Can I kick her out?

dubrov

MadDog76 wrote: »

She cannot be legally a "Guest" as guests in your household are currently forbidden therefore she is simply a member of the Op's household (regardless of any label anybody on here wishes to impose upon her) and as such cannot be removed during the current crisis.

She is not being "put into" the Op's home, she's already there.

There is no grey area in this situation.......

Could you reference the legislation where guests are forbidden in a person's home and that existing licensees become household members?

Time

MadDog76 wrote: »

She cannot be legally a "Guest" as guests in your household are currently forbidden therefore she is simply a member of the Op's household (regardless of any label anybody on here wishes to impose upon her) and as such cannot be removed during the current crisis.

She is not being "put into" the Op's home, she's already there.

There is no grey area in this situation.......

My €100 offer still stands. All you have to do is post the exact legislation that says removing her (a licensee) is illegal.

Actually I’ll up it to €150.

893bet

MadDog76 wrote: »

She cannot be legally a "Guest" as guests in your household are currently forbidden therefore she is simply a member of the Op's household (regardless of any label anybody on here wishes to impose upon her) and as such cannot be removed during the current crisis.

She is not being "put into" the Op's home, she's already there.

There is no grey area in this situation.......

It’s pretty obvious you have no idea what you are talking about other than rehashing the opinions of others who don’t know.

Some members have posted clear links to the legislation and the wording is clear.
She is not in scope and can be turfed out.

Get her out and worry about it after (hint: you’ll be fine).

The most important thing is getting her out immediately.

Spook_ie

Time wrote: »

My €100 offer still stands. All you have to do is post the exact legislation that says removing her (a licensee) is illegal.

Actually I’ll up it to €150.

It's already been put, the very words used indicate that the eviction process as it now stands applies to ALL evictions.

The wording of

5. (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.

change the word "Notwithstanding" to it's alternative definition of "dispite" and then take note that the situation "isn't" covered by the act of 2004 and then go ask a judge for their interpretation

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

It's already been put, the very words used indicate that the eviction process as it now stands applies to ALL evictions.

The wording of change the word "Notwithstanding" to it's alternative definition of "dispite" and then take note that the situation "isn't" covered by the act of 2004 and then go ask a judge for their interpretation

Also I'll refer you again to the CA website which states

COVID-19 (coronavirus) and renting
Since 27 March 2020, emergency measures have been in place to protect tenants during the coronavirus emergency period. These measures are in place for 3 months and also apply when you are sharing with your landlord. During the 3 month period from 27 March:

You cannot be served with a notice of termination
If you had been served with a notice of termination before 27 March, the notice period is paused for 3 months
Your landlord cannot increase your rent, even if notice of the rent increase was served before 27 March
The Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government has more information about these changes.

Now maybe you should be asking them on what basis they are posting that on but, as I said, they have access to lawyers etc. who will likely know more about the legislation than you or I.

As already alluded to in the OP the person isn't a guest she is

Hi everyone

We have a student in ‘digs’ with us. She is a friend’s cousin and we were helping her out for college accommodation. <snipped>
She is a licensee I guess but our mental health is suffering with her. We were going to give her the summer and tell her she would have to head home by early August. Nothing has been decided and I just wanted to see what you all thought first.

A paying licensee, and as such the CA advice would apply to her

Spook_ie

Time wrote: »

My €100 offer still stands. All you have to do is post the exact legislation that says removing her (a licensee) is illegal.

Actually I’ll up it to €150.

BTW you can pay that money over to https://www.cancer.ie/ways-to-help/fundraise/daffodil-day/donate

(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.

Read the entire section 7 of the act and then try to tell people it only applies to tenants and that it is not illegal to evict her, it even goes as far as preventing travellers from being moved on and they are certainly not covered by the 2004 act.

Dav010

Spook_ie wrote: »

Also I'll refer you again to the CA website which states


Now maybe you should be asking them on what basis they are posting that on but, as I said, they have access to lawyers etc. who will likely know more about the legislation than you or I.

As already alluded to in the OP the person isn't a guest she is
A paying licensee, and as such the CA advice would apply to her

The legislation says otherwise. As has been pointed out to you many times, licensees are not tenants, their rental agreement is not a tenancy. The legislation defines what rental agreements/renters it covers, tenancies as defined by the 2004 Act, and licensees as defined in the 2019 Amendment to the Act, purpose built student accommodation. CA can say what the want, the legislation is there for you to read, it has been linked a number of times. And again, the Government would not have had to ask owners for forbearance if removal in digs/RaR was prohibited by the legislation. Why ask someone to refrain from exercising a legal right if that right did not exist?

Spook_ie

Dav010 wrote: »

The legislation says otherwise. As has been pointed out to you many times, licensees are not tenants, their rental agreement is not a tenancy. The legislation defines what rental agreements/renters it covers, tenancies as defined by the 2004 Act, and licensees as defined in the 2019 Amendment to the Act, purpose built student accommodation. CA can say what the want, the legislation is there for you to read, it has been linked a number of times. And again, the Government would not have had to ask owners for forbearance if removal in digs/RaR was prohibited by the legislation. Why ask someone to refrain from exercising a legal right if that right did not exist?

Read section 7 in its entirety and then think again

Time

Spook_ie wrote: »

It's already been put, the very words used indicate that the eviction process as it now stands applies to ALL evictions.

The wording of change the word "Notwithstanding" to it's alternative definition of "dispite" and then take note that the situation "isn't" covered by the act of 2004 and then go ask a judge for their interpretation

Well at least you got the section right, unfortunately your interpretation is still abysmal. "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"

The key word there is tenancies. This is not a tenancy its a licensee arrangement. If you'd like to understand the difference there's a handy guide here

Spook_ie wrote: »

Also I'll refer you again to the CA website which states


Now maybe you should be asking them on what basis they are posting that on but, as I said, they have access to lawyers etc. who will likely know more about the legislation than you or I.

As already alluded to in the OP the person isn't a guest she is
A paying licensee, and as such the CA advice would apply to her

The CA can post what they like, it won't change the fact the emergency measures act when interpreted as per the interpretation act only covers tenancies and not licensees.

Spook_ie wrote: »

BTW you can pay that money over to https://www.cancer.ie/ways-to-help/fundraise/daffodil-day/donate

Well since you've also failed to post the exact legislation that says licensees can't be removed i won't be paying anything, if you want to try again and can quote the exact legislation that covers them i'll increase it to €175

Spook_ie wrote: »

Read the entire section 7 of the act and then try to tell people it only applies to tenants and that it is not illegal to evict her, it even goes as far as preventing travellers from being moved on and they are certainly not covered by the 2004 act.

Well section 7 concerns proceedings before tenancy tribunals, so i assume you actually meant section 5(7) which i've quoted above and which only applies to tenancies.

You'd be as well to just admit that you have no real understanding of how statutory interpretation works and concede that licensees (other than those under the 2019 act) are not covered.

MadDog76

MadDog76 wrote: »

She cannot be legally a "Guest" as guests in your household are currently forbidden therefore she is simply a member of the Op's household (regardless of any label anybody on here wishes to impose upon her) and as such cannot be removed during the current crisis.

She is not being "put into" the Op's home, she's already there.

There is no grey area in this situation.......

Rubbish from start to finish bar you being correct in saying it’s not a grey area, it is very very clear that the op can kick out the guest

STB.

An awful lot of armchair advisors in here. I have to say that the drafting of legislation in the country is piss poor, but even I can distinguish between licensee and a tenant in this case.

Licensee – is a person allowed to reside in a rental property but has no rights as a tenant.


@Time. Whats your ceiling here for the cash. I think you need to make it reciprocal.

Time

STB. wrote: »

I have to say that the drafting of legislation in the country is piss poor

I couldn't agree more, it was clear that licensees at least in the context of the 2019 act were considered so why the legislation didn't provide clarity beyond that is a bad oversight.

My ceiling would be €200, but i wouldn't make it reciprocal, i'd feel bad taking money off anyone who can't understand such simple concepts. They probably need it more than i do!

SetOverSet

A licensee who rents a room in a house does not typically have the same rights as a tenant, however Section 5(7)(a) of Part 2 of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 states:

"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."

That must be read in conjunction with the interpretation section, Section 3, for Part 2, where it states at 3(2)(b) and (c)"

"(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."

Adam9213

never_mind wrote: »

Hi everyone

We have a student in ‘digs’ with us. She is a friend’s cousin and we were helping her out for college accommodation. With covid we expected her to head home but she decided to stay. Her attitude has been fairly rotten since then including drinking a lot, being very dirty, not helping around house, and smoking in her room. We’ve done everything to try and sort these issues out with her but i think we have to give her the heave ho soon.

As covid seems to be here for the long term I wonder how and when I should broach then topic with her. She is a licensee I guess but our mental health is suffering with her. We were going to give her the summer and tell her she would have to head home by early August. Nothing has been decided and I just wanted to see what you all thought first.

Ever heard of the disappeared?

Spook_ie

Time wrote: »

Well at least you got the section right, unfortunately your interpretation is still abysmal. "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"

The key word there is tenancies. This is not a tenancy its a licensee arrangement. If you'd like to understand the difference there's a handy guide here




The CA can post what they like, it won't change the fact the emergency measures act when interpreted as per the interpretation act only covers tenancies and not licensees.



Well since you've also failed to post the exact legislation that says licensees can't be removed i won't be paying anything, if you want to try again and can quote the exact legislation that covers them i'll increase it to €175



Well section 7 concerns proceedings before tenancy tribunals, so i assume you actually meant section 5(7) which i've quoted above and which only applies to tenancies.

You'd be as well to just admit that you have no real understanding of how statutory interpretation works and concede that licensees (other than those under the 2019 act) are not covered.

Read it all
7a,7b and 7c

(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 does NOT refer solely to tenancies, therefore get your credit card out and pay your bet off. Or are you just another windbag keyboard warrior

TheChizler

SetOverSet wrote: »

A licensee who rents a room in a house does not typically have the same rights as a tenant, however Section 5(7)(a) of Part 2 of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 states:

"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."

That must be read in conjunction with the interpretation section, Section 3, for Part 2, where it states at 3(2)(b) and (c)"

"(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."

The"within such meaning" refers to part of the interpretation which you conveniently left out there:

(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 ,

And that section 37(2) says:

(2) In this section—

“licence” means a licence—

(a) given by the owner (in this section referred to as the “licensor”) of student accommodation to a student (in this section referred to as the “licensee”), and

...
...

“student accommodation” means a building, or part of a building, used for the sole purpose (subject to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)) of providing residential accommodation to students during academic term times under a licence—

Time

SetOverSet wrote: »

A licensee who rents a room in a house does not typically have the same rights as a tenant, however Section 5(7)(a) of Part 2 of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 states:

"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."

That must be read in conjunction with the interpretation section, Section 3, for Part 2, where it states at 3(2)(b) and (c)"

"(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."

That's some selective quoting there. You left out part (a) which is the most important one. For the avoidance of doubt here's what it actually says in S.3 in full

Emergency Measures In the Public Interest Act 2020 wrote:

(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.

(3) A word or expression that is used in this Part and in the Act of 2004 shall have the meaning in this Part that it has in that Act.

In other words the interpretation includes the definitions used for the purposes of S.37 of the 2019 act. That in turn only covers students in purpose built student accommodation as per the definition of dwelling under s.37(1)(e).

So the only licensees that s.5(7) can apply to are those that are stated to fall under the definition provided in s.3 and licensees in private accommodation do not fall under that definition, or for that matter, any other definition of a tenant in a tenancy.

Time

Spook_ie wrote: »

It does NOT refer solely to tenancies, therefore get your credit card out and pay your bet off. Or are you just another windbag keyboard warrior

No i'm just a person who understands what they're talking about. It literally says "all proposed evictions in all tenancies in the State". What part of licensees are not tenants are you not understanding? Do you understand the difference? Is there something i can help clarify to get you to understand that part?

As for the rest of it parts (b) and (c) specifically state that incorporated into that are local authority housing and travellers. Neither of those are licensees. So where exactly does it say licencsees other than those under the 2019 act are covered. I have the card here beside me ready to go if you can copy that section of the legislation.

Dav010

What is happening here is a few posters are taking a couple of subsections in isolation and posting them to try and validate their opinions instead of reading the Legislation and considering it in its entirety. Each subsection follows on from what has been written before. The first section of Part 2 outlines the scope of those tenancies effected by the legislation. A Tenant/tTenancy is defined in the 2004 Act, a Licensor/Licensee as defined by the 2019 Amendment to the Act, Section 37. The text is vague, presumably because it was hastily written, but it may have been intentionally so, in order to try and influence owners to at least consider refraining from exercising their right to remove renters from the houses where they themselves live. But legally, the Government cannot do any more than request refrain, without rewriting/amending the RTA to include licensees as tenants while would be nigh on impossible, unless they want to give every B&B guest, hotel guest etc tenancy rights.

No matter what spookie/Mad dog think or post, a licensee is a guest in your home, nothing more, this is why the Government asked house owners for forebearance, they know the owner has a legal right to ask them to leave. The emergency legislation does nothing to change that right.

imfml

Hi OP,

I saw this thread a few days ago and felt for you.
I see it again today near the top of the home page.
In the mean time I've been making the most of lock down enjoying my home and some relaxation time. So have your guests parents and cousin, while she smokes in your house and causes you stress. I'm annoyed on your behalf, but it is under your control. Do the right thing for YOURSELF and your family.

B.A._Baracus

I get where you're coming from op. You don't want throwing her out to bite you. But you say this is a friend's cousin so use that.

Tell her that she has to go. You're uncomfortable her being there as it's another risk of infection to you and your family. College ain't on so she has to go.

Talk to your friend. Even get her parents number through the friend if you don't have it. Get them on your side.
Twist your argument to say how you did the right thing letting her stay this long etc. But when is enough? College isn't coming back next week or even month. She's constantly going out to get alcohol and smokes. Risk infection. Hammer this home.

You can lie and say she's welcome back when college starts up again.
Say what you have to say so they come to the conclusion it's only fair she leaves. Then you get what you want.

MadDog76

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Tell her that she has to go. You're uncomfortable her being there as it's another risk of infection to you and your family. College ain't on so she has to go.

Talk to your friend. Even get her parents number through the friend if you don't have it. Get them on your side.
She's constantly going out to get alcohol and smokes. Risk infection. Hammer this home.

We're all at risk of spreading the infection, including her, which is the very reason she can't be moved on during the current crisis.

Time

MadDog76 wrote: »

We're all at risk of spreading the infection, including her, which is the very reason she can't be moved on during the current crisis.

Will you ever stop posting nonsense you can't back up. How many times now has the legislation been explained to you? What part specifically bans a guest from being removed from a home?

B.A._Baracus

MadDog76 wrote: »

We're all at risk of spreading the infection, including her, which is the very reason she can't be moved on during the current crisis.

That's official talk tho
Nothing stopping her parents driving up and collecting her. Yes I know the whole 2km limit but not everyone is abiding to that lets be honest and if the parents can't make that journey for the well being of their daughter then that says a lot about them.

Op wants her out. So she has to go. My above post is a tactful (you could argue manipulative :pac: ) way to achieve that)

SetOverSet

Time wrote: »

That's some selective quoting there. You left out part (a) which is the most important one. For the avoidance of doubt here's what it actually says in S.3 in full



In other words the interpretation includes the definitions used for the purposes of S.37 of the 2019 act. That in turn only covers students in purpose built student accommodation as per the definition of dwelling under s.37(1)(e).

So the only licensees that s.5(7) can apply to are those that are stated to fall under the definition provided in s.3 and licensees in private accommodation do not fall under that definition, or for that matter, any other definition of a tenant in a tenancy.

Apologies for the selective quoting. I wasn't being purposely misleading. I'm neither a landlord nor tenant or licensee so have no skin in the game. I was simply rushing on my phone and hadn't actually read the definitions fully. In my haste I had omitted S.3(2)(a) thinking it was not relevant to subsections (b) and (c), but you're right... on actually reading it properly, the words 'within such meaning' do appear to have the intention of restricting those definitions to S.37 of the 2019 Act.

Dav010

MadDog76 wrote: »

We're all at risk of spreading the infection, including her, which is the very reason she can't be moved on during the current crisis.

But she can, forbearance only is requested, nothing more. The owner can still exercise their legal right to move her out. Nothing you have posted negates that right.

BarryD2

Note to OP. This sort of thread about kicking people out seems to crop up here fairly often these days. Invariably there's a crowd that jump in and tell the poster to just boot 'xyz' out the door forthwith. It seems like it's almost a Pavlovian response at times. Read up the current regulations by all means but only you can judge and it's best sorted amicably one way or the other. A good chat may do wonders.

Dav010

BarryD2 wrote: »

Note to OP. This sort of thread about kicking people out seems to crop up here fairly often these days. Invariably there's a crowd that jump in and tell the poster to just boot 'xyz' out the door forthwith. It seems like it's almost a Pavlovian response at times. Read up the current regulations by all means but only you can judge and it's best sorted amicably one way or the other. A good chat may do wonders.

To be fair to the op, he/she posted in the opening post that they have done everything to try and sort out the girls behaviour. So I think the chatting phase has already been exhausted.

BarryD2

BarryD2 wrote: »

Note to OP. This sort of thread about kicking people out seems to crop up here fairly often these days. Invariably there's a crowd that jump in and tell the poster to just boot 'xyz' out the door forthwith. It seems like it's almost a Pavlovian response at times. Read up the current regulations by all means but only you can judge and it's best sorted amicably one way or the other. A good chat may do wonders.

You didn’t read the OP at all then or just chose to ignore it.