Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Rent a room scheme - Self-contained or not

  • 09-10-2018 3:24pm
    #1
    jbasqfb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭


    Hi Folks,

    Old boardsy member returning for a question regarding the definition of a self-contained unit for purposes of renting under the rent a room scheme.

    I'm looking at undertaking a big renovation on my home, this involved extending to the front and the rear of my home. I have plans I could upload but as I've less than 5 posts I can't.

    The extension to the front will be a new entrance point and it will extended the living space in my current converted garage. Once inside there will be 2 internal doors, one door leading what is my current hallway the other leading to what is the current converted garage. PP will be required for the work to be undertaken.

    The extension to the rear will have 2 proposes, 1st to extend my current kitchen/dining room area and then 2nd to create a new downstairs bathroom and a new separate bedroom.

    Access to the new downstairs bedroom and the downstairs bathroom will be from the current converted garage. I plan to put a kitchenette in what is the current converted garage.

    I envision that at some point in the future the new bedroom/bathroom and kitchenette would be used by elderly parents, but for the moment they are very mobile and independent so it may be a few years off.

    In the mean time I was planning on renting the new downstairs bedroom under the rent a room scheme, giving the licensee exclusive access to the new downstairs bedroom and the new downstairs bathroom, the kitchenette would be shared by all but the reality is I'd have very little need to use it if at all.

    It's my opinion the above setup doesn't constitute a self-contained unit as the kitchenette/bathroom/bedroom section of the houses is entered via an internal doorway.

    However there is little documentation available on what defines self-contained unit under the eyes of the RTB. I know the setup is revenue compliant for the rent a room scheme, however I do not wish to have to register a tenancy and all that comes with that scenario but would prefer a licensee situation.

    I'm wondering if the good folks for boards would have any experience in the matter and if there is a definitive explanation of what is considered to be a self-contained unit in the eyes of the RTB


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,357 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    What you describe is a Granny Flat or Ancillary Family Accomodation as it is known in the development Plan.
    You need Planning as you mention but the problem is that it will be conditioned that the granny flat cannot be separated by lease or let.


  • #3
    Fian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,187 ✭✭✭Fian


    You would be entitled to rent a room relief as this is not seperate accomodation - it is part of the same house since there are shared areas and all areas can be accessed internally.

    You should NOT describe to the renter that they have exclusive posession of any part - they will be a licencee rather than a tenant, which means you can ask them to leave if you are unhappy with teh way they behave in your home. If they have exclusive posession they may acquire a tenance which will not be good news from your perspective should you not get on. You should simply tell them they have access to parts of your home.


  • #4
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Fian wrote: »
    You would be entitled to rent a room relief as this is not seperate accomodation - it is part of the same house since there are shared areas and all areas can be accessed internally.

    You should NOT describe to the renter that they have exclusive posession of any part - they will be a licencee rather than a tenant, which means you can ask them to leave if you are unhappy with teh way they behave in your home. If they have exclusive posession they may acquire a tenance which will not be good news from your perspective should you not get on. You should simply tell them they have access to parts of your home.

    No matter what description is applied to it, the RTB will look at the reality of the situation. A kitchenette will make it a separate dwelling,m which is what it is intended to be. It will have to be registered with the RTB and the o/p will have to give the tenants a Section 25 notice


  • #5
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    No matter what description is applied to it, the RTB will look at the reality of the situation. A kitchenette will make it a separate dwelling,m which is what it is intended to be. It will have to be registered with the RTB and the o/p will have to give the tenants a Section 25 notice

    They cannot enter without entering the main dwelling and they don't have exclusive use. No way can it be considered a tenancy. They are renting a room and have use of a kitchen which may or may not be used by anyone else in the house also.

    For example if the op changes the lock on the front door of his house then the licensee cannot enter his his bedroom, the licensee has no grounds to complain about this lock being changed as its the ops dwelling and therefore the situation is not compatible with being a tenancy.


  • #6
    Gileadi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,126 ✭✭✭Gileadi


    Leave an internal doorway between new area and your area? Just permanently keep it locked.

    I suspect that would make planning permission more straightforward and also help the potential for RTB to consider a rental arrangement as a tenancy.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Mckenna Nutritious Dollar wrote: »
    They cannot enter without entering the main dwelling and they don't have exclusive use. No way can it be considered a tenancy. They are renting a room and have use of a kitchen which may or may not be used by anyone else in the house also.

    For example if the op changes the lock on the front door of his house then the licensee cannot enter his his bedroom, the licensee has no grounds to complain about this lock being changed as its the ops dwelling and therefore the situation is not compatible with being a tenancy.

    From the o/p's description the tenants will have their own entrance. If the RTB rule as they well might, the o/p will be stuck with a tenancy. If he hasn't given a Section 25 notice and registered he could be in serious ****. Once there is a separate kitchen and appliances it is very difficult to argue that there is one household in the building.


  • #8
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,357 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Gileadi wrote: »
    Leave an internal doorway between new area and your area? Just permanently keep it locked.

    I suspect that would make planning permission more straightforward and also help the potential for RTB to consider a rental arrangement as a tenancy.

    The internal doorway would be a condition of the planning anyway. Same the condition that it cannot be rented out.


  • #9
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Op if you intend to avail of the rent a room relief, the planning permission granted and RTB status wont matter, revenue have their own rules.

    Self contained units that forms part of the residence can qualify, but if adjacent to the residence, it doesnt.

    There are no set criteria beyond the above, but what you describe does seem to be part of the residence.


  • #10
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    kceire wrote: »
    Gileadi wrote: »
    Leave an internal doorway between new area and your area? Just permanently keep it locked.

    I suspect that would make planning permission more straightforward and also help the potential for RTB to consider a rental arrangement as a tenancy.

    The internal doorway would be a condition of the planning anyway. Same the condition that it cannot be rented out.

    I havent seen the new granny flat initative (briefly heard about it in the news), but I wonder how planning permission will work for these units, what are the cant rent out conditions currently being applied worded like?


  • #11
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,357 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    davindub wrote: »
    I havent seen the new granny flat initative (briefly heard about it in the news), but I wonder how planning permission will work for these units, what are the cant rent out conditions currently being applied worded like?

    Here’s my most recent grant of permission
    3. The ancillary family accommodation hereby approved shall be incidental to the enjoyment of the principal dwelling on site. It shall not be separated from the principal dwelling by lease or sale. Once the accommodation is no longer required for ancillary accommodation purposes, it shall revert back to being part of the original family house. Reason: In the interests of the proper planning and development of the area.

    Possibly argue that there’s no lease?
    But as part of the official application you have to explain why and who you need the ancillary accommodation for.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Gileadi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,126 ✭✭✭Gileadi


    kceire wrote: »
    The internal doorway would be a condition of the planning anyway. Same the condition that it cannot be rented out.

    Can planning restrict from the rent a room scheme though?

    As per your planning permission it would neither be a lease or sale


  • #13
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Gileadi wrote: »
    Can planning restrict from the rent a room scheme though?

    As per your planning permission it would neither be a lease or sale

    Rent a room is a tax relief concept. Planning permission is for a unit used by a member of the applicants family and it is not to be leased or let. It would be qualify for rent a room but be in breach of planning and also be necessary to register with the RTB. In this case the revenue will be easiest to satisfy. The council might turn a bling eye on planning but it is not guaranteed. If there is a complaint the RTB will get involved and take a view. What the o/p proposes herre is the letting of a self contained unit and it is odds on the RTB will find a lease.


  • #14
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 10,000 ✭✭✭✭Caranica


    davindub wrote: »
    I havent seen the new granny flat initative (briefly heard about it in the news), but I wonder how planning permission will work for these units, what are the cant rent out conditions currently being applied worded like?

    That was only speculation. Wasn't included in budget in the end


  • #15
    myshirt
    Registered Users Posts: 5,245 ✭✭✭myshirt


    You will not get rent a room relief.

    Additionally you are looking at large up front costs. Unless you are in a very good area in Dublin, these ideas are rarely financially viable. Instead they are examples of the lack of financial education in the country, and the dangers of Google. I've heard so many people come up with these genius ideas down the pub that one face palm is no longer enough now. Two face palms are required.


  • #16
    Baby01032012
    Registered Users Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭Baby01032012


    I’ll add my unqualified opinion. Based on OP I believe it qualifies for rent a room relief.The fact that it is contained within the structure of the family home and there is access via main home entrance and then via internal door to the converted garage.


  • #17
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    myshirt wrote: »
    You will not get rent a room relief.

    Why not? It complies with the Revenue guidelines.


  • #18
    Fian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,187 ✭✭✭Fian


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    From the o/p's description the tenants will have their own entrance. If the RTB rule as they well might, the o/p will be stuck with a tenancy. If he hasn't given a Section 25 notice and registered he could be in serious ****. Once there is a separate kitchen and appliances it is very difficult to argue that there is one household in the building.

    Whether they have a tenancy will turbn on whether they have exclusive posession. don't give them exclusive posession = no tenancy. The OP needs to make it clear to them that he is perfectly entitled to use the kitchenette, without notice or invitation, and needs to do so ocasionally. No locked door between the OP's section of the house & the licencee's section. or perhaps locked but with teh key in the ops side. None of this prevents him insisting that the licencee not venture into his private portion.

    I imagine the OP would have no isse with giving the licencees more of a private space than envisagde above, but if he does he runs the risk of creating a tenancy in his own home, which would not be sensible.

    No exclusive posession = no tenancy.


  • #19
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,357 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    jbasqfb wrote: »
    I think adding an additional door/small hallway from my extended kitchen/dinning room that leads to the new downstairs toilet to one side and the kitchenette to the other side, using them on occasions would make it very difficult for anyone to claim they have exclusive posession.

    I'll try to upload some drawings later of my revised plan of the downstairs layout.

    As regards planning I probably should have mentioned I'm only seeking planning for the work to the front of the house which includes building above the garage extending upstairs living space. It'll also be giving me more room in my already converted attic. This is my main motivation for the work I'm planning.

    The extension to the rear I plan to complete after the PP works aspect has been completed. It'll be within the planning exemption size. It'll be a big undertaking and the house will be more or less gutted, rewired and replumbed. It's a home for life type job.

    The potential rental opportunity is a secondary aspect and a nice to have rather than an essential.

    Please do upload plans.
    You state that you are not concerned with planning rules, so thread carefully as you are botherline discussing something that is illegal (breaching the planning and development act).

    Also, get advice on your works, if you are going for planning for the front but and upstairs then you are best to get planning for the rear too as your exemption limits are on the assumption that you haven’t development prior to that so you will have to deduct the area of the planning extension to work our what you can build under the exemptions.
    ) Where the house has been extended previously, the floor area of any such extension constructed or erected after 1 October 1964, including those for which planning permission has been obtained, shall not exceed 40 square metres.

    So in other words, if you get planning for a 35 Sq. m extension at the front, side and above, then the rear can only be extended by 5 Sq. M.


  • #20
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,153 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    jbasqfb wrote: »
    I think adding an additional door/small hallway from my extended kitchen/dinning room that leads to the new downstairs toilet to one side and the kitchenette to the other side, using them on occasions would make it very difficult for anyone to claim they have exclusive posession.

    I'll try to upload some drawings later of my revised plan of the downstairs layout.

    As regards planning I probably should have mentioned I'm only seeking planning for the work to the front of the house which includes building above the garage extending upstairs living space. It'll also be giving me more room in my already converted attic. This is my main motivation for the work I'm planning.

    The extension to the rear I plan to complete after the PP works aspect has been completed. It'll be within the planning exemption size. It'll be a big undertaking and the house will be more or less gutted, rewired and replumbed. It's a home for life type job.

    The potential rental opportunity is a secondary aspect and a nice to have rather than an essential.

    Someone may claim exclusive possession. What if they succeed?


  • #21
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,576 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Sure rent a room, be handy.


    'Lean to'




  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,008 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    listermint wrote: »
    Sure rent a room, be handy.

    'Lean to'

    That's hopeless. There are two chairs. How would you know which one to sit at to cry?


  • #23
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,153 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    lee_queenbee wrote: »
    That is terrible, ****e condition to live..

    it is better than the side of the road.


  • #24
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    kceire wrote: »
    davindub wrote: »
    I havent seen the new granny flat initative (briefly heard about it in the news), but I wonder how planning permission will work for these units, what are the cant rent out conditions currently being applied worded like?

    Here’s my most recent grant of permission
    3. The ancillary family accommodation hereby approved shall be incidental to the enjoyment of the principal dwelling on site. It shall not be separated from the principal dwelling by lease or sale. Once the accommodation is no longer required for ancillary accommodation purposes, it shall revert back to being part of the original family house. Reason: In the interests of the proper planning and development of the area.

    Possibly argue that there’s no lease?
    But as part of the official application you have to explain why and who you need the ancillary accommodation for.

    Lease or sale is precise enough, they cannot be done.

    I wouldnt be confident to say a licence on the unit as self contained is safe if tested, revert back into the family home suggests a change in the way its used is expected, you can see the challenges down the line if renting it out became an issue for neighbours.


  • #25
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    From the RTB "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". Just because a door is capable of being opened isn't going to be the end of it. The problem for a landlord in the granny flat situation is that he must avail of section 25 at the start of the tenancy or lose the benefit of it. It will be far too late after losing a tribunal hearing.


  • #26
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    From the RTB "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". Just because a door is capable of being opened isn't going to be the end of it. The problem for a landlord in the granny flat situation is that he must avail of section 25 at the start of the tenancy or lose the benefit of it. It will be far too late after losing a tribunal hearing.

    But as I pointed out and you claimed otherwise despite the op saying this in the op, there is a common entrance which both the op uses for his home and the person renting the room will also have to use therefore leaving everything else aside the person does not have exclusive access. Having an open door which can be walked though by the op will definitely also render it a licensee situation especially if the op actually regularly does use it which is very easy for him to do. Just use the toilet or kitchen every now and then... job done

    Has anyone ever successfully won a case of a granny flat being a tenancy? I very much doubt it (unless they were very naive and didn’t argue their case property or ensure the person never even got the idea that they are a tenant) it’s just too easy to argue any number of reasons to the contrary.


  • #27
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Mckenna Nutritious Dollar wrote: »
    But as I pointed out and you claimed otherwise despite the op saying this in the op, there is a common entrance which both the op uses for his home and the person renting the room will also have to use therefore leaving everything else aside the person does not have exclusive access. Having an open door which can be walked though by the op will definitely also render it a licensee situation especially if the op actually regularly does use it which is very easy for him to do. Just use the toilet or kitchen every now and then... job done

    Has anyone ever successfully won a case of a granny flat being a tenancy? I very much doubt it (unless they were very naive and didn’t argue their case property or ensure the person never even got the idea that they are a tenant) it’s just too easy to argue any number of reasons to the contrary.

    Have you ever argued any case in the RTB? has any landlord successfully claimed a licence agreement for a granny flat. The RTB have been very expansive and will find a tenancy where they can at all. Saying a door opens when the tenant will insist it was never open and both households in the building operate separately, different fridges, cookers living areas etc will not help the owner.


  • #28
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    jbasqfb wrote: »
    Your assuming the kitchenette in the converted garage won't act as utility area for my use. The only washing machine and dryer for the entire household could be located in there. Simple house rules for the use of the kitchenette in would ensure it's used by the entire household. It's not unusual to have a second cooker and or fridge located in a utility area either.

    The downstairs bathroom is not ensuite and again simple house rules for it's use could make it available for use by the entire household.

    If and when my parents move in it would a very easy job to alter the downstairs layout to give them more privacy.

    All I can say, tell a prospective resident that they will be sharing their bathroom with your household, you will be cooking on their cooker and putting your food in their fridge? Are the occupants going to be free to go and sit in your sitting room. use your fridge, bathrooms? Go to the RTB and have the occupants tell the tribunal that in reality you don't use the flat and you are goosed.
    Bull**** about a utility area won't work. Be honest about it. You are creating a self contained flat. The RTB will see through it no matter what "simple rules" and other attempts you make to dress it up as a licence. Cop yourself on.


  • #29
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    jbasqfb wrote: »
    Sharing bathroom and utility area's is common in room shares .... I think it's the norm actually.

    With all due respect the rest of your post comes across as a bit of a rant.

    If I do rent it I'll probably go down the AirBNB option to be honest. Don't mind paying tax on the income it may generate.

    I may just convert the garage into a home cinema room, leaving the downstairs bedroom as an office or study.

    You are not talking about a room share. You are creating a self-contained unit. I am not on a rant, I am pointing out what might happen at the RTB if you try any smart alec method of claiming a licence. The RTB can be a very unforgiving place if you get it wrong. One bollocks of a tenant who will lie to beat the band and you will have a nightmare.


  • #30
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    jbasqfb wrote: »
    Opinion noted, I happen to think differently on the self-contained unit bit, especially with my updated plan I uploaded. But as I said AirBNB looks more attractive to me ATM.

    Anyway it could be subject to planning at this stage, and it's just one aspect of the development I plan. Not a crucial one at that

    You can think differently but it will ultimately be decided by the RTB if a complaint goes there. That is the gamble you are taking. I have been to the RTB many times and it is a rough place.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    You are not talking about a room share. You are creating a self-contained unit. I am not on a rant, I am pointing out what might happen at the RTB if you try any smart alec method of claiming a licence. The RTB can be a very unforgiving place if you get it wrong. One bollocks of a tenant who will lie to beat the band and you will have a nightmare.

    Firstly its not smart alac, the person is living under the same roof as the owner, and renting a room they are a licensee simple as that. I certainly would have no worries whatsoever of winning a case if it were ever brought (which it wouldn't be).

    Someone with your fear of losing a case could just stick up a smart camera pointed at the door and you can have loads of evidence showing you entering and leaving the "self contained unit" thus proving maintained access and no exclusive use thus its no longer one word against another. Could also but a smart camera in the shared utility again proving shared usage, if you are so paranoid that is.


Advertisement