be refused and if you press the issue expect to be asked to leave.

    There are legal ways to force the issue.


  • Options
    #85
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »
    You can request but it can be refused and if you press the issue expect to be asked to leave.

    It can't be unreasonably refused. The RTB has jurisdiction to decide if the request was reasonable or not.


  • Options
    #86
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    It can't be unreasonably refused. The RTB has jurisdiction to decide if the request was reasonable or not.

    Not wanting the person to be a tenant is a plenty good enough reason.

    In any case even if it can't be refused they can be asked to move out on the spot as they are not tenants at the time of asking and therefore have no rights so in other words asking could risk being asked to leave so a risky business.


  • Options
    #87
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »
    Not wanting the person to be a tenant is a plenty good enough reason.

    In any case even if it can't be refused they can be asked to move out on the spot as they are not tenants at the time of asking and therefore have no rights so in other words asking could risk being asked to leave so a risky business.

    Once they put in the request they come under the purvey of the RTA. Putting them out without responding to the request means a refusal without good reason. That could open up a claim for wrongful eviction. Not wanting them as a tenant when there is already a tenant in the house would not be a good reason.


  • Options
    #88
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Once they put in the request they come under the purvey of the RTA. Putting them out without responding to the request means a refusal without good reason. That could open up a claim for wrongful eviction. Not wanting them as a tenant when there is already a tenant in the house would not be a good reason.

    I meant not wanting them to gain rights, this only occurs really when it's a sublet situation and the head tenant most likely will want to stay as the only tenant with other people living there continuing as licensees.

    I very much doubt that it comes under the RTA once a request is made and I also don't believe that you can't just say no, let's just continue as things are. Sure the whole idea of subletting is for the lease holder to keep control and not have the other people living there on the lease. I can't see how the head tenant can't refuse to have them added to the lease and the LL can definitely refuse. Sure he can claim he never gave permission for them to be in the house to begin with.


  • Options
    #89
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »
    I meant not wanting them to gain rights, this only occurs really when it's a sublet situation and the head tenant most likely will want to stay as the only tenant with other people living there continuing as licensees.

    I very much doubt that it comes under the RTA once a request is made and I also don't believe that you can't just say no, let's just continue as things are. Sure the whole idea of subletting is for the lease holder to keep control and not have the other people living there on the lease. I can't see how the head tenant can't refuse to have them added to the lease and the LL can definitely refuse. Sure he can claim he never gave permission for them to be in the house to begin with.

    Nox a lot of your posts revolve around landlords lying and pretending they didn't claim such and such. Is that really kosher to be promoting such base business practices?


  • Options
    #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Nox a lot of your posts revolve around landlords lying and pretending they didn't claim such and such. Is that really kosher to be promoting such base business practices?

    In this case the LL may well not have given permission. Look how many times you see people talk about renting a house and then letting out a spare room without the LLs permission.

    Should a person who was never supposed to be living there is the first place come along and expect to be added to a lease then I can't see how telling them no could even be questioned.

    Also I don't suggest anything illegal, I may suggest rule bending or loop holes etc which imo are all fair game.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »
    In this case the LL may well not have given permission. Look how many times you see people talk about renting a house and then letting out a spare room without the LLs permission.

    Should a person who was never supposed to be living there is the first place come along and expect to be added to a lease then I can't see how telling them no could even be questioned.

    Also I don't suggest anything illegal, I may suggest rule bending or loop holes etc which imo are all fair game.

    So you're not suggesting a landlord lie?


Advertisement