Text Message - Please Vacate

FortuneChip

I'm currently sharing an apartment (almost a year)with two other tenants (each paying rent per room separately - not subletting from either/or).

Both other tenants have made independent decisions to move out (one with an other half, the second with a friend) at the end of the month.

They told the landlord this, who in turn sent me a text message the other night
"A & B are leaving the apt at the end of the month. I am not re-letting the rooms at this point, so you will need to vacate as well"

I replied, rhetorically asking was I not entitled to see out my one year lease (finishing at the end of July) as three weeks notice is not sufficient.

I was told if I needed a few extra days, that wouldn't be a problem.

It's a bit of an assumption, but I fully expect to see this property up for rent as a single unit (rather than three bedrooms) shortly after vacating.

My main issue isn't necessarily being asked to leave (although, obviously a decent size inconvenience), but the manner (text message) and reasoning (again, assumed), make me feel a little poorly treated.

I'm also concerned that someone annoyed that I haven't bent to their will may try find reasons as to why I wouldn't be entitled to my deposit back at the end of my lease. It's an old property, and while I maintain the areas I use well, I'm sure someone cynical enough could try find fault.

srsly78

Would you prefer if they insisted you remain and pay the full rent?

rawn

srsly78 wrote:

Would you prefer if they insisted you remain and pay the full rent?

Why would he do that, he's renting a room not the whole apartment and therefore only has to pay for a room. If the ll wants the other two rooms empty then he'll have to swallow the loss until OP moves out of his own accord, or at the end of the correct notice period, which must be in writing and be for any of the reasons under Part IV.

rawn

rawn wrote: »

Why would he do that, he's renting a room not the whole apartment ...............

No rights so.

rawn

Augeo wrote:

No rights so.

Renting a room, not rent-a-room as in the ll lives there.

davindub

FortuneChip wrote: »

I'm currently sharing an apartment (almost a year)with two other tenants (each paying rent per room separately - not subletting from either/or).

Both other tenants have made independent decisions to move out (one with an other half, the second with a friend) at the end of the month.

They told the landlord this, who in turn sent me a text message the other night
"A & B are leaving the apt at the end of the month. I am not re-letting the rooms at this point, so you will need to vacate as well"

I replied, rhetorically asking was I not entitled to see out my one year lease (finishing at the end of July) as three weeks notice is not sufficient.

I was told if I needed a few extra days, that wouldn't be a problem.

It's a bit of an assumption, but I fully expect to see this property up for rent as a single unit (rather than three bedrooms) shortly after vacating.

My main issue isn't necessarily being asked to leave (although, obviously a decent size inconvenience), but the manner (text message) and reasoning (again, assumed), make me feel a little poorly treated.

I'm also concerned that someone annoyed that I haven't bent to their will may try find reasons as to why I wouldn't be entitled to my deposit back at the end of my lease. It's an old property, and while I maintain the areas I use well, I'm sure someone cynical enough could try find fault.

Google part 4 rights and the RTB.

Marcusm

Augeo wrote: »

No rights so.

Yprovided he has been there 6 months he has all the usual rights. If the LL has let the rooms individually not collectively, the tenants will not generally be responsible for the full rent but will have security of tenure.

Michael D Not Higgins

OP, what does your lease say? If it is not jointly and severally liable with the other tenants for the whole rent and you each have separate leases with respect to your individual portions of rent you are entitled to stay and continue paying rent at your normal level.

You must be given a valid notice of termination if the landlord wishes you to leave. Since you are there more than 6 months, you have Part 4 security of tenure and can only be given notice with respect to the reasons allowable by the table in the RTA 2004. See more here.

whomitconcerns

Erm no. ... You can't have that for one room in a house. If you are renting a room you do not have exclusive usage of an individual property and you won't have tenancy rights

the_syco

whomitconcerns wrote: »

you won't have tenancy rights

Why do you say this? He's a tenant, not a licensee, as he's renting a room where the LL doesn't live there as well.

Mrs OBumble

OP the legals are all very sweet.

But if you won't go. what do you expect the LL will do with the other two rooms? He could find some right pr*cks to move in, and make your life miserable.

Also, are you prepared to pay the full daily charge for electricity / gas? You might be surprised to find out just how much of the bill these make up.

I get that you're annoyed and that it's inconvenient. But do yourself a favour and focus on finding somewhere else to live, rather than stewing on the legalities. It's a way more productive way to live your life.

Marcusm

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Erm no. ... You can't have that for one room in a house. If you are renting a room you do not have exclusive usage of an individual property and you won't have tenancy rights

If the occupants/tenants/whatever collectively possess the property to the exclusion of the landlord for a period of 6 months they each gain part 4 rights exercisable collectively and individually. The fact that the LL has accepted a termination from the other tenant's doesn't impinge on the OP's part 4 rights. It's another example of how LL needs to be very careful in organising his affairs.

mrslancaster

is it OK to send notice by text? thought notice has to be in writing.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

If the occupants/tenants/whatever collectively possess the property to the exclusion of the landlord for a period of 6 months they each gain part 4 rights exercisable collectively and individually. The fact that the LL has accepted a termination from the other tenant's doesn't impinge on the OP's part 4 rights. It's another example of how LL needs to be very careful in organising his affairs.

Very debatable inteperation imo. None of them have exclusive use, one can move out and a new person move in how could that happen if there was exclusive use. The have exclusive use of their bedrooms only and shared use of common areas. Still a major grey area imo.

Also just to really throw the cat among the pigeons, the LL has two spare rooms that need filling he can simply move in himself or move in one of his children thus immediately rendering the op a licensee for sure. The LL has the right to fill these rooms and if he chooses to do so by moving in himself then there is nothing to stop him as the op has no say whatsoever over who fills them.

the_syco

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I get that you're annoyed and that it's inconvenient. But do yourself a favour and focus on finding somewhere else to live, rather than stewing on the legalities. It's a way more productive way to live your life.

Agreed. The LL could turn the rads of the other two rooms up to max, and leave the lights on. And then lock the doors. You'd be hit with a large bill, as you'll be the only one paying the bills.

It's sh|te, but getting out is probably the less stressful solution.

mikemac2

The OP has a lease for their room until end of July and the landlord wants them out end of June.

The landlord seems to think it's generous to possibly give a few extra days at the start of July if needed :rolleyes:

The landlord is breaking the lease here , relax until end of July OP. If the landlord wants to break the lease and get you out they can pay you off with some deal

whomitconcerns

Marcusm wrote: »

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Erm no. ... You can't have that for one room in a house. If you are renting a room you do not have exclusive usage of an individual property and you won't have tenancy rights

If the occupants/tenants/whatever collectively possess the property to the exclusion of the landlord for a period of 6 months they each gain part 4 rights exercisable collectively and individually. The fact that the LL has accepted a termination from the other tenant's doesn't impinge on the OP's part 4 rights. It's another example of how LL needs to be very careful in organising his affairs.

But the key phrase there is exclusive use of the property. The op does not have this. He has a "lease" for a room. So part 4 could not apply.

ShaShaBear

whomitconcerns wrote: »

But the key phrase there is exclusive use of the property. The op does not have this. He has a "lease" for a room. So part 4 could not apply.

Of course it could, you're simply not listening. He, and the other tenants, have exclusive use of the property. When the landlord lives in, it's different. He is still a tenant, not a licencee. I had exactly the same set-up for a year when I house-shared and was fully covered under tenancy law because each of the tenants signed a separate contract dictating their move-in date, the length of their tenancy and how much rent they were paying each.

Michael D Not Higgins

This is a case of multiple tenants. The RTA 2004 has a clear set of rules around this in Chapter 6 of Part 4.

Cuddlesworth

the_syco wrote: »

Why do you say this? He's a tenant, not a licensee, as he's renting a room where the LL doesn't live there as well.

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Of course it could, you're simply not listening. He, and the other tenants, have exclusive use of the property. When the landlord lives in, it's different. He is still a tenant, not a licencee. I had exactly the same set-up for a year when I house-shared and was fully covered under tenancy law because each of the tenants signed a separate contract dictating their move-in date, the length of their tenancy and how much rent they were paying each.

Nope, not that clear.

RTB wrote:

What is a Licensee?
A licensee is a person who occupies accommodation under license. Licensees can arise in all sorts of accommodation but most commonly in the following four areas;

1. persons staying in hotels, guesthouses, hostels, etc.,
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, and
4. persons staying in rented accommodation at the invitation of the tenant.

So basically if the landlord chooses the other tenants and offer no exclusivity to the shared spaces the person is a licensee under point 3, regardless of the landlord living there or not. It never gets to the RTB to even make a judgement on it. There are some cases there, but in those instances the tenant always had some form of say during their tenancy of who could come and go, or when the landlord was allowed into the place.

Most landlords in Dublin I know are now doing this. They hire cleaners and repairmen etc who come and go as they please, they visit to inspect when they want. The tenancy agreement does not have a term in it and makes it clear they are a licensee.

In the ops case, the landlord gave them a fixed term lease and probably registered them with the RTB(I hope). So they could use that to show they are not a licensee or at least they they shouldn't have to leave before end of July.

LuckyLloyd

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Most landlords in Dublin I know are now doing this. They hire cleaners and repairmen etc who come and go as they please, they visit to inspect when they want. The tenancy agreement does not have a term in it and makes it clear they are a licensee.

Just went through a period of finding a new place - seems to be plenty of places going on Daft that don't sit within the above statement.

ForestFire

my Mind Elsewhere

Michael D Not Higgins

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Nope, not that clear.



So basically if the landlord chooses the other tenants and offer no exclusivity to the shared spaces the person is a licensee under point 3, regardless of the landlord living there or not. It never gets to the RTB to even make a judgement on it. There are some cases there, but in those instances the tenant always had some form of say during their tenancy of who could come and go, or when the landlord was allowed into the place.

Most landlords in Dublin I know are now doing this. They hire cleaners and repairmen etc who come and go as they please, they visit to inspect when they want. The tenancy agreement does not have a term in it and makes it clear they are a licensee.

In the ops case, the landlord gave them a fixed term lease and probably registered them with the RTB(I hope). So they could use that to show they are not a licensee or at least they they shouldn't have to leave before end of July.

The RTB take a holistic view of when it is a tenancy or a licence. You may say it's a licence because of what's on the RTB site, however this is a guidance document and not legislative.

In other word, if it's a grey area they will look at the entire agreement and determine if it's a tenancy. There's nothing posted so far that would indicate to me that the OP entered into a licence.

davindub

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Nope, not that clear.



So basically if the landlord chooses the other tenants and offer no exclusivity to the shared spaces the person is a licensee under point 3, regardless of the landlord living there or not. It never gets to the RTB to even make a judgement on it. There are some cases there, but in those instances the tenant always had some form of say during their tenancy of who could come and go, or when the landlord was allowed into the place.

Most landlords in Dublin I know are now doing this. They hire cleaners and repairmen etc who come and go as they please, they visit to inspect when they want. The tenancy agreement does not have a term in it and makes it clear they are a licensee.

In the ops case, the landlord gave them a fixed term lease and probably registered them with the RTB(I hope). So they could use that to show they are not a licensee or at least they they shouldn't have to leave before end of July.

(b) Consequently a “self-contained residential unit” must mean a unit which enables the person residing there to have all the essentials for living ie for sleeping, washing, cooking, toiletry and relaxing. The fact that the person does not have an exclusive right to those facilities, does not render the unit less than a “self-contained residential unit”. In fact, the word “exclusive” appears in only one section of the 2004 Act ie section 12(1)(a) which deals with the obligation of the landlord to allow a tenant to enjoy peaceful and “exclusive occupation” of the dwelling. In our view the words “exclusive occupation” have to be interpreted as excluding other persons who have no
right to such occupation, rather than “exclusive occupation” being necessary to create a tenancy to which the 2004 Act applies.

We find as a matter of fact in this case, that the Appellant Tenant had an exclusive right to occupation of a bedroom and a non-exclusive right to other rooms in the unit ie bathroom, kitchen, and living room, which she was required to share with whoever else might have right from time to time to exclusive occupation of the other bedroom. As the Appellant Tenant was paying rent to the Respondent Landlord this right, we find as a matter of law that there was a tenancy of a “dwelling” within the definition of the 2004 Act as it was a “self-contained residential unit” and consequently the PRTB and this Tribunal has jurisdiction in relation to a dispute in relation to the tenancy.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

(b) Consequently a ?self-contained residential unit? must mean a unit which enables the person residing there to have all the essentials for living ie for sleeping, washing, cooking, toiletry and relaxing. The fact that the person does not have an exclusive right to those facilities, does not render the unit less than a ?self-contained residential unit?. In fact, the word ?exclusive? appears in only one section of the 2004 Act ie section 12(1)(a) which deals with the obligation of the landlord to allow a tenant to enjoy peaceful and ?exclusive occupation? of the dwelling. In our view the words ?exclusive occupation? have to be interpreted as excluding other persons who have no
right to such occupation, rather than ?exclusive occupation? being necessary to create a tenancy to which the 2004 Act applies.

We find as a matter of fact in this case, that the Appellant Tenant had an exclusive right to occupation of a bedroom and a non-exclusive right to other rooms in the unit ie bathroom, kitchen, and living room, which she was required to share with whoever else might have right from time to time to exclusive occupation of the other bedroom. As the Appellant Tenant was paying rent to the Respondent Landlord this right, we find as a matter of law that there was a tenancy of a ?dwelling? within the definition of the 2004 Act as it was a ?self-contained residential unit? and consequently the PRTB and this Tribunal has jurisdiction in relation to a dispute in relation to the tenancy.

And if the LL decides to move into the spare room himself, as is his right to becuse the LL is free to move people in and out while the a person renting another room in the house has zero say as they are renting just a room.

The person is then living with their LL and can't be anything but a licensee. So people may claim it's a tenancy but it's not really as it's so easy to dissolve. At best it's a tenancy while all rooms are occupied.

Cuddlesworth

davindub wrote: »

(b) Consequently a ?self-contained residential unit? must mean a unit which enables the person residing there to have all the essentials for living ie for sleeping, washing, cooking, toiletry and relaxing. The fact that the person does not have an exclusive right to those facilities, does not render the unit less than a ?self-contained residential unit?. In fact, the word ?exclusive? appears in only one section of the 2004 Act ie section 12(1)(a) which deals with the obligation of the landlord to allow a tenant to enjoy peaceful and ?exclusive occupation? of the dwelling. In our view the words ?exclusive occupation? have to be interpreted as excluding other persons who have no
right to such occupation, rather than ?exclusive occupation? being necessary to create a tenancy to which the 2004 Act applies.

We find as a matter of fact in this case, that the Appellant Tenant had an exclusive right to occupation of a bedroom and a non-exclusive right to other rooms in the unit ie bathroom, kitchen, and living room, which she was required to share with whoever else might have right from time to time to exclusive occupation of the other bedroom. As the Appellant Tenant was paying rent to the Respondent Landlord this right, we find as a matter of law that there was a tenancy of a ?dwelling? within the definition of the 2004 Act as it was a ?self-contained residential unit? and consequently the PRTB and this Tribunal has jurisdiction in relation to a dispute in relation to the tenancy.

TR168.2011.DR92.2011 ?

Its thrown around a lot as the argument to "I'm not a licensee" and I have a huge post somewhere here talking about it, but seriously read it. Not the result but the case as it was presented.

Cuddlesworth

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

And if the LL decides to move into the spare room himself, as is his right to becuse the LL is free to move people in and out while the a person renting another room in the house has zero say as they are renting just a room.

The person is then living with their LL and can't be anything but a licensee. So people may claim it's a tenancy but it's not really as it's so easy to dissolve. At best it's a tenancy while all rooms are occupied.

Nope, moving into a house does not make a person suddenly a licensee. Not if they had exclusive use before then. Read the report above.

oppenheimer1

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Just went through a period of finding a new place - seems to be plenty of places going on Daft that don't sit within the above statement.

There are plenty of places that are and having lived in an arrangement like this in the past and it is a nightmare. Its one step up in living with an owner occupier tbh. The details of the arrangement are only sprung on you as you are given the lease. Tell tale signs to watch out for: a regular cleaner for common spaces by the LL, a pinergy/coin meter for electricity and gas, individual rooms advertised and shown by the landlord not the other tenants.

They are usually advertised as house shares so its not immediately obvious to the prospective tenant/licensee what they are getting into. There is no peaceful enjoyment of your home in these places.

Michael D Not Higgins

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

And if the LL decides to move into the spare room himself, as is his right to becuse the LL is free to move people in and out while the a person renting another room in the house has zero say as they are renting just a room.

The person is then living with their LL and can't be anything but a licensee. So people may claim it's a tenancy but it's not really as it's so easy to dissolve. At best it's a tenancy while all rooms are occupied.

If the tenancy existed beforehand, this would be a method of terminating the tenancy not allowed by the RTA and thus would be invalid. The only way a tenant could be converted to a licensee in this manner would be notice of termination for the landlord's own use (or use by relative) followed by a licence agreement after the landlord moved in.

Varik

If it was a tenancy/exclusive use in the first place you couldn't move in to make it a license.

I think the argument he put forward was that if you'd set everything up as a licences according the RTA guidelines correctly and could move in to either replace someone or to a vacant room then by doing so you'd be just reaffirming that it was a license.

Michael D Not Higgins

Varik wrote: »

If it was a tenancy/exclusive use in the first place you couldn't move in to make it a license.

I think the argument he put forward was that if you'd set everything up as a licences according the RTA guidelines correctly and could move in to either replace someone or to a vacant room then by doing so you'd be just reaffirming that it was a license.

And again I point to the RTA section on multiple tenants and how nothing in the OP would lead anyone to thinking it is a licence agreement.

This has become a hobby of some posters to try and foist a licence on any grey areas where an OP has not expanded further on their lease or arrangements with the landlord.

3 people renting rooms in an apartment where the landlord isn't living is over 99% of the time a tenancy. Unless they give a detail that hints otherwise, there doesn't need to be a debate on whether it's a licence or not.

davindub

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

TR168.2011.DR92.2011 ?

Its thrown around a lot as the argument to "I'm not a licensee" and I have a huge post somewhere here talking about it, but seriously read it. Not the result but the case as it was presented.

Yep it was from there. I couldn't see the post you were talking about easily and I don't have time to go look for it.

I normally wouldn't place much weight on the RTB decisions, but this one was discussed at HC in connection with another case.

I believe the approach has differed at times but the above matches the effect of the RTB act which is:

all self contained dwellings are included in the act except where the stated exceptions in the act apply. None of the exceptions state exclusive possession.

I have seen arguments regarding having a cleaner come in removes the RTB act, also that short term lettings are outside the act, etc, but never a case or term in the act to explain where the argument came from. I wouldn't take risks based on that.

Michael D Not Higgins

davindub wrote: »

Yep it was from there. I couldn't see the post you were talking about easily and I don't have time to go look for it.

I normally wouldn't place much weight on the RTB decisions, but this one was discussed at HC in connection with another case.

I believe the approach has differed at times but the above matches the effect of the RTB act which is:

all self contained dwellings are included in the act except where the stated exceptions in the act apply. None of the exceptions state exclusive possession.

I have seen arguments regarding having a cleaner come in removes the RTB act, also that short term lettings are outside the act, etc, but never a case or term in the act to explain where the argument came from. I wouldn't take risks based on that.

Indeed, basing it on a poor RTB guidance document rather than the legislation is bound to end in misery.

Marcusm

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

Very debatable inteperation imo. None of them have exclusive use, one can move out and a new person move in how could that happen if there was exclusive use. The have exclusive use of their bedrooms only and shared use of common areas. Still a major grey area imo.

Also just to really throw the cat among the pigeons, the LL has two spare rooms that need filling he can simply move in himself or move in one of his children thus immediately rendering the op a licensee for sure. The LL has the right to fill these rooms and if he chooses to do so by moving in himself then there is nothing to stop him as the op has no say whatsoever over who fills them.

I guess you missed the word "collectively".

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

If the tenancy existed beforehand, this would be a method of terminating the tenancy not allowed by the RTA and thus would be invalid. The only way a tenant could be converted to a licensee in this manner would be notice of termination for the landlord's own use (or use by relative) followed by a licence agreement after the landlord moved in.

A person living with their LL is a licensee. A person who rents a room and only a room is a tenant (according to some). A spare room becomes available and the owner moves in. The person who people claim is a tenant is now living with the owner so how can they still be a tenant, it's not compatible with the definition.

I didn't mean the owner would seek to terminate the tenancy either, I meant it would just cease to exist.

Marcusm wrote: »

I guess you missed the word "collectively".

Collectively and exclusive are two words that can't be used togeather, I don't care if the RTB ruled this way it's nonsense and needs to be challenged as being wrong.

FortuneChip

OP back - Plan is to move out at the end of June, provided I can find a place. As stated, to avoid any unnecessary hassle.

But, even if my lease didn't cover me until July 27th, three weeks is not sufficient notice.

From talking to my housemates, the LL isn't the most "experienced" in any of this, so it may be sheer ignorance that their not aware of tenant rights here. But simple decency to make a phone call, or provide something in writing, especially if they're hoping I can vacate at three week's notice.

Murrisk

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

A person living with their LL is a licensee. A person who rents a room and only a room is a tenant (according to some). A spare room becomes available and the owner moves in. The person who people claim is a tenant is now living with the owner so how can they still be a tenant, it's not compatible with the definition.

I didn't mean the owner would seek to terminate the tenancy either, I meant it would just cease to exist.

I think the tenant could probably say no to that. It doesn't seem to be a valid reason to end a tenancy.

Does anyone here know? I'd be interested to know, useful information to have.

Murrisk

Murrisk wrote: »

I think the tenant could probably say no to that. It doesn't seem to be a valid reason to end a tenancy.

Does anyone here know? I'd be interested to know, useful information to have.

But how can they say no? The rooms are vacant and the LL is entitled to fill them he can pick anyone in the world he wants so i can't see why he can't pick himself.

This valid reason stuff is only confusing matters. I'm simply saying the LL moves in and starts living there, not (initially anyway) giving any termination notice or anything just living there.

Murrisk

Well, it ends a tenancy. And the tenant goes from having rights to not having them. That's no small thing and it doesn't seem right to take away tenancy rights like that. It seems like it couldn't be done without asking the tenants, I don't think, but I'm waiting for someone with more knowledge of this to weigh in. And many people avoid owner-occupation situations when searching for accommodation so I don't think people would be too happy to find out that they are now living with the landlord. I suppose though that they could then take advantage of the change from tenant to licensee status to move out quickly and not breach any notice rules that would have applied to tenants.

jimd2

From experience, you will be surprised how much rights that you actually have. I know of cases where 'tenants' in much weaker positions have held on for many months by being belligerent and / or involving a solicitor.

Go to your solicitor. Get him or her to write to the landlord informing him that you have a lease until July with an expectation that it will be extended. Tell the solicitor to inform the LL that any further communication be through said solicitor.


And look into getting a new place in a timeframe that suits YOU and not the landlord.

And to those on the landlord's side that dont agree I say thems the ups and downs of renting a place out.

jimd2

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

But how can they say no? The rooms are vacant and the LL is entitled to fill them he can pick anyone in the world he wants so i can't see why he can't pick himself.

This valid reason stuff is only confusing matters. I'm simply saying the LL moves in and starts living there, not (initially anyway) giving any termination notice or anything just living there.

Youre having a laugh, landlord probably has several properties and maybe a job or is retired. He or she has probably not got the remotest intention of moving from a comfortable house in a location that suits into the rented place to deal with an issue like this - at this stage anyway.

jimd2

FortuneChip wrote: »

OP back - Plan is to move out at the end of June, provided I can find a place. As stated, to avoid any unnecessary hassle.

But, even if my lease didn't cover me until July 27th, three weeks is not sufficient notice.

From talking to my housemates, the LL isn't the most "experienced" in any of this, so it may be sheer ignorance that their not aware of tenant rights here. But simple decency to make a phone call, or provide something in writing, especially if they're hoping I can vacate at three week's notice.

As I wrote above suit yourself. Consider what YOU want and need. Don't force yourself into a new arangement that will bring trouble for you further down the road just to appease a landlord.

Murrisk

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

There are plenty of places that are and having lived in an arrangement like this in the past and it is a nightmare. Its one step up in living with an owner occupier tbh.

I know, seems like a total headwreck. Not a great way to attract the best tenants, TBH. Anyone with a bit of choice won't plump for an arrangement like that.

Marcusm

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

Collectively and exclusive are two words that can't be used togeather, I don't care if the RTB ruled this way it's nonsense and needs to be challenged as being wrong.

Huh?

• A family collectively have exclusive occupation of a family home.
  
• A group of friends renting together with a single lease collectively have exclusive use of a rented property.
  
• A group of strangers who individually agree terms whereby they snd other parties rent bedrooms with shared use of the common areas collectively have exclusive use of the property

There are three sentences where they can be used together. This is not some random ruling of the RTB, it's an explicit provision of the law, section 48 et seq RTA 2004 - the law refers to them as "multiple occupants".

Michael D Not Higgins

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

I don't care if the RTB ruled this way it's nonsense and needs to be challenged as being wrong.

Take it up with the RTB, courts, government, etc. Your interpretation is incorrect as demonstrated through the cases in the RTB and court.

Making a tenancy "cease to exist" is terminating it. The RTA says there are only specific ways as outlined in the legislation in which you can terminate a tenancy. Moving in to a spare room is not one of them. Section 58 below with relevant bit highlighted:

"From the relevant date, a tenancy of a dwelling may not be terminated by the landlord or the tenant by means of a notice of forfeiture, a re-entry or any other process or procedure not provided by this Part."

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

Huh?

• A family collectively have exclusive occupation of a family home.
  
• A group of friends renting together with a single lease collectively have exclusive use of a rented property.
  
• A group of strangers who individually agree terms whereby they snd other parties rent bedrooms with shared use of the common areas collectively have exclusive use of the property

There are three sentences where they can be used together. This is not some random ruling of the RTB, it's an explicit provision of the law, section 48 et seq RTA 2004 - the law refers to them as "multiple occupants".

I was referring to a collective group of unconnected people, paying separate rent for their room only as opposed to the examples above where it makes sense as the collective are really one unit in reality rather than a number of random people.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

"From the relevant date, a tenancy of a dwelling may not be terminated by the landlord or the tenant by means of a notice of forfeiture, a re-entry or any other process or procedure not provided by this Part."

So we are in a situation where a person has full tenancy rights while living with their LL.

Michael D Not Higgins

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

So we are in a situation where a person has full tenancy rights while living with their LL.

In your proposed situation, the landlord has made an unauthorised re-entry and is trespassing in the tenant's home. They are not legally living in the property. Expect the RTB to come down heavily on any landlord attempting such tactics.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

In your proposed situation, the landlord has made an unauthorised re-entry and is trespassing in the tenant's home. They are not legally living in the property. Expect the RTB to come down heavily on any landlord attempting such tactics.

No he has not, the tenant is renting one room and one room only. There are other rooms in the house which can be filled by anyone of the LLs choosing. There is no way on earth that LL can pick any single person on this planet to move into that room and not himself (or one of his children by your reckoning as they would also result in a licensee relationship).

I'd agree with you if a tenant rents a full house but if a person rents a room and pays for one room they have absolutely zero say in who rents the other rooms and have nothing to go to the RTB about. Even if he wasn't moving in he would be entitled to enter and show other perspective tenants the rooms, inspect the rooms, repair the rooms etc without consulting with the person renting the other room as that person does not have exclusive use of the common areas and no rights whatsoever over the other bedrooms.

Weather or not it ends the tenancy (if one even existed) is one thing but there is simply no way the LL could not move into a spare room in a house he owns when he has the right to fill these rooms with people he chooses.

Michael D Not Higgins

Colby Careful Pretzel wrote: »

No he has not, the tenant is renting one room and one room only. There are other rooms in the house which can be filled by anyone of the LLs choosing. There is no way on earth that LL can pick any single person on this planet to move into that room and not himself.

I'd agree with you if a tenant rents a full house but if a person rents a room they have absolutely zero say in who rents the other room and have nothing to go to the RTB about.

nox, you're a broken record at this stage. I have pointed out the legislatively basis numerous occasions to you but you just don't like it. That's fine, but stop trying to argue otherwise.

pilly

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

nox, you're a broken record at this stage. I have pointed out the legislatively basis numerous occasions to you but you just don't like it. That's fine, but stop trying to argue otherwise.

Completely agree, same argument in every thread.

No matter what your opinion is nox the legislation says differently so constantly stating your own opinion on it is not helping anyone.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

nox, you're a broken record at this stage. I have pointed out the legislatively basis numerous occasions to you but you just don't like it. That's fine, but stop trying to argue otherwise.

The legalisation does not cover the situation I am describing, its referring to houses let as a whole where obviously a LL can not just move into. Its totally different when rooms are let separately as what right does a person renting a room.

Yes I keep arguing my point because I am absolutely adamant that I am correct but get constantly shot down with half truths or non-applicable pieces of legalisation etc. There is not a single fact that says a LL cannot move into a spare room in a house he rents rooms separately when one comes available when the others living there only pay for their room and not exclusive use of the full property.

I actually don't have an issue debating it with you as you do argue from a neutral perspective but the vast majority who disagree with me do it from an extremely pro tenant/anti LL perspective and would swear black was white to suit their agenda.