Owner Occupied / Tenant

corelon

Quick summary:

If a tenant rents a room from a part owner of a property who does not live in the property but the other part owner continues to live in that property what kind of tenancy does the tenant have.

Basically 2 people own the property, the tenant has a tenancy agreement with the owner who does not live in the property. The other owner lives in that property though.

Hope i am clear here as I am not sure if the tenancy comes under PRTB jurisdiction or not??

Thanks for any help/thoughts offered

djimi

If you live with an owner occupier, then you are a licensee.

corelon

Thanks for reply.

But there are two owners and rent is paid to the owner who does not live there!!! No agreement with other owner.

djimi

Im not sure that it matters tbh; you are still living with an owner occupier.

Maybe contact Threshold to clarify.

corelon

Yeah. its a strange one. PRTB are not even sure how to class the tenancy!!!

the_syco

corelon wrote: »

Quick summary:

If a tenant rents a room from a part owner of a property who does not live in the property but the other part owner continues to live in that property what kind of tenancy does the tenant have.

The owner lives there, but your landlord doesn't. An odd one, but not one I'd like to be in myself. In saying that, when you moved in, who said that they were your landlord?

I'm thinking that the person living in the house with you may have dropped the "part owner" line to you, to gain some sort of seniority over you when it comes to rules of the house?

corelon

Thats what i thought.. fair play.. but to be honest trying to open a dispute with PRTB and they are questioning what kind of tenancy I have. And if it falls under their jurisdiction.. I signed an agreement with the owner who does not live here.. I paid rent only to my landlord.. Its a bloody mess to be honest as nobody seems to know what tenancy I'm in..if any!!

Gatling

Move out and let somebody else sort it out

foggy_lad

corelon wrote: »

Thats what i thought.. fair play.. but to be honest trying to open a dispute with PRTB and they are questioning what kind of tenancy I have. And if it falls under their jurisdiction.. I signed an agreement with the owner who does not live here.. I paid rent only to my landlord.. Its a bloody mess to be honest as nobody seems to know what tenancy I'm in..if any!!

You need to ask the owner who you signed the agreement with if the other party is the part owner or just another tenant. You should do this ASAP. Also who do you pay your rent to?

corelon

Problem is with the landlord, not the other owner who lives here. I want to stay here, have been here for over 2years. I received what I believe is invalid notice from my landlord. Under normal rules I would need to be in breach of the tenancy agreement i signed or landlord needed to move in for him to get me out. But now that I put a dispute in through PRTB, there is a question mark as to the validity of the actually tenancy and weather or not the notice received is valid or not...

foggy_lad

corelon wrote: »

Problem is with the landlord, not the other owner who lives here. I want to stay here, have been here for over 2years. I received what I believe is invalid notice from my landlord. Under normal rules I would need to be in breach of the tenancy agreement i signed or landlord needed to move in for him to get me out. But now that I put a dispute in through PRTB, there is a question mark as to the validity of the actually tenancy and weather or not the notice received is valid or not...

You need to ask the owner who you signed the agreement with if the other party is the part owner or just another tenant. If the LL tells you the other person is part owner you just tell him you need proof of this, You should do this ASAP.

Also who do you pay your rent to? the guy who does live there or the owner who doesn't live there?

If the person who lives there is the part owner it would be very odd for you to be paying rent to the other part owner when you could hand it to the person you live with much easier.

corelon

Thanks for input
I pay LL who I signed the agreement with ( who is the owner that does not live here). Never paid other owner who lives here..

foggy_lad

corelon wrote: »

Thanks for input
I pay LL who I signed the agreement with ( who is the owner that does not live here). Never paid other owner who lives here..

That sounds like the current story about your co-habitant being part owner is contrived to get you out without proper notice or to get around your part 4 rights.

When exactly were you told by the person you live with that he was part owner?

djimi

In what wway as are the two owners related? Are they family/friends/married/separated?

corelon

foggy_lad wrote: »

That sounds like the current story about your co-habitant being part owner is contrived to get you out without proper notice or to get around your part 4 rights.

When exactly were you told by the person you live with that he was part owner?

Only since the dispute started. But in saying that he is not a stupid guy and would probably know that PRTB would look for proof of this.

corelon

djimi wrote: »

In what wway as are the two owners related? Are they family/friends/married/separated?

They are not related, I believe they were two friends who bought together during the good times...

corelon

UPDATE:
talked with Threshold again this morning and they are saying i am a licensee. I would love to read the Law where it says that if any owner lives in the dwelling the tenant is a licensee..!!! apposed to the owner I make the agreement with...

djimi

Its interesting that the PRTB are unable to clarify this situation. There are certain instances where you dont have to be necessarily living with the landlord to be classed as a licensee (ie if you are living with an immediate family member of the landlord). I would have thought that living with an owner occupier, even if they are not the ones collecting the rent, would be included in this also, but if the PRTB arent sure then its obviously not as clear cut.

Im not sure that they would be of any more use, but it might be worth consulting with a solicitor and see what they reckon?

corelon

djimi wrote: »

Its interesting that the PRTB are unable to clarify this situation. There are certain instances where you dont have to be necessarily living with the landlord to be classed as a licensee (ie if you are living with an immediate family member of the landlord). I would have thought that living with an owner occupier, even if they are not the ones collecting the rent, would be included in this also, but if the PRTB arent sure then its obviously not as clear cut.

Im not sure that they would be of any more use, but it might be worth consulting with a solicitor and see what they reckon?

Yeah. I believe this is going to be my next step. I am trying to read the legislation regarding all this. To see if it specifically refers to a situation similar to this or not

djimi

Whats the actual issue you are having anyway? You have been asked to leave, is it? On what grounds has notice been served? Do you have a fixed term lease with the landlord?

Mrs OBumble

Life's too short! Move on, and find a place to live where you're not in dispute with anyone.

Seriously. This may not be the legal answer, but it's surely a more pragmatic one that will lead to more happiness for everyone overall.

The_Morrigan

corelon wrote: »

UPDATE:
talked with Threshold again this morning and they are saying i am a licensee. I would love to read the Law where it says that if any owner lives in the dwelling the tenant is a licensee..!!! apposed to the owner I make the agreement with...

Joint owners are seen as one entity, they are both liable for the mortgage repayments so if either or both decide not to pay both can be chased for the cash. If one dies the other gets full legal ownership.
Your living with an owner of the property in question, therefore you are a licencee.

djimi

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Life's too short! Move on, and find a place to live where you're not in dispute with anyone.

Seriously. This may not be the legal answer, but it's surely a more pragmatic one that will lead to more happiness for everyone overall.

Depends on the situation. Four week until Christmas; I know Id be trying to prolong moving until the new year at least if it were me.

djimi

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Joint owners are seen as one entity, they are both liable for the mortgage repayments so if either or both decide not to pay both can be chased for the cash. If one dies the other gets full legal ownership.
Your living with an owner of the property in question, therefore you are a licencee.

This is pretty much what Im basing my thinking on also. However its interesting that the PRTB werent sure about it.

The_Morrigan

djimi wrote: »

This is pretty much what Im basing my thinking on also. However its interesting that the PRTB werent sure about it.

Probably because the PRTB haven't read up on the torture that is Irish property law. I'd say most of the research is based on the RTA.

corelon

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Life's too short! Move on, and find a place to live where you're not in dispute with anyone.

Seriously. This may not be the legal answer, but it's surely a more pragmatic one that will lead to more happiness for everyone overall.

I am not sure if you realise that if my tenancy is not covered by PRTB, I can be turfed out with minimum notice i.e. a weeks notice or less. we are now 3/4 weeks before xmas.. This is not an option for me to find alternative accommodation this side of xmas + I have been a very good tenant for nearly 3 years and I believe I should have legal rights..

djimi

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Probably because the PRTB haven't read up on the torture that is Irish property law. I'd say most of the research is based on the RTA.

I would have thought that its something that they would have come across before though. It cant be the first time that two people have bought a house only for one person to move out and rent their share.

corelon

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Joint owners are seen as one entity, they are both liable for the mortgage repayments so if either or both decide not to pay both can be chased for the cash. If one dies the other gets full legal ownership.
Your living with an owner of the property in question, therefore you are a licencee.

Thanks for feedback. I see your angle but my argument would be I have a tenancy agreement with LL who does not live here I always paid to LL who does not live here and also he registered the tenancy with the PRTB. They are not related also..

The_Morrigan

djimi wrote: »

I would have thought that its something that they would have come across before though. It cant be the first time that two people have bought a house only for one person to move out and rent their share.

Usually if one deserts it's the remaining owner trying to cover their side of the rent. This set up seems rather awkward.

djimi

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Usually if one deserts it's the remaining owner trying to cover their side of the rent. This set up seems rather awkward.

True. For legal clarity it would have been easier for the remaining owner to collect the rent; at least that way there is no confusion.

The_Morrigan

corelon wrote: »

Thanks for feedback. I see your angle but my argument would be I have a tenancy agreement with LL who does not live here I always paid to LL who does not live here and also he registered the tenancy with the PRTB. They are not related also..

It's not an angle, it is the legal principle behind joint owners.
They don't have to be related to be joint owners.

The tenancy being registered with the PRTB seems odd. You are not leasing the whole house so all occupants should be registered and you can't register an owner as a tenant.

corelon

anybody any idea where to go to next?

corelon

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It's not an angle, it is the legal principle behind joint owners.
They don't have to be related to be joint owners.

The tenancy being registered with the PRTB seems odd. You are not leasing the whole house so all occupants should be registered and you can't register an owner as a tenant.

My tenancy is the only one regsitered to this house

The_Morrigan

corelon wrote: »

anybody any idea where to go to next?

Your landlord and ask for extra time to move given the season that's in it.

The_Morrigan

corelon wrote: »

My tenancy is the only one regsitered to this house

I'd hazard a guess it's invalid then.

djimi

corelon wrote: »

Thanks for feedback. I see your angle but my argument would be I have a tenancy agreement with LL who does not live here I always paid to LL who does not live here and also he registered the tenancy with the PRTB. They are not related also..

If the tenancy is registered with the PRTB, and they were made aware of the situation at the time, then I dont see where there is any confusion. However, if they were not made aware of the situation, and were not aware that an owner was also living in the property, then it might be €90 down the drain and a registration that is not valid.

I think you need to speak to a solicitor before going any further. The lease that you have might not mean a whole lot if you are a licensee.

corelon

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess it's invalid then.

Anyone know my legal rights then if i am a licensee.. Not that i believe i am

djimi

corelon wrote: »

Anyone know my legal rights then if i am a licensee.. Not that i believe i am

As a licensee you dont really have many legal rights. Youre not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act, nor can you deal with the PRTB.

corelon

All the legislation seems to indicate that if the Landlord resides in the same property I am not covered. So therefore if the landlord doesn't live in the same property I am covered.

The definition of a landlord and tenant is
"An association between two individuals arising from an agreement by which one individual occupies the other's real property with permission, subject to a rental fee"

i have an agreement with the owner who does not live here therefore making him my landlord and not the other owner!!

The_Morrigan

corelon wrote: »

All the legislation seems to indicate that if the Landlord resides in the same property I am not covered. So therefore if the landlord doesn't live in the same property I am covered.

The definition of a landlord and tenant is
"An association between two individuals arising from an agreement by which one individual occupies the other's real property with permission, subject to a rental fee"

i have an agreement with the owner who does not live here therefore making him my landlord and not the other owner!!

By virtue of the fact that your landlord is only a partial owner and the other resident is the other owner....you live with an owner occupier.

corelon

The_Morrigan wrote: »

By virtue of the fact that your landlord is only a partial owner and the other resident is the other owner....you live with an owner occupier.

Another update.. Talked with PRTB again and they are now saying it will take between 1 or 2 weeks for them to determine if my tenancy agreement is covered or not....

Aye Bosun

I don't think it really makes any difference if you pay the landlord that doesn't live in the house. Once one of the owners is resident you are in the house by their invitation only and as such can be asked to leave at anytime regardless of the reason.
As for paying rent to the landlord not living there, this could be a simple case of money management. 2 friends brought a house together. 1 moves on but still needs to cover their share of the mortgage. Decides to rent their room out, rent is higher that current mortgage and they are making a profit from the arrangement. The rent is their money and makes sense that you pay them directly. This could just as easily work the other way..rent is lower than mortgage repayment and they are topping it up before it is lodge in the mortgage account.
Either way it doesn't effect you as you are living with an owner occupier and as such are a licensee.

corelon

I really don't think its as black and white as all that guys. I have a tenancy agreement, stating landlord (name) tenant's (name). Money was always paid to landlord, the agreement was always operated as a tenancy agreement and the tenancy was regsitered with PRTB.... The law must cover me to some degree, even if the law would say " I was misled " therefore I would still have rights

gibo_ie

if you are not renting the whole house then surely its just rent a room?? Is your lease for the entire property or just a room and use of common areas? This should be quite easy to find out where you stand so.

corelon

gibo_ie wrote: »

if you are not renting the whole house then surely its just rent a room?? Is your lease for the entire property or just a room and use of common areas? This should be quite easy to find out where you stand so.

I rent a room and use common areas. I don't believe that makes me a licensee though. A landlord can rent out all the rooms in his/her house to multiple individuals and therefore this would not be rent a room..

djimi

corelon wrote: »

I really don't think its as black and white as all that guys. I have a tenancy agreement, stating landlord (name) tenant's (name). Money was always paid to landlord, the agreement was always operated as a tenancy agreement and the tenancy was regsitered with PRTB.... The law must cover me to some degree, even if the law would say " I was misled " therefore I would still have rights

Having a tenancy agreement alone does not give you rights under the RTA. Anyone could write up a piece of paper that claims that you are covered by X, Y and Z, but it doesnt necessarily mean that its the case.

Similarly, if the PRTB registration was carried out on the understanding that you are renting the entire tenancy then the fact that the tenancy is registered might not mean a whole lot legally.

At this point I think you need to wait for the PRTB to come back to you; anything else is only guesswork. I dont think that you are covered, but if they come back to you and say the opposite then all the better for you. You can also seek the advice of a solicitor, who will give you their opinion.

foggy_lad

corelon wrote: »

Only since the dispute started. But in saying that he is not a stupid guy and would probably know that PRTB would look for proof of this.

What proof of ownership was offered to show that he is the joint/part owner?

I could claim to be part owner if it serves a purpose and with an arrangement with the Landlord! if the LL wants you out the only way is to move in himself or sell up because you have part 4 rights, or he can make you believe that you don't have part 4 rights!!

corelon

foggy_lad wrote: »

What proof of ownership was offered to show that he is the joint/part owner?

I could claim to be part owner if it serves a purpose and with an arrangement with the Landlord! if the LL wants you out the only way is to move in himself or sell up because you have part 4 rights, or he can make you believe that you don't have part 4 rights!!

No proof as of yet. I assume PRTB will be looking for this and if they rule my tenancy is not covered by the part 4 Legislation I will be asking for the proof that was submitted....

foggy_lad

corelon wrote: »

No proof as of yet. I assume PRTB will be looking for this and if they rule my tenancy is not covered by the part 4 Legislation I will be asking for the proof that was submitted....

Tell the PRTB that you suspect that the person you share with is just a tenant because you were never told they were part owner until the landlord wanted you out.

djimi

It wouldnt be too hard for either party to prove that they are a part owner in fairness; one bank statement showing mortgage payments would clear that up in a hurry. By all means ask for proof (as it would go a long way to clarifying the situation), but Id be very surprised if the landlord thought that they could get away with spoofing you in this manner.

runawaybishop

djimi wrote: »

Having a tenancy agreement alone does not give you rights under the RTA. Anyone could write up a piece of paper that claims that you are covered by X, Y and Z, but it doesnt necessarily mean that its the case.

Similarly, if the PRTB registration was carried out on the understanding that you are renting the entire tenancy then the fact that the tenancy is registered might not mean a whole lot legally.

At this point I think you need to wait for the PRTB to come back to you; anything else is only guesswork. I dont think that you are covered, but if they come back to you and say the opposite then all the better for you. You can also seek the advice of a solicitor, who will give you their opinion.

This is interesting, i wonder is there something in the fact that it was not disclosed that the OP would be living with a part owner when he moved in?