Property not registered with RTB, being evicted in 30 days.

Lord Nikon

Advice needed.
A friend of mine is currently renting a room in Dublin, has been living there for just over 3 years, pays his rent on time etc etc. but he never signed a lease with the landlord, but the landlord accepts the Rent Supplement and rent. Now, one of the other tenants who looks after the house for the landlord, has stated he wants my friend to move out in 30 days. I has since checked, and the property isn’t registered on RTB, so not sure if the rules apply of evicting someone because they want to. My friend is an exemplary tenant.

Now, the big problem is, he is in his sixties, hasn’t worked in a few years, and was diagnosed with cancer last year, and soon to be doing chemotherapy. He really doesn’t need the stress in his life right now, and isn’t in a fit mind to be looking for somewhere new to live.

Please advice.

davo10

Lord Nikon wrote: »

Advice needed.
A friend of mine is currently renting a room in Dublin, has been living there for just over 3 years, pays his rent on time etc etc. but he never signed a lease with the landlord, but the landlord accepts the Rent Supplement and rent. Now, one of the other tenants who looks after the house for the landlord, has stated he wants my friend to move out in 30 days. I has since checked, and the property isn’t registered on RTB, so not sure if the rules apply of evicting someone because they want to. My friend is an exemplary tenant.

Now, the big problem is, he is in his sixties, hasn’t worked in a few years, and was diagnosed with cancer last year, and soon to be doing chemotherapy. He really doesn’t need the stress in his life right now, and isn’t in a fit mind to be looking for somewhere new to live.

Please advice.

Is the other person the tenant and your friend a licensee?

Lord Nikon

The other person is a tenant yes. Licencee?

10pennymixup

To receive the best information here, people need to know whether a tenancy exists, or is it a licensee situation.

To whom does your friend pay the rent? Do they pay it to the tenant that looks after the house, or do they pay it directly to the Landlord?

TheChizler

10pennymixup wrote: »

To receive the best information here, people need to know whether a tenancy exists, or is it a licensee situation.

To whom does your friend pay the rent? Do they pay it to the tenant that looks after the house, or do they pay it directly to the Landlord?

Or more specifically who is the rental agreement with. Lots of people in a joint tenancy pay one tenant who makes a single payment to the landlord.

10pennymixup

TheChizler wrote: »

Or more specifically who is the rental agreement with. Lots of people in a joint tenancy pay one tenant who makes a single payment to the landlord.

He never signed a lease (rental agreement) as per OP

Though it could well be a tenancy as the LL "accepts RA and rent".

pc7

Does the landlord live in the house too?

Graham

Assuming the landlord doesn't live in the property:

In the absence of any agreement to the contrary. If the friend pays the landlord and the rent supplement is also paid to the landlord, it would be hard not to conclude the friends contract is with the landlord which will most likely mean he is a tenant.

Mrs OBumble

Is he on the council housing list?

If not, then whatever else he does he should register with them asap. And take a letter from his doctor with him when he does.

TheChizler

10pennymixup wrote: »

He never signed a lease (rental agreement) as per OP

Though it could well be a tenancy as the LL "accepts RA and rent".

Yes but there still has to be an agreement in place, whether it was through email, text, or verbal.

Lord Nikon

Update : My friend pays the rent to the tenant. Verbal agreement.

Cuddlesworth

So unless the actual landlord admits to him being a tenant or he has proof of a agreement with the owner, he is considered a licensee. He sublets a room and his landlord is the other tenant. Which means he basically has no rights, the RTB and tenant laws do not apply to him.

Claw Hammer

Who is mentioned on the RA forms? Even if he is a licensee of the tenant, he may entitled to become a tenant of the LL under Section 50 of the RTA. He also should have been told at the start that he was a sub-tenant, if that is what he is.

The_Conductor

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

So unless the actual landlord admits to him being a tenant or he has proof of a agreement with the owner, he is considered a licensee. He sublets a room and his landlord is the other tenant. Which means he basically has no rights, the RTB and tenant laws do not apply to him.

I have to concur with Cuddlesworth.
He sounds like a licensee of the actual tenant- and as thus is not entitled to the protections of the Act. Not having a formal lease with the landlord- and paying the rent to another tenant- would be raising red flags for me........ Does the landlord even know he is there- and has he agreed to it?

Cuddlesworth

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Who is mentioned on the RA forms? Even if he is a licensee of the tenant, he may entitled to become a tenant of the LL under Section 50 of the RTA. He also should have been told at the start that he was a sub-tenant, if that is what he is.

If the landlords(owners) name and signature is on the forms, then it's proof that the landlord acknowledged his tenancy. Otherwise your pushing it.

Claw Hammer

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If the landlords(owners) name and signature is on the forms, then it's proof that the landlord acknowledged his tenancy. Otherwise your pushing it.

The landlord has to be told the name of every person residing in the dwelling. A licensee has the right to seek to become a tenant. If he has come in a licensee of another tenant he can apply to open a dispute with the RTB if he is not allowed. He will continue as he is until there is a final determination. The RTB will side with him if the LL knows he is there.

Cuddlesworth

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The landlord has to be told the name of every person residing in the dwelling. A licensee has the right to seek to become a tenant. If he has come in a licensee of another tenant he can apply to open a dispute with the RTB if he is not allowed. He will continue as he is until there is a final determination. The RTB will side with him if the LL knows he is there.

You got a case or example to back that statement up?

Claw Hammer

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You got a case or example to back that statement up?

There are lots of them. Go on to the RTB site.

antoinolachtnai

The problem here is that the tenants are seemingly not willing for the new licensee (the OP’s friend) to become a tenant.

It seems unlikely to me that the RTB would force a new joint tenant on the existing tenant(s). The OP’s friend’s dispute would seem to be with the existing tenant or tenants rather than the landlord and so it does not seem like RTB would be a good forum. But maybe I am wrong and there is a precedent (though I would still wonder if or how the order could be enforced).

Claw Hammer

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The problem here is that the tenants are seemingly not willing for the new licensee (the OP’s friend) to become a tenant.

It seems unlikely to me that the RTB would force a new joint tenant on the existing tenant(s). The OP’s friend’s dispute would seem to be with the existing tenant or tenants rather than the landlord and so it does not seem like RTB would be a good forum. But maybe I am wrong and there is a precedent (though I would still wonder if or how the order could be enforced).

If the existing tenants have allowed a licensee to be in the property for 6 months then they are going to be stuck with the licensee becoming a tenant whether they like it or not. They can't take money from a licensee and then refuse the licensee rights. The Licensee should write to the LL seeking to become a tenant.

Cuddlesworth

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There are lots of them. Go on to the RTB site.

I'll take that as a no then.

Claw Hammer

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I'll take that as a no then.

I take it you haven't bothered to look at the RTB site.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If the existing tenants have allowed a licensee to be in the property for 6 months then they are going to be stuck with the licensee becoming a tenant whether they like it or not. They can't take money from a licensee and then refuse the licensee rights. The Licensee should write to the LL seeking to become a tenant.

It doesn't just happen though, unless they request it they are not tenants and it can be refused.

Cuddlesworth

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If the existing tenants have allowed a licensee to be in the property for 6 months then they are going to be stuck with the licensee becoming a tenant whether they like it or not. They can't take money from a licensee and then refuse the licensee rights. The Licensee should write to the LL seeking to become a tenant.

You keep making unfounded claims with no substantiation or evidence, yet tell me to do my "research".

Lets go over the RTB document that references licensees becoming part 4 tenants.

Relevant Provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 -

Chapter 6 of Part 4 contains the rules governing the operation of Part 4 in cases of multiple occupants. In some instances the multiple occupants will all be tenants but in other instances they will be a mixture of tenants and licensees. A tenancy becomes a Part 4 tenancy on the earliest date at which one of the tenants has been in occupation for 6 months. During the existence of a Part 4 tenancy any lawful licensee of the tenant/s may request the landlord to be allowed to become a tenant of the tenancy. The landlord may not unreasonably refuse such a request and must give his/her acceptance in writing. All the rights, restrictions and obligations of a tenant will then apply to the former licensee except that the protection of the Part 4 tenancy will not apply until the former licensee has completed 6 months of continuous occupation counting time spent as a licensee and as a tenant.

I've highlighted the important part here. Words have very specific meaning when referenced in law.

Lets take a look at the carefully worded example that the RTB provides, I've also highlighted the important bit.

Angela Ashe and Barbara Bush enter into a tenancy on 18th August 2005. The house has a third bedroom and they are having difficulty affording the rent – the landlord did not indicate a limit of two occupants. They take in Cathy Castle as their licensee on 20th October 2005. Angela moves out on 13th December 2005 and Barbara takes in Dina Dove as her licensee on 17th December 2005. Barbara acquires a Part 4 tenancy on 18th February 200 All tenant obligations have been complied with. Cathy requests the landlord to become tenant on 1st March 2006 and Dina makes a similar request two weeks later. Withholding of consent would be unreasonable so the landlord gives consent to both in writing. Cathy while now a tenant of a Part 4 tenancy does not acquire the protection of it until 20th April 2006 and Dina does not acquire the protection until 17th June 200 Therefore if Barbara terminates her tenancy before 20th April 2006 (the date on which Cathy qualifies for the benefit of the Part 4 tenancy), the Part 4 tenancy will expire and a new tenancy will commence assuming the landlord does not immediately terminate Cathy and Dina’s tenancy. Even so, for the next 6 months their tenancy may be terminated by the landlord without having to cite one of the grounds in the Table to section 34, as that new tenancy has not yet become a Part 4 tenancy. If Barbara does not leave until after 20th April 2006, the original Part 4 tenancy can continue to exist until 17th August 2009 because Cathy will have qualified for its protection before Barbara left.

So if the landlord says, I never allowed or agreed to subletting of the apartment and here is a copy of the lease(which has the very very common clause of no subletting), then its not a reasonable request for tenancy. And to be honest, the landlord would have to be pretty stupid to say otherwise.

If the landlord signed the rent assitance forms, he's a tenant regardless since the landlord is receiving payment.

Now you then ask yourself, what would be the point of this law. Well its to protect arrangements where multiple people(ie a family) rent a property but only 1 leaseholder exists. So for example, if the father is the single entry on the lease, then the kids and wife are really tenants as the landlord knew they lived there. Or, in the RTB example where the tenants were allowed to sublet, then the landlord acknowledged there were going to be additional tenants.

Its not there to allow people to sublet without permission and to allow those licensees to acquire part 4 rights without any involvement from the landlord.

Lord Nikon

My OH telephoned the landlord and said he didn’t give a crap, basically he said the other guy living there is deciding about who lives in the house. Gonna call RTB myself after work, and see what they officially advise. If it does go pear shaped, I'll be reporting LL to RTB for not registering the property, and reporting him to Revenue for maybe not declaring all income.

Surely, with all the changes to the rental sector regarding rights/laws for tenants/landlords etc. that the landlord could be so naive to think that he can do what he likes.

TheChizler

Is that anywhere in writing, that the tenant gets to decide who lives there? Ever seen their lease? If yes it looks like Cuddlesworth's example applies and the LL can't unreasonably refuse a request to be made a tenant (am I reading that right?).

You're making big assumptions there, what reason do you have to believe they're not paying enough tax? And how can you be confident the place isn't RTB registered? Any place I've rented hasn't been in the public register on the site, but I've got the official PRTB registration letters. They're hopeless at keeping the list up to date.

The_Conductor

Lord Nikon wrote: »

My OH telephoned the landlord and said he didn’t give a crap, basically he said the other guy living there is deciding about who lives in the house. Gonna call RTB myself after work, and see what they officially advise. If it does go pear shaped, I'll be reporting LL to RTB for not registering the property, and reporting him to Revenue for maybe not declaring all income.

Surely, with all the changes to the rental sector regarding rights/laws for tenants/landlords etc. that the landlord could be so naive to think that he can do what he likes.

Lord Nikon-

First off- it would seem to me that the dispute is between the tenant and their licensee. The landlord is getting invoked- because the licensee is in dispute with the tenant- and is trying to claim tenancy rights that they don't necessarily have as a licensee.

The landlord can register the unit with the RTB at any stage- and simply pay the 180 Euro fine for a late registration.

The landlord's tax affairs are none of your business- however, if he has been accepting RAS or other local authority or DSP payments- it is likely that he had to present a C2 or similar tax clearance cert. Aka- his tax is probably uptodate and paid- however, one way or the other- that's between him and Revenue- its nothing to do with you. If your friend goes down the road of suggesting the landlord is not tax compliant- they may find themselves to be wrong, plain and simple- and even if they're not- whats that got to do with the licensee?

I don't see that its clarified on thread- who your friend is making the payment to- the tenant- or the landlord?

Good luck to your friend- but I honestly, from the little you've told us, don't think they have a leg to stand on..........

Lord Nikon

The_Conductor wrote: »

Lord Nikon-

First off- it would seem to me that the dispute is between the tenant and their licensee. The landlord is getting invoked- because the licensee is in dispute with the tenant- and is trying to claim tenancy rights that they don't necessarily have as a licensee.

The landlord can register the unit with the RTB at any stage- and simply pay the 180 Euro fine for a late registration.

The landlord's tax affairs are none of your business- however, if he has been accepting RAS or other local authority or DSP payments- it is likely that he had to present a C2 or similar tax clearance cert. Aka- his tax is probably uptodate and paid- however, one way or the other- that's between him and Revenue- its nothing to do with you. If your friend goes down the road of suggesting the landlord is not tax compliant- they may find themselves to be wrong, plain and simple- and even if they're not- whats that got to do with the licensee?

I don't see that its clarified on thread- who your friend is making the payment to- the tenant- or the landlord?

Good luck to your friend- but I honestly, from the little you've told us, don't think they have a leg to stand on..........

To respond, the tenant is being awkward because his OH doesn't like my friend, it's that simple. We are right to get the landlord involved, as my understanding is the landlord only has the power to evict someone(and that's if there is as basis for it, which there is not). We are involving the landlord because he is receiving the Rent Supplement/HAP payment.

Maybe the landlord can register the property with RTB, but since it's not on their register, and doesn't look like it never has, would the landlord be receiving an income from renting the property that the RTB don;t know about, and not filing incomes with revenue?

The fact that the landlord doesn't really care is relevant, that my friend is due to start chemo in the coming weeks, and isn't in any fit state to start looking for somewhere new to live.

FYI, the landlord, NOT the tenant, receives the payment from RA/HAP, and only the landlord can accept it.

antoinolachtnai

The problem for your friend is that this is a problem within the household, not between the tenants and the landlord. The landlord is being paid for the use of his land and buildings. He isn’t an arbitrator or mediator.

It is not the case that only the landlord can throw someone out. It is really up to the tenants to regulate the household.

Your friend’s living situation is untenable and he is clearly in serious trouble and needs help and advice. Maybe the RTB is some use as a delaying tactic but I can’t see it being a long term resolution.

Cuddlesworth

Lord Nikon wrote: »

FYI, the landlord, NOT the tenant, receives the payment from RA/HAP, and only the landlord can accept it.

Then your friend is a full tenant and he should ask for the landlords agreement to the "eviction" in writing or get a recording of it for the RTB case. He should also find a new place to move into after being evicted because regardless of the outcome, he is no longer welcome in that property. He can of course screw the usual thick irish landlord to the wall afterwards.