Rent RPZ question

RPZRentQ

Hi all, I've a question I'm hoping someone can help with.

I'm leaving my current rental property, which is in Dublin, is shared accommodation and isn't owner occupied. None of us in the house have a lease; each time someone leaves, the landlord organises viewings and we pick someone new to move in.

A friend of mine is moving to Dublin soon, so I mentioned that my room would be available soon. He found it on daft and the landlord has put the rent up by over 20%.

Given there's no lease etc. is he entitled to put it up by this much??

Carlos Orange

How many people live in the house?

The_Conductor

Sounds like the property is let by room- rather than as a whole- and the 'tenants' are not jointly and severally liable- as they would be, were they renting the full property- thus they're actually licensees, rather than tenants, with individual leases for their room- and access to all common and shared areas........

In such a case- as the property is not classified as a formally let property under the Act- yes, the RPZ rules do not apply.

If you want RPZ rules- rent the whole of the property formally, rather than on a room-by-room basis- and behave as tenants (this replacing people who come and go as rooms come up- is not how a tenancy works).

Ashbx

Im not too sure but I think its the complete opposite. Given there is no lease, it gives the landlord free reign to do what he wants!

conormc1984

Is it not illegal what the landlord is doing here. He's not the owner occupier yet renting the house room by room ??

The_Conductor

conormc1984 wrote: »

Is it not illegal what the landlord is doing here. He's not the owner occupier yet renting the house room by room ??

Really depends on how you look at it.
Most landlords who find themselves in this situation- bend over backwards to get the hell out of it asap- as the amount of overhead it generates for a landlord is vastly higher than for a regular tenancy. Occasionally- landlords find themselves in this situation- when a group of people rent a property together- and either accidentally, or by design- find it suits them to have the landlord find a new 'tenant' after one or more of them leave, but the others don't want to.

Its not illegal- but it is a whole lot of hassle- the downside from the 'tenants' perspective is they are licensees rather than tenants- however, the upside- as per the OP- is they can come and go at will- and the landlord lines up prospective people to take over 'rooms'- which the tenants themselves then vet for whoever they're happy with........

Honestly- if I were a landlord- I would do whatever I possibly could, to ensure I did not find myself in this situation- its messy as hell, and a whole lot of work- its far simpler to let the property as a whole.

In this case- the OP seems to think they were a tenant- and entitled to the controls offered by the RPZ- however, it doesn't apply.

Even if the landlord were to get the tenants to group together and take out a single lease (which I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to do)- the RPZ still wouldn't apply- as it wouldn't have been let in its totality during the 2 year reference period (though it would be subject to future rent control after its first review/setting).

With the exception of the new person coming in- who is facing a higher rent- it would seem that there are more pros than cons for the other 'tenants' (licensees).

Is it illegal- no.
Is it subject to dispute- yes.
If the 'tenant' were to bring a case to the RTB disputing their 'licensee' status- would they be successful? I wish there was a yes/no answer to this one- the RTB have not consistently ruled in situations like this- and in at least one dispute one of the housemates argued in the landlord's favour that she did not want to be a tenant, she preferred to be a licensee. Depends..........