Girl renting room in house refusing to move out

Take your last six words “in your own home no less” and apply it to the Op’s actual statements. He’s never lived there so what makes you think any rational person would see it as his home. It is his house but not his home. Guidance as to the construction of “principal private residence” is geared to identifying someone’s home not a property which simply belongs to them.

His home is still his PPR under revenue rules, of which the RTB definition of licensee backs this up.

I’m sorry if this is not the answer you want. Also I am an accountant so I would know revenue rules better than most tbh.

The facts in your link don’t match this case so it is irrelevant?

They were found to be a licensee. You clearly didn't read the report, just spouting drivel.

soz bbz, I did as per the below. You’re the one spouting drivel as evidence to prove a point you are trying to make. Facts are facts, drivel is drivel. I know what I’m spouting!!

Don’t worry, the girl is 100% a licensee. However don’t be afraid to seek proper advice with the exact facts. Any agreement signed is not worth the paper it’s printed on.

Please do not use any RTB templates which imply a different relationship than that of licensee. It probably isn’t worth the hassle since she seems to have stated she will leave on the 23rd.

If you are to enforce removal, please note that you must return her outstanding deposit money as you cannot leave her without, but she is legally in your PPR without permission and you could ring the guards… but prob not worth the hassle…

Best of luck with it and hope you’re relative recovers soon.

Wrong agin. Did you read the decision? It was found to be a licence. The final paragraph

"Because the Tribunal deems this to be a licence and not a lease agreement, the 2 Notices to Quit do not come within the remit or jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider ruling on their validity. In cases where a contractual licence exists, the findings reached by this Tribunal does not estop the Respondent Tenants from assessing whether or not they have a valid claim and/or remedy against the Appellant Landlord outside of the scope of the operation of the Act."

You are positinbg that a PPR = licence and and Non PPR= tenancy.

That is wrong.

The can be a licence in a NON-PPR and a lease in a PPR

In all cases the Tribunal looks at how the situation is operating on the ground. It would be impossible to tell how it would play out in the scenario set out in this thread.

Did you read it? The company won the case! There was no judgement against it. The supposed tenant was found to be a licencee.

Just because it was not a PPR did not mean that there couldn't be a licence.

Equally just because it is a PPR doesn't mean there can't be a tenancy!

I think you are playing a little fast and loose with the op’s money when you say that. It isn’t just a matter of designating your PPR for tax purposes, for a license rental to exist, the owner or a close family member has to actually live there. The grey area here of course is that the op did briefly live there before this girl moved in, and retains a room, but could you really argue that the op actually lives there?

The girl may be outside, but the consequence of her being outside may be what op should fear most, an RTB judgement and a query from Revenue about RaR gains. So I don’t see it being as clear cut as you do, why? because it is fairly obvious to most that the op does not live in the house.

The case I have cited says that "Where a licence agreement is claimed, not only the written form of the licence but the reality of how it is operated (or its substance) must also be examined and the Tribunal is satisfied that the reality as operated on the ground in this given case points clearly to a licence agreement and not a lease agreement."

The burden of proof of a licence is on the claimant not the other way around as you seem to think.

The rent a room scheme operates in a PPR. The revenue accept that where there are 2 conjoined units in a PPR they will allow rent a room relief, which includes not only a tax exemption on the rent but also a CGT exemption.

By contrast the Residential Tenancies Act itself deems the second unit a tenancy. See Section 25. The exemption for a PPR is only made out under Section 3 of the Act which states that the Act does not apply to a dwelling where the landlord also resides.

It is a question of fact whether the landlord resides in the dwelling. See Zhang v. Holohan (17th January 2012, Reference No. TR168/2011/DR92/2011). In that case, the parties were in agreement concerning the following essential facts: the property at issue was a two-bedroom apartment; the tenant had exclusive occupation of one bedroom and non-exclusive occupation of the common areas (in that she shared them with the other tenant); and that the only period during which the landlord had occupied the premises was for a period of three nights after the parties fell into dispute. 29. While the landlord in that case gave evidence that the apartment had previously been his home and while it was agreed that the landlord had resided in the apartment for one period of three nights after the parties fell into dispute, the Tribunal noted that the landlord did not press the argument that the apartment comprised a dwelling within which the landlord was also residing, thereby taking the dwelling outside the scope of the Act by operation of s. 3(2)(g). Nevertheless, in light of the landlord’s claim that all of his possessions were in the apartment, the Tribunal did go on to briefly address that point. In doing so, it recorded its finding, as a matter of fact, that the landlord stayed in the dwelling for only three nights during the 16 month duration of the tenancy at issue. By reference to that finding, the Tribunal expressly rejected the landlord’s claim that he also resided in the dwelling and that, in consequence, the tenant’s claim fell outside the scope of the Act

Bass you are not going to find a case with the exact details which the op describes. What has been pointed out to you a few times is that the RTB takes each case on its merits, so saying definitively that a license arrangement when it is obvious to all that the op does not live there, seems odd. CH has pointed out a couple of cases where the adjudicator applied their own interpretation to the dispute, that in itself should be enough to raise a doubt on whether a decision is clear cut. You could be right, but if you aren’t and the op turfs out the girl, it will be another example of internet warriors thinking that the rules on this are clear and unambiguous, they aren’t.

And visa versa is also true. Randomers giving there interpretation of the law as fact. There reason there is no cases is there can be no case. The Zhang case he quoted was probably a case where the owner was living in there partners accomodation. It was not the only house a person owned and that they would live in if other issues had not arose. The OP came home and then had to up sticks to mind a relative.

The interesting thing here is these interpretation's and trying to impose the RTB on all accomodation is the reason we have such a rental house crisis. People are now unwilling to rent houses that are empty and especially those that will be empty short-term.

In this case what will be the out come longterm if some here we're the RTB. The OP woul be in the house more he would probably decide to move 1-2 tenanrs out for his own comfort factor so there is less accomodation available.

No he has not one is student accomodation the other is as I described above the owner wasn't living there they were probably living with there partners.

This is an open and shut licencee case.

In Zhang -v- Houlihan the LL was guilty of an illegal eviction & then tried to overcome it by claiming a licence - of course the RTB were going to sh!t all over him considering the really crappy behaviour he had engaged in. The Tenant in question was also in residence for over a year AND he had involved her in the interviewing & vetting of the 2nd tenant(s)...he had NOT retained a bedroom for his own, sole EXCLUSIVE use.

Hence why the absolute LAST thing the OP should do he is engage in ANY behaviour that could be viewed as an illegal eviction...

Zhang -v- Houlihan is not regarded as the golden rule. There are other tribunals where Zhang -v- Houlihan was considered "informative" but not definitively indicative of the definition of a tenancy.

Perhaps if the LL in Zhang -v- Houlihan hadn't behaved the way he did, the Tribunal might not have been so inclined to seek "justice" for the tenant. But I guess we'll never know.

I went back an reread the op, something seemed off. The op says he/she has a 4 bed/2 bath house with short and long term lets, rented to 4 people, each room a separate rental agreement. Can you see why this might counteract your argument? Secondly, what type of tenancy existed while he/she lived abroad, and does the op think that by throwing a mattress into a room, then existing tenants suddenly became licensees, whether they consented to it or not?