Licensee renting troubles

It's the house not the gender of the people. The LL might be unwilling to have the occupancy of his house mixed between single and a family unit and the interaction between the any couple causing issues in the house.

That is not to say the RTB and courts might overrule his objection. However it is also the home of the other non attached tenants and there rights come into play as well.

If it was a same sex couple in the one bed apartment they would have exactly the same rights I posed as the hetero-sexual couple I posed earlier.

But why again are you asking this of me? Personally I don't care if you believe in either version. I have posted the gist of the legal advice I received, if you don't want to accept it without me showing you the source my solicitor obtained it from, well, you know where to go...

But ironically, you have not pointed to anything which tells me a landlord can restrict licences, only a brief mention of contract law and now you have clarified that you do know legislation can override the leases.

But, also add in common law and the fact that you don't exactly know how the RTB interprets the same terms you dismissed as irrelevant.

So honestly I don't really see the point of the way you are arguing your point, as you said yourself, you are not speaking from experience, and you haven't mentioned any particular qualification or study of the area, so what is the point in repeating yourself constantly?

I am not going to provide a link because my name is listed in the Tribunal Report.

...but this would not be in question in the scenario of the OP as a licensee of the tenants (John and his brother).

John and his brother would remain as the sole tenants, they are not sublettig to the OP, neither are they sharing or parting with possession - they remain fully responsible for the property as tenants. The OP would be there solely at their invitation as a guest, albeit a long term paying guest.

Read in context, that refers to operating a business from the premesis, which is a reasonable and understandable restriction as it has implications for zoning, planning permission, commercial rates, commercial water charges, etc...

A rent a room situation, as in the OP being a licensee, would not be seen as a change of use or be viewed as running a business or commercial operation from the premesis.

My reading (and comprehension) skills are fine, thank you.

I'll refer you back to the Irish Property Owners' Association advice on that, https://ipoa.ie/difference-between-subletting-an-assignment-and-a-licensee/ referred to in an earlier post "The tenant is under a statutory obligation to inform the landlord of the identity of resident in the dwelling however, the landlord is not in a position to to accept or veto the individual concerned as he/she would with a tenant."

Again, that was in the context of carrying out a business. The full paragaph, in context is "Not to receive paying guests, or carry on, or permit to be carried on, any business, trade or profession on or from the property."

That would, quite reasonably, preclude running a guest house, B&B or Air B&B from the premesis but I would argue could not reasonably preclude John (and his brother) from having the OP as a licensee.

John (and his brother) are obliged to inform the landlord in writing of anybody else ordinarily resident.

How can they have an obligation to inform the landlord of something if they don't have a right to that something, either explicitly or implicitly.

No term in the lease may operate to vary, modify or restrict in any way John (and his brother)'s rights under the Residential Tenancies Act.

This is a circular argument - essentially you are arguing that the landlord cannot veto the licensee "concerned" but that is after the fact that they have already vetoed any licensee in principle.

A licensee is more than a paying guest, and is different to a B&B guest, a hotel guest or an Airbnb guest.

B&B, hotel or Airbnb guests tend to be transitory and result in an almost continuous stream of a large number of unknown people staying at a property. It would be an impractical annoyance for John (and his brother) to keep the landlord informed of who was staying at the house. As a business it woud also constitute a change of purpose for the dwelling.

The OP would be a stable, long term, regular occupant. John (and his brother) would be obliged to inform the landlord in writing of his presence. The landlord has the right to be informed but not to approve or disapprove the OP's presence.

Nothing the OP has said indicates the tenancy agreement explicitly places a numerical limit on the number of occupants.

It would be unreasonable to argue that the OP could reside ordinarily in the dwelling if he did not pay John (or his brother) but could not if he paid John (or his brother) anything, especially when the landlord could have no idea whether the OP was paying John (or his brother) and no there was no legal relationship between the OP and the landlord.

“I think”? What legislation backs up what you think?

Did you miss this bit in the article you linked?

”A lease is a contract which carries property rights. The tenant has the right to exclude all other persons from the property, including the landlord itself. The tenants rights are conditional on continued compliance with the terms of the lease. The lease can ultimately be cancelled or forfeited for non payment of rent and breach of the lease terms”

Nothing in the article you linked supports the right to breach the lease by taking in extra occupants when the lease prohibits it. In “exclusive use”, you are extrapolating that a tenant can effectively do what they want in contravention of the lease, this is simply not the case. The exclusion of a LL from the property is provided for in the RTA by the reference to the entitlement to “peaceful enjoyment”, but as an earlier poster pointed out, peaceful enjoyment is not dependent on having more occupants than specified in the lease agreement.

So again, what you posted is no closer to supporting your assertion that the tenant has a right to breach the lease by adding occupants, nor does it support the claim by others that tenants rights granted by the RTA negates the lease term relating to number of occupants. If it does, post the relevant section of the RTA.

Read the part about exclusive occupation, that is in the act and it says quite clearly in the article about the right to exclude being exclusive occupation. Peaceful enjoyment is not the right to exclude....

Hence the terms in the act regarding the obligation to inform the landlord of who is in occupation, hence the right of the landlord to terminate based on overcrowding.

You have already agreed that any term which is not consistent with the act is not enforceable, the act requires the right to exclude to be given to the tenant and a lease term cannot retain this right for the landlord or the right to exclude has not been assigned to the tenant.

And yes "I think", not I know. I am not conceited enough to read some articles for a few hours and to pretend to be an expert. But you are asking for an exact reference in legislation (exclusive occupation covers this) but then you want it phrased exactly the way you want to see it...but your whole argument is based on contract law, which is majority common law based (not contained in statute) , see the irony here?

I hope your legal advisers have professional indemnity insurance. Some of what you allege they say is just plain wrong and if you rely on it you may find yourself on the street.

I'm sure they do, they are solicitors afterall. And your insurance is what is exactly?

You dodged the question, what is your capacity in that case you mentioned, tenant, landlord or solicitor?

I'm not misconstruing it, I'm saying my opinion is that it is unenforcable as it is contrary to section 18 of the Residential Tenancies Act and the Irish Property Owners' Association would appear to hold the same opinion. https://ipoa.ie/difference-between-subletting-an-assignment-and-a-licensee/ The tenants cannot be in breach of an unenforcable term of their tenancy agreement.

Childish. And on that note, I think we are done here.

Anyway, moral of the story, if you are drawing up a lease, get a solicitor to advise, too many "experts" online!

And there, again, is the crux of the argument, can the LL limit the number of occupants before the situation arises whereby the question over vetoing the licensee concerned arises? And again, you have failed to show what makes the clause relating to additional occupants in the lease unenforceable. I agree that if the addition occupant is allowed, the LL cannot veto who it is, but that is not what is being discussed.

If you are certain that the limit on occupants in a lease agreed between tenant and LL is unenforceable, put up the legislation which supports that, it isn’t section 12 nor 16 of the RTA, so it can’t be section 18.

OK, so they mentioned your name in the report because you were lurking around in the back, is that it? 😂

So if I don't stick in terms relating to licences and my solicitor doesn't have the correct insurance, I'll end up on the street 🤣

And, lying about mythical cases? Freedom of association (not freedom to form associations as per constitution)

What will you post about next?