One tenant is leaving and landlord refuses assignment

The Land Lord wants to sell the property and needs it vacant for sale. There is no nice way to ask you to vacate with the market being in the state it is in. Its probably too much to ask ye to pay an extra 33% rent plus increased facilities (esb gas bins etc). You either need to lawyer up or plan to rent elsewhere.

was the place let as one unit and you divide the rent yourselfs. If so then the person moving needs to be held accountable. He needs to learn you just can’t back out if contracts where you are a joint party

Your statement that he can't kick you out because you have been there 6 months is incorrect. The notice periods for termination differ before and after 6 months he can still serve you notice to leave.

From the landlord perspective he probably doesn't want the hassle of having reassigned leases going on?

There is no legal entitlement for a tenant to bring in a licensee or invite anyone else to live in the property with them, so a tenancy agreement can prohibit taking in a licensee or allowing anyone else to occupy the property who isn't on the lease. If the tenancy agreement says nothing about it, the landlord has no legal right to prevent it, but since the law also doesn't grant that entitlement to the tenant, it can be prohibited by the tenancy agreement.

I would advise giving Threshold a call

https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/16/revised/en/html

Look at sub clause (n) in the ACT. The tenant is obliged to notify the landlord of the identity of every person ordinarily resident in the dwelling.

If someone simply springs up and says they have been there for 6 months and want to be a tenant, the landlord can demand to know why they weren't told and want the situation rectified.

If there is a clause in your contract forbidding subletting or sharing possession (which is a standard clause in residential leases) then you will be telling the landlord you have broken your contract. The landlord can then warn you that if you don't remove your licencee he will terminate the tenancy.

The landlord will have his own views on whether he wants a new occupant in one of the rooms. It is none of your business. The contract you negotiated means the landlord has the right to decide. It is a convenient way for a landlord to end a tenancy if they are minded to by finding a breach of tenant obligations and terminating.

they absolutely do get to be a tenant after 6 months.
see renting from a tenant :

https://threshold.ie/faq/i-am-a-tenant/#:~:text=If%20you%20are%20renting%20a,as%20the%20existing%20tenant%2Fs.

They can be a problem. E.g if the original tenants decide to move out. The licences would also have to move. However a tenant will stay. So getting possession back is harder

Seems like a very short sighted way of operating a business. As someone who has been renting from our landlord for the last 15 years, I can tell you that he has benefitted from not having any vacancies during that whole time, nor any expenses associated with having to redecorate or buy new furniture, or clean the house or pay agents etc etc

There have been no vacancies over the past 15 years because you have been the tenant the whole time. This would be true whether or not you took licencees in for some or all of that time.

In other words, taking in licensees was primarily for your benefit; it helped you pay the rent. Whether or not you took in a licensee, the landlord was entitled to the full rent from you.

We have been renting out the other room to various people over the last few years and our landlord didn't have to do anything with them, never even met them and was totally happy with that as long as he got his rent. We asked them for references, and it was on us as we were the ones who had to live with them and who were responsible for the full rent if they they didn't pay and responsible for any damage or disturbance they might cause while there. 

And your landlord was happy with that. But other landlords might take the view that they want to be the one who gets to assess prospective occupants, consider whether their references are acceptable, etc.

None of them ever asked to be a full tenant, we wouldn't have agreed to it as it was our house, our home.

They wouldn't be asking you; their right is to become a tenant of the landlord. If they had exercised that right, you wouldn't have any say in the matter. (Meaning, you shouldn't accept as a licensee anyone you wouldn't be happy to have as a co-tenant.)

Landlords may not like people telling them how to run their business however just like other businesses, they might find that it actually makes good business sense to consider the needs, desires and feedback of the customer.

From the landord's point of view, it comes down to balancing competing considerations. On the one hand, risk ending up with a tenant that he would never have accepted. On the other hand, risk having otherwise excellent tenants give notice because they object to the landlord having a veto over licensee arrangements.

Obviously, the choice the landlord will make will be hugely affected by how well he knows you, the existing tenants, and how much he trusts your judgment. I would think for the first couple of times at least the landlord would want to have involvement in, and the final say over, any licensee arrangement. After you have built up a track record of finding satisfactory licensees and ensuring the licensee arrangement goes smoothly, then maybe he'd be happy to back out and let the tenant enter into further licensee arrangements without requiring landlord consent. But at a minimum I think any half-way responsible landlord is going to want to be told about any licensee arrangements, including the identity of the licensee; it's not a good look for a landlord to have no idea who's living in his house.

There is no requirement for a landlord to have a good reason. There is no veto in the case of existing tenants. If a tenant takes in a licensee and the licensee is there 6 months they can't prevent the landlord accepting that licensee as a tenant.

The o/p has been there 15 years.

The property is likely rent capped. The landlord may well want to take the opportunity to break the rent cap. It is the landlords call, not the o/ps.

50(8) of the RTA notes "The landlord may not unreasonably refuse to accede to such a request". By extension this means that the landlord may reasonably refuse to accede.

The Irish Property Owners Association notes "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." If the OP wants to let the spare bedroom to a licensee there's nothing the landlord can do.

https://ipoa.ie/difference-between-subletting-an-assignment-and-a-licensee/

The OP has not posted in the thread since the first post. It is another poster who has been a tenant for 15 years.

We don't know what the OP's lease says. However the term you have outlined does not exclude licensees. Clearly a license is not a sub-let or assignment and a licensee does not share possession with the tenant.

If a term was written that limited a tenants ability to licence a bedroom it would be voided by section 18(1) as an attempt to "to vary, modify or restrict in any way section 12". As has been mentioned previously in the thread it would breach 12(1)(a) which covers the landlords obligation to "allow the tenant of the dwelling to enjoy peaceful and exclusive occupation of the dwelling".

Long term licensing in a property you occupy is covered under various finance bills as not being considered a business so good luck trying to argue that.

Agree that S12 (a) says a landlord must "allow the tenant of the dwelling to enjoy peaceful and exclusive occupation of the dwelling"

How does that mean a tenant can decide to move in another person to live there and pay 'rent'?

If tenants can move in paying licensees/ lodgers without a landlord's permission, who decides how many they can take before they are in breach? Is it one licensee, two, an unlimited number?

The tenancy agreement grants permission to occupy the dwelling to the specific number of occupants named on the lease. There can be no changes made by the tenants without the landlords agreement. Similarly, no changes by the landlord either. If a landlord suddenly decided to add another tenant to the lease and move in an extra 1, 2, or more individuals, he would rightly be told where to go. The lease is binding on all parties.

Of course tenants have the right to use their home as they want in terms of guests and visitors eg having overnight or short-term guests is part of normal life. The thing is, that generally people don't expect payment from their overnight guests. If a tenant is charging 'guests' or guests are staying over enough as to be living in the property, they become lodgers/ licensees and that is changing the terms of the lease without permission.

Why do you say that charging rent to long-stay lodgers / licensees would not be seen as running a business?

Letting in order to generate an income is a business activity, whether it is as a contribution to rent or not.

Standard leases forbid the subletting assignment or sharing possession without the express written consent of the landlord.

20 years of RTB cases are not available to view. The only cases which can be read are tribunal decisions. IS there one reported case where the Tribunal upheld the tenants right to introduce a licensee without the consent of the landlord. In some cases the landlord accepted rent from the licensee and the RTB held that by conduct the landlord had recognised a tenancy.

@ DFB-D, I can't find an answer to this query, do you know how this works? In a multi-occupant house share, a licensee who pays rent seems just the same as RaR or a short-let Airbnb, insofar as the tenant/s receive payment for use of the dwelling. The licensee has no direct agreement with the owner, and even though tenants may call it a rent contribution, it is rental income received directly by the tenant/s.

Are tenants obliged to make a tax return for the licensee rents they receive in the same way as a head tenant in a sub-let or an owner occupier would? How does it work in practice, ie are licensee rents split between all tenants for tax purposes?

Presumably all types of rental income must comply with revenue rules.

Queries relating to licensees are very common on boards and other forums, because many renters are not sure about the rules and want to get a better understanding so any info appreciated.

badges of trade is a tax concept to differentiate between earning income and one off income. Carrying on a business activity is determined by consumer law. If an activity is intended to make a profit it is a business activity. AIB v Higgin in 2010 being the leading case.

The DSBA lease contains clause that the lease of the premises is for the tenants own use and for business purposes is not allowed.

You are trying to claim that all decisions on every possible point of residential tenancy law have been decided by the RTB and if therefore any proposition of law is capable of being supported by decided cases or else the proposition is false.

That is nonsense. The RTB have been found to have erred in law time and again even in the current year.

I note that you have produced no case or legal article to justify your propositions so it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You are claiming a serious error without showing how the badges of trade have any relevance.
All that is at issue is whether a business is being carried on, not what class of taxation any particular straem of income might have.

You have resorted to a personal attack. I will always admit it when I am wrong. Show me one instance where I did not admit I was wrong.

The serious error was claiming a consumer credit act case is somehow relevant here. Furthermore, renting a room fails to meet the business criteria discussed in that case.

Now consumer credit and partnerships clearly are very relevant to licences (massive sarcasm there), but call me mad, I think the actual classification of the income for tax purposes might give a little clue on how your claim would be treated.

Another error you made was claiming that licences somehow "share possession" and hence are prohibited by the standard lease term you invented - licences have no property rights at all.

Finally, it wasn't a personal attack, you can treat it as a frank assessment of the interactions I have had with you and witnessed here, it appears every tread you get involved in degrades into nonsense.

wouldn’t it fall u see rent a room and be take free providing it’s less than €14,400 ( or €14,000)

You are claiming a serious error without any real contradiction. Ypou still haven't said how the badges of trade have any relevance.

You are now say someone needs legal advice and are talking about advice given to you. You haven't indicated the source of this advice or the basis for it.
I don't know whther you were or not.
I don't agree that a landlord can't prevent a tenant from taking in a licensee who is permanently resident and paying the tenant, without consent.

The RTB have a lease template. You can't infer from that that the absence of any term means that such a term can't be inserted in a lease.

The template nots say
"Additional terms may be added to the template but they will not be binding if theyare inconsistent with the RTA 2004 and any other relevant legislation. "

The RTB have upheld terms not allowing pets, even thought there is nothing in their template about pets.

The tenant who avails of the Rent a Room scheme must file a tax return and declare the income, even if it is not taxable. The tenant is trading even if it is not traxable.
landlords are under a duty to see that their property is not over-crowded and are supposed to know who is living in the property and on what basis.

The original group is the tenant, jointly and severally liable. The landlord is under no obligation to accept an alteration to the constitution of the group by allowing one member to substitute for another.

The RTB have expressly refused to recognise the concept of a lead tenant.

A landlord can licence occupants of property but it is quite difficult to do so successfully as the RTB may deem the arrangement to be a lease.

The RTB have found some arrangements to be a licence and others to be a lease.