PRTB query

odds_on wrote: »

If all tenants signed the same lease, the property is clearly and without doubt entirely for the tenants exclusive occupation and any unagreed entry by the landlord or his agent (except in the case of emergencies, such as burst pipes, fire etc) is completely contrary to the residential tenancies Act and the landlord is in breach of his obligations.

If there is a room to be filled with another tenant, the landlord must first make an appointment with you for viewing.

I should point out that as you have all signed the same lease, you are all "jointly and severally" liable for the rent and any other out-goings and the landlord, if he is not receiving the full rent for the property, would expect, and can claim from the occupying tenants to make up any shortfall.

The op says that he is paying by the room. They all are. It is not obvious that they are all on the same lease. If they are individually renting rooms they are outside the scope of the PRTB.

odds_on wrote: »

Was it not yourself, Milk and Honey, that pointed me in the direction that where rooms rented individually were no longer considered outside the scope of the PRTB?

I have no reason to believe the position set out in the case quoted below has not changed.


Bord Um Thionóntachtaí Cónaithe Príobháideacha
Private Residential Tenancies Board


Tribunal Report



Tribunal Reference Number TR10/DR532&589/2006.
Case Reference Number DR532&589/2005
Date of Hearing
27 April 2006
Nature of Dispute Validity of termination notice
Parties to the Case: Appellant/Applicant/s Name/s Derek Murphy

Respondent/s Name/s
Don Flannery

Address of Rented Dwelling 145 Waterside
Charlotte Quay
Ringsend
Dublin 4

Issues in Dispute

The Tenant challenged the validity of the Termination Notice served by the Landlord and alleging other breaches by the Landlord of his obligations, specifically that the Landlord had intruded uninvited into the Dwelling on a number of occasions, without any adequate warning to the occupants.

The Landlord claimed that the Tenant had failed to vacate the dwelling after a valid termination of the Tenancy, that arrears of rent were due and owing by the Tenant in respect of the month of August 2005, and alleged further breaches by the Tenant of his obligations specifically alleging that the Tenant by his behaviour had caused other Tenants to vacate the Dwelling and that the Tenant failed to keep the Dwelling in a clean and tidy condition.

Procedure

On 22 August 2006, the Tenant made an application pursuant to section 76 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (“the Act of 2004”) to the Private Residential Tenancies Board (“PRTB”) for dispute resolution services challenging the validity of the termination notice served by the Landlord and alleging other breaches by the Landlord of his obligations.

On 25 September 2006, the Landlord also made an application pursuant to section 76 of the Act of 2004 to the PRTB for dispute resolution services claiming that the Tenant had failed to pay arrears of rent, and the Tenant had failed to vacate the dwelling after a valid termination of the Tenancy and alleging other breaches by the Tenant of his obligations.

On 24 November 2005 the PRTB appointed John Lynch (“the Adjudicator”) as adjudicator to hear the disputes.

On 5 December 2005 the Adjudicator held an adjudication hearing at the Offices of the PRTB, Canal House, Canal Road, Dublin 6.

On 6 February 2006, the Landlord appealed the determination of the Adjudicator.

On 15 February 2006 the Tenant appealed the determination of the Adjudicator.

On 3 March 2006 pursuant to s.103 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 the Tribunal was appointed by the PRTB to determine the appeals.

On 27 April 2006 the Tribunal Hearing was convened at the Offices of the PRTB, Canal House, Canal Road, Dublin 6.




Facts Agreed by Parties

The following facts were agreed by both Parties:-

• the Landlord and Tenant had entered into a letting agreement in or about the month of December 2003;

• the premises at 145 Waterside, Charlotte Quay, Ringsend, Dublin 4 is an apartment consisting of a reception/dining/kitchen area and three bedrooms;

• pursuant to the agreement made between the Parties in or about the month of December 2003 the Tenant was entitled to exclusive occupation of one bedroom and shared the rest of the facilities in the apartment, including the reception area, dining area, kitchen and bathroom facilities with other occupants;

• the other occupants had separate arrangements and agreements with the Landlord and similarly were entitled to exclusive occupation of their respective bedrooms and shared the rest of the facilities including the reception, dining, kitchen and bathroom facilities with other occupants including the Tenant; and

• in the period from the date on which the Tenant first entered into occupation in January 2004 to date there had been a number of occupants who had shared the apartment, with the Tenant;

• the Tenant had put a lock onto his bedroom and the Landlord had removed the lock.


The Law

Section 3 of the Act of 2004 sets out the scope of application of Act in the following terms:

3.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act applies to every dwelling,
the subject of a tenancy (including a tenancy created before the
passing of this Act).


Section 76 of the Act of 2004 grants a right of referral of a dispute to the PRTB by parties to tenancy and certain other persons in the following terms:

76.—(1) Either or both of the parties to an existing or terminated
tenancy of a dwelling may, individually or jointly, as appropriate,
refer to the Board for resolution any matter relating to the tenancy
in respect of which there is a dispute between them.



Section 4 of the Act of 2004 provides the following definitions:

“ dwelling” is defined as meaning “subject to subsection (2), a property let for rent or valuable consideration as a self-contained residential unit and includes any building or part of a building used as a dwelling and any out office, yard, garden or other land appurtenant to it or usually enjoyed with it and, where the context so admits, includes a property available for letting but excludes a structure that is not permanently attached to the ground and a vessel and a vehicle (whether mobile or not);”

‘‘self-contained residential unit’’is defined as including “the form of accommodation commonly known as ‘‘bedsit’’ accommodation;”




Reasons for Decision of the Tribunal

On the facts agreed by the Parties the Tenant was not entitled to occupation of a “self-contained residential unit”.

Under the agreement entered into in December 2003 the Tenant is merely entitled to exclusive occupation of one bedroom and he shares other facilities including the kitchen, bathroom facilities and reception area facilities with other occupants.

The Landlord was of the view that the Tenant was not entitled to put a new lock onto the bedroom door. The Tenant contested this.

It is clear from the evidence that the letting does not come within the definition of “dwelling” as set out in section 4 of the Act of 2004. The shared facilities afforded to the Tenant could not be considered to be a “bed-sit” or any other form of “self-contained residential unit”.

It follows that the relationship between Landlord and Tenant is outside the scope of application of the Act of 2004 and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute.















Decision of the Tribunal

The relationship between Landlord and Tenant is outside the scope of application of the Act of 2004 and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute.






_______________

James Bridgeman
Chairman
_____________ _____________

Tom Dunne Pat Riney






Dated the May 2006