Licencee Agreement, Why Not Lease?

DaveyDave

Hi all,

Found a great apartment to rent with the GF but it's not a lease and is a licence agreement. In short, I'm not renting an apartment but paying the owner for permission to stay in the property and that's it. I could be moved at anytime, I have no tenant rights, nothing to do with the PTRB etc.

Why is this legal? I'd be renting (for arguments sake) the whole apartment. They're free to come and go as they please, for maintenance work as they said, as this is technically their home. They won't be staying there. I don't agree with this because I don't have any security as I could be moved at any time and couldn't they just let someone else live in the second room if they wanted? Also I work shifts, including nights. I don't want the landlord showing up unannounced to work on the bloody boiler while I'm sleeping after a 12 hour night shift or if something is going on in the bedroom...

I'm also worried that because I work 12 hour shifts and with herself at work there would be periods of time where nobody is there. The apartment is well looked after and the owners seem genuine, but the whole licensee aspect of it is ridiculously shady in terms of being a "tenant".

I can't imagine they'd be over often, but for all I know it could go completely south if I agree to stay there...

What's the purpose of doing this instead of doing a lease, and letting the occupant have some rights and some peace of mind?

Pkiernan

This is a scam to avoid his legal responsibility.
If he or and agent if his is not living there, then you will acquire Part IV rights once you have been there 6 months.

Mrs OBumble

It gives the LL some peace of mind that if you ever stop paying it won't take years to get you out.

I'm not sure if its legal or not but I can see why they're trying it.

miezekatze

If you're renting the whole apartment and the landlord isn't living there then you're a tenant, not a licensee. The landlord can't have it both ways. Either they live there with you or you're a tenant.

Muahahaha

miezekatze wrote: »

If you're renting the whole apartment and the landlord isn't living there then you're a tenant, not a licensee. The landlord can't have it both ways. Either they live there with you or you're a tenant.

Pretty much this. The landlord is trying to pull a fast one. A renter could agree to being a licensee but if there was a dispute down the road with the RTB involved they would not accept that the renter was a licensee, they are a tenant.

When you rent an apartment without the landlord living there the only thing you are a licensee of is the balcony. Anything inside and youre a tenant.

DaveyDave

I'll have to look into this a bit, but if I sign documents saying I'm a licencee would that not rule out officially being a tenant? Or what about them being on the property freely without permission, would that not allow them to stay as the owner, giving me permission to stay and keep me from being a tenant?

Graham

DaveyDave wrote: »

I'll have to look into this a bit, but if I sign documents saying I'm a licencee would that not rule out officially being a tenant?

No, you can't sign away rights granted under the residential tenancies act.

Sounds like your landlord is trying to be clever in some misguided attempt at restricting your rights.

murphaph

If the landlord made use of the property every now and again it would be very difficult to claim the op is a tenant. The property doesn't need to be the landlord's principal residence for him to take a lodger.

It is obviously trying to work around the spirit of the law but I wouldn't assume as the op that I would acquire part IV rights at all. Better just move on and look elsewhere.

Graham

murphaph wrote: »

If the landlord made use of the property every now and again it would be very difficult to claim the op is a tenant. The property doesn't need to be the landlord's principal residence for him to take a lodger.

There is a determination on the RTB website covering pretty much this exact scenario.

Landlord attempted to claim the tenant was a licensee because they retained a room for storage and had occasional access.

RTB found that a tenancy existed.

That makes sense when you think about it otherwise half the landlords in the country would retain access for 'maintenance' and claim no tenancy existed.

murphaph

Graham wrote: »

There is a determination on the RTB website covering pretty much this exact scenario.

Landlord attempted to claim the tenant was a licensee because they retained a room for storage and had occasional access.

RTB found that a tenancy existed.

That makes sense when you think about it otherwise half the landlords in the country would retain access for 'maintenance' and claim no tenancy existed.

But if he slept in the room occasionally, then what?

By the way an RTB determination sets no precedence in law. They are not a court.

If I own a house in Wicklow and one apartment in Dublin and I make most use of my house but decide to take a lodger in my lesser used apartment, it's still a licencee scenario IMO.

If a landlord had 40 apartments in Dublin and tried to make out that he needed to occasionally sleep in all of them then it would be difficult for a court to accept.

We don't know into which category the OP's landlord may fit but the RTB don't get to make up law.

Graham

murphaph wrote: »

But if he slept in the room occasionally, then what?.

OP stated they won't be staying there.

murphaph wrote: »

By the way an RTB determination sets no precedence in law. They are not a court.

Fascinating factoid but probably not relevant unless you know the landlord is going to fight an RTB determination through the courts.

Muahahaha

Graham wrote: »

Fascinating factoid but probably not relevant unless you know the landlord is going to fight an RTB determination through the courts.

As far as I know I dont think it is possible to fight a RTB tribunal decision through the courts, once they make a judgement the only thing you can appeal on is a point of law to the High Court. Bar that caveat their decision is final.

Varik

Owner doesn't have to live there.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/registration-docs/licensees.pdf?sfvrsn=2

rtb wrote:

persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal
licence 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, and

murphaph

Muahahaha wrote: »

As far as I know I dont think it is possible to fight a RTB tribunal decision through the courts, once they make a judgement the only thing you can appeal on is a point of law to the High Court. Bar that caveat their decision is final.

Not really. Enforcement proceedings must be issued by the circuit court and they can overturn the decision of the tribunal if they believe the decision was erroneous.

Graham

Varik wrote: »

Owner doesn't have to live there.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/registration-docs/licensees.pdf?sfvrsn=2

OP will have exclusive use, good luck to the landlord trying to argue it's not a tenancy.

Varik

Graham wrote: »

OP will have exclusive use, good luck to the landlord trying to argue it's not a tenancy.

What OP said literally matches the RTB definition.

OP mentioned a second room and never mentioned exclusive use of the whole apartment only they would currently be the only ones, and that the landlord would have access. It needs more than the contract saying license, the terms would have to match the intent.

4ensic15

murphaph wrote: »

By the way an RTB determination sets no precedence in law. They are not a court.



We don't know into which category the OP's landlord may fit but the RTB don't get to make up law.

The RTB tries to make their decisions consistent, so what they decide in one case or a series of cases is likely to be of a high precedent value in future cases. the courts regard the RTB as an expert body and accord it judicial deference. Not alone do the RTB look at the agreement but also how it works on the ground. By the time it gets to a dispute there will be an established pattern. That is what will infor the RTb. No landlord has yet brought a case to the High Court on a point of law, only tenants have. From that point of view it is a reasonable working assumption for a landlord to make that the RTB do make the law.

Muahahaha

murphaph wrote: »

Not really. Enforcement proceedings must be issued by the circuit court and they can overturn the decision of the tribunal if they believe the decision was erroneous.

Wasnt aware of this. Im through adjucation and the tenancy tribunal and the barrister said the enforcement proceedings in the Circuit are a formality as I have an Order from the RTB. Told me also that that the other side has no-where to go except appeal to the High Court on a point of law. Just giving my experience but I am told that once you have an Order from the RTB then the case is closed, with the exception of a High Court appeal on a point of law.

murphaph

Muahahaha wrote: »

Wasnt aware of this. Im through adjucation and the tenancy tribunal and the barrister said the enforcement proceedings in the Circuit are a formality as I have an Order from the RTB. Told me also that that the other side has no-where to go except appeal to the High Court on a point of law. Just giving my experience but I am told that once you have an Order from the RTB then the case is closed, with the exception of a High Court appeal on a point of law.

If the decision was manifestly erroneous the circuit court can refuse to issue proceedings. It's all written in the act. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/124/enacted/en/html

Bubbaclaus

I'd sign up and say nothing. When the landlord tries to pull a fast one then down the line you can bring up the fact it was never a licensee agreement and you have tenants rights. By that time you will have Part IV and there will be fcuk all they can do about it.

SuperS54

If the OP is effectively only sharing the apartment rather than exclusively renting wouldn't the landlord have to pay 50% of bills, such as electricity, TV, water(!), etc.? Without any contribution to bills it would seem impossible for the landlord to argue that they "lived" there, even only occasionally.

accensi0n

Em, move on and rent somewhere else.... why would you want to live there with a landlord like that?

Askthe EA

It's possible the LL isnt trying to circumvent tenancy law necessarily but is trying to circumvent tax / cgt liabilities.

Dodgy eitherway.

TheAnalyst_

The second they hand you the keys and you get in that door you now have an exclusive tenancy. Dopey landlord.