Text Message - Please Vacate

FortuneChip

I'm currently sharing an apartment (almost a year)with two other tenants (each paying rent per room separately - not subletting from either/or).

Both other tenants have made independent decisions to move out (one with an other half, the second with a friend) at the end of the month.

They told the landlord this, who in turn sent me a text message the other night
"A & B are leaving the apt at the end of the month. I am not re-letting the rooms at this point, so you will need to vacate as well"

I replied, rhetorically asking was I not entitled to see out my one year lease (finishing at the end of July) as three weeks notice is not sufficient.

I was told if I needed a few extra days, that wouldn't be a problem.

It's a bit of an assumption, but I fully expect to see this property up for rent as a single unit (rather than three bedrooms) shortly after vacating.

My main issue isn't necessarily being asked to leave (although, obviously a decent size inconvenience), but the manner (text message) and reasoning (again, assumed), make me feel a little poorly treated.

I'm also concerned that someone annoyed that I haven't bent to their will may try find reasons as to why I wouldn't be entitled to my deposit back at the end of my lease. It's an old property, and while I maintain the areas I use well, I'm sure someone cynical enough could try find fault.

srsly78

Would you prefer if they insisted you remain and pay the full rent?

rawn

srsly78 wrote:

Would you prefer if they insisted you remain and pay the full rent?

Why would he do that, he's renting a room not the whole apartment and therefore only has to pay for a room. If the ll wants the other two rooms empty then he'll have to swallow the loss until OP moves out of his own accord, or at the end of the correct notice period, which must be in writing and be for any of the reasons under Part IV.

rawn

rawn wrote: »

Why would he do that, he's renting a room not the whole apartment ...............

No rights so.

rawn

Augeo wrote:

No rights so.

Renting a room, not rent-a-room as in the ll lives there.

davindub

FortuneChip wrote: »

I'm currently sharing an apartment (almost a year)with two other tenants (each paying rent per room separately - not subletting from either/or).

Both other tenants have made independent decisions to move out (one with an other half, the second with a friend) at the end of the month.

They told the landlord this, who in turn sent me a text message the other night
"A & B are leaving the apt at the end of the month. I am not re-letting the rooms at this point, so you will need to vacate as well"

I replied, rhetorically asking was I not entitled to see out my one year lease (finishing at the end of July) as three weeks notice is not sufficient.

I was told if I needed a few extra days, that wouldn't be a problem.

It's a bit of an assumption, but I fully expect to see this property up for rent as a single unit (rather than three bedrooms) shortly after vacating.

My main issue isn't necessarily being asked to leave (although, obviously a decent size inconvenience), but the manner (text message) and reasoning (again, assumed), make me feel a little poorly treated.

I'm also concerned that someone annoyed that I haven't bent to their will may try find reasons as to why I wouldn't be entitled to my deposit back at the end of my lease. It's an old property, and while I maintain the areas I use well, I'm sure someone cynical enough could try find fault.

Google part 4 rights and the RTB.

Marcusm

Augeo wrote: »

No rights so.

Yprovided he has been there 6 months he has all the usual rights. If the LL has let the rooms individually not collectively, the tenants will not generally be responsible for the full rent but will have security of tenure.

Michael D Not Higgins

OP, what does your lease say? If it is not jointly and severally liable with the other tenants for the whole rent and you each have separate leases with respect to your individual portions of rent you are entitled to stay and continue paying rent at your normal level.

You must be given a valid notice of termination if the landlord wishes you to leave. Since you are there more than 6 months, you have Part 4 security of tenure and can only be given notice with respect to the reasons allowable by the table in the RTA 2004. See more here.

whomitconcerns

Erm no. ... You can't have that for one room in a house. If you are renting a room you do not have exclusive usage of an individual property and you won't have tenancy rights

the_syco

whomitconcerns wrote: »

you won't have tenancy rights

Why do you say this? He's a tenant, not a licensee, as he's renting a room where the LL doesn't live there as well.

Mrs OBumble

OP the legals are all very sweet.

But if you won't go. what do you expect the LL will do with the other two rooms? He could find some right pr*cks to move in, and make your life miserable.

Also, are you prepared to pay the full daily charge for electricity / gas? You might be surprised to find out just how much of the bill these make up.

I get that you're annoyed and that it's inconvenient. But do yourself a favour and focus on finding somewhere else to live, rather than stewing on the legalities. It's a way more productive way to live your life.

Marcusm

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Erm no. ... You can't have that for one room in a house. If you are renting a room you do not have exclusive usage of an individual property and you won't have tenancy rights

If the occupants/tenants/whatever collectively possess the property to the exclusion of the landlord for a period of 6 months they each gain part 4 rights exercisable collectively and individually. The fact that the LL has accepted a termination from the other tenant's doesn't impinge on the OP's part 4 rights. It's another example of how LL needs to be very careful in organising his affairs.

mrslancaster

is it OK to send notice by text? thought notice has to be in writing.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

If the occupants/tenants/whatever collectively possess the property to the exclusion of the landlord for a period of 6 months they each gain part 4 rights exercisable collectively and individually. The fact that the LL has accepted a termination from the other tenant's doesn't impinge on the OP's part 4 rights. It's another example of how LL needs to be very careful in organising his affairs.

Very debatable inteperation imo. None of them have exclusive use, one can move out and a new person move in how could that happen if there was exclusive use. The have exclusive use of their bedrooms only and shared use of common areas. Still a major grey area imo.

Also just to really throw the cat among the pigeons, the LL has two spare rooms that need filling he can simply move in himself or move in one of his children thus immediately rendering the op a licensee for sure. The LL has the right to fill these rooms and if he chooses to do so by moving in himself then there is nothing to stop him as the op has no say whatsoever over who fills them.

the_syco

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I get that you're annoyed and that it's inconvenient. But do yourself a favour and focus on finding somewhere else to live, rather than stewing on the legalities. It's a way more productive way to live your life.

Agreed. The LL could turn the rads of the other two rooms up to max, and leave the lights on. And then lock the doors. You'd be hit with a large bill, as you'll be the only one paying the bills.

It's sh|te, but getting out is probably the less stressful solution.

mikemac2

The OP has a lease for their room until end of July and the landlord wants them out end of June.

The landlord seems to think it's generous to possibly give a few extra days at the start of July if needed :rolleyes:

The landlord is breaking the lease here , relax until end of July OP. If the landlord wants to break the lease and get you out they can pay you off with some deal

whomitconcerns

Marcusm wrote: »

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Erm no. ... You can't have that for one room in a house. If you are renting a room you do not have exclusive usage of an individual property and you won't have tenancy rights

If the occupants/tenants/whatever collectively possess the property to the exclusion of the landlord for a period of 6 months they each gain part 4 rights exercisable collectively and individually. The fact that the LL has accepted a termination from the other tenant's doesn't impinge on the OP's part 4 rights. It's another example of how LL needs to be very careful in organising his affairs.

But the key phrase there is exclusive use of the property. The op does not have this. He has a "lease" for a room. So part 4 could not apply.

ShaShaBear

whomitconcerns wrote: »

But the key phrase there is exclusive use of the property. The op does not have this. He has a "lease" for a room. So part 4 could not apply.

Of course it could, you're simply not listening. He, and the other tenants, have exclusive use of the property. When the landlord lives in, it's different. He is still a tenant, not a licencee. I had exactly the same set-up for a year when I house-shared and was fully covered under tenancy law because each of the tenants signed a separate contract dictating their move-in date, the length of their tenancy and how much rent they were paying each.

Michael D Not Higgins

This is a case of multiple tenants. The RTA 2004 has a clear set of rules around this in Chapter 6 of Part 4.

Cuddlesworth

the_syco wrote: »

Why do you say this? He's a tenant, not a licensee, as he's renting a room where the LL doesn't live there as well.

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Of course it could, you're simply not listening. He, and the other tenants, have exclusive use of the property. When the landlord lives in, it's different. He is still a tenant, not a licencee. I had exactly the same set-up for a year when I house-shared and was fully covered under tenancy law because each of the tenants signed a separate contract dictating their move-in date, the length of their tenancy and how much rent they were paying each.

Nope, not that clear.

RTB wrote:

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;

1. persons staying in hotels, guesthouses, hostels, etc.,
2. persons sharing a house/apartment with its owner e.g. under the ?rent a room? scheme or ?in digs?,
3. 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
4. persons staying in rented accommodation at the invitation of the tenant.

So basically if the landlord chooses the other tenants and offer no exclusivity to the shared spaces the person is a licensee under point 3, regardless of the landlord living there or not. It never gets to the RTB to even make a judgement on it. There are some cases there, but in those instances the tenant always had some form of say during their tenancy of who could come and go, or when the landlord was allowed into the place.

Most landlords in Dublin I know are now doing this. They hire cleaners and repairmen etc who come and go as they please, they visit to inspect when they want. The tenancy agreement does not have a term in it and makes it clear they are a licensee.

In the ops case, the landlord gave them a fixed term lease and probably registered them with the RTB(I hope). So they could use that to show they are not a licensee or at least they they shouldn't have to leave before end of July.

LuckyLloyd

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Most landlords in Dublin I know are now doing this. They hire cleaners and repairmen etc who come and go as they please, they visit to inspect when they want. The tenancy agreement does not have a term in it and makes it clear they are a licensee.

Just went through a period of finding a new place - seems to be plenty of places going on Daft that don't sit within the above statement.

ForestFire

my Mind Elsewhere

Michael D Not Higgins

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Nope, not that clear.



So basically if the landlord chooses the other tenants and offer no exclusivity to the shared spaces the person is a licensee under point 3, regardless of the landlord living there or not. It never gets to the RTB to even make a judgement on it. There are some cases there, but in those instances the tenant always had some form of say during their tenancy of who could come and go, or when the landlord was allowed into the place.

Most landlords in Dublin I know are now doing this. They hire cleaners and repairmen etc who come and go as they please, they visit to inspect when they want. The tenancy agreement does not have a term in it and makes it clear they are a licensee.

In the ops case, the landlord gave them a fixed term lease and probably registered them with the RTB(I hope). So they could use that to show they are not a licensee or at least they they shouldn't have to leave before end of July.

The RTB take a holistic view of when it is a tenancy or a licence. You may say it's a licence because of what's on the RTB site, however this is a guidance document and not legislative.

In other word, if it's a grey area they will look at the entire agreement and determine if it's a tenancy. There's nothing posted so far that would indicate to me that the OP entered into a licence.

davindub

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Nope, not that clear.



So basically if the landlord chooses the other tenants and offer no exclusivity to the shared spaces the person is a licensee under point 3, regardless of the landlord living there or not. It never gets to the RTB to even make a judgement on it. There are some cases there, but in those instances the tenant always had some form of say during their tenancy of who could come and go, or when the landlord was allowed into the place.

Most landlords in Dublin I know are now doing this. They hire cleaners and repairmen etc who come and go as they please, they visit to inspect when they want. The tenancy agreement does not have a term in it and makes it clear they are a licensee.

In the ops case, the landlord gave them a fixed term lease and probably registered them with the RTB(I hope). So they could use that to show they are not a licensee or at least they they shouldn't have to leave before end of July.

(b) Consequently a “self-contained residential unit” must mean a unit which enables the person residing there to have all the essentials for living ie for sleeping, washing, cooking, toiletry and relaxing. The fact that the person does not have an exclusive right to those facilities, does not render the unit less than a “self-contained residential unit”. In fact, the word “exclusive” appears in only one section of the 2004 Act ie section 12(1)(a) which deals with the obligation of the landlord to allow a tenant to enjoy peaceful and “exclusive occupation” of the dwelling. In our view the words “exclusive occupation” have to be interpreted as excluding other persons who have no
right to such occupation, rather than “exclusive occupation” being necessary to create a tenancy to which the 2004 Act applies.

We find as a matter of fact in this case, that the Appellant Tenant had an exclusive right to occupation of a bedroom and a non-exclusive right to other rooms in the unit ie bathroom, kitchen, and living room, which she was required to share with whoever else might have right from time to time to exclusive occupation of the other bedroom. As the Appellant Tenant was paying rent to the Respondent Landlord this right, we find as a matter of law that there was a tenancy of a “dwelling” within the definition of the 2004 Act as it was a “self-contained residential unit” and consequently the PRTB and this Tribunal has jurisdiction in relation to a dispute in relation to the tenancy.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

(b) Consequently a ?self-contained residential unit? must mean a unit which enables the person residing there to have all the essentials for living ie for sleeping, washing, cooking, toiletry and relaxing. The fact that the person does not have an exclusive right to those facilities, does not render the unit less than a ?self-contained residential unit?. In fact, the word ?exclusive? appears in only one section of the 2004 Act ie section 12(1)(a) which deals with the obligation of the landlord to allow a tenant to enjoy peaceful and ?exclusive occupation? of the dwelling. In our view the words ?exclusive occupation? have to be interpreted as excluding other persons who have no
right to such occupation, rather than ?exclusive occupation? being necessary to create a tenancy to which the 2004 Act applies.

We find as a matter of fact in this case, that the Appellant Tenant had an exclusive right to occupation of a bedroom and a non-exclusive right to other rooms in the unit ie bathroom, kitchen, and living room, which she was required to share with whoever else might have right from time to time to exclusive occupation of the other bedroom. As the Appellant Tenant was paying rent to the Respondent Landlord this right, we find as a matter of law that there was a tenancy of a ?dwelling? within the definition of the 2004 Act as it was a ?self-contained residential unit? and consequently the PRTB and this Tribunal has jurisdiction in relation to a dispute in relation to the tenancy.

And if the LL decides to move into the spare room himself, as is his right to becuse the LL is free to move people in and out while the a person renting another room in the house has zero say as they are renting just a room.

The person is then living with their LL and can't be anything but a licensee. So people may claim it's a tenancy but it's not really as it's so easy to dissolve. At best it's a tenancy while all rooms are occupied.

Cuddlesworth

davindub wrote: »

(b) Consequently a ?self-contained residential unit? must mean a unit which enables the person residing there to have all the essentials for living ie for sleeping, washing, cooking, toiletry and relaxing. The fact that the person does not have an exclusive right to those facilities, does not render the unit less than a ?self-contained residential unit?. In fact, the word ?exclusive? appears in only one section of the 2004 Act ie section 12(1)(a) which deals with the obligation of the landlord to allow a tenant to enjoy peaceful and ?exclusive occupation? of the dwelling. In our view the words ?exclusive occupation? have to be interpreted as excluding other persons who have no
right to such occupation, rather than ?exclusive occupation? being necessary to create a tenancy to which the 2004 Act applies.

We find as a matter of fact in this case, that the Appellant Tenant had an exclusive right to occupation of a bedroom and a non-exclusive right to other rooms in the unit ie bathroom, kitchen, and living room, which she was required to share with whoever else might have right from time to time to exclusive occupation of the other bedroom. As the Appellant Tenant was paying rent to the Respondent Landlord this right, we find as a matter of law that there was a tenancy of a ?dwelling? within the definition of the 2004 Act as it was a ?self-contained residential unit? and consequently the PRTB and this Tribunal has jurisdiction in relation to a dispute in relation to the tenancy.

TR168.2011.DR92.2011 ?

Its thrown around a lot as the argument to "I'm not a licensee" and I have a huge post somewhere here talking about it, but seriously read it. Not the result but the case as it was presented.

Cuddlesworth

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

And if the LL decides to move into the spare room himself, as is his right to becuse the LL is free to move people in and out while the a person renting another room in the house has zero say as they are renting just a room.

The person is then living with their LL and can't be anything but a licensee. So people may claim it's a tenancy but it's not really as it's so easy to dissolve. At best it's a tenancy while all rooms are occupied.

Nope, moving into a house does not make a person suddenly a licensee. Not if they had exclusive use before then. Read the report above.

oppenheimer1

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Just went through a period of finding a new place - seems to be plenty of places going on Daft that don't sit within the above statement.

There are plenty of places that are and having lived in an arrangement like this in the past and it is a nightmare. Its one step up in living with an owner occupier tbh. The details of the arrangement are only sprung on you as you are given the lease. Tell tale signs to watch out for: a regular cleaner for common spaces by the LL, a pinergy/coin meter for electricity and gas, individual rooms advertised and shown by the landlord not the other tenants.

They are usually advertised as house shares so its not immediately obvious to the prospective tenant/licensee what they are getting into. There is no peaceful enjoyment of your home in these places.

Michael D Not Higgins

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

And if the LL decides to move into the spare room himself, as is his right to becuse the LL is free to move people in and out while the a person renting another room in the house has zero say as they are renting just a room.

The person is then living with their LL and can't be anything but a licensee. So people may claim it's a tenancy but it's not really as it's so easy to dissolve. At best it's a tenancy while all rooms are occupied.

If the tenancy existed beforehand, this would be a method of terminating the tenancy not allowed by the RTA and thus would be invalid. The only way a tenant could be converted to a licensee in this manner would be notice of termination for the landlord's own use (or use by relative) followed by a licence agreement after the landlord moved in.

Varik

If it was a tenancy/exclusive use in the first place you couldn't move in to make it a license.

I think the argument he put forward was that if you'd set everything up as a licences according the RTA guidelines correctly and could move in to either replace someone or to a vacant room then by doing so you'd be just reaffirming that it was a license.

Michael D Not Higgins

Varik wrote: »

If it was a tenancy/exclusive use in the first place you couldn't move in to make it a license.

I think the argument he put forward was that if you'd set everything up as a licences according the RTA guidelines correctly and could move in to either replace someone or to a vacant room then by doing so you'd be just reaffirming that it was a license.

And again I point to the RTA section on multiple tenants and how nothing in the OP would lead anyone to thinking it is a licence agreement.

This has become a hobby of some posters to try and foist a licence on any grey areas where an OP has not expanded further on their lease or arrangements with the landlord.

3 people renting rooms in an apartment where the landlord isn't living is over 99% of the time a tenancy. Unless they give a detail that hints otherwise, there doesn't need to be a debate on whether it's a licence or not.