Can I move back into my house and rent our current one weekly

hollytrees

I bought a house some years ago and then had to move back to the family home due to a sick relative. I recently decided to put it on the market and it was my intention to rent it weekly while it was on the market. I discovered from this forum that I wouldn't be allowed to ask tenants (who are there 5 years) to move out and then rent it out weekly even if it was my intention to sell. Then after getting it valued by a few auctioneers I now know it is not a good time to sell.

We have now decided to move back into the house until the market improves as it is convenient to our place of work, and while we are there we can decorate it at the same time. My question is are we allowed to rent out our current home weekly if we do this.

I'm just checking am I allowed to do this. Can I ask the tenants to move out so that I can move back in, even if we just end up staying there for a year? Thank you

Mrs OBumble

Yes

hollytrees

Thanks for reply

mdebets

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yes

Is there any precedence from the PRTB allows that a landlord can evict a tenant because he wants to move in, even so he lives in a totally adequat house that he owns (I'm assuming this for the moment, until the OP says otherwise). I (IANL) would read the law that states the landlord requires the house, as that he has no other option, but the OP has it with the house he is currently living in.

mdebets

mdebets wrote: »

Is there any precedence from the PRTB allows that a landlord can evict a tenant because he wants to move in, even so he lives in a totally adequat house that he owns (I'm assuming this for the moment, until the OP says otherwise). I (IANL) would read the law that states the landlord requires the house, as that he has no other option, but the OP has it with the house he is currently living in.

Wanting to move in is reason enough, it's not a matter of need it's a matter of want. It doesn't even have to be the LL himself, a family member of the LL wanting to move in is reason enough so that itself would negate your line of thinking as the LL can still be living elsewhere and end a tenancy to move in a family member.

mdebets

Quentin Scary Comic wrote: »

Wanting to move in is reason enough, it's not a matter of need it's a matter of want. It doesn't even have to be the LL himself, a family member of the LL wanting to move in is reason enough so that itself would negate your line of thinking as the LL can still be living elsewhere and end a tenancy to move in a family member.

Is this your opinion or can you back this up by case law? The law state the landlord has to require the house, not just want it.

Boater123

mdebets wrote: »

Is there any precedence from the PRTB allows that a landlord can evict a tenant because he wants to move in, even so he lives in a totally adequat house that he owns (I'm assuming this for the moment, until the OP says otherwise). I (IANL) would read the law that states the landlord requires the house, as that he has no other option, but the OP has it with the house he is currently living in.

Not great at analogies but...

A LL owned a house in Dublin, then gets a job in Cork. LL rents out the house in Dublin, moves to Cork and over time buys a house to live in in Cork.

Recession hits, house in Cork goes into negative equity.

Then the job relocates to Dublin.

From your interpretation, he can't serve notice to quit to his Dublin tenant because he has a perfectly adequate house in Cork? That a LL must be homeless before they can serve notice to a tenant?

Quentin Scary Comic wrote: »

Wanting to move in is reason enough, it's not a matter of need it's a matter of want. It doesn't even have to be the LL himself, a family member of the LL wanting to move in is reason enough so that itself would negate your line of thinking as the LL can still be living elsewhere and end a tenancy to move in a family member.

Exactly. And if the LL or family member stays in situ for a minimum period then there's no problem.

OP, to answer your primary question yes if you do move back in after serving proper notice and go on to stay a year, then you can rent out your previous house when you've moved, without recourse.

But can I ask if your tenants currently have a fixed term lease?

mdebets

Boater123 wrote: »

Not great at analogies but...

A LL owned a house in Dublin, then gets a job in Cork. LL rents out the house in Dublin, moves to Cork and over time buys a house to live in in Cork.

Recession hits, house in Cork goes into negative equity.

Then the job relocates to Dublin.

From your interpretation, he can't serve notice to quit to his Dublin tenant because he has a perfectly adequate house in Cork? That a LL must be homeless before they can serve notice to a tenant?



Exactly. And if the LL or family member stays in situ for a minimum period then there's no problem.

Wouldn't see a problem with your example, but that isn't how I read the OP.

Another example would be:
LL owns two identical houses next to each other. He lives in house A, and rents out house B. Can he serve notice to the tenant in B, just he wants to live there, even so he already lives in the exact same house in the exact same area?

Boater123

mdebets wrote: »

Wouldn't see a problem with your example, but that isn't how I read the OP.

Another example would be:
LL owns two identical houses next to each other. He lives in house A, and rents out house B. Can he serve notice to the tenant in B, just he wants to live there, even so he already lives in the exact same house in the exact same area?

I would have thought my analogy would have been very similar. OP owned a house in location A, had to move to location B, and now wants to move back to location A. But I would leave it to the OP to clarify

To answer the question from your example:

I can't really see why this would happen "just because he wants to live next door". A lot of hassle for nothing. Maybe they would if house A needed serious repairs or something.

As I understand it, if the LL requires the property for their own or immediate family members use, serves the required notice, the tenant isn't in a fixed term lease or in one with no break clause, provides the statutory notice, and most importantly, the LL or family member stays the minimum required time (6 months), then no problem.

The statutory declaration does not have to include details as to why the LL now requires the property, such as the LL needs to relocate to the area or LL becoming homeless.

Graham

mdebets wrote: »

Wouldn't see a problem with your example, but that isn't how I read the OP.

Another example would be:
LL owns two identical houses next to each other. He lives in house A, and rents out house B. Can he serve notice to the tenant in B, just he wants to live there, even so he already lives in the exact same house in the exact same area?

Section 34 states "The landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or her own occupation......". I can see nothing other than the subsequent occupation by the landlord that is necessary to show the requirement was bona fide.

mdebets

mdebets wrote: »

Is this your opinion or can you back this up by case law? The law state the landlord has to require the house, not just want it.

Requiring the house does not have to mean what you are getting at though. Requiring the house simply means the LL wants the house back. The term "require" can be interpreted differently.

In your analogy of the LL wanting to move in next door this would not be an issue. The LL requires the house from himself, this is the reason for terminating the tenancy, the reason why he requires it doesn't really matter once he is moving in or he is moving in a family member.