Shared accommodation (tenants rights)

monkey8

I have a house that is shared by 5 individual tenants. 5 bedrooms and shared kitchen living room and bathroom.
Three are from the same country and are causing me a lot of trouble so I want to get rid of them. They have not signed a lease but have been living in the house for three years. I have also been told that they are working here illegally without visa's.
What are their rights with respect to notice periods etc. I understand that as shared tenants they are not offered the same protections that a single person or family are?

The_Morrigan

Your understanding is wrong. They have part IV tenancy rights and are entitled to a minimum of 56 days written notice if they have been there 2-3 years, once they go over the 3 year mark they are entitled to 84 days written notice.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

hopgog

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Your understanding is wrong. They have part IV tenancy rights and are entitled to a minimum of 56 days written notice if they have been there 2-3 years, once they go over the 3 year mark they are entitled to 84 days written notice.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

If he is letting them the room each seperatly with use of the commen area's they are licensee not tenants so can kick to out right away

Pawwed Rig

Only if he is the owner occupier which would not seem to be the case from the op

monkey8

hopgog wrote: »

If he is letting them the room each seperatly with use of the commen area's they are licensee not tenants so can kick to out right away

Yes, they were all rented separately at different times.

The_Morrigan

monkey8 wrote: »

Yes, they were all rented separately at different times.

That doesn't negate their rights. They are only a licencee if they live with the landlord or you have provided a very explicit licencee agreement.

Tigger

You can't evict 3 of 5 without good cause
You can evict with notice after 4 years

hopgog

The_Morrigan wrote: »

That doesn't negate their rights. They are only a licencee if they live with the landlord or you have provided a very explicit licencee agreement.

http://www.prtb.ie/media-research/publications/licensees-in-private-rented-accommodation

Point 3 on what is a licensee and they don't have a tenancy agreement so would be an licensee

The_Morrigan

hopgog wrote: »

http://www.prtb.ie/media-research/publications/licensees-in-private-rented-accommodation

Point 3 on what is a licensee and they don't have a tenancy agreement so would be an licensee

persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal license arrangement with the owner where the occupants are not entitled to its exclusive use and the owner has continuing access to the accommodation and/or can move around or change the occupants,

They don't have a formal license arrangement, the rooms were rented in a house to tenants at different times. Unless they have been explicitly told that they are there under licence from the very start then you can't go moving the goal posts now.
The only way to ensure you have a licence agreement in place is to have a a written one otherwise the RTA is in place and the tenants are entitled to rely on it and the provisions of a part IV tenancy after 6 months.

Mrs OBumble

OP, what sort of trouble are they causing? Eviction may be a lot easier if they're misbehaving in certain ways
ways.

Was it not discussed on another thread here recently that if rooms are let separately to individual tenants they are not afforded full rights and are treated as licencees? Was there a case or something and this was the ruling? I can't remember properly just mentioning it as I do remember this topic being discussed before.

hopgog

The_Morrigan wrote: »

They don't have a formal license arrangement, the rooms were rented in a house to tenants at different times. Unless they have been explicitly told that they are there under licence from the very start then you can't go moving the goal posts now.
The only way to ensure you have a licence agreement in place is to have a a written one otherwise the RTA is in place and the tenants are entitled to rely on it and the provisions of a part IV tenancy after 6 months.

They have not been told they are tenants either, he can just say he rented them the room as licensee and that's what it is. There is no goal posts they have no tenancy agreement or lease as long as he never registered them in the prtb they are a licencee.

The_Conductor

hopgog wrote: »

as long as he never registered them in the prtb they are a licencee.

Bullshít.
The registration, or lack thereof, with the PRTB, has no bearing whatsoever on the tenancy status of a resident- nor does it negate any rights they are entitled to under tenancy law.

In the absence of the landlord living in the property (the presence of which would automatically determine the residence to be under licence)- the tenant is presumed to be a tenant and is afforded those rights as they would be afforded to a tenant under the Act- unless they are specifically living there under licence.

The lack of a 'tenancy' agreement- does not mean the person is *not* a tenant- and is not entitled to the protections of the Act. Similarly- the lack of a registration with the PRTB- has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the rights of a resident or tenant.

The whole thrust of the 2004 Act is to do away with all the crap people have been spouting- and to regularise the terms and conditions, obligations and rights- as they pertain to tenants and landlords. Just because you're not familiar with the Act- and/or haven't registered the tenancy with the PRTB- does not reduce or negate the rights of a tenant to avail of provisions, as they pertain to them, under the Act.

hopgog

The_Conductor wrote: »

Bullshít.
The registration, or lack thereof, with the PRTB, has no bearing whatsoever on the tenancy status of a resident- nor does it negate any rights they are entitled to under tenancy law.

In the absence of the landlord living in the property (the presence of which would automatically determine the residence to be under licence)- the tenant is presumed to be a tenant and is afforded those rights as they would be afforded to a tenant under the Act- unless they are specifically living there under licence.

The lack of a 'tenancy' agreement- does not mean the person is *not* a tenant- and is not entitled to the protections of the Act. Similarly- the lack of a registration with the PRTB- has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the rights of a resident or tenant.

The whole thrust of the 2004 Act is to do away with all the crap people have been spouting- and to regularise the terms and conditions, obligations and rights- as they pertain to tenants and landlords. Just because you're not familiar with the Act- and/or haven't registered the tenancy with the PRTB- does not reduce or negate the rights of a tenant to avail of provisions, as they pertain to them, under the Act.

The fact they where renting the room only with him changing the tenants over time and never registared points to it having always being licensee system rather them tenant from the start and that's all op has to say, also the people renting cannot say they are tenants when they could have asked to sign a lease from the start. Also as illegals they don't get rights anyway.

OP another option is report the place they work and get them deported they will be gone from you house then.

The_Morrigan

hopgog stop please! Your advice is dangerous as you're so far off the mark it's ridiculous, if the OP follows your advice they are likely to be done for an illegal eviction and it will cost them thousands.

The_Conductor

hopgog- the information you are giving and the suggestions you are making- are dangerous. They have no fundamental foundation in law. Were the OP to follow your suggestions- they could potentially end up with a massive judgement against them.

You are both in breach of the forum's charter- and offering misleading advice that could have far-reaching consequences should the OP follow it.

Please do not post in this thread again.

OP- if you want legal advice- go to a solicitor who has experience in tenancy law. You risk getting yourself in significant trouble seeking opinions on the internet.

Regards,

The_Conductor

["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..

.