Tenants or licensees?

afraidofplanes

Hi all, was just wondering about the particularities of this case - there's (at the moment) no big issue, just curious. I live in a shared house with 3 other housemates, one of which is the landlord's adult son. I haven't signed a lease (not sure that any of us have) but the tenancy is registered with the PRTB. Landlord calls to the house once a month to collect rent in cash and sign our rent books.

I guess we're just wondering if our situation (mainly the fact that the landlord has a relative living in the house) makes us tenants or licensees, and what the ramifications of either is in terms of getting our deposit back once we leave given proper notice, etc.

Also, am I correct in thinking that because I haven't signed a lease, I don't necessarily have to find a replacement for myself when I leave and am still entitled to my deposit - i.e., isn't this the kind of thing that usually has to be stipulated in a lease agreement?

Thanks for any thoughts you might have!

murphaph

afraidofplanes wrote: »

Hi all, was just wondering about the particularities of this case - there's (at the moment) no big issue, just curious. I live in a shared house with 3 other housemates, one of which is the landlord's adult son. I haven't signed a lease (not sure that any of us have) but the tenancy is registered with the PRTB. Landlord calls to the house once a month to collect rent in cash and sign our rent books.

I guess we're just wondering if our situation (mainly the fact that the landlord has a relative living in the house) makes us tenants or licensees, and what the ramifications of either is in terms of getting our deposit back once we leave given proper notice, etc.

Also, am I correct in thinking that because I haven't signed a lease, I don't necessarily have to find a replacement for myself when I leave and am still entitled to my deposit - i.e., isn't this the kind of thing that usually has to be stipulated in a lease agreement?

Thanks for any thoughts you might have!

You're tenants. A rent book is a clear acceptance of that fact by your landlord.

You don't have a lease to assign so you don't have to find a replacement but you are still bound by the relevant notice periods under the RTA.

quietsailor

murphaph wrote: »

You're tenants. A rent book is a clear acceptance of that fact by your landlord.

You don't have a lease to assign so you don't have to find a replacement but you are still bound by the relevant notice periods under the RTA.

I'm not so sure about that, I remember reading on here about someone that took a case to the PRTB and even though they had a lease, the fact that they lived with the LL/ LL's relative meant they were a licencee and weren't covered by the PRTB.

OP you'd best ask thereshold or the PRTB themselves - although one mixes things up and the other is very slow so double check everything/get it in writin

Baby01032012

If they weren't tenants they would not need the tenancy registered with the PRTB. Fact that it is is evidence of tenancy as is a rent book.

Ray Palmer

Baby01032012 wrote: »

If they weren't tenants they would not need the tenancy registered with the PRTB. Fact that it is is evidence of tenancy as is a rent book.

You could do these things anyway so their existence doesn't prove anything. I have heard of lodgers being treated like this by live in owners.

I would expect them to be tenants as the relative doesn't own the property but I am aware that renting to a relative is seen differently for property inspections.

Cuddlesworth

quietsailor wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that, I remember reading on here about someone that took a case to the PRTB and even though they had a lease, the fact that they lived with the LL/ LL's relative meant they were a licencee and weren't covered by the PRTB.

OP you'd best ask thereshold or the PRTB themselves - although one mixes things up and the other is very slow so double check everything/get it in writin

Depends if they were paying or had dealt only with the son. In this case, there contract and payment go direct to the owner of the property, who does not live there.

quietsailor

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Depends if they were paying or had dealt only with the son. In this case, there contract and payment go direct to the owner of the property, who does not live there.

Hmmm, I can't find that thread I was talking about in the earlier post after 3 pages of search but I have this vague memory of a "tenant" who lived with the LL's daughter who collected the rent - but the contract was with the LL and the daughter was just facilitating collecting the rent and it was ruled a licencee scenario by the PRTB

quietsailor

OP,

The only definitive answer is going to come from the PRTB, it'd be best to contact them

afraidofplanes

Thanks all - really appreciate the advice. We do not deal at all with the landlord's son, in fact if we mention anything about the rental property to him at all (i.e., the hoover broke last week and we mentioned it offhand), he says 'that's nothing to do with me, best to get onto landlord'. The son does not collect our rent, it goes directly into the landlord's hands, and we all have bills in our name - it at least feels like a real 'we are all tenants here' scenario but I was just wondering in case it changed anything in terms of getting our deposits back in the end/having to assign our (non-existent) lease.