Is Rent A Room exempt from RPZ rent increases ?

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123277270#Comment_123277270

I think you have presented conclusive proof of how the RTB views landlords trying to avoid the RTB act.

You often see silly suggestions along the lines of "all you have to do is..." or "where does it say you can't" or worse someone who sounds convincing on some points, but then adds a mad assertion not backed up to prior decisions or legal advise (of suitable expertise) and do not disclose the fact that it was a wild guess. And in fact, you see the same suggestions here on boards - I think anyone would be highly advised to steer clear of these suggestions.

meijin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123278391#Comment_123278391

it appears that this case was appealed to High Court, so we might have even more conclusive decision soon enough

meijin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123277852#Comment_123277852

Link to the Determination Order?

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123279883#Comment_123279883

https://www.rtb.ie/documents/TR0915-001354/TR0915-001354-DR0615-19280%20Report.pdf

meijin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123281696#Comment_123281696

Thanks, fair enough. Quite old case though, from 2016. The tenant didn't seem to fight much there.

In the latest case that I quoted, Tribunal got more into the reality of the situation, not just what's on paper, and both sides had legal representation.

Would be definitely very interesting what High Court will say about it.

DFB-D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123282642#Comment_123282642

I couldn't see the HC agreeing on the points of law in this case as there is already HC commentary on other cases, but even Tribunals can be a bit troubled by application of the law, so not surprised that one case might be decided badly. Up to the tenant to fight it if they have the heart I suppose.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123283058#Comment_123283058

The case will be between the tenant and the RTb. The chairman of that Tribunal has been overturned by the High Court before!

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/TR0923-006764_Tribunal_Report.pdf

mrslancaster

Outcome of the appeal will be interesting to a lot of people I know. 

When the RTA legislation and later amendments were passed, nobody considered renters who don’t want to sign a lease but want to live independently, ie. not house-sharing with an owner-occupier or a tenant-landlord. Some people want a place on flexible terms eg a month-to-month basis, without the responsibility of a tenancy. Some owners would be happy to let rooms directly on flexible terms but it’s compulsory to have a lease.

If a licensee wants flexibility within a leased property, they have to stay as a licensee of the registered tenant. A tenant-landlord can set licensee rent, do RaR, take short-terms guests and the only requirement is to notify the owner. They can let individual rooms eg, daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly, rolling period, X rent amount, X deposit. No rent caps, no 90 day rent notice, no rtb registration, no NoT’s, no dispute service, no revenue returns for rents collected. The only revenue oversight is for RaR. 

Meanwhile, the non-resident owner of that same property can’t let those same rooms individually to renters. 

Weird. 

Claw Hammer

That RTB decision lacks logic. The dwelling is the entire property. The legislation only applies to leases of dwellings. If one tenant does not pay rent can the landlord terminate the tenancy of the entire dwelling? It would appear so from that decision. That is the opposite of what the landlord and occupants intended.