Landlord entering at short notice or without permission - laws?

_Roz_

Hi all,

Some queries about tenant rights and the law.

My landlords (mother and daugther) have never given more than a couple of hours notice that they are going to be coming into the house. Last time, it was twenty minutes notice. To get stuff out of a room in our house, which the daughter wants for herself, to store things in. We have to empty it of our stuff, which we had stored there because we had never been informed she wanted that room for herself. Is this legal?

As far as I can tell, law requires tenants approve landlord entry into a premises except for emergencies. There is no law around how much notice must be given, is that correct?

Does the length of notice for entry into the property for casual reasons, or to pick up rent, have to be agreed in a contract? I have a feeling they're not going to want to comply with 24 hours notice, as the daughter lived here since the house was bought, and this year is the first time either of them have been landlords to a premises, not just letting a room in their house.

Also, does at least one tenant, legally, have to be present while the landlord is in the house? These landlords have always texted to 'let us know they will be dropping by', but will enter even without a reply to permit it, which I now know is illegal. They are entering again today, with my permission, while the house is empty, to 'show it to their brother', I don't know why.

Thoughts, confirmation, advice on any aspects of any of this would be appreciated.

Graham

Are you renting the entire house or are you renting a room in the house?

_Roz_

Uhhh renting rooms, I guess. I was already here, from when I lived with the landlord. When she moved out, two new people moved in. It was advertised as a house share, with two rooms available (besides the one I'm renting.)

seamus

[Edit: Just saw your post above]

This is a big mess tbh. Between the three of you, you may have exclusive use of the whole property. In which case the landlord doesn't have the right to come and go, and must provide reasonable notice when they request access for inspections (i.e. a few days). You are entitled to refuse this request if it doesn't suit you.

But it may also be 3 separate leases with a shared common area, in which case the landlord can access the house as she likes, but not your individual units.

Does everyone pay rent separately to the landlord and/or does she have a vacant room in the house that she uses on occasion?

_Roz_

It's a house share, rented by the room, how does that affect all the above? Three of us living here.

(Thanks for the in-depth and fast replies, greatly appreciated)

Graham

_Roz_ wrote: »

Uhhh renting rooms, I guess. I was already here, from when I lived with the landlord. When she moved out, two new people moved in. It was advertised as a house share, with two rooms available (besides the one I'm renting.)

It sounds like you are a licensee rather than a tenant, at the very least it sounds like your landlady consider you a licensee.

For licensees, the usual Landlord/Tenant rules don't apply.

Being a licensee where the landlord isn't resident puts things in a slightly greyer area. Its quite possible that the RTB would consider you a tenant even if the landlord thinks you are a licensee but you'd have to go down the road of lodging a dispute with the RTB to find out (oversimplified explanation but you should get the gist).

_Roz_

We each pay rent separately, and the room is an unused spare bedroom/storage room where the landlord just stores random junk and sometimes comes to get stuff out of it.

I've never even heard of a licencee.... so just because we're renting by the room, we have no entitlement to privacy in the living room or kitchen, and the landlord could walk in and out 10 times in an evening if they wanted to? That's..... insane

(Again thanks for all the help, really want to be clear on legalities before approaching landlord... though it's sounding like we have to just accept her coming and going)

Michael D Not Higgins

The tenancy rights you have been reading do not apply to licensees. You moved in to a property where the landlord was resident so you were definitely a licensee then.

Whether you are licensees or tenants after the landlord moves out is a bit of grey area as Graham has put it above. I would speak to your landlord since you need clearer boundaries of your current living conditions and if agreement cannot be reached then you may have to take a case with the RTB or move out.

Graham

Yours is a particularly grey-area case as you started living there while the property owner was resident, almost certainly you were a licensee.

You could now argue that you're a tenant with the associated rights but you would need to lodge a dispute with the RTB or agree your new status with the landlady to confirm.. That's not likely to improve relations with your landlady.

Have you and/or your housemates thought about having a friendly chat with the landlady asking if they'd give you a bit more notice?

_Roz_

Well, technically, the owner wasn't present - the daughter lived there, paying rent to her mother and also paying rent for her partner living there at the time. They've had other family members/friends live in the house too. This year is the first time three people unrelated to that family literally or by association have had the house, and the first time the daughter was not here. I paid everything to the daughter, as it was basically the same as paying it to the mother.

I don't even have a tenancy agreement anymore, it expired and was never renewed. The one I had was as a tenant in the house at the time. I may have no rights at all, in this situation. My two housemates do have separate (but identical) written tenancy agreements until January.

We haven't spoken to them yet, honestly terrified of being kicked out in this rental climate. And they're really not pleasant people. I just wanted to know if I had any rights backing me up before we do talk to them.

Also, I suspect the landlord isn't even registered as a landlord, so that probably skews things even more?

Edit: Could it be as simple as looking at the signed contracts, and seeing if they're tenancy as opposed to licensee agreements? If the landlord signed tenancy agreements, surely we're tenants and entitled to privacy/notice in the house, even if we are renting by the room?

Michael D Not Higgins

As already mentioned, the law is not explicit in this instance. What you've signed and what the reality is are totally different, and the RTB will look at the situation and rule whether you're a tenant or a licensee.

If notice of the landlord coming by is the only issue and as you mention they're not nice people, you'll probably want to adopt a softly-softly approach. Get your housemates together and speak to the landlord together about getting more notice of them dropping by and not coming in when you're not there.

_Roz_

They're going to tell us its their house and they can do what they want.

But if they handed us tenancy agreements (going to read my housemate's one this evening), of their own free will and signed them, and we meet all the criteria for tenants (not living with or being related to landlord, being the main ones), then how anyone could argue the reality is we're licensees is beyond me. I was not officially a licensee when I lived here before, I had a tenancy agreement.

I don't want to make a dispute of it, I don't want to take it to any authorities, I just don't want to go, 'hey! You're not allowed in without our permission' unless it's legally true.

If they signed a tenancy agreement with us, I don't see how that can be not true. Regardless of what else we have the potential to be, they came up with the contracts, and bound themselves to it by signing. So I'll see what the contract says. The contract might even literally say, 'the landlord will give notice' etc. I'm hoping it will.

Thanks all, for your help. I've learned a lot about this stuff today!

davo10

_Roz_ wrote: »

Well, technically, the owner wasn't present - the daughter lived there, paying rent to her mother and also paying rent for her partner living there at the time. They've had other family members/friends live in the house too. This year is the first time three people unrelated to that family literally or by association have had the house, and the first time the daughter was not here. I paid everything to the daughter, as it was basically the same as paying it to the mother.

I don't even have a tenancy agreement anymore, it expired and was never renewed. The one I had was as a tenant in the house at the time. I may have no rights at all, in this situation. My two housemates do have separate (but identical) written tenancy agreements until January.

We haven't spoken to them yet, honestly terrified of being kicked out in this rental climate. And they're really not pleasant people. I just wanted to know if I had any rights backing me up before we do talk to them.

Also, I suspect the landlord isn't even registered as a landlord, so that probably skews things even more?

Edit: Could it be as simple as looking at the signed contracts, and seeing if they're tenancy as opposed to licensee agreements? If the landlord signed tenancy agreements, surely we're tenants and entitled to privacy/notice in the house, even if we are renting by the room?

Firstly, sharing a house with a child of the owner is considered sharing with the owner so a licensee agreement existed when you moved in. Since the daughter moved out, she has retained exclusive use of the room and stores personal belongings in it, it has not been re-let so they can argue that she is still renting that room and you do not have exclusive use of the property therefore still a licensee arrangement.

Licensee tenancies do not have to be registered with the RTB. Op, you need to get out your original contract, if it says you are a licensee and the daughter/landlord has retained exclusive use of the daughter's room, they can come and go as they like to that room. Not only that, licensees have a lot less rights to security of tenure so you need to know your stuff before you pick a fight with the LL, they can ask you to leave at any time if your contract is up.

It's not straight forward and certainly you may be considered a tenant, but the fact that the daughter/LL lived there and retains use of a bedroom is important and that they come regularly. I think someone posted a case recently where the RTB ruled a licensee agreement converted to a tenancy after a LL moved out and hadn't been back for some considerable time, if they are coming and going regularly you may not be able to make that argument.

Check the "Renting a room" section in this:

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

_Roz_

davo10 wrote: »

Firstly, sharing a house with a child of the owner is considered sharing with the owner so a licensee agreement existed when you moved in. Since the daughter moved out, she has retained exclusive use of the room and stores personal belongings in it, it has not been re-let so they can argue that she is still renting that room and you do not have exclusive use of the property therefore still a licensee arrangement.

Licensee tenancies do not have to be registered with the RTB. Op, you need to get out your original contract, if it says you are a licensee and the daughter/landlord has retained exclusive use of the daughter's room, they can come and go as they like to that room. Not only that, licensees have a lot less rights to security of tenure so you need to know your stuff before you pick a fight with the LL, they can ask you to leave at any time if your contract is up.

It's not straight forward and certainly you may be considered a tenant, but the fact that the daughter/LL lived there and retains use of a bedroom is important and that they come regularly. I think someone posted a case recently where the RTB ruled a licensee agreement converted to a tenancy after a LL moved out and hadn't been back for some considerable time, if they are coming and going regularly you may not be able to make that argument.

Check the "Renting a room" section in this:

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

My original contract was a tenancy contract. I picked it off the internet myself because they couldn't be bothered giving me one. Even if I was legally a licensee, I never signed anything to that effect. The contracts my housemates now have, given to them by the landlord, are Fixed Term Tenancy Agreements which adhere to the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 - stated on the front page of the contracts.

The landlord's daughter moved out a year ago, and didn't come into the house for any purpose other than collecting rent until last month. The room she uses is not her old bedroom, that room has been re-let. The room is a bedroom by design, but hasn't been used as such possibly ever, it's a box room for storage. (Not arguing, just clarifying.)

I'm going to leave it up to my housemates to say something, as they're the ones with the contracts.

riclad

under the rent a room scheme ,you are presumed to be living with the landlord , therefore the landlord can enter the house anytime she wishes .
I would be concerned if you take a case to the prtb then you may
win , and be treated as a tenant , but if the landlord is annoyed with
you She might use this as an excuse to raise the rent.
You are renting one room in a house, if it was me, i would lock the door in my room when i go out, and just leave things as they are .
One room being used as a storage unit , means there is one less tenant
in the house .
In most area,s now even people with good jobs are finding it hard to
find a flat .So they are using one room as a storage unit , and visit now and again to acess it.
I think you are a tenant at the moment ,so the landlord should give you at least 24
hours notice before she enters the building .

Michael D Not Higgins

_Roz_ wrote: »

My original contract was a tenancy contract. I picked it off the internet myself because they couldn't be bothered giving me one. Even if I was legally a licensee, I never signed anything to that effect. The contracts my housemates now have, given to them by the landlord, are Fixed Term Tenancy Agreements which adhere to the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 - stated on the front page of the contracts.

The landlord's daughter moved out a year ago, and didn't come into the house for any purpose other than collecting rent until last month. The room she uses is not her old bedroom, that room has been re-let. The room is a bedroom by design, but hasn't been used as such possibly ever, it's a box room for storage. (Not arguing, just clarifying.)

I'm going to leave it up to my housemates to say something, as they're the ones with the contracts.

The lease contract may say tenancy and RTA2004 but if it's a de facto licence, it may be ruled as such by the RTB. The fact that the room is not being used as a bedroom doesn't mean anything, they're still retaining access to the room.

The only way to establish this is to go to the RTB with a dispute which I suggest would be a bad idea. It would be better to keep things civil about notice to visit the property without anyone demanding their rights.

riclad

The Landlord gives you notice by text , eg ill, be going there at 2 o.clock,
i do,nt think its worth while going to the prtb about this .

_Roz_

_Roz_ wrote: »

My original contract was a tenancy contract. I picked it off the internet myself because they couldn't be bothered giving me one. Even if I was legally a licensee, I never signed anything to that effect. .

First off you might as well forget about this contract as it is totally irrelevant. You were a licensee when living with the LL, you could sign anything you wanted even if the LL provided it and its still not worth the paper its written on.

As you and your housemates are renting rooms separately, the fact you moved in and lived with the LL and the fact the LL retains a room and thus can access it makes a very strong case for you being a licensee.

I don't think the LL or the daughter know the ins and outs either as of they did they would be making it clear that they consider you a licensee and that they consider the room to still be theirs to use as they please and that they have full access to it without any need to text in advance etc. The water is being muddied by lack of knowledge of whats happening on both sides.

riclad

You don,t need to sign anything, if the prtb considers the landlord to be living there, since one room is empty, and being used or visited by the landlord ,regularly then you could be considered a licensee and not a tenant .

Graham

riclad wrote: »

you could be considered a licensee and not a tenant .

The OP could be considered a licensee OR a tenant.

Without knowing the specifics, there is nobody here that can predict either way. Even if all the information were available here, there's no saying the RTB wouldn't come to an entirely different conclusion.

There are determinations on the RTB website where a landlord has claimed they maintain a room (such that occupants are licensees) but the RTB have determined a tenancy (or multiple tenancies) exist.

davo10

Op, a contract cannot supersede yours, or the LLs statutory rights. You could have given any contract you like to the LL and it still wouldn't have mattered, the daughter lived there so you are a licensee.

Incidentally, because the daughter was living in the property, there was no need for the LL to give you a written contract, a licensee is effectively a guest in the house and doesn't have many tenancy rights.

Graham

davo10 wrote: »

because the daughter was living in the property

was

That could be the key to a licensee now becoming a tenant.

davo10

davo10 wrote: »

there was no need for the LL to give you a written contract, .

There is actually no need for a written contract in the case of a tenancy either. It can be word of mouth.

riclad

i,M not a tax expert ,there could be an advantage for the landlord
in keeping one room empty , in terms of lowering her tax bill .Or paying a lower rate of tax.Anyway i can see no point in bringing a case to the prtb about this .

Graham

riclad wrote: »

i,M not a tax expert ,there could be an advantage for the landlord
in keeping one room empty , in terms of lowering her tax bill .Or paying a lower rate of tax.

I never understood that argument. It's like your boss offering to cut your wages in half to help you lower your tax bill.

The only time I could see it being relevant is to keep below the rent-a-room relief ceiling. Something that wouldn't apply here anyway.

_Roz_

I sincerely doubt the landlord is paying any tax - she's not registered and our money is cash going into her pocket.

I'm not going to any authorities about it, that was never my aim. I just wanted to know if I had innate legal rights before approaching her.

I don't, and my housemates possibly don't, so I'm keeping my mouth shut.

Based on the fact that she was showing her brother around, we might all be getting turfed out at the end of the year anyway!

What I will say to her, next time she gives me 20 minutes notice, is that she can't ask me to 'okay' it on behalf of all the housemates, she needs to give us enough time to let each other know and confirm there won't be any ritualistic slaughters* happening in the living room when she wants to visit. We'll actually all mostly be fine about her coming in - we just want a chance to tidy/clean anything that's been left, or put away personal belongings/valuables, when she or her family or friends are coming into the house. We're not actually trying to be unreasonable or anything.


*For the trouts of no craic amongst ye, JOKE.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

was

That could be the key to a licensee now becoming a tenant.

Is. The daughter still has exclusive use of room, keeps personal belongings there and according to the op, daughter/LL (in tenant law they are one and same) come and go regularly.

I'm not aware that a tenant must declare a property as their primary residence, maybe they do, nor does a tenancy agreement state that a tenant must sleep there.

Graham

davo10 wrote: »

I'm not aware that a tenant must declare a property as their primary residence, maybe they do, nor does a tenancy agreement state that a tenant must sleep there.

Go and read some of the RTB determinations where a licensee was found to be a tenant.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

Go and read some of the RTB determinations where a licensee was found to be a tenant.

Show me the one where the owner comes and goes REGULARLY and uses the bedroom room exclusively.

There's no point in you getting sarky about it, if the op wants to stop the LL/daughter entering then it is up to the op to prove a tenancy rather than a licensee arrangement exists now, not easy to do, the daughter can just say she sleeps at boyfriends house but keeps her stuff at rental property.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Show me the one where the owner comes and goes REGULARLY and uses the bedroom room exclusively.

There's no point in you getting sarky about it, if the op wants to stop the LL/daughter entering then it is up to the op to prove a tenancy rather than a licensee arrangement exists now, not easy to do, the daughter can just say she sleeps at boyfriends house but keeps her stuff at rental property.

http://rtb.ie/archive/2012%20Disputes/2012%20Tribunals/TR168.2011.DR92.2011/Report.pdf

What the Act says is that the landlord must "ordinarily reside" at the property in order to be outside the purvey of the RTB. Using a room as a store does not constitute ordinary residence.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

http://rtb.ie/archive/2012%20Disputes/2012%20Tribunals/TR168.2011.DR92.2011/Report.pdf

What the Act says is that the landlord must "ordinarily reside" at the property in order to be outside the purvey of the RTB. Using a room as a store does not constitute ordinary residence.

Yet again you have provided a link to a case which you either misunderstand or has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, did you read it?

The reason the op's situation is a grey area is that from the start of the tenancy, and for some time there after, the daughter stayed there and the op was a licensee from the start. In the case you linked the appellant was a tenant from the start, paying rent along with another tenant to the landlord. The land lord only ever stayed there for 3 nites, 16 months after the appellant moved in and after notice was given. it would be nigh on impossible to claim a licensee arrangement existed in that case. The chairperson stated there is no definitive description of "resides" and even stated a case to back that.

If the op had a similar situation to the case you posted, this thread would be about 2 posts long, but the op doesn't have a case like that, it's very very different and if the LL says the daughter is still paying rent for the room she slept in for some time when the op moved in, then the chairperson not only would have to find that the op is not a licensee, but would also have to find that a rent paying tenant (daughter) is not legally a tenant. Now that would be an interesting turn of events.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Yet again you have provided a link to a case which you either misunderstand or has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, did you read it?

The reason the op's situation is a grey area is that from the start of the tenancy, and for some time there after, the daughter stayed there and the op was a licensee from the start. In the case you linked the appellant was a tenant from the start, paying rent along with another tenant to the landlord. The land lord only ever stayed there for 3 nites, 16 months after the appellant moved in and after notice was given. it would be nigh on impossible to claim a licensee arrangement existed in that case. The chairperson stated there is no definitive description of "resides" and even stated a case to back that.

If the op had a similar situation to the case you posted, this thread would be about 2 posts long, but the op doesn't have a case like that, it's very very different and if the LL says the daughter is still paying rent for the room she slept in for some time when the op moved in, then the chairperson not only would have to find that the op is not a licensee, but would also have to find that a rent paying tenant (daughter) is not legally a tenant. Now that would be an interesting turn of events.

The Chairman did not state a case. He cited a case. He says ordinarily resides must be given its ordinary meaning. He then went on to find there was not ordinary residence in that case. It is therefore the case that using a room as a store is not ordinary residence even if paying rent.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

http://rtb.ie/archive/2012%20Disputes/2012%20Tribunals/TR168.2011.DR92.2011/Report.pdf

What the Act says is that the landlord must "ordinarily reside" at the property in order to be outside the purvey of the RTB. Using a room as a store does not constitute ordinary residence.

One RTB ruling suggested that if rooms are let seperately then the people renting there don't have exclusive use of the common areas and thus the LL can enter as he wants and they are considered licences. That was without the LL even having a room at all in the property.

4ensic15

Bodie Loud Sister-in-law wrote: »

One RTB ruling suggested that if rooms are let seperately then the people renting there don't have exclusive use of the common areas and thus the LL can enter as he wants and they are considered licences. That was without the LL even having a room at all in the property.

That ruling was later overturned by the RTB.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

The Chairman did not state a case. He cited a case. He says ordinarily resides must be given its ordinary meaning. He then went on to find there was not ordinary residence in that case. It is therefore the case that using a room as a store is not ordinary residence even if paying rent.

Yes, in that case. And in that case the LL never lived there and both rooms were let to tenants. Are you able to see the difference between that case and the op's?

Would the RTB tell a renter that they are not actually entitled to rent a room even though they are paying rent and have not been evicted? Have they ever told a renter that along with paying rent, you also have to sleep there and if you don't, the LL can remove you because you don't ordinarily reside there so you have no rights? A lot of LLs would be very interested in that, it would allow easy and quick evictions of anyone who doesn't sleep in their property. Of course not, in the op's case the daughter is renting the room, has been since the op moved in, it just happens that living with a child of the LL is the same as living with the LL when it comes to defining the type of tenancy the op has.

Elliott S

Isn't the decent thing to do to give notice instead of just letting oneself in? Even in a licensee situation, it just seems like good manners to give notice. Not legally required but just the decent thing to do.

riclad

in a licensee situation ,the landlord is renting 1 or more rooms, while living in the house at least part of the week,
Therefore the landlord does not need to give notice to anyone.
in this case ,the landlord is not living there , she retains one room for storage.she gives notice by text,before entering the house
But i dont think its a good idea to go to the prtb in this case .

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Yes, in that case. And in that case the LL never lived there and both rooms were let to tenants. Are you able to see the difference between that case and the op's?

Would the RTB tell a renter that they are not actually entitled to rent a room even though they are paying rent and have not been evicted? Have they ever told a renter that along with paying rent, you also have to sleep there and if you don't, the LL can remove you because you don't ordinarily reside there so you have no rights? A lot of LLs would be very interested in that, it would allow easy and quick evictions of anyone who doesn't sleep in their property. Of course not, in the op's case the daughter is renting the room, has been since the op moved in, it just happens that living with a child of the LL is the same as living with the LL when it comes to defining the type of tenancy the op has.

A person can be a tenant without being ordinarily resident. The key issue in this scenario is ordinary residence.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Yes, in that case. And in that case the LL never lived there and both rooms were let to tenants. Are you able to see the difference between that case and the op's?

Would the RTB tell a renter that they are not actually entitled to rent a room even though they are paying rent and have not been evicted? Have they ever told a renter that along with paying rent, you also have to sleep there and if you don't, the LL can remove you because you don't ordinarily reside there so you have no rights? A lot of LLs would be very interested in that, it would allow easy and quick evictions of anyone who doesn't sleep in their property. Of course not, in the op's case the daughter is renting the room, has been since the op moved in, it just happens that living with a child of the LL is the same as living with the LL when it comes to defining the type of tenancy the op has.

Once the daughter moved out there is no difference. It is possible to be a tenant but not be ordinarily resident. On the facts given here the daughter does not ordinarily reside in the house. She uses a room as a store and visits from time to time. The entirfe turns on ordinary residence not on any rent the daughter might be paying. In my experience the RTB would be very sceptical of claims that rent was being paid by a non resident to a landlord who happened to be her father, and the purpose of which was to try and avoid the creation of a tenancy.

_Roz_

Oooh this thread just kept right on going after I stopped looking in on it!

Fun update: We're all getting turfed out, as I suspected, to let the landlord's daughter reclaim the entire house. It's legit, we're being given two months notice and the two housemates with actual leases (whatever their legal worth - the leases, not the housemates) are reaching the end of those leases in that time.

Landlord calling over this evening to discuss it. Yaaaay.

4ensic15

_Roz_ wrote: »

Oooh this thread just kept right on going after I stopped looking in on it!

Fun update: We're all getting turfed out, as I suspected, to let the landlord's daughter reclaim the entire house. It's legit, we're being given two months notice and the two housemates with actual leases (whatever their legal worth - the leases, not the housemates) are reaching the end of those leases in that time.

Landlord calling over this evening to discuss it. Yaaaay.

Are the leases still running? The RTB have a view on giving notice while there is still a lease in being.