Rent a Room Eviction Ban

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.

Varik

Even a normal illegal/legal eviction of an actual tenant from a tenancy wouldn't be the Guards business.

Yellow_Fern

Varik wrote: »

Even a normal illegal/legal eviction of an actual tenant from a tenancy wouldn't be the Guards business.

yes, because its a civil matter for the sheriff. I think the idea here is that its Jake who wont leave your spare bedroom than it could be a criminal matter and that the guards would be involved.

Mic 1972

Varik wrote: »

Even a normal illegal/legal eviction of an actual tenant from a tenancy wouldn't be the Guards business.

They wouldn't intervene for a normal tenancy, but in a rent-a-room scenario they do because a lodger refusing to leave is trespassing

Time

Mic 1972 wrote: »

They wouldn't intervene for a normal tenancy, but in a rent-a-room scenario they do because a lodger refusing to leave is trespassing

Trespassing is a tort not a criminal matter. If the trespass is accompanied by behavior that makes the owner afraid for their safety then it’s criminal trespass and the Gardai can get involved.

Mic 1972

Time wrote: »

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.

I'm calling Citizen Information on Monday to get advice too, hopefully they'll have some answers, I'm worried about the note below ...this applies to all Local Authorities and Approved Housing body dwellings



https://i.imgur.com/tGSFYQv.jpg

JustAThought

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I'm calling Citizen Information on Monday to get advice too, hopefully they'll have some answers, I'm worried about the note below ...this applies to all Local Authorities and Approved Housing body dwellings



https://i.imgur.com/tGSFYQv.jpg

why is your lodger such a problem - whats the background? Prior to this You seem to be afraid of giving them notice in your own house. Tell them ifs over - they need to go. I assume you have given them notice.

Dies anyone know who voted and who avstained and who was missing? As representatives chosen on a proportinate baisis to represent a not yet formed government this not turning up and not voting is a farce.

I also think tge 26th was the cut off point for seanad elections. Is this a rush job on the evenof Seanad elections by a small not represented in the democratic election group who are making such waves - where are the men with balls sticking up for Irish families instead of sticking them with unpaying lodgers.

Mic 1972

JustAThought wrote: »

why is your lodger such a problem - whats the background? Prior to this You seem to be afraid of giving them notice in your own house. Tell them ifs over - they need to go. I assmhme you have given them notice.

Dies anyone know who voted and who avstained and who was missing? As representatives chosen on a proportinate baisis to represent a not yet formed government this not turning up and not voting is a farce.

He was served verbal notice long before the eviction ban with an agreed exit date of 1st april. As soon as the eviction ban was announced he said he wasn't leaving anymore, i sent him a watsapp message to have on record his exit date but it was too late. In the meantime they amended the bill extending the eviction ban to all dwellings and on top of that they announced the lock down. Impossible to kick him out now
The problem i have with him is that he still goes to work every night, using public transports and possibly not being in a position to apply social distancing in the work place - he is not a nurse - and i honestly don't feel safe in my house anymore and i think i have the right to protect my health, this is not about money

Shefwedfan

People complain about landlord this landlord that

This is another move by the government to fu*k the whole thing up, It’s always protect the f**king waster. If good tenants are in place then landlord will work with them. It’s the useless f**k that you want rid of you can’t now, so people don’t run the risk.

Absolute gobsh**ts

garhjw

Shefwedfan wrote: »

People complain about landlord this landlord that

This is another move by the government to fu*k the whole thing up, It’s always protect the f**king waster. If good tenants are in place then landlord will work with them. It’s the useless f**k that you want rid of you can’t now, so people don’t run the risk.

Absolute gobsh**ts

This was an amendment by SF and/or PBP losers. It was not in the initial bill. Clear attempt by these types of people to politicise the the health emergency.

Mic 1972

Thinking about old people renting out rooms and not being able to get rid of lodgers in the middle of the pandemic when they are at risk. If i had another place to go I would leave the house behind but this is my sole residence