Signed A TENANCY agreement, landlord staying in house when in Dublin

sayd91

I moved into an empty 4-5 bedroomed house in September last year which was under the last of a few renovations at the time. The landlord and his wife , who live in the West of Ireland, were doing the renovations themselves, so they were staying in a garage converted bedroom while they carried out the last of the bits and pieces of the renovations. When I moved in, they explained to me that the landlord would be up 2-3 nights a week, never on weekends while he did a small little odd job for a neighbour across the road (converting her garage). This would be until November or Christmas time at the very very latest. This I was fine with as it was only short term, 3 other tenants moved in and we were all happy to let him stay the odd night for the short term with the view that he would be gone after a number of weeks.
I signed a 6 month TENANCY agreement, with his name on it. I was given a rent book, with the inventory of what was in the house. I was asked for my PPS number for the landlord to register with the PRTB. I have since discovered that the property is not on the registered list of properties on the PRTB website.
It is now mid-February, and the landlord still arrives 3-4 nights on a week on/week off basis. He rarely comes out of the room and to be honest when I do hear him open the door I consciously don’t go to the communal areas because I don’t want to run into him. He is a man in his 50’s. All of the tenants are under 25. Nothing had been said as to when he was moving out. I did not expect to see him at all post-Christmas and I am not happy with the situation. I text him to ask him politely what his story was and when he would be leaving. He never responded, so I text his wife. She rang me to tell me that he would not be moving out for the foreseeable future as he was after getting a bit of work in Dublin (this I am suspicious of, the claims to be an architect, I myself and in the engineering business and his manner of work, appearance, etc. does not strike me as an architect, but this is irrelevant really). She said that now that I was after saying I wasn’t happy with the situation it was going to make *Alan feel uncomfortable, and that we were just going to have to treat him as a fifth housemate.
Where do we stand? I signed a tenancy agreement, am I a tenant? Would the law see me as a licensee? Do I have a case to take action against the landlord/owner occupier/what even is he?

Note: All the other housemates have signed TENANCY agreements. And also feel unhappy with the situation.

davo10

sayd91 wrote: »

I moved into an empty 4-5 bedroomed house in September last year which was under the last of a few renovations at the time. The landlord and his wife , who live in the West of Ireland, were doing the renovations themselves, so they were staying in a garage converted bedroom while they carried out the last of the bits and pieces of the renovations. When I moved in, they explained to me that the landlord would be up 2-3 nights a week, never on weekends while he did a small little odd job for a neighbour across the road (converting her garage). This would be until November or Christmas time at the very very latest. This I was fine with as it was only short term, 3 other tenants moved in and we were all happy to let him stay the odd night for the short term with the view that he would be gone after a number of weeks.
I signed a 6 month TENANCY agreement, with his name on it. I was given a rent book, with the inventory of what was in the house. I was asked for my PPS number for the landlord to register with the PRTB. I have since discovered that the property is not on the registered list of properties on the PRTB website.
It is now mid-February, and the landlord still arrives 3-4 nights on a week on/week off basis. He rarely comes out of the room and to be honest when I do hear him open the door I consciously don’t go to the communal areas because I don’t want to run into him. He is a man in his 50’s. All of the tenants are under 25. Nothing had been said as to when he was moving out. I did not expect to see him at all post-Christmas and I am not happy with the situation. I text him to ask him politely what his story was and when he would be leaving. He never responded, so I text his wife. She rang me to tell me that he would not be moving out for the foreseeable future as he was after getting a bit of work in Dublin (this I am suspicious of, the claims to be an architect, I myself and in the engineering business and his manner of work, appearance, etc. does not strike me as an architect, but this is irrelevant really). She said that now that I was after saying I wasn’t happy with the situation it was going to make *Alan feel uncomfortable, and that we were just going to have to treat him as a fifth housemate.
Where do we stand? I signed a tenancy agreement, am I a tenant? Would the law see me as a licensee? Do I have a case to take action against the landlord/owner occupier/what even is he?

Note: All the other housemates have signed TENANCY agreements. And also feel unhappy with the situation.

Are you all jointly renting the house as in one rental agreement signed by all of you OR have you all signed seperate rental agreements whereby you are renting a room in the house and have use of the communal areas? If you all have seperate agreements then there is no issue with the LL being there, you are not renting the room he is in.

foggy_lad

You need to contact the prtb for some advice on whether you will be considered a tenant or licensee.

Aye Bosun

Have all the housemates signed a joint tenancy agreement for the house ie. you are all jointly and severely liable for the rent or have have you all sign an individual agreement for each room in the house with access to communal areas? If he rents the rooms out on an individual basis than I think you don't have a leg to stand on to be honest as there is no reason why he cannot hold one of room for his own use. That said, if you sign a joint tenancy agreement than you have a right to peaceful enjoyment of the house and should be given at least 24hr notice of him entering the property after agreement with the tenants.

foggy_lad

davo10 wrote: »

Are you all jointly renting the house as in one rental agreement signed by all of you OR have you all signed seperate rental agreements whereby you are renting a room in the house and have use of the communal areas? If you all have seperate agreements then there is no issue with the LL being there, you are not renting the room he is in.

Whichever is the case they are still renting in an owner occupied house and in my opinion are all licences and not tenants.

sayd91

davo10 wrote: »

Are you all jointly renting the house as in one rental agreement signed by all of you OR have you all signed seperate rental agreements whereby you are renting a room in the house and have use of the communal areas? If you all have seperate agreements then there is no issue with the LL being there, you are not renting the room he is in.

We have separate TENANCY agreements not licensee agreements, in which he is stated as a LANDLORD and not an owner occupier? Surely if you agree to be a landlord on a contract then it does not entitle you to live in the house?

To be honest, I don't even really mind him being there the odd time but its my own comfort and the fact that they were dishonest and deceitful in their approach to the whole situation that I'm annoyed with.

And the fact they have now basically said "move out so" and gotten really defensive about the whole thing, if they issue us with our notice I would like to know what way to play it.

I have contacted the PRTB and Threshold this morning so I'm awaiting a reply on that front.

conorhal

Tell him that you're sorry, but you're going to have to start charging him rent and utility bills.

The_Morrigan

sayd91, can you please stop using CAPS in your text, there is no need to shout here.

Thank you

seamus

As foggy_lad says, if you all have separate rental agreements, then it's more likely that you're licensees than tenants as you do not have exclusive use of the entire property.

The wording on the agreement may be irrelevant. If you do not have exclusive use of the property then you cannot demand that the landlord does not use the communal areas for himself.

Aye Bosun

sayd91 wrote: »

We have separate TENANCY agreements

I am afraid you haven't a leg to stand on with separate tenancy agreements the landlord can come and go as he please without any notice to yourself.

http://www.prtb.ie/archive/2006Disputes/TRIBUNAL06/TR10_Report.pdf

Here is a PRTB ruling stating that as the property was let out on a room by room basis with access to communal areas. It also could not be regarded as a bedsit or self contained unit. As a result the PRTB ruled:


The relationship between Landlord and Tenant is outside the scope of application of
the Act of 2004 and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the
dispute.

So even bringing a case to the PRTB will not help and from how I read it the Landlord does not need to register with them either as they are outside their scope. Open to correction on registering tho as I am not 100% sure.

MrMorooka

Wait, that ruling is mad all together. It seems to establish precedent that in a rental where you have multiple people sharing a property(extremely common), it is apparently not subject to the RTA 2004 and can't be dealt with by the PTRB? Have to be missing something.

MrMorooka

Well, it seems to apply in the case where each tenant has a separate 'lease' with the landlord, as opposed to the usual joint lease. Still, interesting.

Given that this is exactly the situation OP's property is in, yeah, apparently you are not covered by RTA2004 or the PTRB, it would seem.

NewCorkLad

Make sure to have him pay a fifth of all bills and ask him for his share since September if he hasnt being paying.

drumswan

MrMorooka wrote: »

Wait, that ruling is mad all together. It seems to establish precedent that in a rental where you have multiple people sharing a property(extremely common), it is apparently not subject to the RTA 2004 and can't be dealt with by the PTRB? Have to be missing something.

Not that mad really. The tenant knowingly moved in with the landlord living in the property, shouldnt have moved into that arrangement if it didnt suit. Most people would never move into a property under such conditions.

sayd91

drumswan wrote: »

Not that mad really. The tenant knowingly moved in with the landlord living in the property, shouldnt have moved into that arrangement if it didnt suit. Most people would never move into a property under such conditions.

There must be more to that ruling, As said above, that would imply that separate/co-tenancy and licensee agreements are the same thing and are viewed the same in the eyes of the law?

Regardless of the messed up relationship I now find myself involved in with the landlord, he still needs to be registered with PRTB no?

Threshold say they view us as tenants and as being in the right. Hopefully will get this fully confirmed through sending on my agreement. There was no agreement in writing with regard to LL occupied (i.e. we never signed anything to say that LL would stay short term). The only official agreement we made was tenancy, which according to Threshold means he needs out, and is subject to a fine by the PRTB.

Again still awaiting PRTB response, which I'm sure will probably have my head spinning around again.

Also worth noting that while I'm not thrilled about the situation, I'm not going to move out unless I'm asked or the situation gets more uncomfortable.

It had just come up that one of the other tenants is moving out, and when we were doing viewings we asked the LL for a bit of clarity on his leaving date so we could explain it to other people viewing, we were only to be met with a pretty defensive, rude and petty response from his wife.

Regardless of having all the power or none of it, I'm not going to kick up more of a fuss unless it gets worse. I'm just trying to get my ducks in a row in case things start to get a bit more awkward.

drumswan

sayd91 wrote: »

There must be more to that ruling, As said above, that would imply that separate/co-tenancy and licensee agreements are the same thing and are viewed the same in the eyes of the law?

Regardless of the messed up relationship I now find myself involved in with the landlord, he still needs to be registered with PRTB no?

Threshold say they view us as tenants and as being in the right. Hopefully will get this fully confirmed through sending on my agreement. There was no agreement in writing with regard to LL occupied (i.e. we never signed anything to say that LL would stay short term). The only official agreement we made was tenancy, which according to Threshold means he needs out, and is subject to a fine by the PRTB.

Again still awaiting PRTB response, which I'm sure will probably have my head spinning around again.

Also worth noting that while I'm not thrilled about the situation, I'm not going to move out unless I'm asked or the situation gets more uncomfortable.

It had just come up that one of the other tenants is moving out, and when we were doing viewings we asked the LL for a bit of clarity on his leaving date so we could explain it to other people viewing, we were only to be met with a pretty defensive, rude and petty response from his wife.

Regardless of having all the power or none of it, I'm not going to kick up more of a fuss unless it gets worse. I'm just trying to get my ducks in a row in case things start to get a bit more awkward.

This will help you figure out if you are a licencee or tenant.

http://www.prtb.ie/media-research/publications/leases-and-licences

The fact that you knowingly moved into the property with the landlord living there and have never had exclusive possession will mostly likely mean you are a licencee IMO. Lesson learned there.

Aye Bosun

You all have separate tenancy agreements with the landlord which gives you exclusive use of your room only and use of common areas in conjunction with your other house mates. ie you do not have exclusive use of the common areas and as such the landlord can access these area without your permission and can come and go as he pleases.

You really need to sit down and read your agreement and the EXACT wording of it. But from the info you have provided and taking into account the PRTB ruling I posted earlier you have zero rights to ask the landlord to leave. And from my conclusion of this and the PRTB ruling, the landlord does not need to be register with them either.

Eldarion

sayd91 wrote: »

I signed a 6 month TENANCY agreement, with his name on it. I was given a rent book, with the inventory of what was in the house.

Can you share this with us?

You seem to be under the impression that you and the other licensees are entitled to exclusive possession of the property. This "tenancy agreement" sounds very wooly altogether and is more than likely not going to stand up to legal scrutiny.

The facts against you are that you do not, nor have ever had, a fixed lease on the property in question. The owner has been occupying and is continuing to occupy the property on an ongoing basis. Both of these indicate Licensee agreement and as such you have very little rights to be making the demands you're making.

I'd suggest you look for a new tenancy that comes with a binding lease to suit you because you do not have that here. That "petty" wife you keep referring to can more than likely legally remove you with as little as 24 hours notice if she feels the urge to.

The_Morrigan

Eldarion wrote: »

Can you share this with us?

No, they may not.

As a general reminder to all - legal advice is not permitted on Boards.ie so seeking explicit advice on the contents of a legal document would fall foul of this rule.

MouseTail

I really don't think you have a leg to stand on here, your agreement is for your room, you have no say in who else lives there. Its probably not a rent a room scenario, as it is not his PPR, but he still has a right to stay in one of the rooms, unless you have a strange clause saying you have veto on who the rooms are let to.

sayd91

MouseTail wrote: »

I really don't think you have a leg to stand on here, your agreement is for your room, you have no say in who else lives there. Its probably not a rent a room scenario, as it is not his PPR, but he still has a right to stay in one of the rooms, unless you have a strange clause saying you have veto on who the rooms are let to.

My agreement doesnt say I rent a room. It lists me as the tenant renting the property at an agreed rate. None of this "exclusive use of room, shared use of communal areas" stuff. Also the front of the agreement says this agreement comes under Residential Tenancies Act 2004.
Includes clause on uninterupted use of property without interference from landlord.

Spanish Eyes

sayd91 wrote: »

My agreement doesnt say I rent a room. It lists me as the tenant renting the property at an agreed rate. None of this "exclusive use of room, shared use of communal areas" stuff. Also the front of the agreement says this agreement comes under Residential Tenancies Act 2004.
Includes clause on uninterupted use of property without interference from landlord.

Would you consider bringing the agreement to Threshold and get them to establish what the situation for you is?

A lodger situation (rent a room scheme) AFAIK does not require the owner of the property to live there all the time. Nor does it require registration with PRTB.

But I would imagine that the rent a room scheme only extends to a person's PPR. I have no idea what the situation is when the owner of the property on a rent a room scheme also owns another property where they live part of the time.

It's a very interesting situation. Not ideal for OP, but I hope it all works out.

sayd91

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Would you consider bringing the agreement to Threshold and get them to establish what the situation for you is?

A lodger situation (rent a room scheme) AFAIK does not require the owner of the property to live there all the time. Nor does it require registration with PRTB.

But I would imagine that the rent a room scheme only extends to a person's PPR. I have no idea what the situation is when the owner of the property on a rent a room scheme also owns another property where they live part of the time.

It's a very interesting situation. Not ideal for OP, but I hope it all works out.

Yes I was onto Threshold today but I hadn't acess to a copy of the agreement at the time. Will be forwarding it tomorrow. They were inclined to agree with our side on first impression but as you say they would need to confirm this for us by examining our lease.

I have myself previously happily lived in joint lease, co-tenant and licensee arrangements but this one just really isn't clearly falling into any set of brackets for me so thanks to all for the advice.

MouseTail

I don't understand why you are starting this battle tbh. Your lease is up next month, he will just ask you to leave. What are you hoping to achieve?

sayd91

MouseTail wrote: »

I don't understand why you are starting this battle tbh. Your lease is up next month, he will just ask you to leave. What are you hoping to achieve?

Have you ever been in a situation like this where you don't know your legal standing? What I'm hoping to achieve is to develop a clear understanding of my rights in this situation. That is the question I asked in the first place.
I never asked how I should approach the conversation with my landlord.

I have already said that I do not want to move out in a previous post. What makes you think he "will" ask me to leave? What exactly are you basing this great prediction of the future on?

You speak of a "battle" and in a way as if I have lost something or are fighting something here. I didn't post this thread seeking advice as to how to one-up my landlord. I asked people's opinions on where I stand in the eyes of the law.

ec18

sayd91 wrote: »

I have already said that I do not want to move out in a previous post. What makes you think he "will" ask me to leave? What exactly are you basing this great prediction of the future on?

Beacuse you're clearly confrontational and that his circumstances have clearly changed

elastico

sayd91 wrote: »

I asked people's opinions on where I stand in the eyes of the law.

You really need to go to a solicitor for that kind of information.

If theres only a month in the arrangement theres no point worrying about it unless you want to renew at which point you can renegotiate terms.

The Spider

The landlord has property and he's renting out individual rooms in it, and has kept one for himself, what's so hard to understand here? You all have individual leases, no overall lease for the house, it's up to the landlord who he rents out to, the fact that you have a 6 month lease as opposed to a yearly lease should tell you all you need to know, and going on that, I'd say your time is almost up, if you signed in September, he doesn't have to renew it, and I don't know where you stand in relation to part 4, probably don't have any rights to it by the looks of it.

This is essentially like a guest house or hostel, where you have the rights to your room but all other areas are shared with the other 'guests'.
You can make a choice to either live with it or get out, I know if I was the landlord and someone was giving me any kind of hassle or even questioning my rights to stay there, they'd be out on their ear.

sayd91

The Spider wrote: »

The landlord has property and he's renting out individual rooms in it, and has kept one for himself, what's so hard to understand here? You all have individual leases, no overall lease for the house, it's up to the landlord who he rents out to, the fact that you have a 6 month lease as opposed to a yearly lease should tell you all you need to know, and going on that, I'd say your time is almost up, if you signed in September, he doesn't have to renew it, and I don't know where you stand in relation to part 4, probably don't have any rights to it by the looks of it.

This is essentially like a guest house or hostel, where you have the rights to your room but all other areas are shared with the other 'guests'.
You can make a choice to either live with it or get out, I know if I was the landlord and someone was giving me any kind of hassle or even questioning my rights to stay there, they'd be out on their ear.

So a co-tenant lease is the exact same as a licensee agreement essentially?

I signed end of September so I have 6 weeks left. No problem if I'm asked to leave, once I'm sure I've no foot to stand on.

The Spider

sayd91 wrote: »

So a co-tenant lease is the exact same as a licensee agreement essentially?

I signed end of September so I have 6 weeks left. No problem if I'm asked to leave, once I'm sure I've no foot to stand on.

Pretty much, if your lease says you're entitled to your room and not exclusive use of the house then that's what you're entitled to, I've lived in a similar situation in the past, everyone had their own rooms and bathrooms, and the landlord lived there.

It was essentially up to him who moved in when someone moved out, every one had a separete lease, big enough house so everyone got on, kind of.

You're essentially entitled to what it says in the lease nothing else and you have no say over who does or doesn't live there.

sayd91

The Spider wrote: »

Pretty much, if your lease says you're entitled to your room and not exclusive use of the house then that's what you're entitled to, I've lived in a similar situation in the past, everyone had their own rooms and bathrooms, and the landlord lived there.

It was essentially up to him who moved in when someone moved out, every one had a separete lease, big enough house so everyone got on, kind of.

You're essentially entitled to what it says in the lease nothing else and you have no say over who does or doesn't live there.

See thats it, it says nothing of only having exclusive use of one bedroom, just lists the property. And has a specific clause about uninterrupted use of property without interference from landlord or landlords agent.

I don't mind him being there the odd time but its the dishonesty and breaking their word that has me just checking my standing. Also he's a 5th person with only one bath/shower which isn't allowed either in the standards for rented housing....I know I'm picking but it all adds up.

I know I really need the agreement reviewed so I've passed it onto Threshold.

Eldarion

sayd91 wrote: »

See thats it, it says nothing of only having exclusive use of one bedroom, just lists the property. And has a specific clause about uninterrupted use of property without interference from landlord or landlords agent.

I don't mind him being there the odd time but its the dishonesty and breaking their word that has me just checking my standing. Also he's a 5th person with only one bath/shower which isn't allowed either in the standards for rented housing....I know I'm picking but it all adds up.

I know I really need the agreement reviewed so I've passed it onto Threshold.

Life is too short for this type of stuff OP. Just look elsewhere for accommodation that's more suitable to you in the next month and chalk all this up to a learning experience. Next place insist on fixed term leases and exclusive possession up front, there's plenty out there.

drumswan

sayd91 wrote: »

See thats it, it says nothing of only having exclusive use of one bedroom, just lists the property. And has a specific clause about uninterrupted use of property without interference from landlord or landlords agent.

I don't mind him being there the odd time

What a mess. You need to properly appraise yourself of your rights and obligations as a renter and go out and secure the type of accommodation which suits you. Moving into a house with the landlord already living there and just hoping for the best that he'll move out is very naive. Accepting silly half measures like 'he'll only be there for a while' or ' I dont mind him being there the odd time' simply doesnt work. The next time you rent make sure you are getting exactly what you are paying for, not a licence to live in someone elses home.

campingcarist

Aye Bosun wrote: »

I am afraid you haven't a leg to stand on with separate tenancy agreements the landlord can come and go as he please without any notice to yourself.

http://www.prtb.ie/archive/2006Disputes/TRIBUNAL06/TR10_Report.pdf

Here is a PRTB ruling stating that as the property was let out on a room by room basis with access to communal areas. It also could not be regarded as a bedsit or self contained unit. As a result the PRTB ruled:


The relationship between Landlord and Tenant is outside the scope of application of
the Act of 2004 and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the
dispute.

So even bringing a case to the PRTB will not help and from how I read it the Landlord does not need to register with them either as they are outside their scope. Open to correction on registering tho as I am not 100% sure.

There is a more recent PRTB case which, I believe, says that the dispute you quoted was incorrect.

Report of Tribunal Reference No: TR168/2011/DR92/2011

Sorry, I don't have a link to it.

sayd91

drumswan wrote: »

What a mess. You need to properly appraise yourself of your rights and obligations as a renter and go out and secure the type of accommodation which suits you. Moving into a house with the landlord already living there and just hoping for the best that he'll move out is very naive. Accepting silly half measures like 'he'll only be there for a while' or ' I dont mind him being there the odd time' simply doesnt work. The next time you rent make sure you are getting exactly what you are paying for, not a licence to live in someone elses home.

I am not a licensee.

Once there is a tenancy agreement in place with even one tenant in a shared house situation, a landlord cannot commence having a licensee agreement with any other occupants as by the tenancy agreement he does not have continuing access to any part of the property.

"Some of the main points to have in a licensee agreement include:
1. It is a formal licensee agreement between the owner and the occupant/s,
2. the owner has continuing access to the entire property.
3. the owner can move around or change the occupants.
4. the occupant/s do not have exclusive use of their bedrooms.
5. the occupant/s do not have exclusive use of the any part of the property."

None of the above are included in my agreement. I knew that your thoughts were wrong anyway but I just wanted it confirmed. My goodwill in letting him stay is fine. But when it comes down to it we have a written agreement which entitles me to exclusive occupation of the property, a point backed up by PRTB.

Report of Tribunal Reference No: TR168/2011/DR92/2011. Case Ref No: DR92/2011 which states:

***
(b) Consequently a “self-contained residential unit” must mean a unit which enables the
person residing there to have all the essentials for living ie for sleeping, washing,
cooking, toiletry and relaxing. The fact that the person does not have an exclusive
right to those facilities, does not render the unit less than a “self-contained residential
unit”. In fact, the word “exclusive” appears in only one section of the 2004 Act ie
section 12(1)(a) which deals with the obligation of the landlord to allow a tenant to
enjoy peaceful and “exclusive occupation” of the dwelling. In our view the words
“exclusive occupation” have to be interpreted as excluding other persons who have no
right to such occupation, rather than “exclusive occupation” being necessary to create
a tenancy to which the 2004 Act applies.

We find as a matter of fact in this case, that the Appellant Tenant had an exclusive
right to occupation of a bedroom and a non-exclusive right to other rooms in the unit
ie bathroom, kitchen, and living room, which she was required to share with whoever
else might have a right from time to time to exclusive occupation of the other
bedroom. As the Appellant Tenant was paying rent to the Respondent Landlord for
this right, we find as a matter of law that there was a tenancy of a “dwelling” within
the definition of the 2004 Act as it was a “self-contained residential unit” and
consequently the PRTB and this Tribunal has jurisdiction in relation to a dispute in
relation to the tenancy.

Also I haven't been giving my landlord continuous hassle about this. I've had one tense enough conversation with his wife but it ended in more than civil terms. I am sympathetic to his situation but he is not entitled to carry on as he is. I don't intend to make a big deal of the situation unless anything changes unfavourably for me or the other occupants but I can now rest easy in at least knowing where I stand should anything go south.

drumswan

If you had a normal tenancy your landlord wouldn't live in your house. End of.

Next time make sure you do what grown ups do and get your own place.

sayd91

drumswan wrote: »

If you had a normal tenancy your landlord wouldn't live in your house. End of.

Next time make sure you do what grown ups do and get your own place.

Oh I'm sorry for not having the the financial capacity you do to go out and rent a €1200/mon unit in South Dublin on my own. Plenty of "grown-up" in their 20's live in shared occupancy. I have lived in shared occupancy for 6 years and it suits me just fine as do the majority of the working professionals I know in my age bracket. I'm sure if you had looked at renting a room on your own in Dublin in the past 12 months your tone might not be so high and mighty. It's a nightmare and I made the best of the situation that was available to me.

I have the PRTB confirming I have a tenancy covered by them. Pretty sure that makes all of your previous argument invalid.

drumswan wrote: »

End of.

The_Morrigan

drumswan wrote: »

If you had a normal tenancy your landlord wouldn't live in your house. End of.

Next time make sure you do what grown ups do and get your own place.

sayd91 wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry for not having the the financial capacity you do to go out and rent a €1200/mon unit in South Dublin on my own. Plenty of "grown-up" in their 20's live in shared occupancy. I have lived in shared occupancy for 6 years and it suits me just fine as do the majority of the working professionals I know in my age bracket. I'm sure if you had looked at renting a room on your own in Dublin in the past 12 months your tone might not be so high and mighty. It's a nightmare and I made the best of the situation that was available to me.

I have the PRTB confirming I have a tenancy covered by them. Pretty sure that makes all of your previous argument invalid.

Cut it out the two of you! If you can't interact in a civil manner then don't post in this forum.
I will not be giving any further warnings.

drumswan

I've shared plenty of accommodation when I was younger. What I didn't do is move in with my landlord and then seek to find out if I could evict him. Good luck with that by the way

Aye Bosun

So all room are rented out on an individual basis eg. each tenant has their own lease, no mention of exclusive use etc fair enough.

My question here is what is to stop the landlord renting out one of the rooms to himself at zero rent or €1 per month for example.

As I understand the regulations the only difference from this situation and a owner occupier is the tax. As a landlord you must pay tax on income generated from the rent, but as an owner occupier you can take in up €12000 without paying tax on it.

If your landlord owns another house, the property that you live is not his principle residence and therefore he cannot avail of the rent-a-room scheme. But I see no reason why the landlord cannot rent a room to himself and share the common areas of the house. As long as he has registered each tenant separately with the PRTB (as they all have separate leases) and pays his tax to the revenue I can't see an issue with this?

Anyone??

sayd91

Aye Bosun wrote: »

So all room are rented out on an individual basis eg. each tenant has their own lease, no mention of exclusive use etc fair enough.

My question here is what is to stop the landlord renting out one of the rooms to himself at zero rent or €1 per month for example.

As I understand the regulations the only difference from this situation and a owner occupier is the tax. As a landlord you must pay tax on income generated from the rent, but as an owner occupier you can take in up €12000 without paying tax on it.

If your landlord owns another house, the property that you live is not his principle residence and therefore he cannot avail of the rent-a-room scheme. But I see no reason why the landlord cannot rent a room to himself and share the common areas of the house. As long as he has registered each tenant separately with the PRTB (as they all have separate leases) and pays his tax to the revenue I can't see an issue with this?

Anyone??

"one section of the 2004 Act ie
section 12(1)(a) which deals with the obligation of the landlord to allow a tenant to
enjoy peaceful and “exclusive occupation” of the dwelling."

PRTB is only for "exclusive occupation" by the tenant without interference from the Landlord or the Landlord's agent. I would assume they class "interference" as renting a room in the house?

Aye Bosun

sayd91 wrote: »

"
enjoy peaceful and “exclusive occupation” of the dwelling."

Ok but if you only have exclusive use of your room and joint use of the common areas (as is the case with many house shares, I've lived in many places over the years that each room was rented on a separate lease and shared common areas) what is to stop the landlords than?

eg. you don't have exclusive use of the dwelling, only your room as written in the lease. (I know this is not the case with the OP, just wondering, as to be honest it seems like a bit of a grey area)

The_Conductor

If a separate lease for the property is given to each of the tenants- they are all jointly and severally responsible for the property. As a licensee, they wouldn't be. There are pros and cons to both approaches. If the landlord was still living in the property when the OP moved in- and still is- the lease, insofar as it is a lease- is a worthless piece of paper- as the landlord would only have to show they never vacated the property- for it to be void.

Its a mess for the OP (and for the landlord too)- and at a glance- it would seem that the landlord simply downloaded a template lease agreement off the internet- handed a copy to each of the tenants- and everyone was semi happy.

As it stands- if a case were taken against the landlord to the PRTB- if the landlord can show they were present in the property when the tenant commenced their tenancy- and haven't since vacated the property- I really can't see how the 2004 Act or indeed the PRTB has any jurisdiction in the matter.

OP- it is a fight that will go round and round in circles- possibly for years- you've only 6 weeks left on your 'lease' in any event- life is short- why create the stress and unhappiness that fighting this is only going to do- when I would almost be shocked were you to prevail.....?

cerastes

IO must have missed what was said I the LST post, that there is only 6 weeks left out of the original 6 months left on the lease, basically part 4 won't even come into operation even if this was exclusive occupation of the property, but as you are so close to the end of the lease why don't you clarify what the situation will be with the landlord, and either try renegotiate your rent or at least the bills which I assume he is contributing to, it seems it will either b a case of he genuinely got delayed but apparently and surprisingly to me seems to have not actually done anything wrong or at least nothing that he can be prosecuted or penalised for. So either you find this situation changes to what you expected it to or it stays as is, either you accept this for the advantages it presents to you such as responsibility to pay for only your own room (might be worth mentioning this to landlord or not) and only your share of bills and certainly he should be contributing to either an equal share or an agreed amount based on occupany and usage
Or
You decline to accept the arrangement and move on, as the market as is it is, and if this place suits you, I suggest you might be better to err on the side of cooling any jets and realise our are in a house share (it can have its benefits) and unless this guy comes across as somehow sinister or creepy which I don't gather plus it sounds somewhat genuine in that you have spoken with his wife, I'd also recommend dropping the anti male ageism, just as he happens to be a guy in his fifties doesn't mean he's a creepy wierdo.
If you aren't comfortable with the situation as it isn't what you thought it would be or was actually explained, then I suggest moving on now soon when the lease is up.

MouseTail

sayd91 wrote: »

I am not a licensee.

Once there is a tenancy agreement in place with even one tenant in a shared house situation, a landlord cannot commence having a licensee agreement with any other occupants as by the tenancy agreement he does not have continuing access to any part of the property......


My goodwill in letting him stay is fine. But when it comes down to it we have a written agreement which entitles me to exclusive occupation of the property, a point backed up by PRTB.

.

You are a licensee, had he moved in after you, your points would stand as he cannot commence a license agreement on top of a lease. But the situation as it was when you moved in trumps the lease. Just because you have a piece of paper saying you are subject to the RTA, doesn't mean you are. The PRTB has no remit here. As a licensee, it is his goodwill in letting you stay.

The_Conductor

MouseTail wrote: »

You are a licensee, had he moved in after you, your points would stand as he cannot commence a license agreement on top of a lease. But the situation as it was when you moved in trumps the lease. Just because you have a piece of paper saying you are subject to the RTA, doesn't mean you are. The PRTB has no remit here. As a licensee, it is his goodwill in letting you stay.

I'd be inclined to agree with Mousetail on this one.
Pursue it by all means if you feel so inclined- but I'd actually be quite shocked if there was a determination other than as Mousetail has laid out.