nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

I evicted my lodger

gark

Was renting out a room in my home to a HAP tenant since September.

As he was making my life a nightmare, and no rent has arrived into my bank account since the first initial payment anyway, I gave him a 2 weeks notice to get out.

He refused to leave, so I changed the locks, and put his stuff out to the front-yard, which he collected.

Someone was there from Threshold and they took a recording.

As far as I know the Residential Tenancies Act doesn't apply here, as I was renting a room in my home.
But someone told me it's still illegal eviction, even if he was just a lodger.
I'm confused now, as I think illegal eviction is defined in the Residential Tenancies Act.

Can I get into trouble because of this?

Thanks,

Find more posts tagged with

lodger

eviction

hap

residential tenancies act

Quick Links

Comments

Samuel T. Cogley

Aye Bosun wrote: »

The OP is the property owner.

The Guy on HAP is a licensee,

Op has received one payment from HAP since September. Therefore no rent paid for 4 months to date

Op gave 2 weeks notice to licensee which is very reasonable in the circumstances. Note ‘reasonable notice is not defined in any legislation and open to interpretation.

Op changed the locks and removed the problem from his home and rightly so.

As this is a licensee arrangement, RTB is unavaible to the HAP guy as this is not under the Tenacy regulations.

Small claims court is open to the HAP guy for rentention of deposit with doesn’t apply in the case.

OP you have nothing to worry about. I’m a owner occupier too, i’ve been in a similar situation before the only thing I would have done different is in relation to his belonging, I would have kept them inside the property and granted him access to collect his stuff while heavily supervised. The fact is tho that your licensee was outside to get his stuff so no damages done but good to know for future reference.

Again, you did nothing outside the law, do not worry about it, get on with your life and forgot him!

Aye Bosun

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not quite sure what that’s meant to mean..

Samuel T. Cogley

Aye Bosun wrote: »

Not quite sure what that’s meant to mean..

:pac:

Don't worry it's a tangential that you've ended up in by quoting me and missing that I've already said that proper notice was given. Marcusm decided to bring me down a peg and Pilly piled in without reading my earlier posts. The law student jibe seems to have been completely missed but then I have a singular sense of humour.

road_high

No wonder people on HAP can’t find Accomodation. Another thing that would have put me off ever before thus layabout moved in, unemployed they’d be in the house all day long meaning increased wear and tear, increased utility usage and general annoyance.

Aye Bosun

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

:pac:

Don't worry it's a tangential that you've ended up in by quoting me and missing that I've already said that proper notice was given. Marcusm decided to bring me down a peg and Pilly piled in without reading my earlier posts. The law student jibe seems to have been completely missed but then I have a singular sense of humour.

Ah I didn’t even realise i’d quoted you, sorry about that, was meant to be an independent post. My bad ðŸ€—

Samuel T. Cogley

Aye Bosun wrote: »

Ah I didn’t even realise i’d quoted you, sorry about that, was meant to be an independent post. My bad &#55356;&#56343;

Ah sorry on my part also. It was a good synopsis to be fair I'm just in an odd mood. As the thread had sort of run it's course I was messing... sorry to you and the OP. I'll shut up now.

exaisle

gark wrote: »

Indeed Threshold can do nothing, but RTB can - according to that person studying law...because of her opinion, at this point I'm only about 70% sure I'm right, and it was like 99% before.

I think she should study a lot more before giving inaccurate opinions.
Your lodger was a licencee and effectively has no rights....and even less than that if they haven't paid rent.

Nothing will come of this. Get some decent person in who'll pay rent. There are lots to be found. In fairness, having a troublesome time with somebody living in your house (either as a licencee or as a tenant) makes you really appreciate when you get somebody good. Good tenants are worth their weight in gold!

Marcusm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Eitherway the licencee is entitled to reasonable notice in RAR scenarios. If you're trying to prove you know more than me drunk (or with a broken keyboard), fair enough we know you do it doesn't change the fact that every piece of advice out there from threshold to citizens advice say reasonable notice has to be given.

Sorry, wasn't trying to be rude in any way. I thought this might have come up before - apologies if I am wrong. I just thought eviction was in the context of someone who occupied as a lawful tenant and ejectment related to those who occupied on another lawful basis (such as an overstaying guest).

Marcusm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

:pac:

Don't worry it's a tangential that you've ended up in by quoting me and missing that I've already said that proper notice was given. Marcusm decided to bring me down a peg and Pilly piled in without reading my earlier posts. The law student jibe seems to have been completely missed but then I have a singular sense of humour.

Just saw this too,; didn't mean my post to be taken this way at all. I really enjoy your contributions and frequent explanations.

Samuel T. Cogley

Marcusm wrote: »

Just saw this too,; didn't mean my post to be taken this way at all. I really enjoy your contributions and frequent explanations.

Ah sorry. Being oversensitive. Very much appreciate your posts have learnt a lot from them.

gark

Update:

"I think you will be allright" - That's what they told me in FLAC after I had told them the story.

Kristopherus

gark wrote: »

Update:

"I think you will be allright" - That's what they told me in FLAC after I had told them the story.

Excellent news:).

Tombo2001

Very interesting that Threshold would show up hassling you and defending a guy who hadn't paid rent for four months. What gives them that mandate.....

Seth Brundle

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Very interesting that Threshold would show up hassling you and defending a guy who hadn't paid rent for four months. What gives them that mandate.....

Depends on what they were told by the guy

splinter65

kbannon wrote: »

Depends on what they were told by the guy

This is it. I’m often highly amused by how a tenant will initially present their version of events, and how the story will change after some Judge Judy like gentle interrogation.
One girl said initially that she was being unfairly evicted for what the landlord alleged was vandalising his property. Initially she alleged that this vandalism was just normal wear and tear, but after 15 minutes or so she admitted that she did have the bath taken out to turn the bathroom into a small rescue center for cats....in a house with a specific no pets clause....but she was going to have the bath put back in when the cats had been rehomed...

Suzyq

I would imagine that the person who presented themselves as working for threshold was one of the tenant’s friends. Just an attempt to intimidate you.

Beethoven9th

pilly wrote: »

Nothing to worry about. A lodger in your house has no rights.

Everyone has rights....

splinter65

Beethoven9th wrote: »

Everyone has rights....

The RTB is the governing body in Ireland dealing with tenancies and the rights and obligations of both tenant and landlord.
As someone who you have allowed to rent a room in the house in which you live is not a tenant, and you are not a landlord, then none of those rights or obligations pertain to either of the parties, licensee or homeowner.

Samuel T. Cogley

splinter65 wrote: »

The RTB is the governing body in Ireland dealing with tenancies and the rights and obligations of both tenant and landlord.
As someone who you have allowed to rent a room in the house in which you live is not a tenant, and you are not a landlord, then none of those rights or obligations pertain to either of the parties, licensee or homeowner.

No but there is a right to reasonable notice.

scamalert

im amazed how some people take such things lightly, Op mentioned just first payment, no idea of duration, but come first day cash has to be in the acc if its not should be final notice and good bye out the doors.

just draft proper letter of rules next time get person to sign it take photo of both, your house your rules simple, dont see how some people put up with such crap, i know theres plenty of s***y landlords but none the less its same with tenants.

Seth Brundle

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

No but there is a right to reasonable notice.

The guy in the OP's case was given two weeks. Do you think this is insufficient for someone who refuses to pay rent?
Too many people encouraging the entitlement culture

splinter65

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

No but there is a right to reasonable notice.

Where will the licensee take they’re complaint?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

splinter65

Fred Swanson wrote: »

They can talk to Joe.

....or make a tiny model of the evil homeowner and stick voodoo pins it either .....

Samuel T. Cogley

They could, if bloody mined enough, take it to the District Court.

Samuel T. Cogley

kbannon wrote: »

The guy in the OP's case was given two weeks. Do you think this is insufficient for someone who refuses to pay rent?
Too many people encouraging the entitlement culture

You know very well to which post I was replying too, even quoted it too.

It's hardly an entitlement culture to be given a 48 hours notice to find a new home. Too many people encouraging a return to the good ol' days of people tied to the fecking land.

splinter65

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They could, if bloody mined enough, take it to the District Court.

I’d imagine you’d need legal representation for that?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

splinter65

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Nope.

You don't need legal representation in any court in the state if you are representing yourself.

I would love to know where the misinformation comes from.

So, I’d be appearing in court alleging which law had been broken? Would the judge not want to see evidence?
Can the homeowner also go to court unrepresented and look for the unpaid rent?
I ask because I’m guessing that unless the licensee could provide evidence that he did in fact pay rent, then the judge would find in the homeowners favor?

Samuel T. Cogley

splinter65 wrote: »

So, I’d be appearing in court alleging which law had been broken? Would the judge not want to see evidence?
Can the homeowner also go to court unrepresented and look for the unpaid rent?
I ask because I’m guessing that unless the licensee could provide evidence that he did in fact pay rent, then the judge would find in the homeowners favor?

Sworn testimony on both sides and the homeowner could of course counter sue assuming he knew how to file etc. correctly. I assume and am open to correction there would need to be further evidence of rent owed on that side though.