Landlord want me Out!!!!

Lui_meme_Elle

Hi all
I am a tenant and been living at my current place for almost 7 years now.
Now the landlord told me lately that he is willing to move to the house because he got a new job ...strange things is no others tenants sharing are aware of this , they have all told that the landlord havent informed them that he will be moving to the house soon.
So i am wondering am i being lied to here? is he trying to get me out and rent it to someone else at a higher price? 
Now i wonder what to do , move or just not budge as i couldnt really verify what he told me (he cant just move to the house without informing others tenants, i have checked with all tenants none is aware of landlord plan... hmmm)
all this time i never signed a lease with him.
So what would you advise here?

El Tarangu

If you are not the only person living in the house, you may in fact be a licensee, and won't have the same rights as a tenant.

Ms Doubtfire1

I would agree.There are circumstances in which you acquire the same rights as a 'normal' tenant but the Tenancy board can advise you on that. But generally, it might be that the LL just wants to be a live in LL in the house and only needs one room

RossieMan

Where did you pull that from?

Nothing the op said makes him sound like a licensee.

Ms Doubtfire1

RossieMan wrote: »

Where did you pull that from?

Nothing the op said makes him sound like a licensee.

'..strange things is no others tenants sharing are aware of this ,'

Lui_meme_Elle

Lui_meme_Elle wrote: »

strange things is no others tenants sharing are aware of this , they have all told that the landlord havent informed them that he will be moving to the house soon.

If the landlord needs to move back into the house, he only needs one room so, presumably, he's only having this discussion with the one tenant he needs to get out. Do you have the biggest/best room in the house?

I haven't come across this before (i.e. asking one tenant to leave rather than emptying the whole property) but the landlord has the right to ask you to leave "if the landlord needs the property for their own use" which could be the case here but you are entitled to 16 weeks notice.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html#lc0aea

RossieMan

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote:

I would agree.There are circumstances in which you acquire the same rights as a 'normal' tenant but the Tenancy board can advise you on that. But generally, it might be that the LL just wants to be a live in LL in the house and only needs one room

Just because there are other tenants doesn't mean he is a licensee. Sounds like they all pay the landlord for the use of the rooms.

Ms Doubtfire1

RossieMan wrote: »

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote:

I would agree.There are circumstances in which you acquire the same rights as a 'normal' tenant but the Tenancy board can advise you on that. But generally, it might be that the LL just wants to be a live in LL in the house and only needs one room

Just because there are other tenants doesn't mean he is a licensee. Sounds like they all pay the landlord for the use of the rooms.

That's a possibility but based on what  OP is saying I'd tend to think licensee. But OP should definitely contact the Tenancy board to find out as we'd only be guessing based on what is stated.

Lui_meme_Elle

Thanks for all your replies so far.

Yes i use the master bed room.

For the LL to move in to the house he will HAVE to inform the other tenants before moving there, me thinking.

So its strange that all 3 tenants aren't aware of LL moving in.

And Yes we all 4 pay the rent directly to the LL.

Graham

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

That's a possibility but based on what  OP is saying I'd tend to think licensee.

I'd disagree, landlord doesn't live in the house. More likely to be considered a tenant.

If considered a tenant, after almost 7 years of occupation the OP will be entitled to a substantial notice period - 24 weeks (168 days).

OP, talk to the residential tenancies board and/or Threshold. Explain that you have been living there almost 7 years, landlord does not live in the house and you pay your rent directly to the landlord.

Lui_meme_Elle

Lui_meme_Elle wrote: »

Yes i use the master bed room.

For the LL to move in to the house he will HAVE to inform the other tenants before moving there, me thinking.

So its strange that all 3 tenants aren't aware of LL moving in

Oh he'll "inform" the other tenants that he's moving in, but he HAS to give you notice to leave the property which, I think, is why he's dealing with you differently.

Sorry.

Ms Doubtfire1

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

That's a possibility but based on what OP is saying I'd tend to think licensee.

Graham wrote: »

I'd disagree, landlord doesn't live in the house. More likely to be considered a tenant

Yes, the OP is a tenant at the moment. When the landlord moves in, presumably the other tenants will become licensees but that's a different problem.

Marcusm

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

That's a possibility but based on what  OP is saying I'd tend to think licensee. But OP should definitely contact the Tenancy board to find out as we'd only be guessing based on what is stated.

If the landlord does not live there then they will be "multiple tenants" for RTA purposes each having part 4 rights. There is no express provision for the landlord to terminate a tenancy or multiple tenancy to occupy only part of the property.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

If the landlord does not live there then they will be "multiple tenants" for RTA purposes each having part 4 rights. There is no express provision for the landlord to terminate a tenancy or multiple tenancy to occupy only part of the property.

It's very much a grey area actually.

The RTB have in the past ruled that a people in a house share where rooms are let separately are in fact licensees.

The reasoning being in a house where each individual only has exclusive use of their room (which is the case when rooms are let separately) and none have exclusive use of the common areas then they don't meet the criteria of exclusive use of the property which is one of the fundamental requirements for a valid tenancy.

The_Conductor

Marcusm wrote: »

If the landlord does not live there then they will be "multiple tenants" for RTA purposes each having part 4 rights. There is no express provision for the landlord to terminate a tenancy or multiple tenancy to occupy only part of the property.

The landlord does not have to terminate the tenancy(ies) when moving back to the property- however, under law- the rights of the tenants change- and as the landlord is thereafter classified as an 'owner-occupier' the 'tenants' thereafter become licensees.

It doesn't say anywhere at all that the landlord has to communicate this to the tenants- and indeed, he only has to notify the OP- as they are being asked to vacate the property for the landlord.

Out of interest- is the rent paid separately by 4 different people- or as a single payment by one person? I.e. it sounds like there may be 4 separate tenancies- only one of which is being formally terminated.

Its messy as hell- and to be honest- I wouldn't want to be one of the others with the landlord moving back into the property.

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

The landlord does not have to terminate the tenancy(ies) when moving back to the property- however, under law- the rights of the tenants change- and as the landlord is thereafter classified as an 'owner-occupier' the 'tenants' thereafter become licensees.

It doesn't say anywhere at all that the landlord has to communicate this to the tenants- and indeed, he only has to notify the OP- as they are being asked to vacate the property for the landlord.

Out of interest- is the rent paid separately by 4 different people- or as a single payment by one person? I.e. it sounds like there may be 4 separate tenancies- only one of which is being formally terminated.

Its messy as hell- and to be honest- I wouldn't want to be one of the others with the landlord moving back into the property.

I see nothing that would permit the landlord to terminate the tenancy of one of the multiple occupants in circumstances, as seems to be the case here, where they together have occupation of the entire property. My reason for stating this is the sectio 34 ground of potential relevance is that the landlord requires the "dwelling" which is the entirety of the let property for his own use. What is required by the landlord in this case seems to be him becoming one of the residents with the remaining tenants.

I think the landlord would be on shaky grounds issuing a notice of termination to only one of the tenants. If I were the tenant and I wished to stay, I would reject it on the grounds that it is invalid.

The_Conductor

That's why I was wondering about whether, or not, it was a joint tenancy- or 4 separate tenancies sharing the property- its only a subtle difference- but it may be pertinent.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

I see nothing that would permit the landlord to terminate the tenancy of one of the multiple occupants in circumstances, as seems to be the case here, where they together have occupation of the entire property. My reason for stating this is the sectio 34 ground of potential relevance is that the landlord requires the "dwelling" which is the entirety of the let property for his own use. What is required by the landlord in this case seems to be him becoming one of the residents with the remaining tenants.

I think the landlord would be on shaky grounds issuing a notice of termination to only one of the tenants. If I were the tenant and I wished to stay, I would reject it on the grounds that it is invalid.

If the rooms are let separately (which means they all pay their rent to the LL separately) then none of the tenants have occupation of the entire property, they have their own room and shared use of the common areas. In this scenario of course one can be asked to move out and not the others and the LL can move himself into one of the vacant rooms same as he could move someone else in if one of the housemates was to move out by their own choice.

Its quite a different setup than one where 4 people share a house together and all are under a lease. For instance in the rooms let separately setup a person renting a room is only liable for their own portion of the rent whereas in a joint arrangement each is liable for the entire rent were people to stop paying or do a runner etc.

As I mentioned its even still a grey area whether they are tenants or licensees as none of them can claim exclusive use of the property.

As The Conductor said its absolutely key to know if they are renting rooms or are sharing the full house in order to be able to judge the situation better.

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

That's why I was wondering about whether, or not, it was a joint tenancy- or 4 separate tenancies sharing the property- its only a subtle difference- but it may be pertinent.

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

If the rooms are let separately (which means they all pay their rent to the LL separately) then none of the tenants have occupation of the entire property, they have their own room and shared use of the common areas. In this scenario of course one can be asked to move out and not the others and the LL can move himself into one of the vacant rooms same as he could move someone else in if one of the housemates was to move out by their own choice.

Its quite a different setup than one where 4 people share a house together and all are under a lease. For instance in the rooms let separately setup a person renting a room is only liable for their own portion of the rent whereas in a joint arrangement each is liable for the entire rent were people to stop paying or do a runner etc.

As I mentioned its even still a grey area whether they are tenants or licensees as none of them can claim exclusive use of the property.

As The Conductor said its absolutely key to know if they are renting rooms or are sharing the full house in order to be able to judge the situation better.

You need to read the definitions of "multiple tenants" to see that it is intended to cover all circumstances where the occupants have use of the dwelling to the exclusion of the landlord which is generally the case where the landlord is not a resident. It is highly unusual and requires quite a bit of prescription with a letting agreement for a landlord to ensure that he has not passed away occupation of the dwelling to a group of persons as a whole. Nothing in what the OP has written would lead me to conclude that this landlord has taken that care. In the absence of such written prescriptions and in the usual circumstances where the landlord does not occupy or habitually visit to enjoy as opposed to inspect the property (enjoyment might for example include retaining rights to cook himself meals and exercising those rights on a regular basis such that they could not be regarded as a sham), I would be surprised if the landlord could force a termination/eviction.

Lui_meme_Elle

We are 4 people in the house, 2 ensuite , and 2 others rooms (these 2 sharing same bathroom) and all 4 share kitchen and living room

We all pay rent to LL, and he made everyone to sign a lease, others 3 have just been here for 4 months -3 years.

I did not signed the proposed lease, because he never provided me with a lease in past 6 years, so i told him i dont see reason signing one now after all this time.

LL have others properties that he is lettings, the same way i explained above, so i wonder why me? why he want to move to my room


He use to come at the house even with his wife and stay in the house for some weekend or when travelling abroad (there is another small room where he stays; parking their cars outside), and this without informing anyone in the house (we let him do this)...

So, i am sure he will not occupy the room he just want to put it back on the market for a higher rent, reason why i think so is that none of the others tenants have been informed about his plan.

Hmmmm.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

You need to read the definitions of "multiple tenants" to see that it is intended to cover all circumstances where the occupants have use of the dwelling to the exclusion of the landlord which is generally the case where the landlord is not a resident. It is highly unusual and requires quite a bit of prescription with a letting agreement for a landlord to ensure that he has not passed away occupation of the dwelling to a group of persons as a whole. Nothing in what the OP has written would lead me to conclude that this landlord has taken that care. In the absence of such written prescriptions and in the usual circumstances where the landlord does not occupy or habitually visit to enjoy as opposed to inspect the property (enjoyment might for example include retaining rights to cook himself meals and exercising those rights on a regular basis such that they could not be regarded as a sham), I would be surprised if the landlord could force a termination/eviction.

Leaving aside the grey area of whether people in a rooms let separately house share are licensees or tenants you cannot argue that people renting rooms separately (with their own agreement to the rent for their room only) are covered by any mutual agreement. In other words there is no basis whatsoever to claim a LL cannot ask one of his multiple tenants in a dwelling to move out and not the others.

In fact its one of the very reasons for operating in this way as it limits a LLs exposure to having a bad/non-paying tenant. i.e. even if one is bad and stops paying rent the other 3 will pay and will usually force out the 4th to be replaced with a new paying tenant.

The additional info from the op above very much points at them being a licensee as the LL retains a room and regularly visits the house.

Lui_meme_Elle wrote: »

He use to come at the house even with his wife and stay in the house for some weekend or when travelling abroad (there is another small room where he stays; parking their cars outside), and this without informing anyone in the house (we let him do this)...

So, i am sure he will not occupy the room he just want to put it back on the market for a higher rent, reason why i think so is that none of the others tenants have been informed about his plan.

Hmmmm.

The fact the LL has retained a room and regularly visits the property and uses the room gives a very strong indication that none of you are tenants but are in fact licensees. If this is the case none of you have any rights.

The_Conductor

Unfortunately Liam Zealous Theory is correct.
The landlord has consistently exercised an occupancy of the property- and kept a room for his own use.

I'm sorry- none of you are tenants- you are all licensees- and aside from any rights the landlord gives you in writing, you are not entitled to the protections of the RTA.

The reason the landlord wants your room- is its the master bedroom.

If he is not intending to continue to use the smaller bedroom he kept for himself up to now- talk to him, perhaps he may be amenable to coming to an arrangement with you?

Lui_meme_Elle

Well the room (smallest room) in question is currently occupied by one of his say friend.

He comes to house like once in 3 months, and he does not live here, on the lease he provided to us, he has his living address on it.

So after paying rent for 7 years i got no rights? LL can do as he wishes? ask me to vacate the place even by giving wrong/invalid reason......

The_Conductor

Lui_meme_Elle wrote: »

Well the room (smallest room) in question is currently occupied by one of his say friend.

He comes to house like once in 3 months, and he does not live here, on the lease he provided to us, he has his living address on it.

So after paying rent for 7 years i got no rights? LL can do as he wishes? ask me to vacate the place even by giving wrong/invalid reason......

There isn't an 'invalid reason' to ask you to vacate with- as you're not a tenant, despite you thinking you are.

Talk to him in any event- perhaps you can come to an arrangement?

Lui_meme_Elle

I do appreciate your advise, but i still think that i am not a licensee, as i DO NOT live with the LL (he might be using a room but officially he doesn't live at this address), i will never rent a place occupied by it owner.

Marcusm

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

Leaving aside the grey area of whether people in a rooms let separately house share are licensees or tenants you cannot argue that people renting rooms separately (with their own agreement to the rent for their room only) are covered by any mutual agreement. In other words there is no basis whatsoever to claim a LL cannot ask one of his multiple tenants in a dwelling to move out and not the others.

In fact its one of the very reasons for operating in this way as it limits a LLs exposure to having a bad/non-paying tenant. i.e. even if one is bad and stops paying rent the other 3 will pay and will usually force out the 4th to be replaced with a new paying tenant.

The additional info from the op above very much points at them being a licensee as the LL retains a room and regularly visits the house.



The fact the LL has retained a room and regularly visits the property and uses the room gives a very strong indication that none of you are tenants but are in fact licensees. If this is the case none of you have any rights.

There need not be any mutuality and you are absolutely right that in the event of non payment, anti social behaviour etc, there can be a termination in respect if a single resident. However, for termination on the grounds cited, i.e. Occupation by The landlord, RTA is very clear that the grounds are for "the dwelling", i.e. The whole.

The question of whether it is a multiple tenants situation is one where the law clearly contemplates a landlord having many individual tenants in a building, some residents being sub tenants of a head tenant or being licensees of a tenant.

It would well serve some people to read the actual law.

In the current circumstances, the occasional enjoyment of the property by the landlord and family may make all of this moot in any event.

The_Conductor

Lui_meme_Elle wrote: »

I do appreciate your advise, but i still think that i am not a licensee, as i DO NOT live with the LL (he might be using a room but officially he doesn't live at this address), i will never rent a place occupied by it owner.

In which case- lodge an objection with the Residential Tenancies Board- thats your next port of call.

davindub

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

It's very much a grey area actually.

The RTB have in the past ruled that a people in a house share where rooms are let separately are in fact licensees.

The reasoning being in a house where each individual only has exclusive use of their room (which is the case when rooms are let separately) and none have exclusive use of the common areas then they don't meet the criteria of exclusive use of the property which is one of the fundamental requirements for a valid tenancy.

None of this is true. The LL or a immediate family member must live in the house to have the rental agreement not covered by the act.

When you think about it, any property with more than 1 tenant does not have exclusive rights to the common areas.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

None of this is true. The LL or a immediate family member must live in the house to have the rental agreement not covered by the act.

When you think about it, any property with more than 1 tenant does not have exclusive rights to the common areas.

There are two different things being discussed though which is being missed by you and Marcusm.

1). The possibility that the op is in fact a licensee not a tenant, which looks very likely. It does not need to be the LLs main residence. Retaining a room and staying there occasionally while ensuring to exercise his right of entry to common areas is essentially all that's required to make others staying there licensees.

2) even if the op is a full blow tenant he can still be given notice to leave for the reason of the LL moving in while the other tenants can remain as all the tenants rent rooms seperately and have no connection nor mutual right to the house. Each tenant has their own areeement and as far as it's concerned here it's the same as if they were all living in seperate apartments. Claiming other wise is wrong simple as that.

davindub

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

1). The possibility that the op is in fact a licensee not a tenant, which looks very likely. It does not need to be the LLs main residence. Retaining a room and staying there occasionally while ensuring to exercise his right of entry to common areas is essentially all that's required to make others staying there licensees.

Definitely not, the LL needs to actually reside there. You cannot claim you reside there if you have another residence which is your main residence. There are no loopholes to exploit here, the act applies to all residential property unless excluded

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

2) even if the op is a full blow tenant he can still be given notice to leave for the reason of the LL moving in while the other tenants can remain as all the tenants rent rooms seperately and have no connection nor mutual right to the house. Each tenant has their own agreement and as far as it's concerned here it's the same as if they were all living in seperate apartments. Claiming other wise is wrong simple as that.

The tenancy is a shared situation, they share part 4 rights. Yes the LL can give notice to all the tenants, it has not been litigated yet where the LL can select a single tenant to terminate. I would think that he would be required to give notice to all tenants as when the LL moves back in, their tenancy will also end and they will no longer have the protections of the act to rely on. If they choose to remain they will become "licensees" as some people call it.

Marcusm

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

There are two different things being discussed though which is being missed by you and Marcusm.

1). The possibility that the op is in fact a licensee not a tenant, which looks very likely. It does not need to be the LLs main residence. Retaining a room and staying there occasionally while ensuring to exercise his right of entry to common areas is essentially all that's required to make others staying there licensees.

2) even if the op is a full blow tenant he can still be given notice to leave for the reason of the LL moving in while the other tenants can remain as all the tenants rent rooms seperately and have no connection nor mutual right to the house. Each tenant has their own areeement and as far as it's concerned here it's the same as if they were all living in seperate apartments. Claiming other wise is wrong simple as that.

I fundamentally disagree with your point 2) and have explained my reasoning based on the law. What is your reasoning? You cannot simply make up facts such as treating them as separate apartments. A "dwelling" is a self contained unit comprising living, sleeping, cooking and sanitary facilities. At no stage has the OP suggested that sort of set up.

You cannot simply import facts or create new aspects of the law which don't exist. It neither helps the OP nor the flow of the discussion.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Definitely not, the LL needs to actually reside there. You cannot claim you reside there if you have another residence which is your main residence. There are no loopholes to exploit here, the act applies to all residential property unless excluded

Of course you can reside in more than one place. You can't claim rent a room relief if its not your main residence but you can certainly reside in more than one place.

davindub wrote: »

The tenancy is a shared situation, they share part 4 rights. Yes the LL can give notice to all the tenants, it has not been litigated yet where the LL can select a single tenant to terminate. I would think that he would be required to give notice to all tenants as when the LL moves back in, their tenancy will also end and they will no longer have the protections of the act to rely on. If they choose to remain they will become "licensees" as some people call it.

Why would they share part 4 right when if they are tenants they have separate rental agreements with the LL and are only paying rent for their room with no obligation to pay the rest of the rent were say another tenant to do a runner.

If 4 people move into a house as a group and they all have one single lease with the LL, are named on this and pay their combined rent to the LL then they have a shared part 4 rights and are essentially one entity where one could not be asked to move out etc. Each one of them is also responsible for the entire rent were the other 3 to move out, they have to re-write the lease if someone moves out in order to account for a new person etc etc.

On the other hand if the LL rents 4 rooms separately, with each person having their own agreement to pay their rent separately to the LL, they are only liable for their rent etc then while the first 4 people who move into the house may acquire part 4 rights at the same time they are in no way linked and the LL could ask one tenant to move out (if they are in fact tenants not licensees). Then after a few years the house may have one person renting a room from the original 4, but the other 3 may have moved out and you now have 3 people renting rooms for various different time periods so how can they possibly share part 4 rights? How can a new person moving in, renting just a room have the same rights as the person renting a room for years?

They can't is the answer.

Marcusm wrote: »

I fundamentally disagree with your point 2) and have explained my reasoning based on the law. What is your reasoning? You cannot simply make up facts such as treating them as separate apartments. A "dwelling" is a self contained unit comprising living, sleeping, cooking and sanitary facilities. At no stage has the OP suggested that sort of set up.

You cannot simply import facts or create new aspects of the law which don't exist. It neither helps the OP nor the flow of the discussion.

My reasoning is very simple and explained above, how can 4 people unconnected to each other, all having separate agreements with the LL and living in the house for various different amounts of time possibly have mutual rights. Further if one moves out by choice the LL can move in anybody he likes (or himself) to replace them. This cannot be done in a situation where a full house has been rented under one agreement is an additional considerable difference between the two situations. All bar one of the places I've lived were rooms let separately house shares, people could move out when they wanted the LLs could move in new people to replace them, if there was vacant time my rent was still the same never having to make up the missing rent etc etc. Its totally different to renting a full house under one agreement' particularly as I've said numerous times the lack of exclusive use of the property by any of the people renting the room could actually mean they are licensees as it has yet to be fully clarified and the RTB have found in the past that people in this set up are licensees.

_Jamie_

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

Of course you can reside in more than one place. You can't claim rent a room relief if its not your main residence but you can certainly reside in more than one place.

You need to be ordinarily resident in the house for the occupants to be licensees. Showing up the odd weekend wouldn't cut it. If it was so easy to extinguish tenant rights by keeping a room free in the house, why don't more landlords do it?

_Jamie_

_Jamie_ wrote: »

You need to be ordinarily resident in the house for the occupants to be licensees. Showing up the odd weekend wouldn't cut it. If it was so easy to extinguish tenant rights by keeping a room free in the house, why don't more landlords do it?

Staying there a day here and a day there and coming and going from the house thus retaining your right of access would make the other people in the house licensees. How could they be tenants since the LL having access is not allowed under tenancy rules and there is certainly no way you can prevent a LL who has kept a room from day 1 and uses it from accessing his room or having to give notice to other people in the house when he is calling.

Why don't more do it? I think an awful lot of people don't understand the finer details of tenancy law etc well most dont even understand the major details to be fair so wouldn't even know this. Most people wouldn't even know what a licensee is. There is a bit of extra work involved with it and a bit less rent also which would put people off too along with many other reasons. There is no doubt that if I were renting a place it would be an avenue I would be looking to go down to avoid being stuck with bad/no paying tenants etc etc.

Graham

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

Staying there a day here and a day there and coming and going from the house thus retaining your right of access would make the other people in the house licensees. How could they be tenants since the LL having access is not allowed under tenancy rules and there is certainly no way you can prevent a LL who has kept a room from day 1 and uses it from accessing his room or having to give notice to other people in the house when he is calling.

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.

_Jamie_

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

Staying there a day here and a day there and coming and going from the house thus retaining your right of access would make the other people in the house licensees. How could they be tenants since the LL having access is not allowed under tenancy rules and there is certainly no way you can prevent a LL who has kept a room from day 1 and uses it from accessing his room or having to give notice to other people in the house when he is calling.

The tenants can say that the landlord doesn't live there and the onus would be on the landlord to prove that he does. A few days a month would not be enough to claim residence and the establishment of residence is the difference between them being tenants and licensees. I believe the most recent court ruling in this area showed this to be the case.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

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.

How can the LL enter and leave as he pleases (which he is entitled to do if he uses a room in the house) if the others are tenants as he would be breaching the conditions in the RTA.

On the other hand even if it is the case it does prove my point that renting room separately is a very different set up to renting a full house under one agreement.

also if I'm remembering that case correctly the property owner almost never stayed there nor regularly entered the dwelling. You can't use that case to be sure the same out come in another case especially if the person makes it their business to be in the property regularly.

_Jamie_ wrote: »

The tenants can say that the landlord doesn't live there and the onus would be on the landlord to prove that he does.

The onus would be very much on the tenants to prove he doesn't. Keeps all bills there, visit and stay fairly regularly and "sure doesn't he leave early and arrive late all the time" and how can the others in the house say with any certainty when and when not he slept there.

Graham

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

also if I'm remembering that case correctly the property owner almost never stayed there nor regularly entered the dwelling. You can't use that case to be sure the same out come in another case especially if the person makes it their business to be in the property regularly.

you also can't categorically state that because a landlord maintains a room, the other occupants are going to be found to be licensees.

Being realistic here, you can argue a specific interpretation of the law until you're blue in the face, it's largely irrelevant. Unless you have incredibly deep pockets, it's the RTBs interpretation of the law that matters.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

you also can't categorically state that because a landlord maintains a room, the other occupants are going to be found to be licensees.

Being realistic here, you can argue a specific interpretation of the law until you're blue in the face, it's largely irrelevant. Unless you have incredibly deep pockets, it's the RTBs interpretation of the law that matters.

Hence why I called it a grey area from the beginning. It could go either way but its better for people to understand this rather than be extremely confident one way or the other.

Graham

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

Hence why I called it a grey area from the beginning. It could go either way but its better for people to understand this rather than be extremely confident one way or the other.

If I were a tenant, I'd certainly fancy my chances that the RTB Magic 8-Ball of determinations would roll in my favour.

The_Conductor

Graham wrote: »

If I were a tenant, I'd certainly fancy my chances that the RTB Magic 8-Ball of determinations would roll in my favour.

Why?
The landlord has stated its for personal use- all he/she has to do is give a valid notice of the end of the tenancy to the tenant- and they have dotted their 'i's and crossed their 't's......

The landlord has actively stated he requires the room for personal use- as he is moving job back into the area.

A valid reason to end the tenancy has been given.

The people who are out of joint here- are the remaining tenants- who will loose their tenancy rights if/when the landlord formally moves back into the property fulltime.

Whether or not the OP is a tenant or a licensee- doesn't really come into it- if the landlord is exercising the right to end the tenancy based on a personal need of the property- which they apparently are doing.

OP- from what you've said here- the landlord should by rights be notifying all the tenants- however, the only people with a valid case- are the 3 people he hasn't notified- not you (providing of course he formally notifies you).

The fact that you have lived there for 7 years (or however long) does not preclude the landlord reclaiming the property for personal use- its a specific right enshrined in the act.

If your tenancy is ended on the grounds the landlord requires the property for personal use- and you move out- and he/she does not move in- then you have a case for an invalid notice of termination of tenancy- but not until such time as he/she does not move in- or someone other than they moves in.

_Jamie_

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

The onus would be very much on the tenants to prove he doesn't. Keeps all bills there, visit and stay fairly regularly and "sure doesn't he leave early and arrive late all the time" and how can the others in the house say with any certainty when and when not he slept there.

Dear lord, if this is your own plan, how dumb will your future tenants have to be to think that? If they raised an objection, it would be up to you, not them, to prove you are ordinarily resident there. And as you'd be paying income tax and filling out tax returns on the income, I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to figure out that it is not your main residence.

Graham

The_Conductor wrote: »

Why?
The landlord has stated its for personal use- all he/she has to do is give a valid notice of the end of the tenancy to the tenant- and they have dotted their 'i's and crossed their 't's......

For the appropriate notice periods if nothing else.

The_Conductor

Graham wrote: »

For the appropriate notice periods if nothing else.

Yes, of course- the correct period of notice must be given.

_Jamie_

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Dear lord, if this is your own plan, how dumb will your future tenants have to be to think that? If they raised an objection, it would be up to you, not them, to prove you are ordinarily resident there. And as you'd be paying income tax and filling out tax returns on the income, I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to figure out that it is not your main residence.

How? Again it does not have to be your main residence this is a requirement for availing of the rent a room scheme.

For example if I owned a house down the country and a house in Dublin and was in Dublin for business twice a week and stayed in a room in the house while renting out the others then I could under no circumstance claim the rent a room relief on the income (so would have to make a return etc) but the others in the house would be licensees as the owner is very regularly living, eating and sleeping in the property.

Look on it another way, a place could be your primary residence and you might stay there less than in the above scenario if you say travelled a lot of business and stayed in hotels etc most weeks only returning at the weekend. You can even claim rent a room relief in this scenario.

Graham

The_Conductor wrote: »

Yes, of course- the correct period of notice must be given.

Which could be months of notice given the length of time the OP has lived there.

Cuddlesworth

From your posts.

The landlord comes and goes when he wants.
Stays over when he wants.
Rents rooms to people in which you have no say over.

I'm also going to assume that the bills are in his name.


Sorry, but your a licensee.

What is a Licensee?
2-persons sharing a house/apartment with its owner e.g. under the ‘rent a room’ scheme or ‘in digs’
3-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

I've looking into this in depth for some of my past employers and out of curiosity on this forum, the RTB would consider somebody in your situation as nto being under their remit(if the landlord contests). And I've never seen a contradictory judgement from them about this.

Graham

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Sorry, but your a licensee.

What is a Licensee?
2-persons sharing a house/apartment with its owner e.g. under the ‘rent a room’ scheme or ‘in digs’
3-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

I've looking into this in depth for some of my past employers and out of curiosity on this forum, the RTB would consider somebody in your situation as nto being under their remit(if the landlord contests). And I've never seen a contradictory judgement from them about this.

It would be interesting to see what the RTB definition of a 'formal license arrangement' is. OP considers themselves a tenant which may suggest no such 'formal license arrangement' exists.

Cuddlesworth

Graham wrote: »

It would be interesting to see what the RTB definition of a 'formal license arrangement' is. OP considers themselves a tenant which may suggest no such 'formal license arrangement' exists.

If they are renting the exclusive use of only a room, then its a formal license arrangement. Regardless of the OP being aware of it or not.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

It would be interesting to see what the RTB definition of a 'formal license arrangement' is. OP considers themselves a tenant which may suggest no such 'formal license arrangement' exists.

There is no such thing as a "formal licensee arrangement". Renting as a licensee is by its nature a very informal setup. It's up to the person to know their rights or lack of them they don't have to be informed upfront.

I'd guess that the vast majority of people who are licensees don't know it.

Graham

Daleyza Elegant Firehouse wrote: »

There is no such thing as a "formal licensee arrangement".

You should tell the RTB, the link Cuddlesworth posted is the RTB "What is a licensee" question/answer.