Fr Peter McVerry wants licencees to be given tenancy rights

_kookie

I see now Peter McVerry is talking about applying the same rules for LLs to those renting a room in their home.

I dont think this could work.

Would this not mean that the poor sod renting a room in their own home could now be stuck with someone they didnt get on with in their own home for years.

Or that person renting the room could just not pay rent and then it would take the PRTB, then court and then an eviction order to get someone out of their spare bedroom.

Basically they want to tie up the home owner renting now the same way they do to LLs.

Gumbo

Peter Mc Verry. Biased opinion from a man that makes his fortunes from building and renting.

johnnyskeleton

kceire wrote: »

Peter Mc Verry. Biased opinion from a man that makes his fortunes from building and renting.

Are you talking about the same guy? Fr Peter McVerry, priest and homeless campaigner? I wasnt aware that he had amassed a fortune from building. The trust does rent properties, to homeless people.

_kookie

kceire wrote: »

Peter Mc Verry. Biased opinion from a man that makes his fortunes from building and renting.

I thought he was a priest

antoinolachtnai

It would be unconstitutional. The state and the courts don't really have a role in the running of a private household.

There is a misunderstanding there too of what tenancy law is. Being a tenant does not necessarily give you more rights than being a licensee. Tenancy law does not provide any rights to a tenant in relation to his or her co-tenants. If your co-tenants kick you out of the house for not washing the dishes or for refusing to pay an unfair proportion of the rent, or just because they want someone else in your place, tenancy law will do nothing to protect you.

Gumbo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Are you talking about the same guy? Fr Peter McVerry, priest and homeless campaigner? I wasnt aware that he had amassed a fortune from building. The trust does rent properties, to homeless people.

_kookie wrote: »

I thought he was a priest

Probably, I just got a small turn off them after dealing with people involved in his projects. Don't know the man himself and wouldn't be able to pick him from a lone up!

Harvey Normal

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is a misunderstanding there too of what tenancy law is. Being a tenant does not necessarily give you more rights than being a licensee. Tenancy law does not provide any rights to a tenant in relation to his or her co-tenants. If your co-tenants kick you out of the house for not washing the dishes or for refusing to pay an unfair proportion of the rent, or just because they want someone else in your place, tenancy law will do nothing to protect you.

You sure about that?

johnnyskeleton

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It would be unconstitutional. The state and the courts don't really have a role in the running of a private household.

If youre referring to the constitutional protection of the dwelling, I dont think that would prevent the regulation of rent a room schemes. Besides, such schemes are already partially regulated as regards tax etc.

antoinolachtnai

Harvey Normal wrote: »

You sure about that?

I suppose it could be argued about, but I can't see how it would work in practice. Just think about the practicality of it. How can RTB and the Courts intervene in the operation of a private household?

I have never heard of the RTB dealing with disputes between tenants, and cannot as far as I know. The nature of the Act is that complaints have to be made by the tenant against the landlord or the landlord against the tenant.

antoinolachtnai

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If youre referring to the constitutional protection of the dwelling, I dont think that would prevent the regulation of rent a room schemes. Besides, such schemes are already partially regulated as regards tax etc.

The constitutional issue would really arise in relation to a 'family' as much as in relation to the protection of the dwelling.

Sure, there are many aspects that are regulated, but they aren't regulated by tenancy law. And laws do not impose on how you run your household. For sure, criminal law does apply. (Tax law does not 'regulate' anybody's behaviour, except the Revenue Commissioners. It just places an obligation to pay tax.)

Ultimately if you are unhappy as a licensee, you are going to have to move out. I can't see any way around that reality.

Harvey Normal

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I suppose it could be argued about, but I can't see how it would work in practice. Just think about the practicality of it. How can RTB and the Courts intervene in the operation of a private household?

I have never heard of the RTB dealing with disputes between tenants, and cannot as far as I know. The nature of the Act is that complaints have to be made by the tenant against the landlord or the landlord against the tenant.

Yeh. But you said a tenant had no protection vs a licensee. But a tenant is a district legal term from a licensee, he has an agreement in a contract with the landlord. Or he should. Certainly I always did when I rented. And if he leaves he is removed from the agreement. His rights are the same as any tenant.

If the landlord allows sub licensing then he doesn't have the same rights if not on the contract.

antoinolachtnai

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Yeh. But you said a tenant had no protection vs a licensee. But a tenant is a district legal term from a licensee, he has an agreement in a contract with the landlord. Or he should. Certainly I always did when I rented. And if he leaves he is removed from the agreement. His rights are the same as any tenant.

If the landlord allows sub licensing then he doesn't have the same rights if not on the contract.

There is a subtlety here. The simple situation is where there is just one tenant and a single tenant certainly has a lot of clear rights. If there are joint-tenants (let's call them co-tenants) the situation is slightly different.

If you are a co-tenant, you do not have the same rights as the situation where there is only one tenant. You only have those rights as a tenant, in their fullest sense, in conjunction with the other tenants. So, if one co-tenant wants to have the rent reviewed downward but the others do not, then the one co-tenant cannot have his review. If one co-tenant wants to continue to the tenancy but the others don't, then the one co-tenant has no rights.

What this means is that if you have a disagreement with the other co-tenants beacause you think you are being treated unfairly or not getting the benefit of fair procedures or whatever, that is not a matter for tenancy law. The RTB will not entertain your claim, and quite likely, the district court will not entertain it either. The most you can possibly hope for is to have the tenancy ended, or else your name taken off the lease. The RTB cannot force the other co-tenants to retain you as a co-tenant and so guarantee your tenure. (The courts might be able to, but it would have to be on foot of some sort of agreement between the tenants and even then the courts would be reluctant to force people to live under the same roof where the relationships had clearly broken down.)

There are also serious downsides to being a joint tenant as opposed to being a licensee. As a joint tenant, you are effectively guaranteeing that all your co-tenants will honour the lease and pay the rent, and if they don't pay, you are liable. If you are a licensee, then you do not have this responsibility.

As a co-tenant, you can certainly be removed from the lease agreement when you depart. But that is not a right you have. You do have a right to provide an acceptable replacement but that is a very different thing.

The point I am making in the above is that I cannot see any real benefit in giving the same rights to licensees as are given to tenants, or making licensees automatically into joint tenants, or whatever variation.

I have no doubt that PMVT are coming across plenty of problems in relation to this and I think it is a very important issue. I think the solution is more accommodation and in particular more low-budget single-person accommodation.

At the moment, it is basically impossible to build budget single-person accommodation in Dublin because of planning restrictions. This is the issue that Peter McVerry Trust really should address.

Harvey Normal

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is a subtlety here. The simple situation is where there is just one tenant and a single tenant certainly has a lot of clear rights. If there are joint-tenants (let's call them co-tenants) the situation is slightly different.

If you are a co-tenant, you do not have the same rights as the situation where there is only one tenant. You only have those rights as a tenant, in their fullest sense, in conjunction with the other tenants. So, if one co-tenant wants to have the rent reviewed downward but the others do not, then the one co-tenant cannot have his review. If one co-tenant wants to continue to the tenancy but the others don't, then the one co-tenant has no rights.

What this means is that if you have a disagreement with the other co-tenants beacause you think you are being treated unfairly or not getting the benefit of fair procedures or whatever, that is not a matter for tenancy law. The RTB will not entertain your claim, and quite likely, the district court will not entertain it either. The most you can possibly hope for is to have the tenancy ended, or else your name taken off the lease. The RTB cannot force the other co-tenants to retain you as a co-tenant and so guarantee your tenure. (The courts might be able to, but it would have to be on foot of some sort of agreement between the tenants and even then the courts would be reluctant to force people to live under the same roof where the relationships had clearly broken down.)

There are also serious downsides to being a joint tenant as opposed to being a licensee. As a joint tenant, you are effectively guaranteeing that all your co-tenants will honour the lease and pay the rent, and if they don't pay, you are liable. If you are a licensee, then you do not have this responsibility.

As a co-tenant, you can certainly be removed from the lease agreement when you depart. But that is not a right you have. You do have a right to provide an acceptable replacement but that is a very different thing.

The point I am making in the above is that I cannot see any real benefit in giving the same rights to licensees as are given to tenants, or making licensees automatically into joint tenants, or whatever variation.

I have no doubt that PMVT are coming across plenty of problems in relation to this and I think it is a very important issue. I think the solution is more accommodation and in particular more low-budget single-person accommodation.

At the moment, it is basically impossible to build budget single-person accommodation in Dublin because of planning restrictions. This is the issue that Peter McVerry Trust really should address.

That's a fairly verbose response but is, as far as I understand the law, misguided. You started off by saying that the RTB wouldn't get involved in a tenancy dispute but I never argued that. It's a matter of contract law.

A multi person tenancy agreement is an agreement jointly, severally and only between the named tenants and the landlord. They can't kick one guy out without the landlords permission and a new contract, since the guy remains on the contract until taken off. It's not really going to be accepted by any court of law that someone can be forced to be not resident in a house but remain on a contract, as he is still legally (and severally) responsible for part or all of the rent without benefit. Contract law never works like that

Maybe in Ireland people get away with that defacto. The last time I shared rent was in the uk and that was in a big Georgian with 5 people. I was there for 3 years and the number of renters remained the same but the people changed. Every time somebody left, the contract was changed to reflect the new membership of the house. We had to request a new contract via the management company but by and large the new tenants demanded to be on the contract and the old tenants demanded to be removed (and we had no right to sub let but even if we did the leaving tenant has to be removed).

That's certainly the law here too, as I can't see why contract law would be different. Meaning the tenant can't be kicked out until a new contract is agreed, and can only be removed by the landlord, and subject to whatever rules govern that tenancy, I.e part IV etc.

If you want to kick a tenant out who is named on the contract you need a new contract.

antoinolachtnai

That is fine in principle, but if you are a co-tenant and are kicked out of the house, what recourse do you have? You can get a new tenant substituted in your place, sure, but that doesn't solve the problem of where you are going to find somewhere to live in a tight housing market. (Finding a replacement tenant for a departing tenant is aa much an obligation as a right in practice, and incidentally not an obligation that licensees have at all.)

The co-tenants probably can legallykick one of their number out without a new contract or without substituting the tenant on the lease. And let's say it is illegal, who or what is going to stop them, and how? The landlord can force the remaining co-tenants to carry out an exercise to regularise the paperwork, but the guy who is out will still be out.

I am coming back to the issue that PMVT presumably faces and is complaining about - individuals in multi-person tenancies where they are licensees, who get thrown out or face unfair rent increases -. In these situations tenants don't have much more fixity of tenure than licensees.

(Thank you for your stylistic feedback, i will forward it to the relevant committee.)

Harvey Normal

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

That is fine in principle, but if you are a co-tenant and are kicked out of the house, what recourse do you have? You can get a new tenant substituted in your place, sure, but that doesn't solve the problem of where you are going to find somewhere to live in a tight housing market. (Finding a replacement tenant for a departing tenant is aa much an obligation as a right in practice, and incidentally not an obligation that licensees have at all.)

Lots of confusion here. I'm talking the legal position for a co-tenant being removed by his peers and you are talking about the kicked out tenants looking for new housing, or the obligation to find a new tenant. The first isn't related to the legal question. The latter isn't relevant to someone kicked out who wants to stay. He has no obligation to find a new tenant. He's still the legal tenant.

The co-tenants probably can legallykick one of their number out without a new contract or without substituting the tenant on the lease. And let's say it is illegal, who or what is going to stop them, and how?

They can't legally and unilaterally do that to a co-tenant. That's my point. All named tenants have equal rights. A new contract is needed for each new and departing tenant. If this doesn't happen the house can end up being rented to people not on the original contract. Which is hardly in their or the landlords interests.

I am coming back to the issue that PMVT presumably faces and is complaining about - individuals in multi-person tenancies where they are licensees, who get thrown out or face unfair rent increases -. In these situations tenants don't have much more rights than licensees.

Restating your position isn't proving it. Licensees can be kicked out by co-tenants. Named tenants cannot. They have a contract in law. PMV wants to extend that. I disagree with him but also with your legal arguments.

(Thank you for your stylistic feedback, i will forward it to the relevant committee.)

Sure.

murphaph

Making lodgers tenants would be completely misguided. The only noticeable effect would be that far fewer owner occupiers would consider letting the spare room and the already tight rental sector would become even tighter.

antoinolachtnai

Named co-tenants can certainly be kicked out by the other named co-tenants. It does not happen often but it certainly does happen where a co-tenant is disruptive or uncooperative. There might be some theoretical legal world where these co-tenants can't be kicked out but in real life they can be.

What tribunal is open to the unhappy defenestrated co-tenant to vindicate these theoretical rights? Who should the unhappy co-tenant sue?

campingcarist

From my understanding of Peter McV is that someone moving into a place where thee is a tenancy, that person does not necessarily know if they are a tenant or a licensee. They pay a deposit to tenant, not knowing if that deposit and first month's rent will be held by the tenant (making that person a licensee) or by the landlord (making that person a co-tenant).

I think that someone renting a room in their own home where there is no tenancy is not included in his thinking.

Just my understanding if his comments.

JillyQ

murphaph wrote: »

Making lodgers tenants would be completely misguided. The only noticeable effect would be that far fewer owner occupiers would consider letting the spare room and the already tight rental sector would become even tighter.

Totally agree with this. There would be a mass exodus of owner occupiers for the rental market.

antoinolachtnai

campingcarist wrote: »

From my understanding of Peter McV is that someone moving into a place where thee is a tenancy, that person does not necessarily know if they are a tenant or a licensee. They pay a deposit to tenant, not knowing if that deposit and first month's rent will be held by the tenant (making that person a licensee) or by the landlord (making that person a co-tenant).

I think that someone renting a room in their own home where there is no tenancy is not included in his thinking.

Just my understanding if his comments.

I think you are correct in your understanding.

Strictly speaking, if you are taking the place of someone on the lease you will not pay your deposit to the landlord. It goes to the departing tenant.

The problem for the prospective tenant in the situation above is that he or she is in an extremely weak commercial position. I don't see how a legal change will really hel that. It might even make things worse.

campingcarist

If assignments were done correctly there would be less problems. An assignment should be completed and signed by all parties - the vacating tenant (thus releasing him/her from their obligations under the lease), the incoming tenant (thus adding that person as a tenant under the lease agreement); by the remaining tenants (agreeing to the change of tenants on the lease) and finally by the landlord (thus agreeing to the new tenant who replaces the named out going tenant on the lease).

However, anytime that I have rented in shared accommodation, I have never seen any landlord do an assignment this way - it just tends to be word of mouth and deposits are passed from the incoming tenant to the out going tenant. Of course, the landlord is in fact the only person who should be dealing with the deposits; but that would be too much work!

Thus, an incoming tenant does not know if s/he is a tenant or a lodger, and may assume they are a tenant, incorrectly, and fail to ask the required question: Am I a tenant or a lodger/licensee?

campingcarist

campingcarist wrote: »

If assignments were done correctly there would be less problems. An assignment should be completed and signed by all parties - the vacating tenant (thus releasing him/her from their obligations under the lease), the incoming tenant (thus adding that person as a tenant under the lease agreement); by the remaining tenants (agreeing to the change of tenants on the lease) and finally by the landlord (thus agreeing to the new tenant who replaces the named out going tenant on the lease).

However, anytime that I have rented in shared accommodation, I have never seen any landlord do an assignment this way - it just tends to be word of mouth and deposits are passed from the incoming tenant to the out going tenant. Of course, the landlord is in fact the only person who should be dealing with the deposits; but that would be too much work!

Thus, an incoming tenant does not know if s/he is a tenant or a lodger, and may assume they are a tenant, incorrectly, and fail to ask the required question: Am I a tenant or a lodger/licensee?

These are most likely room let seperately setups though so there would be no lease to assign. All the places I've shared have operated as you described with no leases, no LL involvement bar getting details for paying the rent etc. You are only responsible for your own rent and not the rest of the house in a rooms let seperately set up and in my opinion this is the best way to rent in a houseshare. I very happy to have avoided having to sign leases or get named on a joint lease etc as it means much more responsibility.

I'm currently moving and the person I've found to move in will be giving me the deposit and the rest of this months rent (as I've already paid it to the LL and the LL is holding a deposit that will become the new persons). All very simple and straight forward.

Harvey Normal

Yusuf Brave Pane wrote: »

These are most likely room let seperately setups though so there would be no lease to assign. All the places I've shared have operated as you described with no leases, no LL involvement bar getting details for paying the rent etc. You are only responsible for your own rent and not the rest of the house in a rooms let seperately set up and in my opinion this is the best way to rent in a houseshare. I very happy to have avoided having to sign leases or get named on a joint lease etc as it means much more responsibility.

I'm currently moving and the person I've found to move in will be giving me the deposit and the rest of this months rent (as I've already paid it to the LL and the LL is holding a deposit that will become the new persons). All very simple and straight forward.

Sounds like a legal nightmare. Maybe England is a more legalistic society but it wouldn't happen there.

Do I understand that it's just you on the lease, or is there no lease, or is somebody else who left on the lease?

If you are on the lease then this guy can run off without paying rent or cause damage to which you and you alone are liable.

Harvey Normal

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Sounds like a legal nightmare. Maybe England is a more legalistic society but it wouldn't happen there.

Do I understand that it's just you on the lease, or is there no lease, or is somebody else who left on the lease?

If you are on the lease then this guy can run off without paying rent or cause damage to which you and you alone are liable.

There is no lease, the rooms are let separately with each person only being responsible for their own rent. If someone else in the house runs off without paying rent I still pay my rent and no more.

In almost 8 years of housesharing and in a few different places this is always how it's worked I've never had a lease or signed anything in any of the places I've been. The rooms were always advertised by either the person moving out or someone else living in the house. When you decide to take the room you are given the LL number and you ring to tell them you are moving in and they give you their bank details (unless you are paying cash) and then you either get the deposit from the person moving out (most common way) or if they are already gone then you would pay the deposit to the LL.

The alternative of having a lease, being responsible for others rent etc would be a pain in my opinion and I would avoid it if possible. Also its much simpler when people are moving in and out, on average there is 2 changes of tenant a year in the places I've lived. Imagine all the hassle and paper work of changing the lease every time if there was a full house lease compared to the simplicity of renting the room separately. Also there is never any notice periods etc enforced (from my experience) as once the room is filled the LLs are happy. Also you don't have to worry about notice, at most I've given a months notice even after being a few years in a place and sometimes much less as the LLs didn't care once you have someone arranged to take the room and no loss of rent occurs.

Harvey Normal

Yusuf Brave Pane wrote: »

There is no lease, the rooms are let separately with each person only being responsible for their own rent. If someone else in the house runs off without paying rent I still pay my rent and no more.

In almost 8 years of housesharing and in a few different places this is always how it's worked I've never had a lease or signed anything in any of the places I've been. The rooms were always advertised by either the person moving out or someone else living in the house. When you decide to take the room you are given the LL number and you ring to tell them you are moving in and they give you their bank details (unless you are paying cash) and then you either get the deposit from the person moving out (most common way) or if they are already gone then you would pay the deposit to the LL.

The alternative of having a lease, being responsible for others rent etc would be a pain in my opinion and I would avoid it if possible. Also its much simpler when people are moving in and out, on average there is 2 changes of tenant a year in the places I've lived. Imagine all the hassle and paper work of changing the lease every time if there was a full house lease compared to the simplicity of renting the room separately. Also there is never any notice periods etc enforced (from my experience) as once the room is filled the LLs are happy. Also you don't have to worry about notice, at most I've given a months notice even after being a few years in a place and sometimes much less as the LLs didn't care once you have someone arranged to take the room and no loss of rent occurs.

So neither you or the landlord have much legal recourse if he stiffs you or you him. It's not even legally obvious you are there.

campingcarist

Yusuf Brave Pane wrote: »

There is no lease, the rooms are let separately with each person only being responsible for their own rent. If someone else in the house runs off without paying rent I still pay my rent and no more.

In almost 8 years of housesharing and in a few different places this is always how it's worked I've never had a lease or signed anything in any of the places I've been. The rooms were always advertised by either the person moving out or someone else living in the house. When you decide to take the room you are given the LL number and you ring to tell them you are moving in and they give you their bank details (unless you are paying cash) and then you either get the deposit from the person moving out (most common way) or if they are already gone then you would pay the deposit to the LL.

The alternative of having a lease, being responsible for others rent etc would be a pain in my opinion and I would avoid it if possible. Also its much simpler when people are moving in and out, on average there is 2 changes of tenant a year in the places I've lived. Imagine all the hassle and paper work of changing the lease every time if there was a full house lease compared to the simplicity of renting the room separately. Also there is never any notice periods etc enforced (from my experience) as once the room is filled the LLs are happy. Also you don't have to worry about notice, at most I've given a months notice even after being a few years in a place and sometimes much less as the LLs didn't care once you have someone arranged to take the room and no loss of rent occurs.

If the rooms are let separately then there is little chance of a licensee being involved which is what this post is about.

A Deed of Assignment should be used when tenants are 'jointly and severally' liable. This then is annexed to the lease.

Furthermore, the landlord should return the deposit to a vacating tenant as legally that is the tenant's money. It is legally incorrect for tenants to pass deposits from one to the other though in Ireland this is the way it is done.

Elliott S

campingcarist wrote: »

It is legally incorrect for tenants to pass deposits from one to the other though in Ireland this is the way it is done.

Not always. I lived in many houseshares before shacking up and it was about 50/50. Sometimes it was as described above with deposits passing from one tenant to another. In the others, the landlord alone dealt with the deposit and we had a lease. The method of there being no lease and deposits being paid from the moving out tenant to the moving in tends to be a very studenty thing. Once I started sharing with professionals the lease/landlord method was much more common. And I agree, it's the right way to do it. And the landlord can kill two birds with one stone and do an inspection of property when he/she comes around to give back one deposit and collect the next. He/she also gets to meet the new tenant. I never really liked the idea that getting my deposit back was in the hands of some randomer I knew nothing about.

campingcarist

campingcarist wrote: »

Furthermore, the landlord should return the deposit to a vacating tenant as legally that is the tenant's money. It is legally incorrect for tenants to pass deposits from one to the other though in Ireland this is the way it is done.

I don't see what difference it makes from the tenants perspective once they get their money back, why would it be legally incorrect if done with the LLs consent? From a LLs perspective it means he isn't inspecting the place so from their side this method is not a great idea, though it is of course less hassle for them as they don't have to get involved in the letting process at all.

If I were a LL myself the rooms let separately method with no leases is how I would do it but I would inspect and collect/return the deposits myself.

Elliott S wrote: »

The method of there being no lease and deposits being paid from the moving out tenant to the moving in tends to be a very studenty thing. Once I started sharing with professionals the lease/landlord method was much more common.

Its been all professionals or postgraduate students who I have shared with also. It really has depended on the exact situation if the LL returned the deposit or the person moving in handed it over. If the person moving out has found a person to move in the LL was happier to have the deposit passed on but if the person moved out suddenly without finding their replacement then the LL would transfer over the deposit himself (as they couldn't get it from the person moving in). He never came to inspect or anything like that and I get the impression he is happier if the deposit is just passed on as its less work for him.

Elliott S

Yusuf Brave Pane wrote: »

If I were a LL myself the rooms let separately method with no leases is how I would do it but I would inspect and collect/return the deposits myself.

AFAIK, there not being a lease doesn't extinguish tenant rights. If it did, every LL would be at it.

Elliott S

Elliott S wrote: »

AFAIK, there not being a lease doesn't extinguish tenant rights. If it did, every LL would be at it.

Leaving aside the as yet grey area that people renting rooms are in many peoples opinion (including my own) actually licensees I would just prefer this setup as its more likley people will move on rather than dig their heals in and refuse to pay rent etc, if one person stops paying rent you still have the rent from others in the house coming in, it tends to be younger professionals doing it for a few years who often move on so again less chance of heels being dug in and over holding like say a family with kids might and many other reasons.

Spanish Eyes

No wonder there is a shortage of rental accommodation.

Who the feck would be a landlord anyway now. Between taxation, fees, RTB, mad tenants, non payment, years to get them out and so on.

I'd never do it anyway. Far too much hassle.

Mc Verry has good intentions I have no doubt, but honestly, this "homeless" thing is becoming tiresome now. Too much Quangoism and Industry about it.

Harvey Normal

Yusuf Brave Pane wrote: »

Leaving aside the as yet grey area that people renting rooms are in many peoples opinion (including my own) actually licensees I would just prefer this setup as its more likley people will move on rather than dig their heals in and refuse to pay rent etc, if one person stops paying rent you still have the rent from others in the house coming in, it tends to be younger professionals doing it for a few years who often move on so again less chance of heels being dug in and over holding like say a family with kids might and many other reasons.

I've no idea what you mean by "renting rooms". Is this a house full of bedrooms or what? Do people pay extra to use the kitchen or living room? Is the corridor tolled?

Nor do I see much advantage to the landlord. You could wreck his room and how can he get recourse. Nor do I see an advantage to the room renter who would have no rights.

Hard to believe this goes on, a verbal contract to live in a house?

antoinolachtnai

campingcarist wrote: »

Furthermore, the landlord should return the deposit to a vacating tenant as legally that is the tenant's money. It is legally incorrect for tenants to pass deposits from one to the other though in Ireland this is the way it is done.

The landlord is extremely unlikely to return the deposit or part of it until he has been returned full vacant possession of the property. This will obviously only happen in a co-tenants situation if all the tenants leave. An individual tenant leaving is not entitled to his money back.

Clear documentation is a good idea. The only problem is that it entails work for the landlord and you should not be surprised if he expects to be paid a fee for doing it.

Harvey Normal

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The landlord is extremely unlikely to return the deposit or part of it until he has been returned full vacant possession of the property. This will obviously only happen in a co-tenants situation if all the tenants leave. An individual tenant leaving is not entitled to his money back.

Clear documentation is a good idea. The only problem is that it entails work for the landlord and you should not be surprised if he expects to be paid a fee for doing it.

Although tenants can swap deposits if they choose to do that the landlord does in fact legally owe the tenant taken off the lease his deposit.

antoinolachtnai

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Although tenants can swap deposits if they choose to do that the landlord does in fact legally owe the tenant taken off the lease his deposit.

That may be so, but he is unlikely to be willing to repay it except at the end of the tenancy. (Nor is he obliged to from what I know.)

4ensic15

Harvey Normal wrote: »

I've no idea what you mean by "renting rooms". Is this a house full of bedrooms or what? Do people pay extra to use the kitchen or living room? Is the corridor tolled?

Nor do I see much advantage to the landlord. You could wreck his room and how can he get recourse. Nor do I see an advantage to the room renter who would have no rights.

Hard to believe this goes on, a verbal contract to live in a house?

It is a common enough arrangement. A colleague of mine lives in a house with 6 bedrooms rented individually. No written agreements. Utility bills are divided by 6. Access to kitchen, bathrooms and sitting room is shared. One occupant acts as manager and collects the rent and passes it on to the landlord. The advantage for the LL is that the house is always 5/6 full and it is usually a very swift process to replace a departing occupant. Occupants have no joint and several liability and can move out when they want.

Harvey Normal

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is a common enough arrangement. A colleague of mine lives in a house with 6 bedrooms rented individually. No written agreements. Utility bills are divided by 6. Access to kitchen, bathrooms and sitting room is shared. One occupant acts as manager and collects the rent and passes it on to the landlord. The advantage for the LL is that the house is always 5/6 full and it is usually a very swift process to replace a departing occupant. Occupants have no joint and several liability and can move out when they want.

Hmm. There's no way I would rent out like that. Someone could wreck the place and disappear.

Nor would I be a renter. Could be kicked out at any time.

It's hard to imagine how this even starts off though. Even in Ireland when I rented I went through estate agents.

4ensic15

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Hmm. There's no way I would rent out like that. Someone could wreck the place and disappear.

A group can go in, wreck the place and refuse to move. Damage and losses can be far worse. generally the people already in the house are careful to vet any incomer and monitor them. It is their home after all.

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Nor would I be a renter. Could be kicked out at any time.

there is rarely any reason to kick someone out. In a group letting with joint and several responsibility another tenant moving can trigger a break up.

Harvey Normal wrote: »

It's hard to imagine how this even starts off though. Even in Ireland when I rented I went through estate agents.

It starts off by a few rooms being advertised in accommodation sharing.

Kings Inns or bust

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The constitutional issue would really arise in relation to a 'family' as much as in relation to the protection of the dwelling.

Sure, there are many aspects that are regulated, but they aren't regulated by tenancy law. And laws do not impose on how you run your household. For sure, criminal law does apply. (Tax law does not 'regulate' anybody's behaviour, except the Revenue Commissioners. It just places an obligation to pay tax.)

Ultimately if you are unhappy as a licensee, you are going to have to move out. I can't see any way around that reality.

I'm not an expert on the subject to be sure, but I've never seen a Constitutional case even hinting that the legislature couldn't impose similar or even identical rights on people who choose to rent a room in their home to 'regular' landlords. There is a foolproof solution: Don't.

Harvey Normal

Harvey Normal wrote: »

I've no idea what you mean by "renting rooms". Is this a house full of bedrooms or what? Do people pay extra to use the kitchen or living room? Is the corridor tolled?

Renting rooms is very common in Ireland, of course I mean renting bedrooms individually with shared access to common areas but you know that well.

As others have said it either starts out as an add in the sharing section of daft with multiple rooms advertised separately or in some cases it might have originally been rented as a full house to a group of people but over the years people have moved in and out multiple times so no original people are there and the original lease is long forgotten so rooms are now filled on an individual basis as someone moves out with them paying their own deposit and their own individual rent.

Unlike the other poster who mentioned one person collecting rent for the group in my experience the LL has been paid by each individual separately except in one place I live where he called for the rent in cash and we used to just put it in a jar and who ever was there gave it to him.

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Nor do I see much advantage to the landlord. You could wreck his room and how can he get recourse. Nor do I see an advantage to the room renter who would have no rights.

Hard to believe this goes on, a verbal contract to live in a house?

He has as much recourse as if he rented the full place to a group, why do you think he wouldn't? Having a signed lease makes no difference to the LL as far as getting back money if the place is wrecked. It has the advantage of usually attracting younger professional who will move on and can be replaced with similar so little or no chance of over-holding by people who see it as "their house". Trouble makers will often be encouraged out by the others in the house rather than the LL having to deal with it (they would be impossible to get rid of if they had the full house lease), there is also less risk of lost rent as even if one individual stops paying you have the rent from the others. In a rising market there is also more scope for rising rent as you can raise the rent for a new individual moving in as he there is no lease running which might have a 2 year period between rent increases.

Its a big advantage to the renter, they are only responsible for their own rent not the other people in the house that's a massive advantage if living with strangers imo. You also very rarely have to give much notice if moving out etc which is another big advantage and its all nice and smooth both moving in and out as there is no paper work.

Overall I'd much prefer this method as a person living in a house share or if I was a LL with a property to let.

LuckyLloyd

I'd certainly prefer this scenario if I was a Landlord alright (added bonus of skimping on Tax in such an arrangement).
As a tenant? No thanks. I like my paperwork, legal rights and clear definitions of what is expected and allowable on both sides.

Yusuf Brave Pane wrote: »

He has as much recourse as if he rented the full place to a group, why do you think he wouldn't? Having a signed lease makes no difference to the LL as far as getting back money if the place is wrecked.

Ehhh, in the arrangements you are describing how can you prove to legal certainty who was living where? I think the lack of a lease and more informal arrangements bring advantages from the Landlord perspective (and some minor positives for renters that you have articulated which are imo outweighed by negatives) but there is also a heightened risk involved. I think arguing otherwise is folly.

4ensic15

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'd certainly prefer this scenario if I was a Landlord alright (added bonus of skimping on Tax in such an arrangement).
As a tenant? No thanks. I like my paperwork, legal rights and clear definitions of what is expected and allowable on both sides.



Ehhh, in the arrangements you are describing how can you prove to legal certainty who was living where? I think the lack of a lease and more informal arrangements bring advantages from the Landlord perspective (and some minor positives for renters that you have articulated which are imo outweighed by negatives) but there is also a heightened risk involved. I think arguing otherwise is folly.

What are the risks for the tenant?

LuckyLloyd

4ensic15 wrote: »

What are the risks for the tenant?

Of the arrangement described?

Asked to vacate without appropriate notice
Tenancy not registered so no recourse in case of dispute
No control over who you're living with

4ensic15

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Of the arrangement described?

Asked to vacate without appropriate notice
Tenancy not registered so no recourse in case of dispute
No control over who you're living with

You can be asked to vacate anywhere without appropriate notice.
The PRTB require registration and in any case non registration does not mean the tenant can't invoke the protection of the RTB.
In most cases the landlord will allow the existing tenants to vet newcomers and if a tenant is obnoxious the others will force them out. A lot better than being liable jointly and severally with someone you can't stand.

LuckyLloyd

4ensic15 wrote: »

You can be asked to vacate anywhere without appropriate notice.
The PRTB require registration and in any case non registration does not mean the tenant can't invoke the protection of the RTB.
In most cases the landlord will allow the existing tenants to vet newcomers and if a tenant is obnoxious the others will force them out. A lot better than being liable jointly and severally with someone you can't stand.

So not being on a lease and just being rented a room makes no difference to your status? You're afforded the same Chapter IV rights regardless?

4ensic15

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So not being on a lease and just being rented a room makes no difference to your status? You're afforded the same Chapter IV rights regardless?

That is the RTB view. A written lease is not necessary. A tenancy can be made orally as well as by writing.