Leasehold ownership

johnfás

Can the provision of a service substitute for money in the payment of rent?

Victor

I think yes, assuming both parties are agreeable and the service is legal.

However, the Revenue may look at it in a particular way if they feel tax is being avoided.

What does this have to do with "Leasehold ownership"?

johnfás

Because if not then it would not be leasehold ownership and maybe merely a license?

Maximilian

There's a lot more to leases vs. licenses than just rent. There shouldn't be any reason why you couldn't make the rent a service instead of money other than its rather weird. I assume you mean short-term leases.

johnfás

Maximilian wrote: »

There's a lot more to leases vs. licenses than just rent. There shouldn't be any reason why you couldn't make the rent a service instead of money other than its rather weird. I assume you mean short-term leases.

I mean I'm trying to find the answer for a problem question in my law course . It is only one part of the question of course.

Maximilian

Well, rent doesn't have to be money. I mean what is money? Gold would be acceptable and nobody would question that but is it money per se. If it has economic value then it can be given as rent. Deasy's Act doesn't specify it has to be money for example.

I'm pretty sure its mentioned somewhere in Wylie's Landlord & Tenant book. Couldn't tell you where though, its been so long since I read it. If you like I can check for you when I'm in the office tomorrow. I'm pretty sure he quotes a case which might help you.

johnfás

Thanks very much for your help!

The basic problem question was a guy rents two rooms in a property he owns out to two seperate barristers. One pays him monetary rent, the other provides him with grinds instead. Then other issues come up such as the one providing grinds subletting her room, but of course in order to do this she will need to have a leasehold interest in the room. Thus I need to ascertain whether or not this is the case. I have the Lyall book, it isn't so clear on the issue.

superficies

Providing a service can be rent, provided that is agreed between the parties. But of course, as mentioned above, need to show more than rent: need to show the parties intended the agreement to be in the nature of a lease and that the 'tenant' has exclusive possession of the room. Presumably having established that you would then also have to outline the rules relating to subletting. Remember Lyall may be somewhat out of date here because of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 - check out Aine Ryall's articles, the PRTB website (they have case law there) and Fiona delondras' book

johnfás

I should have mentioned the landlord rents the rooms to the two barristers as offices. Thus this is presumably a commercial arrangement rather than residential.

Thank you very much for your help. I was somewhat concerned that the situation may be that of a contractual license, but I think given the fact that the problem question states there are two seperate offices and gives the impression of an intention to form a landlord-tenant relationship, that it is thus.

Victor

You mentioned offices, but is the property otherwise residential?

If purely commecial the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 wouldn't apply.

The may be an issue regarding the duration of the .... hmmm .... barrister's use of the room to date - 5 year rule.