rent a room question

tom1ie

Caranica wrote: »

No, rent a room is a Revenue relief. Nothing to do with Department of housing

Yes indeed but my question regards the rtb telling me in my setup I’d have a tenant not a lodger.
Surely that’s housing.
I know the revenue will tell me all is ok as will citizens advice as I’ve spoke to them, however rtb directly contradict both of these.

Claw Hammer

tom1ie wrote: »

I'm not creating a second dwelling though. Therefore it's not a tenancy it's a licence deal and the person is a lodger and not a tenant.

You are creating a second dwelling from what you have described. The occupier of this new unit doesn't reside in your household and either goes in directly to their own area of the building or goes through your area purely for access. You are creating a self contained apartment and it is a separate dwelling. No ifs or buts about it. Whether or not the Revenue allow you RTB relief is irrelevant.

tom1ie

Claw Hammer wrote: »

tom1ie wrote: »

I'm not creating a second dwelling though. Therefore it's not a tenancy it's a licence deal and the person is a lodger and not a tenant.

You are creating a second dwelling from what you have described. The occupier of this new unit doesn't reside in your household and either goes in directly to their own area of the building or goes through your area purely for access. You are creating a self contained apartment and it is a separate dwelling. No ifs or buts about it. Whether or not the Revenue allow you RTB relief is irrelevant.

Wrong.
It is not another dwelling as is clearly stated in revenue rules. They say it qualifies for rent a room as the r.a.r is joined onto the house.

tom1ie

Self-contained unit
The rented room or rooms can be a self-contained unit within the house, such as a basement flat or a converted garage.

If this unit is not attached to the property it cannot qualify for the relief.

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

Self-contained unit
The rented room or rooms can be a self-contained unit within the house, such as a basement flat or a converted garage.

If this unit is not attached to the property it cannot qualify for the relief.

That's from the revenue website. Revenue run the rent a room scheme. According to this I am in compliance.
Rtb have nothing to do with it.

1874

tom1ie wrote: »

That's from the revenue website. Revenue run the rent a room scheme. According to this I am in compliance.
Rtb have nothing to do with it.

Id be careful around that, even being attached and only recently constructed (ie not originally) that might change the situation on how the RTB might view it as a tenancy or not.

What the Revenue and the RTB say could contradict each other. IMO I consider Ive read in the law where what revenue says in guidelines isnt backed up by the law. So its possible that sometimes things may not tally between separate organisations of the State if a meaning can come across differently or vaguely when its one organisation.

That said rent a room is a revenue scheme, ie you're not liable for tax if its your permanent residence, but Id read the RTA 2004 and what RTB guidelines say about what a tenancy is and when one is created or not as the case may be.
I've a sneaking suspicion it might be possible to be able to be eligible for rent a room tax relief AND as the RTA 2004 has been tweaked, it may be possible to still create a situation where a person could claim the circumstances for a Tenancy exist also.


The way to ensure you dont create a Tenancy is to not have it separate, IMO you have it constructed as you want, that might mean so it can have its own entrance in the event you end up having it as an actual Granny flat for a relative, then lock that door and have anyone coming and going through the main doorway.
I think there is wording that you can opt out of providing a tenancy (mentioned earlier in the thread) if the portion being let was originally attached and part of the original building.
How that works if it is a later extension I dont know, I have not read all the material in detail. Having a seperate unit, especially where it was not part of the original building IMO throws up risks of being in a situation where a Tenancy might be created whether you agree with that or like it or not and then it would be on the decision of the RTB if that was the case or not.

tom1ie

1874 wrote: »

Id be careful around that, even being attached and only recently constructed (ie not originally) that might change the situation on how the RTB might view it as a tenancy or not.

What the Revenue and the RTB say could contradict each other. IMO I consider Ive read in the law where what revenue says in guidelines isnt backed up by the law. So its possible that sometimes things may not tally between separate organisations of the State if a meaning can come across differently or vaguely when its one organisation.

That said rent a room is a revenue scheme, ie you're not liable for tax if its your permanent residence, but Id read the RTA 2004 and what RTB guidelines say about what a tenancy is and when one is created or not as the case may be.
I've a sneaking suspicion it might be possible to be able to be eligible for rent a room tax relief AND as the RTA 2004 has been tweaked, it may be possible to still create a situation where a person could claim the circumstances for a Tenancy exist also.


The way to ensure you dont create a Tenancy is to not have it separate, IMO you have it constructed as you want, that might mean so it can have its own entrance in the event you end up having it as an actual Granny flat for a relative, then lock that door and have anyone coming and going through the main doorway.
I think there is wording that you can opt out of providing a tenancy (mentioned earlier in the thread) if the portion being let was originally attached and part of the original building.
How that works if it is a later extension I dont know, I have not read all the material in detail. Having a seperate unit, especially where it was not part of the original building IMO throws up risks of being in a situation where a Tenancy might be created whether you agree with that or like it or not and then it would be on the decision of the RTB if that was the case or not.

The garage was always there but the conversion would only be recent.
I queried exactly what you have said with both rtb and citizens advice- who quoted the revenue.
Both sides contradicted each other which is the crux of the problem here.
I have wrote to the minister for housing to clear this up (looking at the rtb- it’s a tenancy angle) that department has sent it on to the finance department as it’s a revenue scheme.
All I want is a definitive answer one way or the other that will keep me out of the wrc!

1874

I went back and re-read the start of the thread as I started reading it late last night, I see the garage was original, I think you should use the exemption to opt out of creating a tenancy. Whether you'll get a definitive answer or not is another thing.
It seems you would prefer keep it as a seperate unit from your home, potentially you could let for under the tenancy requirement limits ie to students for a term and have access to the other section of the property for laundry and other stuff.
I think it was overzealous to include in any way granny flats or property on the same plot as the owners primary residnece in terms of full Tenant rights, potentially having someone obliged to commit to a fixed term only and not eligible for renewals would have been a great idea, and strict rules on allowing termination regarding non payment, it could have opened the potential for a lot of spaces to be released onto the market & stimulated some building.

1874

danoriordan1402 wrote: »

I have a similar set up with a " 3 room granny flat" incorporated into the house. It has its own entrance, but also has a door from my part of the house into the granny flat. This door however looks like a door from my side , opposite side has no handles and a full height mirror in front so its not visible really from the flat. All utilities are included in rent as they couldn't be feasibly split. I think I am pretty border line for rent a room on reading the above......

Having a bat-cave type entrance doesnt protect you from the RTB/RTA2004 ,
You sound like you are on dangerous ground IMO.
Im sure your Lodgers are well aware of where this door leads and aren't fooled by the mirror .

tom1ie

1874 wrote: »

Having a bat-cave type entrance doesnt protect you from the RTB/RTA2004 ,
You sound like you are on dangerous ground IMO.
Im sure your Lodgers are well aware of where this door leads and aren't fooled by the mirror .

But the rtb has no jurisdiction over a revenue scheme that clearly states how to deal with self contained units.

1874

tom1ie wrote: »

But the rtb has no jurisdiction over a revenue scheme that clearly states how to deal with self contained units.

I think the RTB has jurisdiction over what is defined a tenancy or not, or it could be even the WRC now, Im well out of it now and its gone on so many tangents, I dont know what is normal (;)) anymore.
I'd agree that the RTB likely has no jurisdiction over the Revenue scheme and just as likely dont care one jot, the Revenue scheme is a tax scheme that allows you no tax liability for rooms let in your own home, The RTB get to decide if such a scenario is in your own home or if you have actually created a Tenancy, Id suggest a separate unit (under current legislation) would be the description of creating a tenancy (I may not think that is good or ideal or fair, but IMO I think its how it would be seen).
The way around that legitimately is the opt out clause, but Id review it in detail.

tom1ie

1874 wrote: »

I think the RTB has jurisdiction over what is defined a tenancy or not, or it could be even the WRC now, Im well out of it now and its gone on so many tangents, I dont know what is normal (;)) anymore.
I'd agree that the RTB likely has no jurisdiction over the Revenue scheme and just as likely dont care one jot, the Revenue scheme is a tax scheme that allows you no tax liability for rooms let in your own home, The RTB get to decide if such a scenario is in your own home or if you have actually created a Tenancy, Id suggest a separate unit (under current legislation) would be the description of creating a tenancy (I may not think that is good or ideal or fair, but IMO I think its how it would be seen).
The way around that legitimately is the opt out clause, but Id review it in detail.

Yeah i think this is where it’s at now. The rtb can actually decide if a lodger is a tenant and then bring, what they perceive to be the landlord, to the wrc, where you’ll get some adjudacter looking to make a name for herself/himself and your in trouble.
This seems completely unfair and I think leaves a trap for people.
When/if I get a ministerial reply I’ll post it up here.

davindub

tom1ie wrote: »

Yeah i think this is where it’s at now. The rtb can actually decide if a lodger is a tenant and then bring, what they perceive to be the landlord, to the wrc, where you’ll get some adjudacter looking to make a name for herself/himself and your in trouble.
This seems completely unfair and I think leaves a trap for people.
When/if I get a ministerial reply I’ll post it up here.

Wrc is for cases brought by a tenant under the equal status act. Again nothing to do with the rtb.

tom1ie

davindub wrote: »

Wrc is for cases brought by a tenant under the equal status act. Again nothing to do with the rtb.

Can an rtb decision not be brought to the wrc? I thought there was a ruling by an adjudicator about a tenant/lodger classification recently enough and I thought that was in the wrc. Apologies if not. Are there adjudicators working for the rtb, and is it the rtb who make the decision? They dont settle matters in the wrc, no?
Again apologies I’m not well up on this part of it.

davindub

tom1ie wrote: »

Can an rtb decision not be brought to the wrc? I thought there was a ruling by an adjudicator about a tenant/lodger classification recently enough and I thought that was in the wrc. Apologies if not. Are there adjudicators working for the rtb, and is it the rtb who make the decision? They dont settle matters in the wrc, no?
Again apologies I’m not well up on this part of it.

The WRC may have made a decision that a complainant was a lodger and the equal status act didn't apply or vice versa. But that decision if made would be irrelevant to cases brought to the RTB (under residential tenancies act) and irrelevant to revenue.

Hopefully you are getting the sense now that each of the legislations are handled by a seperate body with different aims and no collaboration between the bodies.

tom1ie

davindub wrote: »

The WRC may have made a decision that a complainant was a lodger and the equal status act didn't apply or vice versa. But that decision if made would be irrelevant to cases brought to the RTB (under residential tenancies act) and irrelevant to revenue.

Hopefully you are getting the sense now that each of the legislations are handled by a seperate body with different aims and no collaboration between the bodies.

well i originally had that sense to be honest but wanted to see what the overall view was and what peoples experiences on this are.
It's a very unfair situation that leaves people open to getting their wrist slapped without them being in any way aware of the danger.

Claw Hammer

tom1ie wrote: »

Wrong.
It is not another dwelling as is clearly stated in revenue rules. They say it qualifies for rent a room as the r.a.r is joined onto the house.

You are making the mistake of confatig the Revenue rules with the distinction between a licence an a tenancy. The Revenue give the relief if you and the people paying rent to you are i the same building envelope irrespective of how may logical dwellings are in that building envelope. The Revenue do not distinguish between licencees paying rent and tenants paying rent.
The RTB on the other hand are concerned with whether the people paying rent to you are in the same dwelling or not irrespective of whether the dwellings are contained with the same building envelope.
It is possible to get rent a room relief from tenants and it is possible to be refused rent a room relief in respect of licencees.
What you are describing is a classical case of qualifying for rent a room relief in respect of tenants thus having to register and deal with the RTB as well.

tom1ie

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You are making the mistake of confatig the Revenue rules with the distinction between a licence an a tenancy. The Revenue give the relief if you and the people paying rent to you are i the same building envelope irrespective of how may logical dwellings are in that building envelope. The Revenue do not distinguish between licencees paying rent and tenants paying rent.
The RTB on the other hand are concerned with whether the people paying rent to you are in the same dwelling or not irrespective of whether the dwellings are contained with the same building envelope.
It is possible to get rent a room relief from tenants and it is possible to be refused rent a room relief in respect of licencees.
What you are describing is a classical case of qualifying for rent a room relief in respect of tenants thus having to register and deal with the RTB as well.

Right. So I qualify for rent a room, but my lodger is in fact a tenant, which means I should comply with the rtb. So registering the tenancy, paying the monthly registration fee.
The license agreement signed between myself and “the lodger” would now be null and void, as it could be decided by the rtb that they should be afforded the rights of a tenant.
Have I got that right?

Claw Hammer

tom1ie wrote: »

Right. So I qualify for rent a room, but my lodger is in fact a tenant, which means I should comply with the rtb. So registering the tenancy, paying the monthly registration fee.
The license agreement signed between myself and “the lodger” would now be null and void, as it could be decided by the rtb that they should be afforded the rights of a tenant.
Have I got that right?

The registration fee is not monthly, however you will have to register.
The RTB will likely construe your licence agreement as a lease so i wouldn't be null and void per se.
You will also likely have lost the benefit of Section 25 of the tenancies act because you didn't serve the notice before the commecement of the tenancy.
You will also be required to comply with the Standards for Rental dwellings regulations and have landlord insurance.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The registration fee is not monthly, however you will have to register.
The RTB will likely construe your licence agreement as a lease so i wouldn't be null and void per se.
You will also likely have lost the benefit of Section 25 of the tenancies act because you didn't serve the notice before the commecement of the tenancy.
You will also be required to comply with the Standards for Rental dwellings regulations and have landlord insurance.

I don't care what the RTB say there is simply no way a person renting a room in an area under your roof is anything but a licensee. They don't have exclusive use, they don't have access that can't be cut off, they don't have any control over services etc etc.

There is no one in the country renting a granny flat etc that is treating the people in there as anything but licensees as that's what they are. Just because the RTB think they can overstep their power doesn't mean they can.

If the op wants to be 100% sure the RTB can't even try to come after him all he has to do is inform the person they don't have exclusive use of the area, keep a small store room in there which he accesses regularly, cook his dinner in there from time to time etc.

tom1ie

Mina Victorious Void wrote: »

I don't care what the RTB say there is simply no way a person renting a room in an area under your roof is anything but a licensee. They don't have exclusive use, they don't have access that can't be cut off, they don't have any control over services etc etc.

There is no one in the country renting a granny flat etc that is treating the people in there as anything but licensees as that's what they are. Just because the RTB think they can overstep their power doesn't mean they can.

If the op wants to be 100% sure the RTB can't even try to come after him all he has to do is inform the person they don't have exclusive use of the area, keep a small store room in there which he accesses regularly, cook his dinner in there from time to time etc.

The whole setup is ridiculous and leaving people open to litigation.
Think I’ll be knocking the garage conversion on the head lads, way too risky.
One less potential bed on the market.

TheChizler

tom1ie wrote: »

The whole setup is ridiculous and leaving people open to litigation.
Think I’ll be knocking the garage conversion on the head lads, way too risky.
One less potential bed on the market.

Don't be put off by the doomsayers, plenty of people do it fine. Spend 80 quid on real legal advice rather than asking randomers on the internet.

tom1ie

TheChizler wrote: »

Don't be put off by the doomsayers, plenty of people do it fine. Spend 80 quid on real legal advice rather than asking randomers on the internet.

But legal advice off who. I could go to a solicitor that specializes in what? Housing?
Then when I get advice off him, can’t he/she just be overruled by the rtb/wrc adjudicator?
It’s a minefield:eek:

danoriordan1402

tom1ie wrote: »

But legal advice off who. I could go to a solicitor that specializes in what? Housing?
Then when I get advice off him, can’t he/she just be overruled by the rtb/wrc adjudicator?
It’s a minefield:eek:

I am feeling the same tbh - there is no definitive guidelines , I mean just look at the 4 pages of debate on this thread an no one is none the wiser..:eek:

Claw Hammer

Mina Victorious Void wrote: »

I don't care what the RTB say there is simply no way a person renting a room in an area under your roof is anything but a licensee. They don't have exclusive use, they don't have access that can't be cut off, they don't have any control over services etc etc.

There is no one in the country renting a granny flat etc that is treating the people in there as anything but licensees as that's what they are. Just because the RTB think they can overstep their power doesn't mean they can.

If the op wants to be 100% sure the RTB can't even try to come after him all he has to do is inform the person they don't have exclusive use of the area, keep a small store room in there which he accesses regularly, cook his dinner in there from time to time etc.

You don't care, however the o/p does. It will not be you who will make the decision should this matter ever be decided in a by the RTB or a Court. It will ot be you who has to pay the fines and penalties which might result and not you who might have to live with a nightmare tenant in the garage if your workaround goes wrong. The workaround you suggest has been tried and has failed before. If you want rent a room and don't want a tenancy you have to live in the same unit as the person paying the rent, not just pretend to.

tom1ie

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You don't care, however the o/p does. It will not be you who will make the decision should this matter ever be decided in a by the RTB or a Court. It will ot be you who has to pay the fines and penalties which might result and not you who might have to live with a nightmare tenant in the garage if your workaround goes wrong. The workaround you suggest has been tried and has failed before. If you want rent a room and don't want a tenancy you have to live in the same unit as the person paying the rent, not just pretend to.

Not according to revenue.ie or citizens advice. This is the problem.

Claw Hammer

tom1ie wrote: »

Not according to revenue.ie or citizens advice. This is the problem.

You are again involving the Revenue. The Revenue do not decide the status of the occupant. They allow relief under particular conditions. End of. The occupants may be either tenants or licencees, the Revenue don't decide and don't care.
The decision on whether the person is a lodger of tenant is for the RTB which construes the legislation which governs it. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Revenue.
The Citizens advice quoted Section 25 of the RTA which only exempts you from the notice provisions of the Act. What they have stated is simply wrong. the section 25 exemption is only to that part of the act containing the security of tenure provisions.
What is your problem?

tom1ie

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You are again involving the Revenue. The Revenue do not decide the status of the occupant. They allow relief under particular conditions. End of. The occupants may be either tenants or licencees, the Revenue don't decide and don't care.
The decision on whether the person is a lodger of tenant is for the RTB which construes the legislation which governs it. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Revenue.
What is your problem?[/QUOTE

Ah I see you’ve made it so much clearer for me with your deeply incisive post. :rolleyes:

My “problem” is the state body that run the rent a room scheme, make no mention that you should cross reference the status of the agreement you have with the person staying in your house, with the rtb, when they explicitly state:

“The rented room or rooms can be a self-contained unit within the house, such as a basement flat or a converted garage.”

Now, the citizens advice clearly state that the rtb do not need to be involved in a rent a room scheme as it falls under a license agreement thus making the person renting from the homeowner a lodger.

Therefore if one state body are telling you the rtb don’t need to be involved in rent a room and another state body are telling you self contained units are allowed under the rent a room scheme, you can logically come to the opinion the rtb don’t need to be involved.

Now I know that might have been hard for you to understand but does that give you an idea of my “problem”.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You don't care, however the o/p does. It will not be you who will make the decision should this matter ever be decided in a by the RTB or a Court. It will ot be you who has to pay the fines and penalties which might result and not you who might have to live with a nightmare tenant in the garage if your workaround goes wrong. The workaround you suggest has been tried and has failed before. If you want rent a room and don't want a tenancy you have to live in the same unit as the person paying the rent, not just pretend to.

It is the same unit, same address, same roof, same Esb, same gas, same heating system, same water supply, same eircode same driveway, one title for the property etc etc etc.

The RTB can sing for it as far as I’d be concerned. They are overstepping plain and simple.

Show me proof where workaround has failed? I’ve never seen it but I have seen people renting granny flats treated as licensee without any issue.

Claw Hammer

Mina Victorious Void wrote: »

It is the same unit, same address, same roof, same Esb, same gas, same heating system, same water supply, same eircode same driveway, one title for the property etc etc etc.

The RTB can sing for it as far as I’d be concerned. They are overstepping plain and simple.

Show me proof where workaround has failed? I’ve never seen it but I have seen people renting granny flats treated as licensee without any issue.

Where have you seen people renting granny flats treated as licencees?