Am I a licensee or a tenant?

NickyK2017

Hi, I would love some feedback on this situation.

I currently live in a 2 bed house in rpz area with the son of the owner and am being told by the son that I am a licensee and therefore have limited rights.

I started renting this house in 2016 with my friend under a tenancy and after 18 months the landlord served us with valid notice of termination because his son needed accommodation in the city. Our deposits were repaid in full after the landlord did his final inspection. Before the tenancy end date I had a chat with the landlord and his son and agreed that once the tenancy with my friend had ended, I could take the spare room and share the house with the son, share the bills and pay a rent (less than I was paying previously) to the son under rent a room. He even allowed me move into the bigger bedroom.
I paid a deposit to the son but nothing was put on paper. This has worked fine but recently the son has asked for a 20% rise in rent and only gave 30 days notice. I thought the rent can only go up by 4% with 90 days notice. I've checked the rtb register and the address still shows a tenancy registered.

He says as I'm a licensee, those rules don't apply. Who's right?

Salary Negotiator

Who do you pay rent to?

I don’t think anyone here will be able to definitively say which you are.

On the face of it it sounds like you’re a licensee but the RTB might decide differently.

Did you ask to be put on the lease after 6 months?

NickyK2017

I pay rent into the son's bank account.

I don't think there is a lease.

It seems like a straightforward licensee arrangement. You were issued valid notice, deposit returned, tenancy ended. Now you pay less rent to the owners son in a licensee agreement rather than to the Landlord. The son was right not to issue you with a tenancy agreement and the rental is not bound by the RPZ regs.

Salary Negotiator

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Did you ask to be put on the lease after 6 months?

Don’t think that applies when you are a licensee sharing with a close relative of the owner, think that is more relevant in a sub let situation where you are sharing with the lead tenant. But I could be wrong. The relative usually does not have a tenancy/lease agreement with the owner/relative.

boege

Sounds like the landlord did his homework in ending the tenancy properly. The RTB registration could be the old tenancy which he claims is now ended.

He has also allowed you to move rooms which infers a licence arrangement.

A tenancy involves exclusive possession. A licence would exist where you are sharing with the owner - owners son may not be the same thing!

RTB guidance note here:

https://www.icsh.ie/sites/default/files/8_rtb_lease_vs_licence_guidance_note.pdf

NickyK2017

So it looks like I may be out of luck. I get on well with the son and the location suits so I may as well agree.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to reply

Spencerfreeman

NickyK2017 wrote: »

So it looks like I may be out of luck. I get on well with the son and the location suits so I may as well agree.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to reply

I would try to negotiate it down a bit. He is not the owner so it's a bit grey.

MicktheMan

OP, by my reading of your situation, I would thread carefully here if I were you.

Suppose, for sake of argument, your hope of still being a tenant is upheld. In that case, is it not so that the original higher rent is payable to your original landlord (I doubt the rent review resulting in the rent reduction would have been valid under the RTA), are you not now in rent arrears to the landlord?

the_syco

NickyK2017 wrote: »

This has worked fine but recently the son has asked for a 20% rise in rent and only gave 30 days notice. I thought the rent can only go up by 4% with 90 days notice. I've checked the rtb register and the address still shows a tenancy registered.

He says as I'm a licensee, those rules don't apply. Who's right?

Move out. There's nothing to stop the son using you as an ATM, as you're now a licensee.

MicktheMan

MicktheMan wrote: »

OP, by my reading of your situation, I would thread carefully here if I were you.

Suppose, for sake of argument, your hope of still being a tenant is upheld. In that case, is it not so that the original higher rent is payable to your original landlord (I doubt the rent review resulting in the rent reduction would have been valid under the RTA), are you not now in rent arrears to the landlord?

Landlord terminated the tenancy and returned deposit at the end of it, I doubt he could then claim op is in arrears based on terms of that tenancy.

Spencerfreeman

the_syco wrote: »

Move out. There's nothing to stop the son using you as an ATM, as you're now a licensee.

Unless the Father has transferred ownership to the son maybe that's not the case?

runawaybishop

boege wrote: »

A licence would exist where you are sharing with the owner - owners son may not be the same thing!

Its the same thing, living with a landlords spouse, kids or parents are the same as living with the landlord as far as the licensee regulations are concerned.

MicktheMan

Dav010 wrote: »

Landlord terminated the tenancy and returned deposit at the end of it, I doubt he could then claim op is in arrears based on terms of that tenancy.

I guess that's my point really. The only way that a tenancy exists, imo, is that the original tenancy somehow is deemed not to have ended regardless of deposit being returned. Therefore the question of rent arrears arise.

MicktheMan

MicktheMan wrote: »

I guess that's my point really. The only way that a tenancy exists, imo, is that the original tenancy somehow is deemed not to have ended regardless of deposit being returned. Therefore the question of rent arrears arise.

Once the son is living in the house then the original lease is most likely invalidated anyway as living with an owner or a close relative of an owner is incompatible with a tenancy existing.

mdebets

It looks like the OP is a licensee of the son, who seems to be the tenant of his father. So doesn't have the OP the right, to request beeing made a a proper part 4 tenant?

Fian

mdebets wrote: »

It looks like the OP is a licensee of the son, who seems to be the tenant of his father. So doesn't have the OP the right, to request beeing made a a proper part 4 tenant?

The likely outcome of such a request is an immediate termination of his licence.

mdebets

mdebets wrote: »

It looks like the OP is a licensee of the son, who seems to be the tenant of his father. So doesn't have the OP the right, to request beeing made a a proper part 4 tenant?

The son will be a licensee if his father also you can’t be a tenant of your parent.

This is all fairly clear compared to many of the licensee debates. Children are licensee of their parents regardless if the parent lives with them or not and anyone living with the son/daughter of an owner is automatically a licensee also.

Gumbo

Agustin Big Jaw wrote: »

The son will be a licensee if his father also you can’t be a tenant of your parent.

This is all fairly clear compared to many of the licensee debates. Children are licensee of their parents regardless if the parent lives with them or not and anyone living with the son/daughter of an owner is automatically a licensee also.

On a slightly different tangent.
How would tax liability work?

Let’s say I give my rental property to my 18 year old son to stay in while in college. And he lets out the spare rooms.

Does the 14k exemption kick in anywhere from the rent a room?
Would I be liable for any tax if a mortgage is still being paid?

kceire

kceire wrote: »

On a slightly different tangent.
How would tax liability work?

Let’s say I give my rental property to my 18 year old son to stay in while in college. And he lets out the spare rooms.

Does the 14k exemption kick in anywhere from the rent a room?
Would I be liable for any tax if a mortgage is still being paid?

Once your son keeps the money (officially anyway) then you would have no tax liability and he would have none either as it’s rent a room. Technically your son would have a CAT liability for free use of a house but in reality I would say no onc has ever actually considered a CAT liability in a scenario like this.

If he is in college actually there may not even be a CAT liability as it could be considered educational help.