Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Signed A TENANCY agreement, landlord staying in house when in Dublin
Options
Comments
-
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.0 -
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.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 time0 -
There is a more recent PRTB case which, I believe, says that the dispute you quoted was incorrect.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.
Report of Tribunal Reference No: TR168/2011/DR92/2011
Sorry, I don't have a link to it.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.End of.0 -
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.
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.
0 -
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 way0
-
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??0 -
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
"
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)0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30614
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.....?0 -
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.0 -
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 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.
.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30614
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.0
Advertisement