Text Message - Please Vacate

davindub

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

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.

Yep it was from there. I couldn't see the post you were talking about easily and I don't have time to go look for it.

I normally wouldn't place much weight on the RTB decisions, but this one was discussed at HC in connection with another case.

I believe the approach has differed at times but the above matches the effect of the RTB act which is:

all self contained dwellings are included in the act except where the stated exceptions in the act apply. None of the exceptions state exclusive possession.

I have seen arguments regarding having a cleaner come in removes the RTB act, also that short term lettings are outside the act, etc, but never a case or term in the act to explain where the argument came from. I wouldn't take risks based on that.

Michael D Not Higgins

davindub wrote: »

Yep it was from there. I couldn't see the post you were talking about easily and I don't have time to go look for it.

I normally wouldn't place much weight on the RTB decisions, but this one was discussed at HC in connection with another case.

I believe the approach has differed at times but the above matches the effect of the RTB act which is:

all self contained dwellings are included in the act except where the stated exceptions in the act apply. None of the exceptions state exclusive possession.

I have seen arguments regarding having a cleaner come in removes the RTB act, also that short term lettings are outside the act, etc, but never a case or term in the act to explain where the argument came from. I wouldn't take risks based on that.

Indeed, basing it on a poor RTB guidance document rather than the legislation is bound to end in misery.

Marcusm

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

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.

I guess you missed the word "collectively".

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

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.

A person living with their LL is a licensee. A person who rents a room and only a room is a tenant (according to some). A spare room becomes available and the owner moves in. The person who people claim is a tenant is now living with the owner so how can they still be a tenant, it's not compatible with the definition.

I didn't mean the owner would seek to terminate the tenancy either, I meant it would just cease to exist.

Marcusm wrote: »

I guess you missed the word "collectively".

Collectively and exclusive are two words that can't be used togeather, I don't care if the RTB ruled this way it's nonsense and needs to be challenged as being wrong.

FortuneChip

OP back - Plan is to move out at the end of June, provided I can find a place. As stated, to avoid any unnecessary hassle.

But, even if my lease didn't cover me until July 27th, three weeks is not sufficient notice.

From talking to my housemates, the LL isn't the most "experienced" in any of this, so it may be sheer ignorance that their not aware of tenant rights here. But simple decency to make a phone call, or provide something in writing, especially if they're hoping I can vacate at three week's notice.

Murrisk

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

A person living with their LL is a licensee. A person who rents a room and only a room is a tenant (according to some). A spare room becomes available and the owner moves in. The person who people claim is a tenant is now living with the owner so how can they still be a tenant, it's not compatible with the definition.

I didn't mean the owner would seek to terminate the tenancy either, I meant it would just cease to exist.

I think the tenant could probably say no to that. It doesn't seem to be a valid reason to end a tenancy.

Does anyone here know? I'd be interested to know, useful information to have.

Murrisk

Murrisk wrote: »

I think the tenant could probably say no to that. It doesn't seem to be a valid reason to end a tenancy.

Does anyone here know? I'd be interested to know, useful information to have.

But how can they say no? The rooms are vacant and the LL is entitled to fill them he can pick anyone in the world he wants so i can't see why he can't pick himself.

This valid reason stuff is only confusing matters. I'm simply saying the LL moves in and starts living there, not (initially anyway) giving any termination notice or anything just living there.

Murrisk

Well, it ends a tenancy. And the tenant goes from having rights to not having them. That's no small thing and it doesn't seem right to take away tenancy rights like that. It seems like it couldn't be done without asking the tenants, I don't think, but I'm waiting for someone with more knowledge of this to weigh in. And many people avoid owner-occupation situations when searching for accommodation so I don't think people would be too happy to find out that they are now living with the landlord. I suppose though that they could then take advantage of the change from tenant to licensee status to move out quickly and not breach any notice rules that would have applied to tenants.

jimd2

From experience, you will be surprised how much rights that you actually have. I know of cases where 'tenants' in much weaker positions have held on for many months by being belligerent and / or involving a solicitor.

Go to your solicitor. Get him or her to write to the landlord informing him that you have a lease until July with an expectation that it will be extended. Tell the solicitor to inform the LL that any further communication be through said solicitor.


And look into getting a new place in a timeframe that suits YOU and not the landlord.

And to those on the landlord's side that dont agree I say thems the ups and downs of renting a place out.

jimd2

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

But how can they say no? The rooms are vacant and the LL is entitled to fill them he can pick anyone in the world he wants so i can't see why he can't pick himself.

This valid reason stuff is only confusing matters. I'm simply saying the LL moves in and starts living there, not (initially anyway) giving any termination notice or anything just living there.

Youre having a laugh, landlord probably has several properties and maybe a job or is retired. He or she has probably not got the remotest intention of moving from a comfortable house in a location that suits into the rented place to deal with an issue like this - at this stage anyway.

jimd2

FortuneChip wrote: »

OP back - Plan is to move out at the end of June, provided I can find a place. As stated, to avoid any unnecessary hassle.

But, even if my lease didn't cover me until July 27th, three weeks is not sufficient notice.

From talking to my housemates, the LL isn't the most "experienced" in any of this, so it may be sheer ignorance that their not aware of tenant rights here. But simple decency to make a phone call, or provide something in writing, especially if they're hoping I can vacate at three week's notice.

As I wrote above suit yourself. Consider what YOU want and need. Don't force yourself into a new arangement that will bring trouble for you further down the road just to appease a landlord.

Murrisk

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

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.

I know, seems like a total headwreck. Not a great way to attract the best tenants, TBH. Anyone with a bit of choice won't plump for an arrangement like that.

Marcusm

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

Collectively and exclusive are two words that can't be used togeather, I don't care if the RTB ruled this way it's nonsense and needs to be challenged as being wrong.

Huh?

• A family collectively have exclusive occupation of a family home.
  
• A group of friends renting together with a single lease collectively have exclusive use of a rented property.
  
• A group of strangers who individually agree terms whereby they snd other parties rent bedrooms with shared use of the common areas collectively have exclusive use of the property

There are three sentences where they can be used together. This is not some random ruling of the RTB, it's an explicit provision of the law, section 48 et seq RTA 2004 - the law refers to them as "multiple occupants".

Michael D Not Higgins

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

I don't care if the RTB ruled this way it's nonsense and needs to be challenged as being wrong.

Take it up with the RTB, courts, government, etc. Your interpretation is incorrect as demonstrated through the cases in the RTB and court.

Making a tenancy "cease to exist" is terminating it. The RTA says there are only specific ways as outlined in the legislation in which you can terminate a tenancy. Moving in to a spare room is not one of them. Section 58 below with relevant bit highlighted:

"From the relevant date, a tenancy of a dwelling may not be terminated by the landlord or the tenant by means of a notice of forfeiture, a re-entry or any other process or procedure not provided by this Part."

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

Huh?

• A family collectively have exclusive occupation of a family home.
  
• A group of friends renting together with a single lease collectively have exclusive use of a rented property.
  
• A group of strangers who individually agree terms whereby they snd other parties rent bedrooms with shared use of the common areas collectively have exclusive use of the property

There are three sentences where they can be used together. This is not some random ruling of the RTB, it's an explicit provision of the law, section 48 et seq RTA 2004 - the law refers to them as "multiple occupants".

I was referring to a collective group of unconnected people, paying separate rent for their room only as opposed to the examples above where it makes sense as the collective are really one unit in reality rather than a number of random people.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

"From the relevant date, a tenancy of a dwelling may not be terminated by the landlord or the tenant by means of a notice of forfeiture, a re-entry or any other process or procedure not provided by this Part."

So we are in a situation where a person has full tenancy rights while living with their LL.

Michael D Not Higgins

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

So we are in a situation where a person has full tenancy rights while living with their LL.

In your proposed situation, the landlord has made an unauthorised re-entry and is trespassing in the tenant's home. They are not legally living in the property. Expect the RTB to come down heavily on any landlord attempting such tactics.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

In your proposed situation, the landlord has made an unauthorised re-entry and is trespassing in the tenant's home. They are not legally living in the property. Expect the RTB to come down heavily on any landlord attempting such tactics.

No he has not, the tenant is renting one room and one room only. There are other rooms in the house which can be filled by anyone of the LLs choosing. There is no way on earth that LL can pick any single person on this planet to move into that room and not himself (or one of his children by your reckoning as they would also result in a licensee relationship).

I'd agree with you if a tenant rents a full house but if a person rents a room and pays for one room they have absolutely zero say in who rents the other rooms and have nothing to go to the RTB about. Even if he wasn't moving in he would be entitled to enter and show other perspective tenants the rooms, inspect the rooms, repair the rooms etc without consulting with the person renting the other room as that person does not have exclusive use of the common areas and no rights whatsoever over the other bedrooms.

Weather or not it ends the tenancy (if one even existed) is one thing but there is simply no way the LL could not move into a spare room in a house he owns when he has the right to fill these rooms with people he chooses.

Michael D Not Higgins

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

No he has not, the tenant is renting one room and one room only. There are other rooms in the house which can be filled by anyone of the LLs choosing. There is no way on earth that LL can pick any single person on this planet to move into that room and not himself.

I'd agree with you if a tenant rents a full house but if a person rents a room they have absolutely zero say in who rents the other room and have nothing to go to the RTB about.

nox, you're a broken record at this stage. I have pointed out the legislatively basis numerous occasions to you but you just don't like it. That's fine, but stop trying to argue otherwise.

pilly

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

nox, you're a broken record at this stage. I have pointed out the legislatively basis numerous occasions to you but you just don't like it. That's fine, but stop trying to argue otherwise.

Completely agree, same argument in every thread.

No matter what your opinion is nox the legislation says differently so constantly stating your own opinion on it is not helping anyone.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

nox, you're a broken record at this stage. I have pointed out the legislatively basis numerous occasions to you but you just don't like it. That's fine, but stop trying to argue otherwise.

The legalisation does not cover the situation I am describing, its referring to houses let as a whole where obviously a LL can not just move into. Its totally different when rooms are let separately as what right does a person renting a room.

Yes I keep arguing my point because I am absolutely adamant that I am correct but get constantly shot down with half truths or non-applicable pieces of legalisation etc. There is not a single fact that says a LL cannot move into a spare room in a house he rents rooms separately when one comes available when the others living there only pay for their room and not exclusive use of the full property.

I actually don't have an issue debating it with you as you do argue from a neutral perspective but the vast majority who disagree with me do it from an extremely pro tenant/anti LL perspective and would swear black was white to suit their agenda.

pilly

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

The legalisation does not cover the situation I am describing, its referring to houses let as a whole where obviously a LL can not just move into. Its totally different when rooms are let separately as what right does a person renting a room.

Yes I keep arguing my point because I am absolutely adamant that I am correct but get constantly shot down with half truths or non-applicable pieces of legalisation etc. There is not a single fact that says a LL cannot move into a spare room in a house he rents rooms separately when one comes available when the others living there only pay for their room and not exclusive use of the full property.

I actually don't have an issue debating it with you as you do argue from a neutral perspective but the vast majority who disagree with me do it from an extremely pro tenant/anti LL perspective and would swear black was white to suit their agenda.

I'm a LL and I don't agree with you. It is you who is pushing your own agenda, you're constantly on this subject and will not accept you're wrong no matter how many times it has been proven.

pilly

pilly wrote: »

I'm a LL and I don't agree with you. It is you who is pushing your own agenda, you're constantly on this subject and will not accept you're wrong no matter how many times it has been proven.

It hasn't been proven, I will gladly stop arguing it when it is proven which means a court or RTB decision to say I'm wrong.

How can a rule be in place that allows a property owner move any person of his choosing into a room in a house except himself it just doesn't make sense, there is no basis for it. The people renting the other rooms in the house simply have no case as they have no rights over that room whatsoever.

Michael D Not Higgins

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

The legalisation does not cover the situation I am describing, its referring to houses let as a whole where obviously a LL can not just move into. Its totally different when rooms are let separately as what right does a person renting a room.

Yes I keep arguing my point because I am absolutely adamant that I am correct but get constantly shot down with half truths or non-applicable pieces of legalisation etc.

I actually don't have an issue debating it with you as you do argue from a neutral perspective but the vast majority who disagree with me do it from an extremely pro tenant/anti LL perspective and would swear black was white to suit their agenda.

There's nothing special about someone renting a room with shared access to the common areas. They are either a multiple tenant or a licensee.

They are only a licensee in a number of isolated cases, specifically where they stay there on the permission of a tenant, they share with the landlord or a landlord's close relative, or where the landlord retains access to the property (and even then it's dubious as the RTA is silent on this point).

What you are arguing is that the landlord has access to the property since they're renting the rooms separately. What I've told you is that the RTB look at agreements holistically and the vast majority of the time, the evidence doesn't support it being a licence but a tenancy.

There was nothing in the OP's post to suggest it was a licence based on the agreement or facts of the case, so I will always advise on it being a tenancy until there is reason to believe otherwise.

There's a saying in medicine to prevent new doctors from jumping to the diagnosis of the rare condition as opposed to a more common one: "When you hear hooves, think horses not zebras". The same can be applied here.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

There's nothing special about someone renting a room with shared access to the common areas. They are either a multiple tenant or a licensee.

They are only a licensee in a number of isolated cases, specifically where they stay there on the permission of a tenant, they share with the landlord or a landlord's close relative, or where the landlord retains access to the property (and even then it's dubious as the RTA is silent on this point).

What you are arguing is that the landlord has access to the property since they're renting the rooms separately. What I've told you is that the RTB look at agreements holistically and the vast majority of the time, the evidence doesn't support it being a licence but a tenancy.

There was nothing in the OP's post to suggest it was a licence based on the agreement or facts of the case, so I will always advise on it being a tenancy until there is reason to believe otherwise.

There's a saying in medicine to prevent new doctors from jumping to the diagnosis of the rare condition as opposed to a more common one: "When you hear hooves, think horses not zebras". The same can be applied here.

Fair enough I'll stop but I still disagree that a LL is not free to move into a spare room that becomes available regardless of the other person renting the other room being a tenant or not as they are not a tenant of the room the LL is moving into and have no say over what happens with that room. For example the LL could move in a highly dangerous criminal but not himself by the reckoning here.

Michael D Not Higgins

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

Fair enough I'll stop but I still disagree that a LL is not free to move into a spare room that becomes available regardless of the other person renting the other room being a tenant or not as they are not a tenant of the room the LL is moving into and have no say over what happens with that room. For example the LL could move in a highly dangerous criminal but not himself by the reckoning here.

The problem is that the RTA balances the property rights of the owner/landlord against the tenancy rights of the renter. The way to allow these to be fairly applied means that in order for the landlord to exercise their rights to the property, e.g. to move in, they must follow the procedures within the RTA in order to respect the tenant's rights, e.g. by issuing notice of termination with correct notice period.

You can't just go off the reservation to find ways around the procedures laid out in the RTA, the RTA itself specifically forbids that.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The problem is that the RTA balances the property rights of the owner/landlord against the tenancy rights of the renter. The way to allow these to be fairly applied means that in order for the landlord to exercise their rights to the property, e.g. to move in, they must follow the procedures within the RTA in order to respect the tenant's rights, e.g. by issuing notice of termination with correct notice period.

You can't just go off the reservation to find ways around the procedures laid out in the RTA, the RTA itself specifically forbids that.

And I'd agree if a tenant rents a full house but I don't think the situation is as clear cut as you think when its multiple rooms let separately. When all rooms are full it could be argued its similar but when a room becomes available the other people living in the house have no say over what happens the spare room. It is totally outside their control and have no rights to it or who lives in it.

Michael D Not Higgins

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

And I'd agree if a tenant rents a full house but I don't think the situation is as clear cut as you think when its multiple rooms let separately. When all rooms are full it could be argued its similar but when a room becomes available the other people living in the house have no say over what happens the spare room. It is totally outside their control and have no rights to it or who lives in it.

There's no legislative basis for what you describe though, in fact it is counter to the legislation. I'm still suspicious of a landlord having "continuing access" as per the RTB leaflet on licensees as there's nothing in the RTA that describes that (this may be borne out of interpretation of cases of which I'm not sure). Nevertheless, the landlord having rented out all the rooms and not "continuing access" does not have a licence agreement.

Murrisk

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

Fair enough I'll stop but I still disagree that a LL is not free to move into a spare room that becomes available regardless of the other person renting the other room being a tenant or not as they are not a tenant of the room the LL is moving into and have no say over what happens with that room. For example the LL could move in a highly dangerous criminal but not himself by the reckoning here.

But if the landlord moves in, then the tenant even loses tenant status of their OWN room. The landlord moving in changes things in the house a lot. The occupants go from having rights to having none. And the only way for that to happen is to give proper notice. The landlord can't just move in because his presence changes the other occupants' status in the property. And a landlord just moving in would disgruntle a lot of people, many people actively avoid owner-occupied living situations. It's a shabby, contemptuous way to treat tenants and what you describe isn't allowed for that reason.

Cuddlesworth

davindub wrote: »

Yep it was from there. I couldn't see the post you were talking about easily and I don't have time to go look for it.

I normally wouldn't place much weight on the RTB decisions, but this one was discussed at HC in connection with another case.

I believe the approach has differed at times but the above matches the effect of the RTB act which is:

all self contained dwellings are included in the act except where the stated exceptions in the act apply. None of the exceptions state exclusive possession.

I have seen arguments regarding having a cleaner come in removes the RTB act, also that short term lettings are outside the act, etc, but never a case or term in the act to explain where the argument came from. I wouldn't take risks based on that.

So the case I listed could be summed up so.

Women lived in flat with another women.
While there, the landlord/cleaners/workmen etc would have to ask permission to enter the property.
When the second tenant left, landlord asked person in case to agree to new potential flatmate.
Landlord stored some stuff in the other room.
She lived there for 16 months on her own as the landlord didn't bother getting a second tenant.
During that time, she had evidence that to even enter the flat he requested her permission including storing the stuff.
He decided he wanted to sell, moved himself into the second room and then booted her out.(looking at you Nox)

RTB found against the landlords claim that she was a licensee based on those facts, . High court judge agreed. I agree, while she had non-exlusive use of the common areas for a while(everybody who cohabits does), she had exclusive use of the flat.

The HC judgement you linked is another that comes up a lot, dude lived in a B&B.

mrslancaster

reading this thread with great interest.

friends daughter has a 3 bed house & house shared by renting the two empty bedrooms. her job transferred her to the uk for 6 months & while she was in uk a third person (student) moved in. everyone in the house knew it was while she was temporarily away in the uk.

the students course is now finished & she is moving out. friends daughter is back in dublin since may & intends moving back into her home as soon as the room is vacant.

is this a licence arrangement for the two house sharers?