Definition of relative for ending part IV tenancy

Crunchie77

I am looking for info on ending a part IV tenancy on the grounds that a family member needs it. I have google searched and cannot find a definition anywhere that states who counts as family or immediate family in this situation and different websites have different interpretations. Some say immediate family and others just say relative. In my case, I want to rent to my cousin. Would this be allowed? Can anyone point me in the direction of the legislation on this where I'd get a definite answer?

LuckyLloyd

It’s immediate family.

Information here:

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

Sasha144

In the actual act it does not mention 'immediate' family. Just family member so I would go by that and not citizens information? This is taken from section 34 of the 2004 residential tenancy act:

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.

Crunchie77

Thanks. This is what I'm finding so hard, both tell you different things so which do I go by? I do intend to substantially refurb anyway before my cousin moves in so I could use that reason but I thought this might be a more straightforward route.

Crunchie77

Should I contact the PRTB for a definite answer from them?

LuckyLloyd

“His or her family”

Lads, cousin doesn’t apply here. By all means contact the PRTB directly and always consider solicitor’s advice if unsatisfied or uncertain.

dudara

I would interpret “family” narrowly here, to mean immediate family. IMO cousin could be pushing it, unless you could perhaps show a history of looking after said cousin. As advised, you’re better off getting a proper opinion on this one. The RTB should be able to advise.

Graham

(4) In paragraph 4 of the Table the reference to a member of the landlord's family is a reference to any spouse, child, stepchild, foster child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, step parent, parent-in-law, brother, sister, nephew or niece of the landlord or a person adopted by the landlord under the Adoption Acts 1952 to 1998.

Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/enacted/en/print#sec35

Crunchie77

Thanks for clearing that up Graham.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/enacted/en/print#sec35

That can't be a definitive list as it makes no sense a niece/nephew is listed but an aunt/uncle are not even though they are the same relationship. Parent-in-law is included even though they are not really related at all. I'd consider 1st cousin as immediate family also, strange how some people find it strange that it should be considered a close relation.

Lockedout2

Brianna Shy Hairpin wrote: »

That can't be a definitive list as it makes no sense a niece/nephew is listed but an aunt/uncle are not even though they are the same relationship.

Agree but in the context of terminating a lease with a tenant it makes sense that someone would house their brothers/sisters child or their wife’s/husband parent.

The drafters of the legislation clearly did not think that housing a parents brother/sister fitted into the bill.

Samuel T. Cogley

Brianna Shy Hairpin wrote: »

That can't be a definitive list as it makes no sense a niece/nephew is listed but an aunt/uncle are not even though they are the same relationship. Parent-in-law is included even though they are not really related at all. I'd consider 1st cousin as immediate family also, strange how some people find it strange that it should be considered a close relation.

It's there in black and white (pixels).

Nomis21

This is what makes part 4 legislation useless as legislation. A landlord only has to state that a relative such as a nephew needs the property to live in to evict a tenant and then after the tenant moves state that the nephew or cousin changed their mind and the tenant is unlikely going to be in a position to afford to go to court to do anything about it.

Lumen

Nomis21 wrote: »

This is what makes part 4 legislation useless as legislation. A landlord only has to state that a relative such as a nephew needs the property to live in to evict a tenant and then after the tenant moves state that the nephew or cousin changed their mind and the tenant is unlikely going to be in a position to afford to go to court to do anything about it.

Did you read the legislation?

In that case the landlord must offer it back to the tenant.

In any case the tenant wouldn't go to court, they'd go to the RTB.

Nomis21

Lumen wrote: »

Did you read the legislation?

In that case the landlord must offer it back to the tenant.

In any case the tenant wouldn't go to court, they'd go to the RTB.

Like I said, Useless.

It might be a little better if the Landlord had to put the details of the family member in a document that could be used in court, but all the Landlord has to do is say verbally that he needs it for a relative and the tenant is out.

Not much use fighting to get back in weeks later when you have already had to find somewhere else to live is it?

Graham

Nomis21 wrote: »

It might be a little better if the Landlord had to put the details of the family member in a document

He/she does.

Nomis21 wrote: »

all the Landlord has to do is say verbally that he needs it for a relative and the tenant is out.

That's not even close to being correct:

Landlord requires the property for his / her own or for family member occupation
A Landlord is entitled to terminate a Part 4 tenancy where a 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, specifying
(a) (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.

Source: http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/landlord-requires-dwelling-for-own-or-family-use.pdf?sfvrsn=2