Landlord query

The property ownership doesn't changed just because a family member moves in.

“Up to” 20k . That applies to the worst cases where there is blatant disregard for a legit tenancy and you boot out a family with kids etc and leave their stuff in bin bags outside . One guy in one room with no tenancy documents, You approached RTB who couldn’t give you a firm answer and you were respectful of his property? I’d say a couple of grand worse case scenario and that’s probably one month’s mortgage so no big deal . More likely he’d get nothing at all in my opinion

Read what OP stated . Rooms were rented SEPARATELY and at DIFFERENT INTERVALS . Rent was paid SEPARATELY. It’s fairly self explanatory

None of those are characteristics which would mean it was not a tenancy for RTB purposes. The fact that a close relative (recently more restrictive) of the landlord was living there is what gave rise to the change in status - use of the phrase “licensee” is inappropriate as it is the fact that the landlord’s son was living there which is relevant. A tenant can have exclusive occupation of a bed room and access (via licence or lease) to the other areas of the house and that is simply a tenancy.

OP, the rules should be on your side but if the person does not agree to leave then you will not get them out unwillingly without illegal force or a court order. Is the person looking for a financial inducement to leave? I suspect they are. While that might seem annoying, it might be the pragmatic way to get it resolved without uncertainty or unacceptable/uninown cost.

RTB as useless as usual. No idea what the point of these guys is.

Given that your plan is to sell the property, is the obvious solution here not to just assume they have tenancy rights, and issue them with a valid eviction notice? Yes, it might take a bit longer, but it's better than getting stuck into a drawn-out investigation into determining whether they are licencees or not. Especially since at the end of the investigation, they might be determined tenants, and you'll have to issue a valid eviction notice anyway

What would you like the RTB to do in this instance? Bearing in mind that they've only heard from one of the parties involved

Best advice is to go the legal route and give them the proper notice and follow the guidelines to the letter.

If you are genuinely selling the house you have grounds for giving notice. Check for the length of notice as it depends on how long the tenant has been in place.

It's a real nuisance but the best course of action. Download the templates from the RTB website and you will probably have to make a declaration of intention to sell. Be prepared for an appeal or finding the notice invalid.

Nothing to stop you moving more family members into the house in the meantime.

The only thing that might make them licences is if they never had exclusive use of the house and the OP maintained access and kept the power to move tenants around and in and out and into different rooms. That latter condition is the closest thing to being true from the son's perspective but doesn't seem to be true for the other two renters. Seems they had exclusive use of the house though so I don't think you could argue it.

I would not rely on RTB legal advice no more than I would ask Revenue for tax advice.

OP: I can't advise. It may be either or in this scenario. Licence or tenancy, the best case is to attempt to get the person to leave of their own accord.

What about the solicitors that the OP spoke to? Should the OP trust the opinion of someone in the internet over solicitors?

The OP did and I did but for some reason you decided to only pick one part of my reply to comment on which was the RTB.

on top of the 20k you may have to reaccomodate the tenant as they may be denied there due notice

Even if no contracts were issued, a tenancy can be verbal. It should be registered but afaik there can only be one tenancy registered for a single address with a single or joint/multiple tenants named on the registration. (Unless the property had planning permission to be divided into separate flats). The occupants would either be joint/multiple tenants, or a single tenant, or a tenant with licensees.

So if the first person who moved in was considered the single tenant of the whole self-contained property, any later occupants taken in by that tenant would only become joint or multiple tenants if they requested it from the landlord. Or they would remain licensees of the first tenant who would always be liable for the full rent of the entire property. And the landlord would not be free to place other individuals into vacant rooms. Alternativley, joint/multiple tenants move in together and are equally liable for all terms of the lease.

In the OP's situation the occupants are renting individual rooms with access to common areas - not individual self-contained units. The landlord has full access to the property, decided which rooms to let or leave vacant, chose the occupants, decided on the duration and terms of each individual letting, receives separate rents, and none of the individuals are liable for the entire rent if others move out.

Does that not meet the description of licensees (in bold) from the rtb website?

A licensee is a person who occupies accommodation under license. Licensees can arise in all sorts of accommodation but most commonly in the following four areas; 

• Persons staying in hotels, guesthouses, hostels, etc;
• Persons sharing a house/ apartment with its owner e.g. under the ‘rent a room’ scheme or ‘in digs’;
• Persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal license arrangement with the owner where the occupants are not entitled to its exclusive use and the owner has continuing access to the accommodation and/or can move around or change the occupants; and 
• Persons staying in rented accommodation at the invitation of the tenant. 

If the OP situation does not meet this criteria, what does this apply to?

The rtb website also says the following do not need to register so do not come under their remit:

• Tenancies in local authority housing or under shared ownership lease arrangements. 
• Holiday letting agreements. 
• The Rent a Room scheme (where the landlord and the ** tenant ** share the same self-contained property). 
• Instances where a ** tenant** lives with the spouse, civil partner, parent or child of the landlord and there is no written letting agreement in place. 
• Properties which are short term lets. 

It would be helpful if the RTB did not call the occupants of the dwellings above ** tenants ** if they do not come under their remit. They are not tenants as only a tenancy must be registeted. It just confuses the information.

I think the killer is that even though there is currently a family member living there and no written agreement in place, the former condition wasn't true previously and so the RTA previously could have applied. You can't unilaterally transition from a situation that falls under the RTA to one that doesn't without officially ending the tenancy first.