Reserved rooms and occupied owners

steddyeddy

Hi everyone, I'm just wondering what are people's opinions on landlords "reserving a room" in a house. If they do this do they have to advertise the property as owner occupied? I've been renting in the UK for a while now, and it seems to me that Irish landlords are more resistant to the idea of staying away from the property.

Gumbo

steddyeddy wrote: »

Hi everyone, I'm just wondering what are people's opinions on landlords "reserving a room" in a house. If they do this do they have to advertise the property as owner occupied? I've been renting in the UK for a while now, and it seems to me that Irish landlords are more resistant to the idea of staying away from the property.

Probably to claim rent a room tax relief?
Or simply to keep some personal belongings so they don't pay storage and don't have room for themselves?
Perfect excuse to drop in and out and inspect property without been over the top?

FishOnABike

Add to kceire's points that the landlord may also be trying to avoid the obligations of the residential tenancies act by creating a licencee situation rather than a tenancy.

Eric Cartman

no matter what the reason, I wouldn't be living there. You'd be on eggshells about everything.

steddyeddy

FishOnABike wrote: »

Add to kceire's points that the landlord may also be trying to avoid the obligations of the residential tenancies act by creating a licencee situation rather than a tenancy.

But do they have to advertise as occupied owner.

FishOnABike

steddyeddy wrote: »

But do they have to advertise as occupied owner.

Most estate / letting agent ads have some form of disclaimer stating that the ad does not form part of a contract or words to that effect so I wouldn't rely 100% on anything in an ad. It might be advertised as a house share or rooms to let but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

I'd be fairly annoyed if it wasn't disclosed when initial enquiries were made and I wasted time by only finding out at a later stage.

Mrs OBumble

steddyeddy wrote: »

But do they have to advertise as occupied owner.

No.

padd b1975

I do it if I have a room rented. I work as an international national truck driver so I stay away for at least a month at a time.

Ideally I'd like to rent the property as a whole but if I leave my job then obviously I'll have nowhere to live.

I'd always give a quick text to the tenant a couple of days in advance of my return out of courtesy.

Samuel T. Cogley

Incidentally it's an idea that been completely invented in the Pub by a couple of Barrack Room Lawyers* and an accountant, whose formal qualification was a leaving cert maths. Reserving a room does absolutely nothing to negate the lease or remove rights under the RTA. The actual situation on the ground will always be looked at.

*no one of them wasn't me, I'm not that smart.

Spanish Eyes

If someone owns a house and has licencees there, there is no obligation on the house/apartment owner to live there full time to avail of the rent a room scheme. As long as the property is the owner's PPR that's fine.

Anyone can let out rooms, and keep a room for themselves if they are moving around.

They are owner occupiers and can do this.

Different scenario if someone lives elsewhere as their PPR and the rooms let out are in a property that is not the PPR of the owner.

This is from Citizen Advice.

"Your home must be located in the State and you must occupy it as your sole residence during the year of assessment. This means that it is your home for the greater part of the year and is where people would normally expect to make contact with you."

4ensic15

The Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to a property in which the landlord also resides. That is a question of fact applied by the RTB. The revenue may take a different view. keeping a room available in a house and residing in a house are two different things. It would be very foolish to assume that keeping an empty room is a magic formula for avoiding the Tenancies Act.

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Incidentally it's an idea that been completely invented in the Pub by a couple of Barrack Room Lawyers* and an accountant, whose formal qualification was a leaving cert maths. Reserving a room does absolutely nothing to negate the lease or remove rights under the RTA. The actual situation on the ground will always be looked at.

*no one of them wasn't me, I'm not that smart.

Keeping a room and never using it/visiting the house may not (or it might*) be enough to make the people licences if they were to take a case to the RTB but they would have to go all the way with it. On the other hand keeping a room and using it now and again, coming and going from the house regularly will be enough to do so. You don't have to live there full time by any means to have the people living there licensees.

*The fact is rooms let seperately where the LL doesn't even keep a room is still a grey area as to whether the people living there are licensees as it doesn't meet one of the first requirements for a tenancy - exclusive use.

Samuel T. Cogley

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Keeping a room and never using it/visiting the house may not (or it might*) be enough to make the people licences if they were to take a case to the RTB but they would have to go all the way with it. On the other hand keeping a room and using it now and again, coming and going from the house regularly will be enough to do so. You don't have to live there full time by any means to have the people living there licensees.

Emphasis added.

I'd suggest they may need to go further than the RTB but I'm happy to be corrected there. Could the RTB make a decision on this?

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

*The fact is rooms let seperately where the LL doesn't even keep a room is still a grey area as to whether the people living there are licensees as it doesn't meet one of the first requirements for a tenancy - exclusive use.

Chapter Six of the RTA would seem to make it a little less grey?

Robineen

Eric Cartman wrote: »

no matter what the reason, I wouldn't be living there. You'd be on eggshells about everything.

Yes, owner-occupier situations are just that. Lived in one myself, a bit different to what the OP describes, in mine, she was a full time occupier. I put a much needed lamp in the sitting room. The next day when I came from work, I found it left outside my bedroom door. But she didn't like us staying in our rooms all the time, she wanted us to be in the sitting room chatting with her the whole time. Just not to have any personal effects in there, no siree. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't be keen on the situation the OP describes and a room coming available in such a situation should still be described as an owner-occupied house, just so it's all out in the open. I wouldn't like the landlord popping up randomly personally. I'm not sure why it's done really. Rent-a-room can't be claimed and I thought the landlord had to be ordinarily resident there for the tenants to be licensees. I'm not sure really? Just to keep an eye on the gaff, I guess. Bit too micro-managey for my liking.

Samuel T. Cogley

Some points:

*Not all owner occupiers are difficult to live with,
*Not all non-owner occupier housemates are house trained,
*Rent a room (RAR) requires the house to be the LL's PPR,
*Being a licencee does not require the LL to be claiming RAR, or for it to be his PPR, he might just keep a room as a shag-pad or for when he's down from Cavan, however it would have to be used regularly and I'd suggest frequently.
*I'm getting confused by my own acronyms.

Spanish Eyes

Surely for a lot of reasons it is easy to get around.

Especially in a house situation where there are three or four bedrooms and the boxroom, for example is put by for the owner occupier. Thus they qualify for rent a room and no impositions from PRTB etc.

There is no rule AFAIK that insists that the owner of the property should live there full time, as long as it is the owner's PPR.... is there?

Samuel T. Cogley

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Surely for a lot of reasons it is easy to get around.

Especially in a house situation where there are three or four bedrooms and the boxroom, for example is put by for the owner occupier. Thus they qualify for rent a room and no impositions from PRTB etc.

There is no rule AFAIK that insists that the owner of the property should live there full time, as long as it is the owner's PPR.... is there?

The revenue are well know for deciding they're right, some times for years, requiring very long court battles to, the majority of the time, be told they're right. It's extremely satisfying (like recently with property tax) when they're told they're wrong but I wouldn't want to be the one paying the barristers.

Also on this PPR is not some where you spend a drunken Friday night.

Robineen

Oh thanks, Spanish Eyes, didn't see your post before posting mine. Yes, I thought it had to be the landlord principal primary residence for the people living there to be licensees, I just couldn't find where I had read about it.

Robineen

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Some points:

*Not all owner occupiers are difficult to live with,
*Not all non-owner occupier housemates are house trained,
*Rent a room (RAR) requires the house to be the LL's PPR,
*Being a licencee does not require the LL to be claiming RAR, or for it to be his PPR, he might just keep a room as a shag-pad or for when he's down from Cavan, however it would have to be used regularly and I'd suggest frequently.
*I'm getting confused by my own acronyms.

I'm sure some owner-occupiers are grand but in my house-sharing days, after my owner-occupier experience, I had zero interest in living in that situation again. No interest in finding a sound owner-occupier. If needs must, I would have but it would never be something I'd go for I had plenty of choice. I much preferred being on equal footing with the people I lived with.

4ensic15

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Emphasis added.

I'd suggest they may need to go further than the RTB but I'm happy to be corrected there. Could the RTB make a decision on this?



Chapter Six of the RTA would seem to make it a little less grey?

The RTB have ruled on this and have held that the letting of individual rooms meant that there was collectively a lease. This has been ventilated frequently on this forum.

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

Optimalprimerib

I am one of these owner occupiers who has a room reserved as I travel home to it at the weekends. The reason I do this is because my life still revolves around that area, and my career move was a risk at the time incase it didn't work out.

One resident was there two years before this, so I just needed one more in which I was very clear that I would be back most weekends and occasionally during the week. They seem happy enough with that. Plus I keep the rent relatively low for the area it's in.

Samuel T. Cogley

4ensic15 wrote: »

The RTB have ruled on this and have held that the letting of individual rooms meant that there was collectively a lease. This has been ventilated frequently on this forum.

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

Thanks 4ensic, very enlightening. Am I also wrong on my assertion, and putting aside RAR for a second, the LL can not create a licensee relationship even by being there regularly - it would have t be their PPR to dislodge 'RTA rights'?

Thanks again for your info.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

The RTB have ruled on this and have held that the letting of individual rooms meant that there was collectively a lease. This has been ventilated frequently on this forum.

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

This is a specific case and it does no confirm anything. Other cases have ruled the opposite and you have no way of knowing that properly argued case would not be ruled in favour off again as I can see flaws in the finding of the case above myself, it's a very tenant biased finding as usual.

Make that a house rather than an apartment and have 3 rooms fully occupied rather than the person in the case above basically living there alone for most of the time and it looks a very different prospect.

Also it actually has to be taken to the RTB in the first place a lot of people will just agree if they are told they are licensees because they rent rooms seperately.

newacc2015

Robineen wrote: »

Oh thanks, Spanish Eyes, didn't see your post before posting mine. Yes, I thought it had to be the landlord principal primary residence for the people living there to be licensees, I just couldn't find where I had read about it.

People can be licensees in other ways. If you rent them a room, put a cleaner in weekly and give them a short term lease, they are licensees in the eye of the law. As they 'dont have exclusive use'.

JustAThought

If only jobs didn't want you to work at the other end of the country, or to travel 5O% of your time, or your OH lived somewhere terribly close so you could drop in & out like when things were reasonable or you knew your employer would be loyal to you for longer than the lengh of the new contract he had just got you to work for. 'Flexibility' in work is a nightmare for anyone owning a house & having to rent it out to pay the mortgage - of course if you wern't cruxified with all kinds of charges and taxes running into tens of thousands to move it would be a lot easier - but thats only something you learn after you buy and are trapped by an inflexible system & circumstances beyond your control. A two or three way share is also usually less expensive on everyone sharing - bills & rent.

Robineen

padd b1975 wrote: »

I do it if I have a room rented. I work as an international national truck driver so I stay away for at least a month at a time.

Ideally I'd like to rent the property as a whole but if I leave my job then obviously I'll have nowhere to live.

I'd always give a quick text to the tenant a couple of days in advance of my return out of courtesy.

Yeah, that's grand. I also lived in a house with a reserved room and it was the same.

In the scenario where the landlord wants to use the room whenever with no notice, I think they would need to be upfront about that with new tenants. Let them know from the outset that he/she might appear randomly. At least they're informed then and there'd be no strife and the prospective tenant can decide of that living situation is for them.

JustAThought

What - having the person they share with turn up & use the houseshare? How bizzare .

Robineen

JustAThought wrote: »

What - having the person they share with turn up & use the houseshare? How bizzare .

I'm talking about a landlord turning up to use the extra room irregularly. If the house-share isn't advertised as an owner-occupied house, that would be a bit of a shock if you didn't know. And I'm sure you well know that the landlord isn't the same as any other housemate. It's a different dynamic and a living situation not everyone would be keen on. I know I wouldn't be. So, I'd want to know at the beginning so that I can say "Thanks but no thanks!".

4ensic15

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

This is a specific case and it does no confirm anything. Other cases have ruled the opposite and you have no way of knowing that properly argued case would not be ruled in favour off again as I can see flaws in the finding of the case above myself, it's a very tenant biased finding as usual.

You are refusing to accept the decision. It has been approved by the High Court.

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Make that a house rather than an apartment and have 3 rooms fully occupied rather than the person in the case above basically living there alone for most of the time and it looks a very different prospect.

The principle is exactly the same. A bedroom can be a dwelling.

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Also it actually has to be taken to the RTB in the first place a lot of people will just agree if they are told they are licensees because they rent rooms seperately.

Irrelevant to this discussion. This is about landlords trying to avoid a lease situation in the first place. People can agree something and then when there is trouble, off they go to the RTB. The owner has no way of ensuring that his argument will succeed. Given the High Court decision, it looks very unlikely.

76544567

A mate of mine has a 2 bed apartment that was rented out and his is now stuck at below market rate rent since the new rules.

His tenants are going home to Poland so now he has to rent again at below market rate.

His plan is to just rent a room in the apartment at max he is allowed to rent for the entire apartment at and use the other room for when he is in town and it's easier to stay there than go home.

He reckons this way he gets as much as he is allowed to but also gets his crash bad for himself and keeps control of his Property should he want it back. If he does this for a couple.of years he removes the unfair lock on the rent.

I was advising him to just sell up before the rush starts but he likes the idea of his crash pad too much now.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

The principle is exactly the same. A bedroom can be a dwelling.

Which is total bull imo and wide open to be challenged. I will gladly point you to the case if I rent a place by the room in future and a licensee thinks they are otherwise and take a case to the RTB.

steddyeddy

JustAThought wrote: »

What - having the person they share with turn up & use the houseshare? How bizzare .

If it's a houseshare it's owner occupied. Some people here are saying it's not. Seems like a having your cake and eating it scenario.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

If it's a houseshare it's owner occupied. Some people here are saying it's not. Seems like a having your cake and eating it scenario.

Being owner occupied does not change the fact it's a houseshare. It would be wise to say noting about being the owner judging by many of the replies here.

Lumen

It seems to me to be fairly obvious that the reason we provide rent-a-room licensees with drastically fewer protections than tenants is because in the licensee case we are trying to balance two people's right to their home, whereas in a tenant case we balance the strong right to their home against the weaker right of a landlord to enjoy income from their business.

We all know instinctively what "the home" means. It's the principal place you retreat to for shelter. It's where you keep your most treasured personal belongings.

A holiday home is a home, not the home.

Some people have complicated lives which makes owning several properties for their personal use more convenient. That's not the same as saying that each one of these is their home.

I don't see anything posted which suggests an inconsistency between Revenue and RTB policy. You don't pay capital gains on your home. You don't pay income tax on reasonable amounts of rent from rooms in your home. You get to kick out tenants if a rented property is going to become your home.

76544567

Does the grounds for termination of tenancy use the word "Home" or "Use"?

Lumen

76544567 wrote: »

Does the grounds for termination of tenancy use the word "Home" or "Use"?

Try kicking out a tenant because you want to "use" the property for storage and let us know how you get on.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Try kicking out a tenant because you want to "use" the property for storage and let us know how you get on.

I'd be very confident that they could be "kicked out" for this reasons. The term is requiring the property for your own use, use does not mean making it your PPR.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Try kicking out a tenant because you want to "use" the property for storage and let us know how you get on.

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

I'd be very confident that they could be "kicked out" for this reasons. The term is requiring the property for your own use, use does not mean making it your PPR.

Really? Here's a RTB sample termination notice:

6. Notice of Termination for when Landlord Requires Dwelling for Own or Family Use
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0

4. The landlord requires the dwelling for own or family member occupation

And Section 34:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/34/enacted/en/html

4. The landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or her own occupation or for occupation by a member of his or her family and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—

(a) specifying—

(i) the intended occupant's identity and (if not the landlord) his or her relationship to the landlord, and

(ii) the expected duration of that occupation,

and

(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) the dwelling is vacated by the person referred to in subparagraph (a) within the period of 6 months from expiry of the period of notice required to be given by the notice or, if a dispute in relation to the validity of the notice was referred to the Board under Part 6 for resolution, the final determination of the dispute, and

(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Really? Here's a RTB sample termination notice:

6. Notice of Termination for when Landlord Requires Dwelling for Own or Family Use
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0



And Section 34:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/34/enacted/en/html

Occupation is a fairly broad term.

steddyeddy

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Being owner occupied does not change the fact it's a houseshare. It would be wise to say noting about being the owner judging by many of the replies here.

A previous poster stated it wouldn't have to be advertised as owner occupied. It either is or isn't.

Lumen

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Occupation is a fairly broad term.

Just to be clear, are you confident that the RTB would uphold a notice of termination which stated that the property was to be used for storage of the landlord's possessions?

Yes or no.

testaccount123

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Occupation is a fairly broad term.

No it isn't

steddyeddy

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

Occupation is a fairly broad term.

In an academic sense not a legal sense.

testaccount123

testaccount123 wrote: »

No it isn't

If I am using an a property I'm occupying it.

If I wanted the use of a shed on a property that would be grounds to end the tenancy on the property imo. I'm not saying the RTB would defiantly agree but imo they should.

Lumen wrote: »

Just to be clear, are you confident that the RTB would uphold a notice of termination which stated that the property was to be used for storage of the landlord's possessions?

Yes or no.

Yes, termination of the tenancy as the property is require for my own use. Now if your asking would I say that on the notice probably no as it would be less hassle to just say I was moving in.

Lumen

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

If I am using an a property I'm occupying it.

If I wanted the use of a shed on a property that would be grounds to end the tenancy on the property imo. I'm not saying the RTB would defiantly agree but imo they should.

And therein less the problem. You're arguing from a position of how you personally would like the world to be rather than the intent of the law or how it is applied in practice.

Nobody in their right mind would kick out a tenant on the grounds of using a property for storage, and nobody in their right mind would take a case against the Revenue claiming rent a room relief on a property in which their only "occupation" was the use of a spare bedroom for storage.

steddyeddy

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

If I am using an a property I'm occupying it.

If I wanted the use of a shed on a property that would be grounds to end the tenancy on the property imo. I'm not saying the RTB would defiantly agree but imo they should.



Yes, termination of the tenancy as the property is require for my own use. Now if your asking would I say that on the notice probably no as it would be less hassle to just say I was moving in.

Well then it's simple. Any property with a reserved room is owner occupied and should be advertised as such.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

And therein less the problem. You're arguing from a position of how you personally would like the world to be rather than the intent of the law or how it is applied in practice.

Nobody in their right mind would kick out a tenant on the grounds of using a property for storage, and nobody in their right mind would take a case against the Revenue claiming rent a room relief on a property in which their only "occupation" was the use of a spare bedroom for storage.

You can't use rent a room relief as a reason for deciding on issues as it is perfectly possible to have a situation where it doesn't apply as the people are still licensees.

steddyeddy

To be honest I don't find the whole reserved room thing acceptable unless it's advertised as owner occupied. It seems very dodgy.

Samuel T. Cogley

Carolina Howling Ale wrote: »

You can't use rent a room relief as a reason for deciding on issues as it is perfectly possible to have a situation where it doesn't apply as the people are still licensees.

I'm not so sure of that any more and I think you'd have to have very regular and frequent use. For example someone who was only up in Dublin at the weekends using a room. Popping an old bed and a sofa in a room locking it and saying "Ah shure you're a licencee" is very unlikely to cut it IMHO. The same as turning up once in a blue moon will likely be seen as nothing but a cynical ploy to defeat the RTA.

Normally I'd say your interpretation is a good as mine, but I wonder if you've fully appreciated how pro-tenant the prevailing attitudes are these days?

76544567

Lumen wrote: »

Try kicking out a tenant because you want to "use" the property for storage and let us know how you get on.

Oh, you mean the way landlords are held to the letter of the law, but it is bent for tenants with ease.

I hear ya.

Samuel T. Cogley

76544567 wrote: »

Oh, you mean the way landlords are held to the letter of the law, but it is bent for tenants with ease.

I hear ya.

To be fair, even a cursory glance (because that's all I gave it) you see a very common sense approach taken to similar situations in England and Ireland over the last 100 or more years. For want of a better term, it's clear to everyone when a LL is taking the p***.