Rent a Room Eviction Ban

Samuel T. Cogley

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/rent-a-room-tenancies-protected-as-d%C3%A1il-backs-amendment-to-ban-all-evictions-1.4213346?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Frent-a-room-tenancies-protected-as-d%25C3%25A1il-backs-amendment-to-ban-all-evictions-1.4213346


Pretty drastic measures being taken if true.

Caranica

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/rent-a-room-tenancies-protected-as-d%C3%A1il-backs-amendment-to-ban-all-evictions-1.4213346?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Frent-a-room-tenancies-protected-as-d%25C3%25A1il-backs-amendment-to-ban-all-evictions-1.4213346

Pretty drastic measures being taken if true.

Needs to be passed by the Seanad tomorrow and signed into law by the President. I know at least one poster on here was having issues getting a licensee out. Need to sort it tomorrow morning!

the_syco

Can see people getting evicted by the fcuk tonne if this happens

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/proposed-emergency-measures-for-renters-could-leave-tens-of-thousands-in-debt-warns-o-broin-990024.html

MMr Ó Broin’s amendments include renters who are on a licence or renting a room on a verbal agreement in those who protected by the ban on evictions and also calls for allowances to be made for Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy to establish a scheme aimed at avoiding deferred rents becoming millstones for impacted renters.

Mr Ó Broin said that he accepted such a scheme would be complex and requires the buy-in of banks and landlords, but said that it would ensure burden-sharing in the private rental sector.

I wonder what he means by "the buy-in of banks and landlords"?

Samuel T. Cogley

the_syco wrote: »

Can see people getting evicted by the fcuk tonne if this happens

My thoughts exactly. Anyone with any doubt is going to ask the licencee to leave, pretty much on the spot. It could be Brid Smith just spouting nonsense. Irresponsible nonsense if so.

endacl

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It could be Brid Smith just spouting nonsense.

Referring to licencees as tenants? Yep. If she doesn't know what she's talking about, any opinion she expresses on the matter is moot.

How can it be illegal to ask somebody to leave your house?

Caranica

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

My thoughts exactly. Anyone with any doubt is going to ask the licencee to leave, pretty much on the spot. It could be Brid Smith just spouting nonsense. Irresponsible nonsense if so.

It's been reported elsewhere too, it is in the law. I'd be more concerned about the line in that article where it says the law will put a stay on eviction notices already served though.

the_syco

endacl wrote: »

Referring to licencees as tenants?

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/proposed-emergency-measures-for-renters-could-leave-tens-of-thousands-in-debt-warns-o-broin-990024.html

Mr Ó Broin’s amendments include renters who are on a licence or renting a room on a verbal agreement in those who protected by the ban on evictions

Stopping the eviction of a licensee, and preventing it if the owner thinks the licensee is infected a can of worms.

Varik

So it's 25 votes to 24, that'd be 111 abstentions & absences on this amendment.

As to the retroactive enforcement, that's already unconstitutional not that the government care too much about that.

What would the consequence even be for illegally evicting a licensee, this doesn't make them tenants so no RTB.

the_syco wrote: »

Can see people getting evicted by the fcuk tonne if this happens

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/proposed-emergency-measures-for-renters-could-leave-tens-of-thousands-in-debt-warns-o-broin-990024.html

I wonder what he means by "the buy-in of banks and landlords"?

They mean writing off arrears/down debt.

handlemaster

Varik wrote: »

So it's 25 votes to 24, that'd be 111 abstentions & absences on this amendment.

As to the retroactive enforcement, that's already unconstitutional not that the government care too much about that.

What would the consequence even be for illegally evicting a licensee, this doesn't make them tenants so no RTB.




They mean writing off arrears/down debt.

He wants landlords to pay for the tenants basically.

handlemaster

handlemaster wrote: »

He wants landlords to pay for the tenants basically.

Can’t see what the penalty would be for asking a guest in your house to leave, they have no statutory rights or protections in relation to tenancies. Stupidly, if the licensee doesn’t have to pay, homeowners just tell them they can’t afford to board them for 3 months. RTB/LA can’t do anything.

Victor

Varik wrote: »

As to the retroactive enforcement, that's already unconstitutional not that the government care too much about that.

The only thing the constitution prohibits from being retroactive are criminal matters. It doesn't stop the Oireachtas from, say, shoving up the LPT on people who evicted people.

The situation is slight past the "that's unconstitutional" stage if an emergency has been declared. 99% of the constitution can be suspended in an emergency.

Yellow_Fern

Insane

y0ssar1an22

i know of a few elderly people who do R & R to younger woking professionals. one was told to move out if they continue working, they continued working by moving home. **** for all involved but if health and safety is the no. 1 priority i hope there is allowance for this in the new legislation.

y0ssar1an22

the_syco wrote: »

Can see people getting evicted by the fcuk tonne if this happens

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/proposed-emergency-measures-for-renters-could-leave-tens-of-thousands-in-debt-warns-o-broin-990024.html

I wonder what he means by "the buy-in of banks and landlords"?

the banks deduct 3 months rent (or whatever the case) from the LL's mortgage permanently (with associated interest) so they can pass the savings to the tenant? will cost a **** ton but the only feasible way that works.

Raging_Ninja

Victor wrote: »

The situation is slight past the "that's unconstitutional" stage if an emergency has been declared. 99% of the constitution can be suspended in an emergency.

Constitution is pretty specific, laws which violate the constitution (except for the ban on the death penalty) can only go unchallenged during a war or armed rebellion. There is no mention of a state of emergency. A pandemic is neither unless the supreme court wants to perform an extreme level of mental gymnastics.

Time

Folks this only applies to licensees in student accommodation. The bill is on Oireachtas.ie, in it under S.3 you’ll see that the licencee is one as defined in S.37 of the 2019 residential tenancies act. That was the law that expanded tenancy rights to student accommodation.

Yellow_Fern

Time wrote: »

Folks this only applies to licensees in student accommodation. The bill is on Oireachtas.ie, in it under S.3 you’ll see that the licencee is one as defined in S.37 of the 2019 residential tenancies act. That was the law that expanded tenancy rights to student accommodation.

Mad that the IT reported it as for rent a rooms.

Time

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Mad that the IT reported it as for rent a rooms.

Tbh if you only read the bill I can see how you’d come to that conclusion. Its still shoddy journalism by them though

Ballso

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Mad that the IT reported it as for rent a rooms.

Smith, Murphy are claiming that its licencees, travellers etc. covered....

Time

Ballso wrote: »

Smith, Murphy are claiming that its licencees, travellers etc. covered....

I imagine they're claiming that on the grounds that the bill says "all tenencies" but the traditional licensee is still not considered a tenancy under the new bill so it'd be impossible for it to be applied to them.

Ap2020

Time wrote: »

Folks this only applies to licensees in student accommodation. The bill is on Oireachtas.ie, in it under S.3 you’ll see that the licencee is one as defined in S.37 of the 2019 residential tenancies act. That was the law that expanded tenancy rights to student accommodation.

The amendment was amendment 19 last night and is now s 5(7) of the bill before the seanad today:

(7) (a) Notwithstanding any of the provisions in this section, all proposed evictions in all tenancies in the State, including those not covered by the Act of 2004, are prohibited during the operation of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020.

(b) For the avoidance of doubt, this section applies to all Local Authority and Approved Housing body dwellings.

(c) For the avoidance of doubt, all Travellers who are currently resident in any location should not during this crisis be evicted from that location except where movement is required to ameliorate hardship and provide protection and subject to consultation with the Travellers involved.

It is fairly poorly drafted ("for the avoidance of doubt" is awful), but it does go beyond student accommodation at the same time. It applies the prohibition on eviction to anyone who is a tenant, even if not covered by the 2004 Act. Basically reverting to the common law understanding. So that will encompass people in dodgy house shares where the landlord was trying to rely on a strict interpretation of "dwelling" in s 4 of the 2004 Act.

It will not, of course, apply to those in a rent a room scenario, as they by definition should not have exclusive possession. I'm not sure if PBP realise the impact of using the word "tenant" in their amendment.

We will also have to see what the Seanad does with it.

the_syco

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2020/4/eng/ver_a/b04a20dpdf-as-passed-by-de.pdf
Page 7

Interpretation
3. (1) In this Part—
“Act of 2004” means the Residential Tenancies Act 2004;
“emergency period” means—
(a) the period of 3 months commencing on the enactment of this Act, and
(b) such other period (if any) as may be specified by order under section 4.
(2) In this Part—
(a) references to landlord shall be construed as including references to licensor
within the meaning of section 37 of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act
2019,
(b) references to tenant shall be construed as including references to licensee within
such meaning, and
(c) references to tenancy shall be construed as including references to licence within
such meaning

Ballso

Oh dear

the_syco

Ap2020 wrote: »

(c) For the avoidance of doubt, all Travellers who are currently resident in any location should not during this crisis be evicted from that location except where movement is required to ameliorate hardship and provide protection and subject to consultation with the Travellers involved.

I wonder if this includes evicting them from locations that they do not rent, and may not be there with the permission of the local authority/land owner?

Ballso

the_syco wrote: »

I wonder if this includes evicting them from locations that they do not rent, and may not be there with the permission of the local authority/land owner?

What other interpretation is there?

Is this for three months or twelve months does anyone know?

Ap2020

The phrase "within such meaning" is vitally important there. It means that you must read it in the terms of s 37 of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2019, which refers back to s 3(1A) if the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 which is limited in scope to accommodation where students reside (and where the landlord does not).

Samuel T. Cogley

Ballso wrote: »

What other interpretation is there?

Is this for three months or twelve months does anyone know?

3 months, 12 months was voted on but defeated.

Varik

Victor wrote: »

The only thing the constitution prohibits from being retroactive are criminal matters. It doesn't stop the Oireachtas from, say, shoving up the LPT on people who evicted people.

The situation is slight past the "that's unconstitutional" stage if an emergency has been declared. 99% of the constitution can be suspended in an emergency.

It's not limited to criminal law, Murphy -v- Attorney General involved retrospective changes to taxation and the court found such civil changes to violate protected property rights.

ted1

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

the banks deduct 3 months rent (or whatever the case) from the LL's mortgage permanently (with associated interest) so they can pass the savings to the tenant? will cost a **** ton but the only feasible way that works.

What about landlords with no bank loan but use the money to live in or support kids in college , or family in a nursing home etc

endacl

Would be fairer in terms of what has been foisted on people in the rent a room scenario to refer to them as homeowners rather than landlords.

Mic 1972

Ap2020 wrote: »

The amendment was amendment 19 last night and is now s 5(7) of the bill before the seanad today:

(7) (a) Notwithstanding any of the provisions in this section, all proposed evictions in all tenancies in the State, including those not covered by the Act of 2004, are prohibited during the operation of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020.

(b) For the avoidance of doubt, this section applies to all Local Authority and Approved Housing body dwellings.

(c) For the avoidance of doubt, all Travellers who are currently resident in any location should not during this crisis be evicted from that location except where movement is required to ameliorate hardship and provide protection and subject to consultation with the Travellers involved.

It is fairly poorly drafted ("for the avoidance of doubt" is awful), but it does go beyond student accommodation at the same time. It applies the prohibition on eviction to anyone who is a tenant, even if not covered by the 2004 Act. Basically reverting to the common law understanding. So that will encompass people in dodgy house shares where the landlord was trying to rely on a strict interpretation of "dwelling" in s 4 of the 2004 Act.

It will not, of course, apply to those in a rent a room scenario, as they by definition should not have exclusive possession. I'm not sure if PBP realise the impact of using the word "tenant" in their amendment.

We will also have to see what the Seanad does with it.

7 (a) says all tenancies in the State including those not covered by Act of 2004
How can you say that this will not apply to rent-a-room?

Time

Mic 1972 wrote: »

7 (a) says all tenancies in the State including those not covered by Act of 2004
How can you say that this will not apply to rent-a-room?

Because they aren’t tenancies they’re licence arrangements. The reference to licensees in s.5 is limited to students in student accommodation.

Ap2020

Mic 1972 wrote: »

7 (a) says all tenancies in the State including those not covered by Act of 2004
How can you say that this will not apply to rent-a-room?

Rent a room isn't a tenancy. The relationship of landlord and tenant requires exclusive possession of the dwelling.

L1011

Varik wrote: »

So it's 25 votes to 24, that'd be 111 abstentions & absences on this amendment.

There is only a representative subset of TDs in the Dáil to allow for distancing. Think its 48, so a 25/24 would be the Ceann Comhairle breaking to the Government as is the norm; and would be 100% of them voting.

Ap2020

L1011 wrote: »

There is only a representative subset of TDs in the Dáil to allow for distancing. Think its 48, so a 25/24 would be the Ceann Comhairle breaking to the Government as is the norm; and would be 100% of them voting.

It was fifty, but someone was absent. The vote went against the government.

Mic 1972

Time wrote: »

Because they aren’t tenancies they’re licence arrangements. The reference to licensees in s.5 is limited to students in student accommodation.

Thanks I found the reference to the student accommodation in the Residential Act 2019, this is helpful. I'm still kind of concerned about proceeding with an eviction in this climate, especially during the lock down. I'm afraid of legal cosequences

Yellow_Fern

I understand this amendment was in response to some student accommodation shutting down. This isnt going to be let out to others. It was shut down for public health. I dont understand why this point isnt raised in the press.

roper1664

In relation to the rent-a-room scheme:
This is undertaken with the understanding that the home owner will take in a lodger, as a paying guest, and the home owner can remove that person from the household at any time, with reasonable notice, i.e., could be four weeks or could be the amount of time it takes to get them and their possessions out of the property, if they do something that the home owner deems unacceptable, e.g., non-payment of rent, aggressive behaviour, offensive behaviour, etc.

Of course, the home owner needs to be more understanding than usual, due to the extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves in.

I do not think that anyone in the government would try and force a homeowner to keep a person, with no lease and no legal right, in their home. This would be a serious breach of trust and a big over-step by the government on peoples' rights. How would they like, as individuals, to be forced to keep a person in their home?

I really think that this is just confusion and poor use of words.

The terms " landlord" and "eviction" are totally irrelevant to the Rent-a-Room scheme.

If, the government/RTB want to remove this scheme, then I think it's an extremely flawed decision. And it is certain that few homeowner's/owner occupiers would opt in to a new scheme, where they would enter into anything binding, such as a lease. Why would they? And overnight, there would be a huge amount of available accommodation removed from existence.

If (and it's extremely unlikely) it's meant that they are changing the terms of the rent-a-room scheme, homeowners will initiate the process to remove Lodgers from their homes, as soon as it is allowed, and not enter into a new, binding agreement.

In summary, no one can force anyone to keep a person in their home. This would be a scary thought and very undemocratic.

roper1664

What that person/party in the article are looking for is preposterous. And I wouldn't use that word lightly.

I hope that those involved on voting on it really understand what is being proposed here and vote against it.

Mic 1972

roper1664 wrote: »

What that person/party in the article are looking for is preposterous. And I wouldn't use that word lightly.

I hope that those involved on voting on it really understand what is being proposed here and vote against it.

it's been voted already, or am i wrong?

roper1664

Mic 1972 wrote: »

it's been voted already, or am i wrong?

Yes, but still needs to get approval from the Seanad, according to the article. I hope and trust that they won't pass it. If they do they don't understand what's really being asked here.

Caranica

roper1664 wrote: »

Yes, but still needs to get approval from the Seanad, according to the article. I hope and trust that they won't pass it. If they do they don't understand what's really being asked here.

Seanad approved it yesterday. It's with the Attorney general at the moment. The article is from Thursday night

roper1664

Caranica wrote: »

Seanad approved it yesterday. It's with the Attorney general at the moment. The article is from Thursday night

Wow. It just makes no sense to me. How can this be forced on someone in their own home. What's stopping a person from changing the locks, among other things...

Mic 1972

Especially older people who normally rent spare rooms and are at risk of sever symptoms if they get infected, how can a law not take people's health into consideration?
Anyway, what's been passed is basically an amendment to the definition of licence to incorporate student accommodation, that's my understanding so far

Mic 1972

roper1664 wrote: »

Wow. It just makes no sense to me. How can this be forced on someone in their own home. What's stopping a person from changing the locks, among other things...

only thing that is stopping me from doing that is the risk of legal consequences

roper1664

Mic 1972 wrote: »

only thing that is stopping me from doing that is the risk of legal consequences

If you've given someone notice, expect them gone that day.

Yellow_Fern

Mic 1972 wrote: »

only thing that is stopping me from doing that is the risk of legal consequences

Its quite extraordinary seeming people defend it on reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/fpl9wx/rentaroom_tenancies_protected_as_d%C3%A1il_backs/

roper1664

One of the posts in Reddit is

The amendment specifically goes beyond the 2004 Act and its amendments. So while it does protects students, they were already protected by the bill as proposed. What this does achieve is something more than just protecting students, but likely less than protecting rent a room tenants (in the majority of cases). Rent a room tenants don't have exclusive possession, and so will fail the common law test for tenancy.

However, this will protect anyone in, for example, a house share where the landlord does not reside. Their position has been somewhat ambiguous

This would also be my understanding, there's no way you can be forced to have a "guest" in your own home. No way.

Mic 1972

roper1664 wrote: »

This would also be my understanding, there's no way you can be forced to have a "guest" in your own home. No way.

What's your take on the current lock down restrictions? I'm afraid the lodger might have a point expecting not to be forced to go outside and move to another acomodation

Mic 1972

I called the local Garda for further clarifications, they said the eviction ban applies to everything no exception. They said to play by ear and call them on Tuesday if the lodger isn't moving out but they might not be able to enforce an eviction.
Great, something to take into consideration for future reference

Time

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I called the local Garda for further clarifications, they said the eviction ban applies to everything no exception. They said to play by ear and call them on Tuesday if the lodger isn't moving out but they might not be able to enforce an eviction.
Great, something to take into consideration for future reference

With the greatest respect to the Gardai they are not experts in interpreting legislation. I would be very surprised if a solicitor gave you that same advice because the law simply is not structured in a way that allows people living in the same home as their landlord to gain tenancy rights.