rent a room question

tom1ie · 27-08-2019 7:47pm #1

hi guys
I've a garage attached to my house that i plan on renovating.
The garage may end up having its own front door with no entrance into the main dwelling(option a), or it may have an entrance into it via a door from the main dwelling (option b).
Can i avail of the 14k tax free allowance in either scenarios?
I have read conflicting reports that you will or won't have to register with the rtb, does anyone know what the definitive law is on this?
from the rtb website:
"The RTB remit does not extend to:
the Rent a Room scheme (where the landlord and the tenant share the same self contained property)."
according to the extract i have above option a is out, but does a shared door constitute "the same self contained property"?
thanks guys

SozBbz · 27-08-2019 10:09pm

tom1ie wrote: »

hi guys
I've a garage attached to my house that i plan on renovating.
The garage may end up having its own front door with no entrance into the main dwelling(option a), or it may have an entrance into it via a door from the main dwelling (option b).
Can i avail of the 14k tax free allowance in either scenarios?
I have read conflicting reports that you will or won't have to register with the rtb, does anyone know what the definitive law is on this?
from the rtb website:
"The RTB remit does not extend to:
the Rent a Room scheme (where the landlord and the tenant share the same self contained property)."
according to the extract i have above option a is out, but does a shared door constitute "the same self contained property"?
thanks guys

I don't think it can count as rent a room if theres a separate entrance

Supposing you set up in such away as to be compliant with the rent a room scheme, then the RTB doesn't apply. Its the residential tenancies board - rent a room creates a licensee relationship, not a tenant relationship.

TheChizler · 27-08-2019 10:14pm

Wasn't the consensus here before that if there was a connecting door between the rooms it couldn't be considered exclusive access so was a licensee situation by default?

punisher5112 · 27-08-2019 10:15pm

Planning would be a serious issue....

If the room is renovated to correct standard then you could rent it out but it must be part of the existing dwelling as in no separate entrance and not joining the rest....

You can earn €14k tax free.

tom1ie · 28-08-2019 6:47am

If I have a connecting door going from the house to the garage, but the garage would have toilet, kitchen/dining room and bedroom, would this require planning?
I presume this scenario is classed as part of the dwelling, therefore does not fall under the rtb as it wouldn't be a tenancy but a lodger setup, thus allowing for the 14k tax free.
What ya reckon?

davindub · 28-08-2019 6:58am

tom1ie wrote: »

If I have a connecting door going from the house to the garage, but the garage would have toilet, kitchen/dining room and bedroom, would this require planning?
I presume this scenario is classed as part of the dwelling, therefore does not fall under the rtb as it wouldn't be a tenancy but a lodger setup, thus allowing for the 14k tax free.
What ya reckon?

Rent a room and RTA exemption are not linked.

tom1ie · 28-08-2019 7:13am

davindub wrote: »

Rent a room and RTA exemption are not linked.

They are if the rta decide the building is self contained. There was a ruling by an adjudicator stating the room being rented was actually a self contained building even though it was attached to a private dwelling. This made the lodger a tenant and gave all the protections that go along with it. I’ll try find the link.

Alkers · 28-08-2019 9:08am

It's own entrance isn't relevant for Rent a Room relief (ok with or without) but it needs to be connected to and accessible from the main dwelling.

cruizer101 · 28-08-2019 10:29am

I think you could go with option A and B and get rent a room relief.
Option B means it is connected to the main dwelling and so eligible for rent a room.
Option A means the licensee can have their own entrance so doesn't have to come through the house.
You could then lock the connecting door from both sides so it is in effect a self contained unit but technically is still part of the main dwelling.

Caveat: I'm not a legal expert so don't take this as gospel but if you could do it would probably be best of both world for you.

tom1ie · 28-08-2019 10:35am

I will contact the Rtb and citizens advice before I consider my options Thanks so much for all the information guys really appreciate it.

tom1ie · 28-08-2019 12:25pm

So just an update on this, the rtb say “they don’t know and it’s a grey area”
However I got the opinion of the guy on the line who asked his supervisor who used the analogy of an apartment block.
If my garage has enough facilities so that the lodger doesn’t have to use some of my facilities, even though he would have had to come through my front door to access his “room” then the setup is deemed like an apartment (without your own door) and the lodger becomes a tenant.
What’s more is I would be charged a late fee in that case as I didn’t setup with the rtb prior to taking on what I thought was a lodger but turned out to be a tenant!
I will double check this with citizens advice, but again this seems to be just an opinion from the rtb.
I’ll probably have to check with eoghan Murphy at this rate!

davindub · 28-08-2019 12:36pm

tom1ie wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

Rent a room and RTA exemption are not linked.

They are if the rta decide the building is self contained. There was a ruling by an adjudicator stating the room being rented was actually a self contained building even though it was attached to a private dwelling. This made the lodger a tenant and gave all the protections that go along with it. I’ll try find the link.

The two legislations are distinct from each other with slightly different requirements. What you have referred to above is the RTA.

davindub · 28-08-2019 12:36pm

tom1ie wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

Rent a room and RTA exemption are not linked.

They are if the rta decide the building is self contained. There was a ruling by an adjudicator stating the room being rented was actually a self contained building even though it was attached to a private dwelling. This made the lodger a tenant and gave all the protections that go along with it. I’ll try find the link.

The two legislations are distinct from each other with slightly different requirements. What you have referred to above is the RTA.

tom1ie · 28-08-2019 12:45pm

davindub wrote: »

The two legislations are distinct from each other with slightly different requirements. What you have referred to above is the RTA.

Yes but the rta are saying in my case it’s a self contained apartment and I would have a tenant not a lodger, so it would fall under their jurisdiction

Cuddlesworth · 28-08-2019 2:41pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Yes but the rta are saying in my case it’s a self contained apartment and I would have a tenant not a lodger, so it would fall under their jurisdiction

Yep, Revenue and other bodys make up their own rules and they overlap in some cases.

There is court ruling where a self contained granny flat was considered a separate dwelling and this would be the case for both planning and tenancy legislation.

Put or keep a heavy door into the main house and lock it permanently. Not worth the hassle otherwise coming under a full lease agreement.

tom1ie · 28-08-2019 2:47pm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Yep, Revenue and other bodys make up their own rules and they overlap in some cases.

There is court ruling where a self contained granny flat was considered a separate dwelling and this would be the case for both planning and tenancy legislation.

Put or keep a heavy door into the main house and lock it permanently. Not worth the hassle otherwise coming under a full lease agreement.

Yes that’s what I was alluding to earlier. An adjudicator in the wrc decided this, I just can’t find the link.
What I want is a paragraph in black and white from an official piece of legislation telling me a heavy door between the main house and rent a room is allowed.
I firmly want to stay on the lodger side as opposed to the mess that is the tenancy side.
Otherwise it’s not worth my while putting money into renovating the garage and then being liable for some bull**** landlord crime.

Cuddlesworth · 28-08-2019 2:54pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Yes that’s what I was alluding to earlier. An adjudicator in the wrc decided this, I just can’t find the link.
What I want is a paragraph in black and white from an official piece of legislation telling me a heavy door between the main house and rent a room is allowed.
I firmly want to stay on the lodger side as opposed to the mess that is the tenancy side.
Otherwise it’s not worth my while putting money into renovating the garage and then being liable for some bull**** landlord crime.

It's already there in planning law.

You disconnect it from the house, meaning you have to leave your house to access it, its a seperate dwelling and the RTB is the start of your problems. You keep it connected, meaning you "can" access it internally, it's not a seperate dwelling.

RTB won't tell you squat and can always be wrong depending on who you are talking to.

tom1ie · 28-08-2019 3:02pm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

It's already there in planning law.

You disconnect it from the house, meaning you have to leave your house to access it, its a seperate dwelling and the RTB is the start of your problems. You keep it connected, meaning you "can" access it internally, it's not a seperate dwelling.

RTB won't tell you squat and can always be wrong depending on who you are talking to.

Yes but rtb told me today if the lodger doesn’t have to use any of the facilities in my house, even if he/she access the room via the main house, the rtb class this as a self contained property, a la an apartment setup that has one main door for everyone and then separate doors for each individual unit and thus the lodger is in fact a tenant.
So is my best bet to make sure there are no kitchen facilities put into the garage so that they have to use the main house for cooking therefore remaining a lodger.

davindub · 28-08-2019 5:43pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Yes but the rta are saying in my case it’s a self contained apartment and I would have a tenant not a lodger, so it would fall under their jurisdiction

I know what you mean, but it's not going to be always correct that if the RTA doesn't apply, rent a room relief does apply. It's better to consider each of them separately, Couple of examples below:

House where the spouse/ child/ parent of the LL resides:
- Does not come under the RTA
- Rent a room relief does not apply

If you have an adjacent apartment to a house:
- Does come under RTA
- Part 4 of RTA may not apply (if originally part of the landlords house & LL opts out)
- Rent a room relief will not apply.

danoriordan1402 · 28-08-2019 9:09pm

I have a similar set up with a " 3 room granny flat" incorporated into the house. It has its own entrance, but also has a door from my part of the house into the granny flat. This door however looks like a door from my side , opposite side has no handles and a full height mirror in front so its not visible really from the flat. All utilities are included in rent as they couldn't be feasibly split. I think I am pretty border line for rent a room on reading the above......

tom1ie · 29-08-2019 9:25am

So I rand citizens advice and got a very helpful guy who has dealt with this on numerous occasions.
He said it states on the revenue website that self contained units are allowed under the rent a room scheme once said unit is connected to the house. He went further by saying this does NOT mean you need a connecting door from house to unit merely that the unit must share a wall. When I stated about rtb saying the unit can’t have a separate entranace, he stated, no, your house has two entrances as the unit Is part of your house as per revenue rules.
I have emailed the minister to get some more clarification and to highlight the rtb overstepping their remit.

Cuddlesworth · 29-08-2019 9:45am

Revenue make their own rules, the RTB have to follow the RTA legislation.

5.&#8212;(1) This Part does not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling where the conditions specified in subsection (2) are satisfied if the landlord of the dwelling opts, in accordance with subsection (3), for this Part not to apply to it.

(2) Those conditions are&#8212;

(a) the dwelling concerned is one of 2 dwellings within a building,

(b) that building, as originally constructed, comprised a single dwelling, and

(c) the landlord resides in the other dwelling.

(3) A landlord's opting as mentioned in subsection (1) shall be signified in writing in a notice served by him or her on the tenant before the commencement of the tenancy.

&#8216;&#8216;dwelling&#8217;&#8217; means, subject to subsection (2), a property let for rent or valuable consideration as a self-contained residential unit .....&#8216;&#8216;self-contained residential unit&#8217;&#8217; includes the form of accommo-
dation commonly known as &#8216;&#8216;bedsit&#8217;&#8217; accommodation;

I read that as simply, if you create a second dwelling inside your home, give them something that clearly states they are licensee at the beginning of the tenancy.

tom1ie · 29-08-2019 10:35am

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Revenue make their own rules, the RTB have to follow the RTA legislation.

5.&#8212;(1) This Part does not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling where the conditions specified in subsection (2) are satisfied if the landlord of the dwelling opts, in accordance with subsection (3), for this Part not to apply to it.

(2) Those conditions are&#8212;

(a) the dwelling concerned is one of 2 dwellings within a building,

(b) that building, as originally constructed, comprised a single dwelling, and

(c) the landlord resides in the other dwelling.

(3) A landlord's opting as mentioned in subsection (1) shall be signified in writing in a notice served by him or her on the tenant before the commencement of the tenancy.

&#8216;&#8216;dwelling&#8217;&#8217; means, subject to subsection (2), a property let for rent or valuable consideration as a self-contained residential unit .....&#8216;&#8216;self-contained residential unit&#8217;&#8217; includes the form of accommo-
dation commonly known as &#8216;&#8216;bedsit&#8217;&#8217; accommodation;

I read that as simply, if you create a second dwelling inside your home, give them something that clearly states they are licensee at the beginning of the tenancy.

Yeah that makes sense to me alright. The thing is you’d think the rtb would be well aware of where their limitations are? Maybe I’m being a bit idealistic here.

landlord2020 · 31-08-2019 9:58am

Renting out a room in your home - citizensinformation.ie

If you rent out a room (or rooms) in your home to private tenants, the rental income you earn will be exempt from income tax, provided this income does not exceed a certain limit in a tax year. This is called the rent-a-room relief. A self-contained unit, such as a basement flat or a converted garage attached to your home, can qualify for this relief.

….

Self-contained units
If you rent out a self-contained unit in your home, such as a converted garage attached to your home or a basement flat, the rights and obligations under residential tenancies legislation apply to you. For example, you are obliged to register the tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB), provide a rent book to the tenant and ensure that the accommodation provided meets minimum physical standards.
The residential tenancies legislation provides for security of tenure for tenants. These provisions are in Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. However, if the self-contained flat or apartment was originally part of the main house, you can choose to opt out of these provisions. This option is available under Section 25 of the Act. You must give the tenant notice in writing, before the start of the tenancy, if you wish to take this option.

tom1ie · 01-09-2019 8:43am

landlord2020 wrote: »

Renting out a room in your home - citizensinformation.ie

If you rent out a room (or rooms) in your home to private tenants, the rental income you earn will be exempt from income tax, provided this income does not exceed a certain limit in a tax year. This is called the rent-a-room relief. A self-contained unit, such as a basement flat or a converted garage attached to your home, can qualify for this relief.

….

Self-contained units
If you rent out a self-contained unit in your home, such as a converted garage attached to your home or a basement flat, the rights and obligations under residential tenancies legislation apply to you. For example, you are obliged to register the tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB), provide a rent book to the tenant and ensure that the accommodation provided meets minimum physical standards.
The residential tenancies legislation provides for security of tenure for tenants. These provisions are in Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. However, if the self-contained flat or apartment was originally part of the main house, you can choose to opt out of these provisions. This option is available under Section 25 of the Act. You must give the tenant notice in writing, before the start of the tenancy, if you wish to take this option.

Indeed. When I rang the rtb to enquire they weren’t aware of this passage in legislation.

Claw Hammer · 02-09-2019 2:06pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Indeed. When I rang the rtb to enquire they weren’t aware of this passage in legislation.

It only applies to the notice period. In every other respect the occupant is a tenant with the same rights as any other tenant. the revenue may accept the income qualifies under rent a room but dispute resolution is under the RTB. The tenancy has to be registered and the letting must meet the minimum standards for rented dwellings. most people just go for a licence deal and don't create a second dwelling.

Lux23 · 02-09-2019 3:48pm

I wouldn't take the word of Citzen's Advice - speak to a lawyer.

tom1ie · 02-09-2019 3:48pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

tom1ie wrote: »

Indeed. When I rang the rtb to enquire they weren’t aware of this passage in legislation.

It only applies to the notice period. In every other respect the occupant is a tenant with the same rights as any other tenant. the revenue may accept the income qualifies under rent a room but dispute resolution is under the RTB. The tenancy has to be registered and the letting must meet the minimum standards for rented dwellings. most people just go for a licence deal and don't create a second dwelling.

I'm not creating a second dwelling though. Therefore it's not a tenancy it's a licence deal and the person is a lodger and not a tenant.

tom1ie · 03-09-2019 9:05am

Lux23 wrote: »

I wouldn't take the word of Citzen's Advice - speak to a lawyer.

I think this might be the best bet. But I suppose my lawyer could tell me one thing and an adjudicator could have a different interpretation.
I've emailed the housing minister to try and highlight this grey area and get some sort of clear cut answer.

tom1ie · 03-09-2019 12:02pm

So my email has now gone to
“The Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, Mr. Paschal Donohoe T.D”
To be answered.
I thought this would have been a housing issue?

Caranica · 03-09-2019 12:06pm

tom1ie wrote: »

So my email has now gone to
“The Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, Mr. Paschal Donohoe T.D”
To be answered.
I thought this would have been a housing issue?

No, rent a room is a Revenue relief. Nothing to do with Department of housing

tom1ie · 03-09-2019 12:09pm

Caranica wrote: »

No, rent a room is a Revenue relief. Nothing to do with Department of housing

Yes indeed but my question regards the rtb telling me in my setup I’d have a tenant not a lodger.
Surely that’s housing.
I know the revenue will tell me all is ok as will citizens advice as I’ve spoke to them, however rtb directly contradict both of these.

Claw Hammer · 06-09-2019 2:21pm

tom1ie wrote: »

I'm not creating a second dwelling though. Therefore it's not a tenancy it's a licence deal and the person is a lodger and not a tenant.

You are creating a second dwelling from what you have described. The occupier of this new unit doesn't reside in your household and either goes in directly to their own area of the building or goes through your area purely for access. You are creating a self contained apartment and it is a separate dwelling. No ifs or buts about it. Whether or not the Revenue allow you RTB relief is irrelevant.

tom1ie · 06-09-2019 2:40pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

tom1ie wrote: »

I'm not creating a second dwelling though. Therefore it's not a tenancy it's a licence deal and the person is a lodger and not a tenant.

You are creating a second dwelling from what you have described. The occupier of this new unit doesn't reside in your household and either goes in directly to their own area of the building or goes through your area purely for access. You are creating a self contained apartment and it is a separate dwelling. No ifs or buts about it. Whether or not the Revenue allow you RTB relief is irrelevant.

Wrong.
It is not another dwelling as is clearly stated in revenue rules. They say it qualifies for rent a room as the r.a.r is joined onto the house.

tom1ie · 06-09-2019 2:42pm

Self-contained unit
The rented room or rooms can be a self-contained unit within the house, such as a basement flat or a converted garage.

If this unit is not attached to the property it cannot qualify for the relief.

tom1ie · 06-09-2019 2:43pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Self-contained unit
The rented room or rooms can be a self-contained unit within the house, such as a basement flat or a converted garage.

If this unit is not attached to the property it cannot qualify for the relief.

That's from the revenue website. Revenue run the rent a room scheme. According to this I am in compliance.
Rtb have nothing to do with it.

06-09-2019 5:14pm

tom1ie wrote: »

That's from the revenue website. Revenue run the rent a room scheme. According to this I am in compliance.
Rtb have nothing to do with it.

Id be careful around that, even being attached and only recently constructed (ie not originally) that might change the situation on how the RTB might view it as a tenancy or not.

What the Revenue and the RTB say could contradict each other. IMO I consider Ive read in the law where what revenue says in guidelines isnt backed up by the law. So its possible that sometimes things may not tally between separate organisations of the State if a meaning can come across differently or vaguely when its one organisation.

That said rent a room is a revenue scheme, ie you're not liable for tax if its your permanent residence, but Id read the RTA 2004 and what RTB guidelines say about what a tenancy is and when one is created or not as the case may be.
I've a sneaking suspicion it might be possible to be able to be eligible for rent a room tax relief AND as the RTA 2004 has been tweaked, it may be possible to still create a situation where a person could claim the circumstances for a Tenancy exist also.

The way to ensure you dont create a Tenancy is to not have it separate, IMO you have it constructed as you want, that might mean so it can have its own entrance in the event you end up having it as an actual Granny flat for a relative, then lock that door and have anyone coming and going through the main doorway.
I think there is wording that you can opt out of providing a tenancy (mentioned earlier in the thread) if the portion being let was originally attached and part of the original building.
How that works if it is a later extension I dont know, I have not read all the material in detail. Having a seperate unit, especially where it was not part of the original building IMO throws up risks of being in a situation where a Tenancy might be created whether you agree with that or like it or not and then it would be on the decision of the RTB if that was the case or not.

tom1ie · 06-09-2019 5:54pm

1874 wrote: »

Id be careful around that, even being attached and only recently constructed (ie not originally) that might change the situation on how the RTB might view it as a tenancy or not.

What the Revenue and the RTB say could contradict each other. IMO I consider Ive read in the law where what revenue says in guidelines isnt backed up by the law. So its possible that sometimes things may not tally between separate organisations of the State if a meaning can come across differently or vaguely when its one organisation.

That said rent a room is a revenue scheme, ie you're not liable for tax if its your permanent residence, but Id read the RTA 2004 and what RTB guidelines say about what a tenancy is and when one is created or not as the case may be.
I've a sneaking suspicion it might be possible to be able to be eligible for rent a room tax relief AND as the RTA 2004 has been tweaked, it may be possible to still create a situation where a person could claim the circumstances for a Tenancy exist also.

The way to ensure you dont create a Tenancy is to not have it separate, IMO you have it constructed as you want, that might mean so it can have its own entrance in the event you end up having it as an actual Granny flat for a relative, then lock that door and have anyone coming and going through the main doorway.
I think there is wording that you can opt out of providing a tenancy (mentioned earlier in the thread) if the portion being let was originally attached and part of the original building.
How that works if it is a later extension I dont know, I have not read all the material in detail. Having a seperate unit, especially where it was not part of the original building IMO throws up risks of being in a situation where a Tenancy might be created whether you agree with that or like it or not and then it would be on the decision of the RTB if that was the case or not.

The garage was always there but the conversion would only be recent.
I queried exactly what you have said with both rtb and citizens advice- who quoted the revenue.
Both sides contradicted each other which is the crux of the problem here.
I have wrote to the minister for housing to clear this up (looking at the rtb- it’s a tenancy angle) that department has sent it on to the finance department as it’s a revenue scheme.
All I want is a definitive answer one way or the other that will keep me out of the wrc!

06-09-2019 6:50pm

I went back and re-read the start of the thread as I started reading it late last night, I see the garage was original, I think you should use the exemption to opt out of creating a tenancy. Whether you'll get a definitive answer or not is another thing.
It seems you would prefer keep it as a seperate unit from your home, potentially you could let for under the tenancy requirement limits ie to students for a term and have access to the other section of the property for laundry and other stuff.
I think it was overzealous to include in any way granny flats or property on the same plot as the owners primary residnece in terms of full Tenant rights, potentially having someone obliged to commit to a fixed term only and not eligible for renewals would have been a great idea, and strict rules on allowing termination regarding non payment, it could have opened the potential for a lot of spaces to be released onto the market & stimulated some building.

06-09-2019 6:58pm

danoriordan1402 wrote: »

I have a similar set up with a " 3 room granny flat" incorporated into the house. It has its own entrance, but also has a door from my part of the house into the granny flat. This door however looks like a door from my side , opposite side has no handles and a full height mirror in front so its not visible really from the flat. All utilities are included in rent as they couldn't be feasibly split. I think I am pretty border line for rent a room on reading the above......

Having a bat-cave type entrance doesnt protect you from the RTB/RTA2004

,
You sound like you are on dangerous ground IMO.
Im sure your Lodgers are well aware of where this door leads and aren't fooled by the mirror

.

tom1ie · 06-09-2019 7:26pm

1874 wrote: »

Having a bat-cave type entrance doesnt protect you from the RTB/RTA2004 ,
You sound like you are on dangerous ground IMO.
Im sure your Lodgers are well aware of where this door leads and aren't fooled by the mirror .

But the rtb has no jurisdiction over a revenue scheme that clearly states how to deal with self contained units.

06-09-2019 7:44pm

tom1ie wrote: »

But the rtb has no jurisdiction over a revenue scheme that clearly states how to deal with self contained units.

I think the RTB has jurisdiction over what is defined a tenancy or not, or it could be even the WRC now, Im well out of it now and its gone on so many tangents, I dont know what is normal (;)) anymore.
I'd agree that the RTB likely has no jurisdiction over the Revenue scheme and just as likely dont care one jot, the Revenue scheme is a tax scheme that allows you no tax liability for rooms let in your own home, The RTB get to decide if such a scenario is in your own home or if you have actually created a Tenancy, Id suggest a separate unit (under current legislation) would be the description of creating a tenancy (I may not think that is good or ideal or fair, but IMO I think its how it would be seen).
The way around that legitimately is the opt out clause, but Id review it in detail.

tom1ie · 07-09-2019 8:59am

1874 wrote: »

I think the RTB has jurisdiction over what is defined a tenancy or not, or it could be even the WRC now, Im well out of it now and its gone on so many tangents, I dont know what is normal (;)) anymore.
I'd agree that the RTB likely has no jurisdiction over the Revenue scheme and just as likely dont care one jot, the Revenue scheme is a tax scheme that allows you no tax liability for rooms let in your own home, The RTB get to decide if such a scenario is in your own home or if you have actually created a Tenancy, Id suggest a separate unit (under current legislation) would be the description of creating a tenancy (I may not think that is good or ideal or fair, but IMO I think its how it would be seen).
The way around that legitimately is the opt out clause, but Id review it in detail.

Yeah i think this is where it’s at now. The rtb can actually decide if a lodger is a tenant and then bring, what they perceive to be the landlord, to the wrc, where you’ll get some adjudacter looking to make a name for herself/himself and your in trouble.
This seems completely unfair and I think leaves a trap for people.
When/if I get a ministerial reply I’ll post it up here.

davindub · 07-09-2019 9:50am

tom1ie wrote: »

Yeah i think this is where it’s at now. The rtb can actually decide if a lodger is a tenant and then bring, what they perceive to be the landlord, to the wrc, where you’ll get some adjudacter looking to make a name for herself/himself and your in trouble.
This seems completely unfair and I think leaves a trap for people.
When/if I get a ministerial reply I’ll post it up here.

Wrc is for cases brought by a tenant under the equal status act. Again nothing to do with the rtb.

tom1ie · 07-09-2019 9:57am

davindub wrote: »

Wrc is for cases brought by a tenant under the equal status act. Again nothing to do with the rtb.

Can an rtb decision not be brought to the wrc? I thought there was a ruling by an adjudicator about a tenant/lodger classification recently enough and I thought that was in the wrc. Apologies if not. Are there adjudicators working for the rtb, and is it the rtb who make the decision? They dont settle matters in the wrc, no?
Again apologies I’m not well up on this part of it.

davindub · 07-09-2019 11:48am

tom1ie wrote: »

Can an rtb decision not be brought to the wrc? I thought there was a ruling by an adjudicator about a tenant/lodger classification recently enough and I thought that was in the wrc. Apologies if not. Are there adjudicators working for the rtb, and is it the rtb who make the decision? They dont settle matters in the wrc, no?
Again apologies I’m not well up on this part of it.

The WRC may have made a decision that a complainant was a lodger and the equal status act didn't apply or vice versa. But that decision if made would be irrelevant to cases brought to the RTB (under residential tenancies act) and irrelevant to revenue.

Hopefully you are getting the sense now that each of the legislations are handled by a seperate body with different aims and no collaboration between the bodies.

tom1ie · 07-09-2019 12:18pm

davindub wrote: »

The WRC may have made a decision that a complainant was a lodger and the equal status act didn't apply or vice versa. But that decision if made would be irrelevant to cases brought to the RTB (under residential tenancies act) and irrelevant to revenue.

Hopefully you are getting the sense now that each of the legislations are handled by a seperate body with different aims and no collaboration between the bodies.

well i originally had that sense to be honest but wanted to see what the overall view was and what peoples experiences on this are.
It's a very unfair situation that leaves people open to getting their wrist slapped without them being in any way aware of the danger.

Claw Hammer · 08-09-2019 12:26pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Wrong.
It is not another dwelling as is clearly stated in revenue rules. They say it qualifies for rent a room as the r.a.r is joined onto the house.

You are making the mistake of confatig the Revenue rules with the distinction between a licence an a tenancy. The Revenue give the relief if you and the people paying rent to you are i the same building envelope irrespective of how may logical dwellings are in that building envelope. The Revenue do not distinguish between licencees paying rent and tenants paying rent.
The RTB on the other hand are concerned with whether the people paying rent to you are in the same dwelling or not irrespective of whether the dwellings are contained with the same building envelope.
It is possible to get rent a room relief from tenants and it is possible to be refused rent a room relief in respect of licencees.
What you are describing is a classical case of qualifying for rent a room relief in respect of tenants thus having to register and deal with the RTB as well.

tom1ie · 08-09-2019 4:00pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You are making the mistake of confatig the Revenue rules with the distinction between a licence an a tenancy. The Revenue give the relief if you and the people paying rent to you are i the same building envelope irrespective of how may logical dwellings are in that building envelope. The Revenue do not distinguish between licencees paying rent and tenants paying rent.
The RTB on the other hand are concerned with whether the people paying rent to you are in the same dwelling or not irrespective of whether the dwellings are contained with the same building envelope.
It is possible to get rent a room relief from tenants and it is possible to be refused rent a room relief in respect of licencees.
What you are describing is a classical case of qualifying for rent a room relief in respect of tenants thus having to register and deal with the RTB as well.

Right. So I qualify for rent a room, but my lodger is in fact a tenant, which means I should comply with the rtb. So registering the tenancy, paying the monthly registration fee.
The license agreement signed between myself and “the lodger” would now be null and void, as it could be decided by the rtb that they should be afforded the rights of a tenant.
Have I got that right?

Claw Hammer · 09-09-2019 10:08am

tom1ie wrote: »

Right. So I qualify for rent a room, but my lodger is in fact a tenant, which means I should comply with the rtb. So registering the tenancy, paying the monthly registration fee.
The license agreement signed between myself and “the lodger” would now be null and void, as it could be decided by the rtb that they should be afforded the rights of a tenant.
Have I got that right?

The registration fee is not monthly, however you will have to register.
The RTB will likely construe your licence agreement as a lease so i wouldn't be null and void per se.
You will also likely have lost the benefit of Section 25 of the tenancies act because you didn't serve the notice before the commecement of the tenancy.
You will also be required to comply with the Standards for Rental dwellings regulations and have landlord insurance.

09-09-2019 10:53am

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The registration fee is not monthly, however you will have to register.
The RTB will likely construe your licence agreement as a lease so i wouldn't be null and void per se.
You will also likely have lost the benefit of Section 25 of the tenancies act because you didn't serve the notice before the commecement of the tenancy.
You will also be required to comply with the Standards for Rental dwellings regulations and have landlord insurance.

I don't care what the RTB say there is simply no way a person renting a room in an area under your roof is anything but a licensee. They don't have exclusive use, they don't have access that can't be cut off, they don't have any control over services etc etc.

There is no one in the country renting a granny flat etc that is treating the people in there as anything but licensees as that's what they are. Just because the RTB think they can overstep their power doesn't mean they can.

If the op wants to be 100% sure the RTB can't even try to come after him all he has to do is inform the person they don't have exclusive use of the area, keep a small store room in there which he accesses regularly, cook his dinner in there from time to time etc.

rent a room question

Comments