Girl renting room in house refusing to move out

To be fair, the OP has not said they are claiming Rent-a-Room, but did not state they were not, only that they had done so before when it applied (clearly not in last 6 yrs) and would consider position on this when making next tax return. There is nothing to consider, a claim for such relief in the circumstances set out would be tax fraud. Its probably quite widespread as these licencee agreements are not registered.

You could well be correct about a licence, but you are definitely incorrect in your method. Ror & PPR nomination/relief are tax legislation.

RTA is seperate legislation, so you could certainly argue for tax legislation to be relevant for a dispute, but it wouldn't be in anyway guaranteed to be accepted (or likely to be accepted).

The crux of the issue to me is:

When did the persons move in? Was it while the OP was not residing there? If so, this strongly suggests that person has a tenancy.

If yes to the first question, has any person moved in while that person has an alleged "tenancy"

Etc...

I don't think you or anyone else can answer conclusively based on the updated information, and I wouldn't like to rely on the OP's information either, it is changing a bit to suit what he thinks is the correct thing to say for a licence to exist (sorry OP but that is how it appears)

Jesus wept, the guy LIVED abroad for “several years”, when he returned here to live at least some of the tenants were in situ. A quick look at his posting history shows this isn’t the first problem with tenants going back the years.

Whether these folks are tenants or licensees is going to be a judgement call by the RTB based on all of the facts they have access to from the testimony and evidence of both sides. No one here can say for sure what the outcome would be, nor can anyone answering the phone at the RTB. In this case, though, based on what the OP has provided, it does seem there might be more weight on the tenancy side than the licensee side. It appears that most of the occupants have enjoyed exclusive access to the property for a significant and largely uninterrupted length of time; the landlord has not actually maintained a physical presence in the property for years at a time and doesn't seem to have ever actually moved occupants around between rooms, or regularly entered the property to clean and tidy the common areas, or otherwise acted as if this were a licensee arrangement in fact. Merely saying "this is a license agreement" or "I reserve the right to come over and sleep on a mattress in the sitting room one of these days, maybe..." doesn't make it a license agreement; otherwise every landlord in the country would be doing exactly that.

The rental agreement also does not explicitly specify that it is a license arrangement or use any verbiage that would indicate such, and in fact refers to occupants as "tenants" at least once and sets out the obligation of the occupants to facilitate access to the property for repair and maintenance work when required, which generally would not be necessary to include in a true license arrangement (as the landlord would already have access to the property themselves for such purposes).

Now, on the OP's side of the scale is the fact that they were "occasionally" in occupation of the property for a period of time earlier this year. Whether that occasional and seemingly brief occupation would be sufficient to make the tenancy of this one occupant who moved in last March or the other occupants who have been in the property longer licensees is an open question, however, when weighed against the other facts. A tenant allowing their landlord to enter the property or store belongings there or even allowing them to stay over as their guest for a short time does not turn a tenancy into a license arrangement, even if the tenant did so because they were unaware of their rights and their landlord convinced them that they couldn't say no.

Ultimately what it comes down to is that there's a chance the RTB might deem this a license arrangement, and a chance they might deem this a tenancy. The OP can choose to act as if this is in fact a license arrangement and treat their occupant accordingly. If they go this route, there is a risk that the occupant might file a complaint with the RTB and that the RTB might deem them a tenant instead and require that the OP reinstate their tenancy with immediate effect, possibly resulting in the tenant in question gaining Part 4 rights due to the length of time that whole process will take. If that happens, it will be far more difficult to remove the occupant in question, as a valid reason under Part 4 would be required to terminate their tenancy.

Alternatively, the OP can choose to act as if their occupant is in fact a tenant and proceed with issuing a proper valid notice to terminate their tenancy. This would allow the occupant to legally remain for a longer period of time, but assuming the OP does everything exactly by the book, it would likely prevent the occupant from gaining Part 4 rights as long as the original valid notice was issued before they were in the property for six months. The risk with this approach is that it will likely confirm the status of the other occupants as tenants, and they most likely have Part 4 tenancies by this point, meaning the OP will be stuck with them until they decide to leave on their own initiative or the OP decides to sell the place or move back in themselves.

Really the OP should seek professional legal advice; their solicitor will be able to look at all of the details and research precedent and advise them on the best course of action.

Being an accountant doesn't make you any more knowledgeable about residential tenancies than anyone else. The RTb define a landlord as the person who receives the rent. The RTB is not allowed decide who owns a property therefore cant decide if a person owns more than 1 property. PPR is a revenue concept only and has nothing to do with tenancies. Section 110 of the Act

110. —The title to any lands or property shall not be drawn into question in any proceedings before a mediator, an adjudicator or the Tribunal under this Part.

The owner can't assert is is a PPR at the RTB.

It is a question of fact as to whether the landlord also resides in the dwelling. In Zhang there was a spare bedroom which the landlord slept in 3 times. It wasn't enough to stop a tenancy.

The student case is an example of where an adjudicator found a tenancy and the tribunal found a licence. The Tribunal set out the criteria by which it decides between a lease and a licence. In this situation the first question is if the o/p resides in the dwelling. If yes, that is the end of it. If not and he asserts a lease he has to prove it.

Like many accountants and their clients you seem to think you are an expert on everything.

Not so.

There was no spare bedroom in the Zhang case. It's was a two bedroom apartment. He had either to sleep on the couch or sleep in a sleeping bag in one of the rooms. I doubt if he slept with Zhang.

This is typical of LL v tenant thread's. LL has to be in the wrong. If not any other issues are used to bully or threaten the LL such as RAR. Or that the RTB first reaction will be a high court case costing the OP 50k and maybe his house. It's bully boy tactics on these threads.

No cognizant is taken to property rights. The tenant's rights are sacrosanct compared to the LL. The major flaw in this is where tenant rights clash with home owners right's.

Many here assume that a home owner relinquish there rights if they are not present. However the constitution protects certain property rights. Zhang V is not a definitive ruling on this.

The assumption is that the RTB will always challenge these cases. That is a flawed assumption. The RTB will be aware of constitutional rights and will not stray into that area no matter what many here may assume.

It's a grey area but it's very clear. If the OP had a partner then and was living in that house then yes the RTB might follow this case.

However it's OP's home he might not live there all the time but it's still his home.

The RTB will NEVER challenge that.

You might think they will but you are barking up the wrong tree.

Like I said quote me a case where a PPR was involved.

I have two rental properties. The RTB can assume all the control they like of them properties. However in the case of a PPR they are barking up the wrong tree.

She is a licencee until proven otherwise.

It's no wonder that there is 50-80k vacant properties in this country

I never mentioned anything about CGT.

And we are back to student accommodation and corporate owners.

You are barking up the wrong tree again

PPR, only house owned and he has no other permanent abode, it's his home find me case law.

She is a licencee

The RTB will not touch.

And the other tenants do not want her there either

Give it up

You would be as well off barking at the moon woof woof

Agree...and 1000% with the sentiment at the end...........

Sentiment, yes, but what he is posting is b*****x. He cannot know with that degree of certainty that either what he says is correct, or that the RTB will share his viewpoint.

Don’t think I’ve ever been accused of being anti landlord before. The girl is only overholding if she received valid notice.

Here is a simple question for you, when the op was residing abroad for “several years”, and had 4 separate tenants in 4 separate bedrooms in his 4 bedroom house, were they tenants, or licensees?

Hi OP,

Get onto your relatives public health nurse and request urgent respite for them. You could have a respite place organised for later next week if you move quickly.

Then head up to your house and move into your room in it for those 2 weeks. You’ll be there for the 23rd then. It’s complete **** being a carer and losing the status of your home being your PPR because you can’t be there on medical grounds is a further kick in the teeth.

Get the ball rolling today! Best of luck.

Again, waffle.

Why are you so certain of this? It is obvious to almost everyone but you and another poster that the tenancies existed prior to the op moving back in 2020, he actually stated that there were 4 separate rentals in his 4 bedroom house. You got rinsed by someone who is knowledgable about accounting and undermined your PPR argument, but still you are adamant that just because this guy threw a mattress on a floor when he came back to Ireland in January, the tenants became licensees.

Hmmmmm.

I am not certain, I’m struggling to see why you are, given the ambiguity of the op’s situation. So far you have been rinsed on the PPR argument, and your argument about sharing with the LL by no means meets the threshold where it could be beyond dispute. Why you keep saying “the RTB will not touch this” when it is obvious to everyone bar you and your sidekick that it at least deserves their consideration, is strange. The RTB do not always see disputes as black or white, they will at least consider whether it was reasonable for the tenants to believe that they were entering a tenancy where the LL did not normally reside/share with them.

And then there is you.