Questions about being asked to move out

Dara Robinson

So a friend of mine has come to me quite stressed about her landlord asking her to move out over something that seems inconsequential. I did explain to her, seeing as she has no lease with the landlord, that he does not actually have to have a valid reason for asking her to move out, right? (just in case I am wrong there)

The whole reason she was stressed was that she had been asked to move out on the 23rd of Feb and the landlord told her someone was coming around to view the place the following day and she had been living there for quite some time she had accumulated some amount of stuff which was now in her room plied up so she could go through it, making the room un-viewable. On my advice she texted the landlord explaining this and asked to meet him. But from this 2 problems have arisen. One is that she should have received 2 months notice (well 56 days) as she has been there for +2 years and the second one and my main question:

Can your landlord bring people in without your permission to view the room while you are still living in the house? Do you actually HAVE to agree times with him for people to view the room? Or does he have to wait for you to move out if things go sour and you dont want him or anyone else near your stuff and room?

I could not find the answer to this question any place online, although I am sure its out there

pinkypinky

Does she live in a place with her landlord or is it entirely separate?
I ask because there are different rules for a lodger vs a tenant.

Does she have a written lease? This should outline the details of how the tenancy will come to an end. Was the notice given on 23/02 and how long does she have before she is to leave?

If she is in a separate property to the landlord, she doesn't have to agree to viewings. However, in practice, and in reading this forum, it does often happen. I would say it entirely depends on how the landlord-tenant relationship is. Some tenants won't mind keeping the place super tidy and getting out while viewings are on. Some landlords prefer to wait until the current tenant has moved out so they can have it empty and cleaned/painted before new viewings.

pawnacide

Was she given the 56 days notice on 23rd of febuary ?

What was the inconsequential reason she was asked to leave ?
If it was some sort of gross anti social behavior which he will need to be able to prove she can be given seven days notice.

If she has a valid part 4 tenancy there are only certain grounds on which she can be asked to leave
1. he wants the property for himself
2. he wants the property for a direct family member
3. he wants to sell the property

No he definitely cannot show the property without her permission.

Rules all change if she just renting a room in the landlords house.

Dara Robinson

@pinkypinky She does not live with her landlord at all. He lives near but not in the same premisses. As stated before, there is no formal lease. My concern is that I am not sure if she is legally required to allow viewings of the room if she does not want to. Things should not get to that point but just on the off chance they do its good to know for sure.

@pawnacide no, she was asked to move out with no formal letter and no formal date. I have since looked it up and the room is advertised online as available from the 19th of March.
As for why, its not important. It has no baring on anything other than being, it seems, the reason for her being asked to move out.
As for viewing the room, does that mean that she can refuse to have anyone come in to view the room while she is staying there? And force the landlord to wait until after she has moved out before he can actually show the room to people? I very much doubt it will come to that but its a bargaining chip more than anything else

pawnacide

Dara Robinson wrote: »

As for viewing the room, does that mean that she can refuse to have anyone come in to view the room while she is staying there? And force the landlord to wait until after she has moved out before he can actually show the room to people? I very much doubt it will come to that but its a bargaining chip more than anything else

Better than that, he is in breach of his obligations under the 2004 act and has no right at all to asks her to leave (56 days notice or not). In the absence of detail regarding why she was asked to move I cannot be certain (she can be asked to leave if she did not conform with her obligations as a tenant) but she should ring the PTRB or threshold and give full details of the circumstances.

He cannot show the property without your permission.

Marcusm

Does she occupy the property by herself or does she have a room and share the facilities with others?

odds_on

pawnacide wrote: »

Better than that, he is in breach of his obligations under the 2004 act and has no right at all to asks her to leave (56 days notice or not). In the absence of detail regarding why she was asked to move I cannot be certain (she can be asked to leave if she did not conform with her obligations as a tenant) but she should ring the PTRB or threshold and give full details of the circumstances.

He cannot show the property without your permission.

The landlord must issue a Notice of Termination in writing, giving certain details as laid down in the RTA 2004. Failure to do so makes any Notice of Termination invalid.

As pawnacide says, in the absence of the reason she was asked to leave, a more accurate answer cannot be given.

I did explain to her, seeing as she has no lease with the landlord, that he does not actually have to have a valid reason for asking her to move out, right? (just in case I am wrong there)

In respect of her not having a lease, you are incorrect - she has an unwritten Part 4 lease which is covered in the RTA 2004, both tenant's and landlord's obligations as well as how and when a Part 4 lease can be terminated.

Dara Robinson

Marcusm wrote: »

Does she occupy the property by herself or does she have a room and share the facilities with others?

Shared house, each house mates has a room in the house and they all share common space. No one has a lease, they all just have unwritten leases with landlord.

odds_on wrote: »

The landlord must issue a Notice of Termination in writing, giving certain details as laid down in the RTA 2004. Failure to do so makes any Notice of Termination invalid.

As pawnacide says, in the absence of the reason she was asked to leave, a more accurate answer cannot be given.

In respect of her not having a lease, you are incorrect - she has an unwritten Part 4 lease which is covered in the RTA 2004, both tenant's and landlord's obligations as well as how and when a Part 4 lease can be terminated.

Technically, as far as I am aware (but I will check) she was not actually given a reason. She brought a conflict in the house to the attention of the Landlord and a few days later he rang her and asked her to move out.
Regarding the Part 4 lease... Are you saying that a reason HAS to be given? A valid one? or its simply a case that the landlord has to give written notice and then based off that she has to move out?
Can you get me a link to the info on the Part 4 type lease please? I knew nothing of this

pawnacide

Marcusm wrote: »

Does she occupy the property by herself or does she have a room and share the facilities with others?

I presume you're asking this in relation to licensee's. I've found there seems to be some confusion regarding licensees.

A licensee is someone who is living in shared accommodation with someone they have made a letting arrangement. That person can be a tenant or the landlord.
So if your letting arrangement is with the Landlord and he/she does not live in the property you are entitled to the protections under the 2004 act regardless of how many other tenants or licensees share the property.

If your letting arrangement is with a tenant of the landlord then your rights are not covered by the act.

odds_on

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Shared house, each house mates has a room in the house and they all share common space. No one has a lease, they all just have unwritten leases with landlord.
Technically, as far as I am aware (but I will check) she was not actually given a reason. She brought a conflict in the house to the attention of the Landlord and a few days later he rang her and asked her to move out.
Regarding the Part 4 lease... Are you saying that a reason HAS to be given? A valid one? or its simply a case that the landlord has to give written notice and then based off that she has to move out?
Can you get me a link to the info on the Part 4 type lease please? I knew nothing of this

There are two types of house shares:
1 Where the house is rented as a single unit to a number of tenants. Basically, the tenants decide among themselves who has which room. The rent is paid as a lump sum, each tenant giving his/her share to a central fund. Usually one tenant will organise this. Tenants come and go, a new tenant being assigned a part of the lease held by the out-going tenant. The landlord does not have the right to enter the property without the express permission of the tenants. Tenants are severally and jointly liable for the rent. This tenancy must be registered with the PRTB.

2. Each tenant has been assigned a bedroom by the landlord. Tenants may not change rooms without the consent of the landlord. Each tenant pays their rent separately though one tenant may agree with the landlord to collect the individual rents. A tenant is only liable for his or her rent. The landlord has the right to enter the communal parts of the property without requiring notice. This form of tenancy is outside the remit of and therefore is not registered with the PRTB and claims are not dealt with by the PRTB.

Which type of lease does she have?

pawnacide

odds_on wrote: »

2. Each tenant has been assigned a bedroom by the landlord. Tenants may not change rooms without the consent of the landlord. Each tenant pays their rent separately though one tenant may agree with the landlord to collect the individual rents. A tenant is only liable for his or her rent. This form of tenancy is outside the remit of and therefore is not registered with the PRTB and claims are not dealt with by the PRTB.

Which type of lease does she have?

Where does the 2004 act refer to this ?

My understanding is that your either a tenant or a licensee, if you're a licensee your letting arrangement is with someone who lives in the house, that can be a tenant or the Landlord.

pawnacide

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Shared house, each house mates has a room in the house and they all share common space. No one has a lease, they all just have unwritten leases with landlord.
Technically, as far as I am aware (but I will check) she was not actually given a reason. She brought a conflict in the house to the attention of the Landlord and a few days later he rang her and asked her to move out.
Regarding the Part 4 lease... Are you saying that a reason HAS to be given? A valid one? or its simply a case that the landlord has to give written notice and then based off that she has to move out?
Can you get me a link to the info on the Part 4 type lease please? I knew nothing of this

Heres one link that gives a simple overview.

http://www.daft.ie/content/residential_tenancies_act_2004.daft

More detailed info here

http://public.prtb.ie/act.htm

Dara Robinson

odds_on wrote: »

2. Each tenant has been assigned a bedroom by the landlord. Tenants may not change rooms without the consent of the landlord. Each tenant pays their rent separately though one tenant may agree with the landlord to collect the individual rents. A tenant is only liable for his or her rent. The landlord has the right to enter the communal parts of the property without requiring notice. This form of tenancy is outside the remit of and therefore is not registered with the PRTB and claims are not dealt with by the PRTB.

Which type of lease does she have?

This one

pawnacide

Oops Didn't read the bit about Landlord having right to access communal parts of the property (sorry odds-on), But I would still ring the PTRB as even in their own literature they say they will give each case individual consideration as to whether the act applies. They really don't like landlords using tricks to get out of their obligations and may decide your friend does have a part 4 tenancy.

And just because the Landlord does enter the property this does not necessarily mean he has the right to do so. But too many if's and buts. PTRB or threshold will give you accurate answers so long as you give them all relevant info.

Dara Robinson

no thats great lads. I'll talk to her and give her all the info and then get her to ring Threshold and speak to them to be 100% before she speaks to him again.

Cheers for all the info, I also learned a tonne

odds_on

pawnacide wrote: »

Where does the 2004 act refer to this ?

My understanding is that your either a tenant or a licensee, if you're a licensee your letting arrangement is with someone who lives in the house, that can be a tenant or the Landlord.

As is often the case, Irish lawmakers made a pig's ear of law making as really this makes no real sense and defeats the purpose of the RTA 2004 (as well as requirements for issuing a Notice of Termination of a Part 4 tenancy on grounds of rent arrears). It all relies on the definition of "dwelling" as defined in the RTA2004.

PRTB decision which was posted on their own website.

Tribunal Reference Number TR10/DR532&589/2006.
Reasons for Decision of the Tribunal

On the facts agreed by the Parties the Tenant was not entitled to occupation of a “self-contained residential unit”.

Under the agreement entered into in December 2003 the Tenant is merely entitled to exclusive occupation of one bedroom and he shares other facilities including the kitchen, bathroom facilities and reception area facilities with other occupants.

The Landlord was of the view that the Tenant was not entitled to put a new lock onto the bedroom door. The Tenant contested this.

It is clear from the evidence that the letting does not come within the definition of “dwelling” as set out in section 4 of the Act of 2004. The shared facilities afforded to the Tenant could not be considered to be a “bed-sit” or any other form of “self-contained residential unit”.

The PRTB therefore has no application at all. This is so whether the Landlord resides in the building or not. Unless all of the tenants are on the same lease in which case the entire is a letting of a dwelling there is no need to register or worry about the PRTB coming after you.

Now, the question is, does the fact that this type of arrangement does not fulfil the definition of "dwelling" in the RTA 2004, also makes it outside the terms of the RTA 2004 itself, i.e. none of the tenant's nor landlord's obligations apply and does it also exclude the laws relating to a Notice of Termination and, in fact, is a Notice of Termination required at all?

I think maybe this should be a separate thread, if the mods would like to split this.

Marcusm

pawnacide wrote: »

I presume you're asking this in relation to licensee's. I've found there seems to be some confusion regarding licensees.

A licensee is someone who is living in shared accommodation with someone they have made a letting arrangement. That person can be a tenant or the landlord.
So if your letting arrangement is with the Landlord and he/she does not live in the property you are entitled to the protections under the 2004 act regardless of how many other tenants or licensees share the property.

If your letting arrangement is with a tenant of the landlord then your rights are not covered by the act.

Actually, I think you'll find that you have that the wrong way around. If oe person takes a lease of the entire dwelling and then allows people to ccupy bedroos and share facilities, the 2004 Act will give them some rights.

If, however, the landlord allocates bedrooms and gives you access to shared facilities, no one has a lease of a self contained unit and thereby the 2004 Act offers no protection as there is no lease of a dwelling (different if each room is a self contained bedsit).

pawnacide

Marcusm wrote: »

Actually, I think you'll find that you have that the wrong way around. If oe person takes a lease of the entire dwelling and then allows people to ccupy bedroos and share facilities, the 2004 Act will give them some rights.

If, however, the landlord allocates bedrooms and gives you access to shared facilities, no one has a lease of a self contained unit and thereby the 2004 Act offers no protection as there is no lease of a dwelling (different if each room is a self contained bedsit).

Threshold in Galway disagrees. I think this idea stems from a few individual decisions from the PTRB but as they say themselves they will consider each case on an individual basis.

Marcusm

pawnacide wrote: »

Threshold in Galway disagrees. I think this idea stems from a few individual decisions from the PTRB but as they say themselves they will consider each case on an individual basis.

Threshold is a good resource but, with the greatest of respect, much of what they have to say in respect of legal matters is ill informed. An example, friends can stay the night but you need the landlord's permission before allowing anyone else to move in. What utter rubbish, a lease is for the property and not for a specified number of individuals. Only in very exceptional circumstances is ther statement correct.

On this topic, they would be ill advised to tell a licencee or a sub tenant that they do nt accrue righs as this is specified in s49 of the Act. Likewise, while it can be arguable in limited circumstances, the position outlined here does not involve the lease of a dwelling and it is highly unlikely that it is covered by the Act. The OP's friend, therefore, is likely only to have whatever protections are set out in their agreement.

pawnacide

pawnacide wrote: »

Threshold in Galway disagrees. I think this idea stems from a few individual decisions from the PTRB but as they say themselves they will consider each case on an individual basis.

Taken from PTRB info leaflet:

What is a Licensee in Private Rented Accommodation?
A licensee residing in a private rented dwelling is living there at the invitation of the tenant as the arrangement enabling a licensee to live in rented accommodation is made with the tenant and not with the landlord. The tenant may already be well established in the dwelling and may take in a licensee because another tenant or licensee has moved out, or the tenant can no longer afford the rent. Alternatively, the tenant may be just entering into a tenancy with the landlord whereby the landlord has indicated that the tenant may admit a certain number of persons to share the dwelling with the tenant. Essentially therefore, in the private rented sector someone is a licensee if living with the person with whom he/she made the letting arrangement. In these circumstances the Residential Tenancies Act will apply to the tenant’s occupation of the tenancy and will thus have certain impacts for the licensee. While there may be any combination of multiple occupants in such cases, e.g. 3 tenants and 2 licensees; for the 2004 Act to be relevant where there is a licensee, there must always be at least one tenant.
Licensing arrangements in private rented dwellings are often confused with sub-lettings and assignments. The difference is that when a tenant assigns or sublets their rental accommodation, they no longer live in it whereas a licensee shares the accommodation with the tenant.

How is a Licensee different to a Tenant?
Licensees in private rented accommodation are not tenants as there has been no tenancy entered into by them with the landlord. While the tenant is under a statutory obligation to inform the landlord of the identity of any person resident in (rather than just visiting) the dwelling, the landlord will not be in a position to accept or veto the individual concerned in the way that he/she could with a prospective tenant.
Licensees are not bound by the tenancy obligations that apply to tenants and equally do not have the rights that apply to tenants. Therefore although the tenant may take in a licensee to contribute towards the rent, the tenant remains liable to the landlord for the full rent amount and if the licensee does not meet their payment obligations it is the tenant’s problem and not the landlord’s, as the tenant’s obligation to pay the agreed rent to the landlord remains. Tenants are responsible for all of the acts and omissions of their licensees. Therefore, if an act of a licensee breaches an obligation applying to the tenancy, whether under law or under a written tenancy agreement, the tenant will be in breach of the obligation thus potentially entitling the landlord to terminate the agreement and the tenancy in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions. Examples of breaches would include; a licensee engaging in anti-social behaviour; a licensee redecorating without the landlord’s written consent – these are prohibited by law; a licensee hanging out washing on an apartment balcony or leaving an exterior door unlocked – these may be in contravention of the tenant’s letting agreement or management company rules. A tenant taking in a licensee will therefore clearly need to establish all the obligations that the tenant will require to apply to the licensee.
Any money that a licensee pays to the tenant as a deposit is a personal payment to the tenant and is not a deposit with the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, as that meaning is confined to deposits paid by tenants to landlords.

Marcusm

Pawnacide

I am bowing out of this discussion as I don't feel any more debate will help the OP. Rather than posting sections of leaflets which are tangentially relevant to the position, it might be worthwhile reading the other posts a bit deeper and maybe heading back to some of the provisions of the Act. These leaflets are not exhaustive and in some instances are drafted in such loose terms as to appear apposite but in reality to be irrelevant to the points at issue.

Marcusm

Pawnacide

I am bowing out of this discussion as I don't feel any more debate will help the OP. Rather than posting sections of leaflets which are tangentially relevant to the position, it might be worthwhile reading the other posts a bit deeper and maybe heading back to some of the provisions of the Act. These leaflets are not exhaustive and in some instances are drafted in such loose terms as to appear apposite but in reality are irrelevant to the points at issue.

pawnacide

Marcusm wrote: »

Pawnacide

I am bowing out of this discussion as I don't feel any more debate will help the OP. Rather than posting sections of leaflets which are tangentially relevant to the position, it might be worthwhile reading the other posts a bit deeper and maybe heading back to some of the provisions of the Act. These leaflets are not exhaustive and in some instances are drafted in such loose terms as to appear apposite but in reality are irrelevant to the points at issue.

They are not irrelevant as they give the OP points to argue with the Landlord which after all is what he wants. He's only buying time. Further, and you may wish to correct this if i'm wrong, the tenant is allowed to stay in the premises while the dispute is being considered by the PRTB.