Rent rooms vs whole house

Samuel T. Cogley

I don't accutally see a promlem with genuinely working from there, defeating the exclusive occupation requirement, but similarily I can see an arguments that have been made about house shares possibly being an issue. Is the previaling thinking that working from there doesn't make the tenants licencees?

From the RTB website

What is a Licensee?
A licensee is a person who occupies accommodation under license. Licensees can arise in all sorts of accommodation but most commonly in the following four areas;
persons staying in hotels, guesthouses, hostels, etc.,
persons sharing a house/apartment with its owner e.g. under the ‘rent a room’ scheme or ‘in digs’,
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, and
persons staying in rented accommodation at the invitation of the tenant.

In my opinion there is no possible way the people living there can be considered tenants in the scenario being discussed.

Also as can be seen in the bolded bit above, the owner actually living there is not necessarily a requirement for people renting room to be considered licensees.

Even the first bolded bit above states "sharing the house with its owner" not explicitly living with the owner. The the ops scenario they would clearly be sharing the house with its owner.

DubCount

Lilly Green Beard wrote: »

From the RTB website

In my opinion there is no possible way the people living there can be considered tenants in the scenario being discussed.

Also as can be seen in the bolded bit above, the owner actually living there is not necessarily a requirement for people renting room to be considered licensees.

Even the first bolded bit above states "sharing the house with its owner" not explicitly living with the owner. The the ops scenario they would clearly be sharing the house with its owner.

Sorry, but I dont agree with that. As far as I know, under the 2014 Residential Tenancies Act, the default position is that there is a landlord/tenant situation unless you meet one of the criteria for a licensor/licensee situation to exist. The situation that everyone clings onto is section 3 (2) (g) - "a dwelling within which the landlord also resides".

You can interpret that phrase any way you want, but I would use the services of a solicitor to obtain a professional interpretation rather than second guessing what way the RTB will interpret the specific facts of a case. Exclusive use of the property (individually or jointly) is only one mechanism they use to test if the landlord resides there. Trying to come up with constructs to meet this criteria (room for personal use, occasional sleepovers etc etc) is playing with fire without professional legal advise.

BetsyEllen

Could you rent out just the bedrooms and class the living room as a bedroom and say it's yours? But you're really using it as an office.

A friend of mine rents out his house and turned the living room into a bedroom for extra income. Plus my sister rented a room in a house share with no living room too so it's definitely something that people do.

You could claim the smallest bedroom as your own, say you live there, work from there and then rent the larger room (living room) out as a bedroom at a higher rate.

Just an idea, I have no knowledge of the law on this so I may be wrong in suggesting same.

.......

This post has been deleted.

__Alex__

Lilly Green Beard wrote: »

From the RTB website

In my opinion there is no possible way the people living there can be considered tenants in the scenario being discussed.

Also as can be seen in the bolded bit above, the owner actually living there is not necessarily a requirement for people renting room to be considered licensees.

Even the first bolded bit above states "sharing the house with its owner" not explicitly living with the owner. The the ops scenario they would clearly be sharing the house with its owner.

I can't understand why you so badly want to be a landlord when it is seemingly stressing you out so much already and when you seem determined to treat future rentees of yours with barely-concealed contempt.

davindub

DubCount wrote: »

Sorry, but I dont agree with that. As far as I know, under the 2014 Residential Tenancies Act, the default position is that there is a landlord/tenant situation unless you meet one of the criteria for a licensor/licensee situation to exist. The situation that everyone clings onto is section 3 (2) (g) - "a dwelling within which the landlord also resides".

You can interpret that phrase any way you want, but I would use the services of a solicitor to obtain a professional interpretation rather than second guessing what way the RTB will interpret the specific facts of a case. Exclusive use of the property (individually or jointly) is only one mechanism they use to test if the landlord resides there. Trying to come up with constructs to meet this criteria (room for personal use, occasional sleepovers etc etc) is playing with fire without professional legal advise.

100% correct IMO.

There is not one example of a successful case where the LL has been able to argue the act did not apply by sleeping over or maintaining access to the common areas.

Also, you might wonder why lodgers/ commercial lettings do not gain part 4 rights, logic would be that it is the "home" of the landlord and the LL retains full rights, whilst anything else is the home of the tenants and they gain control of the property.

ED E

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Two words: planning permission!

Think you misunderstood me.
OP stays in current house, rents it to nobody.
Pays a few hundred a month for a desk in a shared office so he has space to work.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

100% correct IMO.

There is not one example of a successful case where the LL has been able to argue the act did not apply by sleeping over or maintaining access to the common areas.

Also, you might wonder why lodgers/ commercial lettings do not gain part 4 rights, logic would be that it is the "home" of the landlord and the LL retains full rights, whilst anything else is the home of the tenants and they gain control of the property.

There are very few cases and none would be close to many of the situations argued on this forum or this case either. One case the RTB even found in favour of the property owner, it was over turned but that case was very iffy. The situation being discussed here would be in a different league altogeather compared to that case.

How can a person get tenancy rights when the owner has full access and at any time can start living there, the rights would be pointless as they could be so easily extinguished.

ED E wrote: »

Think you misunderstood me.
OP stays in current house, rents it to nobody.
Pays a few hundred a month for a desk in a shared office so he has space to work.

If he can use a room in his house and thus keep control of his house also it's very advantageous in the current climate of extreme tenants rights, power over the property, overholding and non-rent paying etc.

ED E

Lilly Green Beard wrote: »

If he can use a room in his house and thus keep control of his house also it's very advantageous in the current climate of extreme tenants rights, power over the property, overholding and non-rent paying etc.

I was suggesting his family still lives there.

davindub

Lilly Green Beard wrote: »

There are very few cases and none would be close to many of the situations argued on this forum or this case either. One case the RTB even found in favour of the property owner, it was over turned but that case was very iffy. The situation being discussed here would be in a different league altogeather compared to that case.

How can a person get tenancy rights when the owner has full access and at any time can start living there, the rights would be pointless as they could be so easily extinguished.



If he can use a room in his house and thus keep control of his house also it's very advantageous in the current climate of extreme tenants rights, power over the property, overholding and non-rent paying etc.

I would assign no accuracy to your claims whatsoever, there is no legal precedence, provisions of the act, it is not even possible to create this illusion using the normal meaning of words contained in the act.

BTW if the High Court rules on a point of law, it's not iffy. Its binding. I can only think of 2 high court cases where resides was considered, one fool briefly claimed he resided there because he maintained access to the property, moved into the spare bedroom and then removed the bed from the claimants bedroom. The judge didn't make a point of law in regards resides, but it was an illegal eviction. Is that the case you were referring to?

davindub

davindub wrote: »

BTW if the High Court rules on a point of law, it's not iffy. Its binding. I can only think of 2 high court cases where resides was considered, one fool briefly claimed he resided there because he maintained access to the property, moved into the spare bedroom and then removed the bed from the claimants bedroom. The judge didn't make a point of law in regards resides, but it was an illegal eviction. Is that the case you were referring to?

I meat it was iffy in that the property owner in the case basically never even exercised his right of entry on a regularly basis never mind spend time or stay in the apartment until a fews days before evicting the tenant.

The situation being discussed here the owner would be in the house every weekday and presumably some weekends also, using the facilities to cook his meals, using the bed room etc. If that wasn't enough alone to render the others there licensees then there is nothing to stop him sleeping there for a month or 2 months or 3 months even if he feels he really wants to cement his status and there is no way the others could then be considered tenants as they are living with their LL. The fact he can start to live there at anytime he pleases clearly points out (to me) that a tenancy can't be created when he has continued access and daily use of a room as the tenancy would be as much good as a chocolate tea pot.

__Alex__

^^^^ Such an arrangement is hardly going to attract top-notch renters. Sounds very invasive.

4ensic15

Lilly Green Beard wrote: »

From the RTB website

In my opinion there is no possible way the people living there can be considered tenants in the scenario being discussed.

Also as can be seen in the bolded bit above, the owner actually living there is not necessarily a requirement for people renting room to be considered licensees.

Even the first bolded bit above states "sharing the house with its owner" not explicitly living with the owner. The the ops scenario they would clearly be sharing the house with its owner.

This is a quote from the FAQs on the RTB website which do not purport to be a legal interpretation. They are intended as very broad guidelines. The owner doesn't have to live in a house for the residents to be licensees but trying to avoid having a bedroom found to be a dwelling is the key issue. The RTB look at the way a situation works on the ground and are very pro tenancy.

Mrs OBumble

__Alex__ wrote: »

^^^^ Such an arrangement is hardly going to attract top-notch renters. Sounds very invasive.

Some of the best renters are people who work in Dublin but live down the country. Could be a very attractive setup for them, especially if the OP keeps all the bills on his/her name.

davindub

Lilly Green Beard wrote: »

I meat it was iffy in that the property owner in the case basically never even exercised his right of entry on a regularly basis never mind spend time or stay in the apartment until a fews days before evicting the tenant.

The situation being discussed here the owner would be in the house every weekday and presumably some weekends also, using the facilities to cook his meals, using the bed room etc. If that wasn't enough alone to render the others there licensees then there is nothing to stop him sleeping there for a month or 2 months or 3 months even if he feels he really wants to cement his status and there is no way the others could then be considered tenants as they are living with their LL. The fact he can start to live there at anytime he pleases clearly points out (to me) that a tenancy can't be created when he has continued access and daily use of a room as the tenancy would be as much good as a chocolate tea pot.

Well living there would would avoid the RTB act for 2/3 months, he clearly resides there. Moving out is an event that will change that, he no longer resides there.

You need to be very clear on the intention of the act, it applies to all residential lettings including bedsits except the few exceptions given in the act.

__Alex__

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Some of the best renters are people who work in Dublin but live down the country. Could be a very attractive setup for them, especially if the OP keeps all the bills on his/her name.

Sounds like a nightmare to me but different strokes, I guess.

sullivk

Could you stay put, take out a home improvement loan and get an extension built? It could save alot of hassle (and money) regarding renting/tenancy laws/moving house/taxation etc...

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Well living there would would avoid the RTB act for 2/3 months, he clearly resides there. Moving out is an event that will change that, he no longer resides there.

You need to be very clear on the intention of the act, it applies to all residential lettings including bedsits except the few exceptions given in the act.

What I mean is he could start out only using it to work and cook his meals during the day, this in some people's opinion would make the people living their tenants (while I would argue otherwise) but let's assume they are. After 6 months he decides to start sleeping there every night. The others renting rooms now definitely live with their LL and are therefore licensees.

My argument is that as there is nothing to stop a property owner with full and regularly exercised access rights, who also uses the property on a daily basis from deciding to live there full time at anytime then a tenancy won't ever be created as it is not compatible with the overall setup due to the ease at which it can be extinguished.

Just to add, I would agree with a few posters who have suggested the op trying to find a way to stay living where they are as it will be less costly and less hassle over. If it's lack of an office space an extension or steeltech do pretty nice standalone garner offices too if there is space.

4ensic15

Lilly Green Beard wrote: »

What I mean is he could start out only using it to work and cook his meals during the day, this in some people's opinion would make the people living their tenants (while I would argue otherwise) but let's assume they are. After 6 months he decided to start sleeping there every night. The other renting room now definitely live with their LL and are therefore licensees.

My argument is that as there is nothing to stop a property owner with full and regularly exercised access rights, who also uses the property on a daily basis from deciding to live there full time at anytime then a tenancy won't ever be created as it is not compatible with the overall setup due to the ease at which it can be extinguished.

A tenancy can't be extinguished by a landlord moving in. Tenancies can only be terminated by the methods allowed by the RTA 2004.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

A tenancy can't be extinguished by a landlord moving in. Tenancies can only be terminated by the methods allowed by the RTA 2004.

A person renting a room in the house in the the owner is resident is the very definition of a licensee, they cannot be considered a tenant so there is no option but for the tenancy to be extinguished.

However this paradox is caused by people claiming they are tenants in the first place when the owner has full access and regularly uses a room and the common areas. If they aren't tenants from the beginning (which is my reading of the situation) then there is no confusion and no tenancies being extinguished.

4ensic15

Lilly Green Beard wrote: »

A person renting a room in the house in thick the owner is resident is the very definition of a licensee, they cannot be considered a tenant so there is no option but for the tenancy to be extinguished.

(which is my reading of the situation) .

Exactly. You are not the Tribunal of the RTB nor will you be for a long time to come.

davindub

Lilly Green Beard wrote: »

What I mean is he could start out only using it to work and cook his meals during the day, this in some people's opinion would make the people living their tenants (while I would argue otherwise) but let's assume they are. After 6 months he decides to start sleeping there every night. The others renting rooms now definitely live with their LL and are therefore licensees.

My argument is that as there is nothing to stop a property owner with full and regularly exercised access rights, who also uses the property on a daily basis from deciding to live there full time at anytime then a tenancy won't ever be created as it is not compatible with the overall setup due to the ease at which it can be extinguished.

Just to add, I would agree with a few posters who have suggested the op trying to find a way to stay living where they are as it will be less costly and less hassle over. If it's lack of an office space an extension or steeltech do pretty nice standalone garner offices too if there is space.

In a simple format, but obviously its more complicated to decide on:

"What I mean is he could start out only using it to work and cook his meals during the day" = commercial premises, this portion of the property is exempt from RTB, remainder is subject to RTB, shared areas are shared.

The LL cannot move back in without the permission of the tenants, unless provided for in the contract. It would be changing the terms of the lease in place if LL changed his activity. If moves back in 5 months, no part 4. 6 months and 1 day, part 4 rights in place.

If provided for in the contract and part 4 rights have been established, that is where it gets interesting, you cannot terminate a tenancy outside of the provisions in the act. But can a further part 4 be created after 4 years? Probably not (assuming LL resides there). Does the LL moving back in remove the dwelling from the scope of the act? Probably not, you cannot assume the courts will deny rights already established.

If not provided for in the contract = No, needs permission.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

In a simple format, but obviously its more complicated to decide on:

"What I mean is he could start out only using it to work and cook his meals during the day" = commercial premises, this portion of the property is exempt from RTB, remainder is subject to RTB, shared areas are shared.

The LL cannot move back in without the permission of the tenants, unless provided for in the contract. It would be changing the terms of the lease in place if LL changed his activity. If moves back in 5 months, no part 4. 6 months and 1 day, part 4 rights in place.

If provided for in the contract and part 4 rights have been established, that is where it gets interesting, you cannot terminate a tenancy outside of the provisions in the act. But can a further part 4 be created after 4 years? Probably not (assuming LL resides there). Does the LL moving back in remove the dwelling from the scope of the act? Probably not, you cannot assume the courts will deny rights already established.

If not provided for in the contract = No, needs permission.

There would be no contract, the people would simply be renting rooms and the owner would already be "in" by being in the house everyday. The term moving in is irrelavent when he is already there everyday.

Also you cannot say a room in the house is commercial, he is working from home not operating a business from there. This is a very simple situation being complicated to massive levels by people who refuse to face simple facts.

I'll put it this way, you work 16 hour days and come home to spend 8 hours in the house, one meal and sleep. I spend 10 hours in a house, eat two meals but I don't sleep there. Why does your sleeping there give you occupation and my time in the house not. It's total semantics looking for ways to give tenancy rights where they shouldn't apply.

davindub

Lilly Green Beard wrote: »

There would be no contract, the people would simply be renting rooms and the owner would already be "in" by being in the house everyday. The term moving in is irrelavent when he is already there everyday.

Also you cannot say a room in the house is commercial, he is working from home not operating a business from there. This is a very simple situation being complicated to massive levels by people who refuse to face simple facts.

I'll put it this way, you work 16 hour days and come home to spend 8 hours in the house, one meal and sleep. I spend 10 hours in a house, eat two meals but I don't sleep there. Why does your sleeping there give you occupation and my time in the house not. It's total semantics looking for ways to give tenancy rights where they shouldn't apply.

Because you do not reside there. You are using some of the property for commercial use, some for investment use (rented out). You fail to meet the exclusion of the act for "Resides". Giving rights in these circumstances may not be wise but that is the word used in the act, it is not defined in the act so you use the normal meaning of the word within the context of the act.

Really I dont see the cause for confusion, the word is not ambiguous unless you append to it.
the LL resides there sometimes
the LL resides there 2 nights a week, 5 nights somewhere else
the LL resides somewhere else, but works there
the LL resides there.

Michael D Not Higgins

nox, your continual posting about this is borderline illegal advice and sometimes outright illegal advice. I'm not allowing it anymore.

athtrasna

Thread closed as it's becoming timesink for the mods