Renting Per Room

Fol20

Hi All,

I was wondering do i have to register every individual with the PRTB if i am renting per room.I will not be living there. Ie lets say costs for PRTB are 100e per register.. 10 bedrooms with someone living in each = 1000 a year...

Victor

If you are only renting individual rooms, you do not absoutely need to register with the PRTB.

Fol20

Just to confirm, is this the exemption that illustrates this?
"A dwelling occupied under a shared ownership lease"

Victor

Fol20 wrote: »

Just to confirm, is this the exemption that illustrates this?
"A dwelling occupied under a shared ownership lease"

Where did you find that? I imagine that refers to where people have shared ownership with the council, which wouldn't apply to your case.

Fol20

I got it from the prtb website

https://www.prtb.ie/FAQ.aspx#Q10

So officially what am i meant to do when a house will be house sharing

Victor

Victor wrote: »

If you are only renting individual rooms, you do not absoutely need to register with the PRTB.

Really? I didn't know. You have a source? Not mentioned in the website

Milk & Honey

Look at case TR10/DR532&589/2006.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73891152

http://www.irishlandlord.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2814

rcdk1

Victor wrote: »

If you are only renting individual rooms, you do not absoutely need to register with the PRTB.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Look at case TR10/DR532&589/2006.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73891152

http://www.irishlandlord.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2814

<insert expletive of choice>.
That has serious implications. Can't believe I've never come across that before.

For example, UCC (see point No. 6) are forcing landlords (by threatening to withdraw the advertising service) to rent on a room by room basis. They believe they are affording tenants more rights/protection but according to that they are reducing a tenant's protection (?).

Does anyone have a link to other/updated info?

sophia25

The reply to the op's question is on the PRTB website:

https://www.prtb.ie/faq.aspx#Q36

€375 (composite fee) for multiple tenancies in the one building being registered at the same time by the one landlord within one month of the commencement date of the first tenancy. If, in the 12 months following the payment of a composite fee, one of the tenancies included in the set of multiple tenancies ends and a new tenancy is created, the application to register that new tenancy does not have to be accompanied by a fee provided it is made within one month of the commencement of that tenancy.

No fee is payable where two payments in respect of the tenancy have been made to the Private Residential Tenancies Board in the previous 12 months. No fee is payable for an update of details of a tenancy already registered. The fees have not changed in line with inflation since the PRTB was established in 2004.

It is wrong to say that multiple tenancies in a property should not be registered. The PRTB have a fee for multiple tenancies in a property. There has been one member on a tribunal (Jim Bridgeman) who has taken the view that they are exempt but it is a huge risk to rely on this judgement. Precedent does not exist in PRTB rulings and a tribunal decision can not be over ruled but that has not changed the fact that the PRTB do require multiple tenancies in a building to be registered and have even a specific fee for doing so. Bridgeman believed the "exclusive use" of a property quoted in the RTA exempted properties where there were shared facilities, however, the overwhelming view is that provided there is some exclusive use ie bedroom, they need to be registered. Landlords who rely on Bridgeman's ruling are taking a risk and this 6 year old case has been superceded by cases where PRTB did accept jurisdiction in multiple tenancy cases.

Fol20

sophia25 wrote: »

The reply to the op's question is on the PRTB website:

https://www.prtb.ie/faq.aspx#Q36

€375 (composite fee) for multiple tenancies in the one building being registered at the same time by the one landlord within one month of the commencement date of the first tenancy. If, in the 12 months following the payment of a composite fee, one of the tenancies included in the set of multiple tenancies ends and a new tenancy is created, the application to register that new tenancy does not have to be accompanied by a fee provided it is made within one month of the commencement of that tenancy.

No fee is payable where two payments in respect of the tenancy have been made to the Private Residential Tenancies Board in the previous 12 months. No fee is payable for an update of details of a tenancy already registered. The fees have not changed in line with inflation since the PRTB was established in 2004.

It is wrong to say that multiple tenancies in a property should not be registered. The PRTB have a fee for multiple tenancies in a property. There has been one member on a tribunal (Jim Bridgeman) who has taken the view that they are exempt but it is a huge risk to rely on this judgement. Precedent does not exist in PRTB rulings and a tribunal decision can not be over ruled but that has not changed the fact that the PRTB do require multiple tenancies in a building to be registered and have even a specific fee for doing so. Bridgeman believed the "exclusive use" of a property quoted in the RTA exempted properties where there were shared facilities, however, the overwhelming view is that provided there is some exclusive use ie bedroom, they need to be registered. Landlords who rely on Bridgeman's ruling are taking a risk and this 6 year old case has been superceded by cases where PRTB did accept jurisdiction in multiple tenancy cases.

Is that not a rip off?
I will have 3 or 4 bedrooms and i have to pay close to 400e

Kosseegan

sophia25 wrote: »

The reply to the op's question is on the PRTB website:

https://www.prtb.ie/faq.aspx#Q36

€375 (composite fee) for multiple tenancies in the one building being registered at the same time by the one landlord within one month of the commencement date of the first tenancy. If, in the 12 months following the payment of a composite fee, one of the tenancies included in the set of multiple tenancies ends and a new tenancy is created, the application to register that new tenancy does not have to be accompanied by a fee provided it is made within one month of the commencement of that tenancy.

No fee is payable where two payments in respect of the tenancy have been made to the Private Residential Tenancies Board in the previous 12 months. No fee is payable for an update of details of a tenancy already registered. The fees have not changed in line with inflation since the PRTB was established in 2004.

It is wrong to say that multiple tenancies in a property should not be registered. The PRTB have a fee for multiple tenancies in a property. There has been one member on a tribunal (Jim Bridgeman) who has taken the view that they are exempt but it is a huge risk to rely on this judgement. Precedent does not exist in PRTB rulings and a tribunal decision can not be over ruled but that has not changed the fact that the PRTB do require multiple tenancies in a building to be registered and have even a specific fee for doing so. Bridgeman believed the "exclusive use" of a property quoted in the RTA exempted properties where there were shared facilities, however, the overwhelming view is that provided there is some exclusive use ie bedroom, they need to be registered. Landlords who rely on Bridgeman's ruling are taking a risk and this 6 year old case has been superceded by cases where PRTB did accept jurisdiction in multiple tenancy cases.

The entire tribunal of which Jim Bridgeman made the decision. It has not been overruled. There is no academic comment on it. Multiple tenancies in the same building mean multiple tenancies of dwellings in the same building. Bedrooms are not dwellings. The multiple tenancies fee was designed for houses of flats such as Pre 63's in Rathgar, rathmines etc. It has nothing to do with defining bedrooms as dwellings. If a lewtting is outside the scope of the act a charge cannot comprehend it.

sophia25

It was one tribunal with 3 members that decided this and Bridgeman has put this view on other tribunals that he sat but who didn't accept his opinion.There is no precedent set in PRTB rulings so there is no need to over turn the decision. There have been many incidents were the tribunal accepted jurisdiction on room lets since, an example being below where each tenant were awarded separate amounts.

http://public.prtb.ie/2009%20Disputes/TRIBUNALS%202009/June%202009/TR18.DR178%20&%20DR418.2009/Tribunal%20Report.pdf

At the end of the day each landlord ultimately can choose what to do himself, but they are taking a risk.

antoinolachtnai

In the case above, it appears clear that the tenants were joint tenants. It was not a 'room let'.

What is the risk to the landlord if they do not register? A prosecution would never stand up.

Milk & Honey

sophia25 wrote: »

http://public.prtb.ie/2009%20Disputes/TRIBUNALS%202009/June%202009/TR18.DR178%20&%20DR418.2009/Tribunal%20Report.pdf

That was a joint letting. They all moved in at the same time and signed the same lease. the landlord would not have to register each bedroom separately. Different amounts were awarded to the tenants because of property wrongly disposed of belonged to one tenant and another accepted responsibility for the damage. two of the tenants were in fact given identical amounts.
There is no decision of the Tribunal contradicting the Bridgeman decision.

sophia25

Milk & Honey wrote: »

That was a joint letting. They all moved in at the same time and signed the same lease. the landlord would not have to register each bedroom separately. Different amounts were awarded to the tenants because of property wrongly disposed of belonged to one tenant and another accepted responsibility for the damage. two of the tenants were in fact given identical amounts.
There is no decision of the Tribunal contradicting the Bridgeman decision.

The Bridgeman ruling was one incident and many cases after have indicated the PRTB do accept jurisdiction in room lettings. The case below in 2010 surely leaves no doubt. Ultimately people decide themselves but they can be pursued for non compliance and also a landlord can not refer a dispute to the PRTB if not registered and that in it self is taking a risk.

http://public.prtb.ie/2010%20Disputes/Tribunals%202010/TR281.DR37.2010/Tribunal%20Report.pdf

Fol20

Wait, is PRTB mandatory for normal places..Ie what are the implications if you dont register with them?

Milk & Honey

This is a case where the rent was being collected in a lump sum. The tenant had moved in as successor to a previous tenant. The original tenants had been on the same lease. It was never argued that the tenant only renting a room and thus not the tenant of a dwelling.
Could you please cite a decision if any which contradicts the Bridgeman ruling?
This is the second case you have cited in an attempt to justify your proposition that the Bridgeman decision has been contradicted. This case and your previous one do no such thing.

Milk & Honey

sophia25 wrote: »

The Bridgeman ruling was one incident and many cases after have indicated the PRTB do accept jurisdiction in room lettings. The case below in 2010 surely leaves no doubt. Ultimately people decide themselves but they can be pursued for non compliance and also a landlord can not refer a dispute to the PRTB if not registered and that in it self is taking a risk.

http://public.prtb.ie/2010%20Disputes/Tribunals%202010/TR281.DR37.2010/Tribunal%20Report.pdf

This is a case where the rent was being collected in a lump sum. The tenant had moved in as successor to a previous tenant. The original tenants had been on the same lease. It was never argued that the tenant only renting a room and thus not the tenant of a dwelling.
Could you please cite a decision if any which contradicts the Bridgeman ruling?
This is the second case you have cited in an attempt to justify your proposition that the Bridgeman decision has been contradicted. This case and your previous one do no such thing.

sophia25

Milk & Honey wrote: »

This is a case where the rent was being collected in a lump sum. The tenant had moved in as successor to a previous tenant. The original tenants had been on the same lease. It was never argued that the tenant only renting a room and thus not the tenant of a dwelling.
Could you please cite a decision if any which contradicts the Bridgeman ruling?
This is the second case you have cited in an attempt to justify your proposition that the Bridgeman decision has been contradicted. This case and your previous one do no such thing.

What is your problem?? This is not a case of assigning of a lease as you seem to suggest. It was quoted that all tenants had individual leases. It was not even a head tenant, just one collected the rent for convenience of landlord.I have submitted numerous cases to PRTB and attended adjudication where PRTB clearly accept this but if you read the actual report it was suggested that the landlord wanted to rent the house as an individual unit rather than multiple tenancies. But honestly, if you can't see that just continue to rely on that Bridgeman ruling.

From the Tribunal Report:-
In essence his evidence was that (a) the Appellant wanted possession of the dwelling so as to place it on the market for sale (b) that he verbally gave 35 days notice to the Respondent (c) that the Respondent said that he was happy with that and (d) he refused to vacate the dwelling
despite being contacted a number of times and asked to do so, and despite being offered alternative accommodation at the same rent. On cross examination by the representative of Threshold it was accepted that another Tenant was residing in the dwelling at the time that the Respondent was asked to leave and that she had remained until the end of December
2009. It was also put to Mr O’Sullivan that the Landlord’s intention was to rent the dwelling to just one tenant rather than a number of individual tenants as had been the case, but this was
denied by him. The witness also agreed that the Respondent had asked for written notice of termination and that this request had been conveyed by him to the Appellant. The Appellant Landlord Pat Sheahan then gave evidence to the effect that (a) the Respondent had taken over the Tenancy on 12th May 2009 from a previous tenant and had paid a deposit
of €400 to the Appellant Landlord. The Appellant Tenant refunded the previous tenant’s deposit directly to him and had then commenced to discharge the same monthly rent by paying it to one particular Tenant (the collecting Tenant) who made a reduced monthly payment of €1,100 on behalf of all five Tenants (which included the Respondent. Difficulties
arose as a result of Tenants vacating the dwelling, resulting in a deterioration in the relationship with the Appellant Landlord, culminating in the collecting Tenant vacating the dwelling in October 2009 without paying the October rent, whose share the Respondent 4 Tenant had paid to him

Milk & Honey

sophia25 wrote: »

What is your problem?? This is not a case of assigning of a lease as you seem to suggest. It was quoted that all tenants had individual leases. It was not even a head tenant, just one collected the rent for convenience of landlord.I have submitted numerous cases to PRTB and attended adjudication where PRTB clearly accept this but if you read the actual report it was suggested that the landlord wanted to rent the house as an individual unit rather than multiple tenancies. But honestly, if you can't see that just continue to rely on that Bridgeman ruling.

From the Tribunal Report:-
In essence his evidence was that (a) the Appellant wanted possession of the dwelling so as to place it on the market for sale (b) that he verbally gave 35 days notice to the Respondent (c) that the Respondent said that he was happy with that and (d) he refused to vacate the dwelling
despite being contacted a number of times and asked to do so, and despite being offered alternative accommodation at the same rent. On cross examination by the representative of Threshold it was accepted that another Tenant was residing in the dwelling at the time that the Respondent was asked to leave and that she had remained until the end of December
2009. It was also put to Mr O’Sullivan that the Landlord’s intention was to rent the dwelling to just one tenant rather than a number of individual tenants as had been the case, but this was
denied by him. The witness also agreed that the Respondent had asked for written notice of termination and that this request had been conveyed by him to the Appellant. The Appellant Landlord Pat Sheahan then gave evidence to the effect that (a) the Respondent had taken over the Tenancy on 12th May 2009 from a previous tenant and had paid a deposit
of €400 to the Appellant Landlord. The Appellant Tenant refunded the previous tenant’s deposit directly to him and had then commenced to discharge the same monthly rent by paying it to one particular Tenant (the collecting Tenant) who made a reduced monthly payment of €1,100 on behalf of all five Tenants (which included the Respondent. Difficulties
arose as a result of Tenants vacating the dwelling, resulting in a deterioration in the relationship with the Appellant Landlord, culminating in the collecting Tenant vacating the dwelling in October 2009 without paying the October rent, whose share the Respondent 4 Tenant had paid to him

Where was it argued that the tenant occupied a room only with a sharing arrangement for the rest of the facilities?
The tenant paid a previous tenant a refund of his deposit, implying an assignment.
It seems that what happened was that an initial joint tenancy began but tenants began breaking it up themselves.