Going abroad for a year

antix80

This is more a "what if" than something I'm actually planning on doing.

I went abroad for a few months before and rented a room in my house to cover a few bills and rather than having the house empty. It worked fairly well.

But what if I was planning on living abroad for a year. Would it be permissible for me to rent my entire house out as a 1 year, fixed term lease? And what would happen if I were to return 12 months later and the person decided they weren't going to move out?

Is it really a suitable workaround to keep the box room for personal use and rent it out as a licensee agreement?

The_Conductor

Once a tenant has been present in a property for 6 months they acquire what is known as 'Part IV' tenancy rights. Among these rights are a 6 year lease- wholly regardless of whether or not they are on a 1 year fixed term lease or not. You can only end their tenancy by invoking a very limited set of circumstances- one of which is an intention to move back into the unit yourself. If the tenant decided not to facilitate you moving back into the unit- they could potentially frustrate you and draw out the process over as long as a two year period- during which time presumably you'd have to live elsewhere.

Honestly- your best bet is to leave the unit vacant and have someone come in and air it every few weeks- rather than trying to let it for a year. If you're not entirely sure whether you're coming back or not- I'd suggest leaving it vacant until you get a clearer picture in your head as to your longer term plans- and if you aren't coming back- sell it, don't rent it out.

It is incredibly hard to suggest to anyone that it is a good idea to let their home out these days- the tenant immediately gains rights regardless of what you have in a formal lease- and if you want to reclaim your property- they can dispute your ending of the tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board- who are exceptionally tenant orientated, it can go to arbitration, and then tribunal, and then appeal 1, appeal 2, appeal 3- judgement, and finally- you might have to go to court to enforce the judgement- but you can't go to court at the outset, you have to play the game the RTB insist on you playing.

Don't rent out the house if you can avoid doing so at all- its not worth the headwreck.

antix80

I figured as much and it's outrageous. The government has the housing market in knots.

Mrs OBumble

antix80 wrote: »

I figured as much and it's outrageous. The government has the housing market in knots.

Can you come home for the weekend once a month or so? Worth keeping a room for you if you do.

4ensic15

antix80 wrote: »

Is it really a suitable workaround to keep the box room for personal use and rent it out as a licensee agreement?

It was never guaranteed but will be even more difficult as a result of the change in the definition of dwelling in the Act.There are workarounds but they are not availed of much.

sunnysoutheast

antix80 wrote: »

This is more a "what if" than something I'm actually planning on doing.

I went abroad for a few months before and rented a room in my house to cover a few bills and rather than having the house empty. It worked fairly well.

But what if I was planning on living abroad for a year. Would it be permissible for me to rent my entire house out as a 1 year, fixed term lease? And what would happen if I were to return 12 months later and the person decided they weren't going to move out?

Is it really a suitable workaround to keep the box room for personal use and rent it out as a licensee agreement?

I wouldn't in the current "market". High chance you'd come back to locks changed and two fingers.

Unless I personally knew and trusted the person involved. In which case no lease of any kind would be necessary.

3DataModem

It's not as bad as you think. The overholding etc is a definite risk, you need to seek out someone willing to stay for a year and only a year... e.g. someone who is planning on buying a house in 6-9 months or a student or similar.

Another option is to go to one of the corporate letting agencies. No RTB, no AIRBNB restrictions (as they are typically longer than the minimum period). Depends what sort of nick your place is in.

My advice: reach out to your network and find someone, offer them a steep discount to take the place for a year (e.g. someone who is looking to save). Leaving it empty is a bad idea, as your house insurance will be invalidated and you are at risk of leaks, etc.

imitation

3DataModem wrote: »

It's not as bad as you think. The overholding etc is a definite risk, you need to seek out someone willing to stay for a year and only a year... e.g. someone who is planning on buying a house in 6-9 months or a student or similar.

Another option is to go to one of the corporate letting agencies. No RTB, no AIRBNB restrictions (as they are typically longer than the minimum period). Depends what sort of nick your place is in.

My advice: reach out to your network and find someone, offer them a steep discount to take the place for a year (e.g. someone who is looking to save). Leaving it empty is a bad idea, as your house insurance will be invalidated and you are at risk of leaks, etc.

You can get holiday home insurance as long as you are coming home periodically.

Graces7

The_Conductor wrote: »

Once a tenant has been present in a property for 6 months they acquire what is known as 'Part IV' tenancy rights. Among these rights are a 6 year lease- wholly regardless of whether or not they are on a 1 year fixed term lease or not. You can only end their tenancy by invoking a very limited set of circumstances- one of which is an intention to move back into the unit yourself. If the tenant decided not to facilitate you moving back into the unit- they could potentially frustrate you and draw out the process over as long as a two year period- during which time presumably you'd have to live elsewhere.

Honestly- your best bet is to leave the unit vacant and have someone come in and air it every few weeks- rather than trying to let it for a year. If you're not entirely sure whether you're coming back or not- I'd suggest leaving it vacant until you get a clearer picture in your head as to your longer term plans- and if you aren't coming back- sell it, don't rent it out.

It is incredibly hard to suggest to anyone that it is a good idea to let their home out these days- the tenant immediately gains rights regardless of what you have in a formal lease- and if you want to reclaim your property- they can dispute your ending of the tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board- who are exceptionally tenant orientated, it can go to arbitration, and then tribunal, and then appeal 1, appeal 2, appeal 3- judgement, and finally- you might have to go to court to enforce the judgement- but you can't go to court at the outset, you have to play the game the RTB insist on you playing.

Don't rent out the house if you can avoid doing so at all- its not worth the headwreck.

Puzzled as there are several ads on daft.ie specifying a 6 month or a year lease.

California Dreamer

3DataModem wrote: »

My advice: reach out to your network and find someone,

In other words, ask your friends! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

4ensic15

Graces7 wrote: »

Puzzled as there are several ads on daft.ie specifying a 6 month or a year lease.

What is puzzling about that?

Graces7

4ensic15 wrote: »

What is puzzling about that?

The post I was replying to and quoted states that Part 4 negates a short term lease. If I sign a 6/12 month lease then that is 6/12 months

4ensic15

Graces7 wrote: »

The post I was replying to and quoted states that Part 4 negates a short term lease. If I sign a 6/12 month lease then that is 6/12 months

Part 4 commences after 6 months, lease or no lease. You do not have to vacate after the 6 or 12 months unless the tenancy is terminated under S34 of the act.

rookieMan

You could hire an agency that can do 2-3 short lets while you are gone. They are going to charge you but you will still earn money.

JustAThought

rookieMan wrote: »

You could hire an agency that can do 2-3 short lets while you are gone. They are going to charge you but you will still earn money.

Yes but I looked into a few & the devil was in the detail -they wouldnt guarantee anythimg, they would charge you for the second /third advertising snd viewings (at 1970's rates not daft.ie) -there were all kinds of get-outs: despite them advertising needing properties snd guarantees of tenancies. They would also not give any promises on rent collection or what they would do regarding payment if the renter defaulted..

You didn't mention the government tax due on the rental income if it is rented vacant - 50% ? That is some hit & regardless of whether the tenant pays up has to be declared and paid. This will also affect your own tax credits and tax cut off points...something they never discuss

Keep your room or rooms; lockeverything of value into one and lock yours for your own use. 3 or 5 month contract. Then someone new in.
I would say that for s/t rent a large deposit is essential - the damage to floors/walls/furniture or defaulting on bills can render renting counterproductive relative to the costs or bill defaults -amd people especially passing through can forget or lose their values and morals very quickly when its someone elses property or money at stake. I've had a few.

You might decide to be away for longer . A big multinational might need somewhere for its staff - you could try that - people who are leveraging an employer for a reference may be less likely to dirty their plate and risk their reference. Particularly if you have links with HR.

limerickabroad

Just an idea, but I wonder do you live near a 3rd level college? I live near UL (Castletroy), and the University of Limerick are constantly looking for 1 year leases (usually to facilitate visiting professors, who will be in Limerick for 1 year only), and I know this has suited some people who are moving abroad for just the one year . . . might be worth looking into

The_Conductor

Graces7 wrote: »

The post I was replying to and quoted states that Part 4 negates a short term lease. If I sign a 6/12 month lease then that is 6/12 months

A lease (of any nature) cannot detract from the rights a tenant is entitled to under the Residential Tenancies Act. A Part IV tenancy automatically starts at 6 months- regardless of whether, or not, a tenant is on a fixed term lease. The current provisions of a Part IV tenancy impart a 6 year lease to a tenant. So- your 1 year lease is completely worthless- the paper its written on may as well be toilet paper, the tenancy is as per the terms of a Part IV tenancy. However....... Any terms or conditions of a fixed term lease which are in addition to the rights accruing under the Residential Tenancies Act- continue to accrue. Aka- a landlord cannot detract from a tenants rights with a fixed term lease, they can however enhance the tenants rights with rights they would not necessarily have under the Act.

In general, its safer to simply allow a tenancy rollover onto Part IV terms. This tends to suit both landlords and tenants, and makes it a lot more straightforward to try and figure out the rights and obligations of both parties.

mirrormatrix

The_Conductor wrote: »

Once a tenant has been present in a property for 6 months they acquire what is known as 'Part IV' tenancy rights. Among these rights are a 6 year lease- wholly regardless of whether or not they are on a 1 year fixed term lease or not. You can only end their tenancy by invoking a very limited set of circumstances- one of which is an intention to move back into the unit yourself. If the tenant decided not to facilitate you moving back into the unit- they could potentially frustrate you and draw out the process over as long as a two year period- during which time presumably you'd have to live elsewhere.

Honestly- your best bet is to leave the unit vacant and have someone come in and air it every few weeks- rather than trying to let it for a year. If you're not entirely sure whether you're coming back or not- I'd suggest leaving it vacant until you get a clearer picture in your head as to your longer term plans- and if you aren't coming back- sell it, don't rent it out.

It is incredibly hard to suggest to anyone that it is a good idea to let their home out these days- the tenant immediately gains rights regardless of what you have in a formal lease- and if you want to reclaim your property- they can dispute your ending of the tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board- who are exceptionally tenant orientated, it can go to arbitration, and then tribunal, and then appeal 1, appeal 2, appeal 3- judgement, and finally- you might have to go to court to enforce the judgement- but you can't go to court at the outset, you have to play the game the RTB insist on you playing.

Don't rent out the house if you can avoid doing so at all- its not worth the headwreck.

Could you not just rent a room under the rent a room scheme, avoiding the need to register the tenancy?

The_Conductor

mirrormatrix wrote: »

Could you not just rent a room under the rent a room scheme, avoiding the need to register the tenancy?

It has to be your PPR- and if you're never there, the individual could claim it was a defacto tenancy and approach the RTB for it to be recognised as such. The fact that the OP is going abroad- and is not going to be around- would negate the possibility of using the rent-a-room scheme.

Graces7

The_Conductor wrote: »

A lease (of any nature) cannot detract from the rights a tenant is entitled to under the Residential Tenancies Act. A Part IV tenancy automatically starts at 6 months- regardless of whether, or not, a tenant is on a fixed term lease. The current provisions of a Part IV tenancy impart a 6 year lease to a tenant. So- your 1 year lease is completely worthless- the paper its written on may as well be toilet paper, the tenancy is as per the terms of a Part IV tenancy. However....... Any terms or conditions of a fixed term lease which are in addition to the rights accruing under the Residential Tenancies Act- continue to accrue. Aka- a landlord cannot detract from a tenants rights with a fixed term lease, they can however enhance the tenants rights with rights they would not necessarily have under the Act.

In general, its safer to simply allow a tenancy rollover onto Part IV terms. This tends to suit both landlords and tenants, and makes it a lot more straightforward to try and figure out the rights and obligations of both parties.

Thank you and yes I understand. So daft should not be accepting ads that state " for one year only"

eg

https://www.daft.ie/galway/houses-for-rent/carna/ard-thiar-carna-galway-1925865/

and in holiday areas there is a rash of "winter lets" every year.

The_Conductor

Graces7 wrote: »

Thank you and yes I understand. So daft should not be accepting ads that state " for one year only"

eg

https://www.daft.ie/galway/houses-for-rent/carna/ard-thiar-carna-galway-1925865/

and in holiday areas there is a rash of "winter lets" every year.

DAFT is not in breach of any rules accepting advertisements which state its for 1 year only- however, if/when the 1 year elapses- and the tenant decides they'd rather stay- they then have the protections afforded to them by a Part IV tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act- and irrespective of the fact that their 1 year fixed term lease has expired, they are entitled to stay for 6 years (save the limited provisions under the Act for ending the tenancy).

The Residential Tenancies Act imparts significant and broad sweeping rights to tenants, that few tenants seem to appreciate. The regulatory environment is structured in such a manner to protect a tenant and their tenancy in all but extreme cases, and the rights of a landlord are extremely limited by design.

runawaybishop

Graces7 wrote: »

Thank you and yes I understand. So daft should not be accepting ads that state " for one year only"

eg

https://www.daft.ie/galway/houses-for-rent/carna/ard-thiar-carna-galway-1925865/

and in holiday areas there is a rash of "winter lets" every year.

Nothing wrong with stating one year lease, they could be planning on selling after that, moving back in etc.

Also they don't say one year only, they say one year. This obligates the tenant to remain for at least a year, though the landlord has a snowballs chance in hell of getting anything if they skip out after a few months

JJJackal

I would rent out as many rooms as possible. "Keep" the smallest room for yourself - when your home stay in it. Continue to pay ur share of Bill's.

Ideal if you knew a person who was trustworthy who wanted a room

Claw Hammer

JJJackal wrote: »

I would rent out as many rooms as possible. "Keep" the smallest room for yourself - when your home stay in it. Continue to pay ur share of Bill's.

Ideal if you knew a person who was trustworthy who wanted a room

That may not work. The occupants may claim a tenancy on the basis the landlord is not resident an the RTB might agree with them. That would mean a room has been left idle for nothing. Also, the accounts can't be put in the tenants name.

Bigmac1euro

Rent on a 23 week lease, come home and rent again on another 23 week lease.

Claw Hammer

Bigmac1euro wrote: »

Rent on a 23 week lease, come home and rent again on another 23 week lease.

Notice has to be given of the expiry of the 23 week lease. If the notice is challenged there will be an RTB hearing appeals etc. Not as simple as you think.

JJJackal

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That may not work. The occupants may claim a tenancy on the basis the landlord is not resident an the RTB might agree with them. That would mean a room has been left idle for nothing. Also, the accounts can't be put in the tenants name.

Thats why they need to be trustworthy if possible - a mate who needs a room - give them a good deal. They will keep the house from getting mouldy... and pay some cash.

Leaving it empty is associated with its own problems

Cryptopagan

It seems a bit drastic to me to forgo a potential year of rental income because you are so worried about the prospect of overholding. How many actual cases have there been of a tenant occupying a place for 2 years without paying rent, when the landlord has a valid reason to take the property back?

Claw Hammer

JJJackal wrote: »

Thats why they need to be trustworthy if possible - a mate who needs a room - give them a good deal. They will keep the house from getting mouldy... and pay some cash.

Leaving it empty is associated with its own problems

Many people have mates who stop being mates when there is a money/property dispute.