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
Reluctant landlord
Options
Comments
-
The RTB won't take the case because of locus standi.
Look I feel this has been well covered over the last 14 years since the introduction of the act and previously under the landlord and tenant acts, no one claiming these type of claims can actually link a single case despite claiming they know of cases. So I suppose either link a case or don't claim you have examples at all. Even on the link you've posted above, it gives the examples of guesthouse, b&b & owner occupied dwellings, all of which can be linked back to the RTA itself.
I wouldn't believe anyone who runs a property in this manner and claims to be legal which I suppose goes back to actually finding a case where it has been tested.
Why is it stated in the RTA so if there aren’t situations where it can be put in place?
It clearly states that there is a situation where a licensee situation can occur even if the LL does not live there in certain situations.0 -
Levi Damaged Collarbone wrote: »The RTB won't take the case because of locus standi.
Look I feel this has been well covered over the last 14 years since the introduction of the act and previously under the landlord and tenant acts, no one claiming these type of claims can actually link a single case despite claiming they know of cases. So I suppose either link a case or don't claim you have examples at all. Even on the link you've posted above, it gives the examples of guesthouse, b&b & owner occupied dwellings, all of which can be linked back to the RTA itself.
I wouldn't believe anyone who runs a property in this manner and claims to be legal which I suppose goes back to actually finding a case where it has been tested.
Why is it stated in the RTA so if there aren’t situations where it can be put in place?
It clearly states that there is a situation where a licensee situation can occur even if the LL does not live there in certain situations.
Which part of the legislation are you referring to? Have a look at the exemptions where a tenancy will not arise under the act, if its not there it was excluded from the exemptions.
Put it like this, if the act had to exclude holiday accommodation, where a tenancy could never have arisen.....0 -
Plus its a tracker mortgage (remember them) so will hold on to it for now and see what happens in the future.
If you rent out your house and presumably live elsewhere, do you have to tell your bank that its not your principal residence and therefore must be changed to a buy-to-let mortgage, potentially losing your tracker?
Just wondering, we bought a second house recently and the mortgage was reclassified as buy-to-let. Didn't have an impact as the rates are currently the same, emphasis on currently.0 -
The RTB won't take the case because of locus standi.
Look I feel this has been well covered over the last 14 years since the introduction of the act and previously under the landlord and tenant acts, no one claiming these type of claims can actually link a single case despite claiming they know of cases. So I suppose either link a case or don't claim you have examples at all. Even on the link you've posted above, it gives the examples of guesthouse, b&b & owner occupied dwellings, all of which can be linked back to the RTA itself.
I wouldn't believe anyone who runs a property in this manner and claims to be legal which I suppose goes back to actually finding a case where it has been tested.
Residential tenancys act, 2004
12.—(1) In addition to the obligations arising by or under any
, other enactment, a landlord of a dwelling shall—
(a) allow the tenant of the dwelling to enjoy peaceful and exclusive
occupation of the dwelling,
If you cannot provide exclusive occupation of the dwelling, then you cannot meet the very first criteria of a tenant landlord relationship.
Have you any test cases to link to, where the landlord claimed and had proof the tenant had no exclusive use of the property, where the RTB was bypassed and the case was taken by a court?Which part of the legislation are you referring to? Have a look at the exemptions where a tenancy will not arise under the act, if its not there it was excluded from the exemptions.
Put it like this, if the act had to exclude holiday accommodation, where a tenancy could never have arisen.....
Why don't you start linking to cases where your point is made, rather then keep fronting that evidence exists to support your argument, but providing none.0 -
Cuddlesworth wrote: »Residential tenancys act, 2004
12.—(1) In addition to the obligations arising by or under any
, other enactment, a landlord of a dwelling shall—
(a) allow the tenant of the dwelling to enjoy peaceful and exclusive
occupation of the dwelling,
If you cannot provide exclusive occupation of the dwelling, then you cannot meet the very first criteria of a tenant landlord relationship.
Have you any test cases to link to, where the landlord claimed and had proof the tenant had no exclusive use of the property, where the RTB was bypassed and the case was taken by a court?
Why don't you start linking to cases where your point is made, rather then keep fronting that evidence exists to support your argument, but providing none.
There are cases where the RTB refused to accept jurisdiction. If a case went to court the tenant would have had to claim a tenancy and the court would have had to make a decision. Since such cases would proceed in the lower courts there would likely be no reported decision. The RTB did find in a case concerning student accommodation that it was a licence situation not a tenancy and based it on a number of factors.0 -
Advertisement
-
How hard can it be in this day and age to find decent tenants when even the most respectable people can't afford to buy a house? As long you don't take rent allowance tenants - many of whom are the kind of welfare dependant toerags you wouldn't touch with a bargepole - it's a golden age for landlords. Demand references from employers and previous landlords, follow up on those references and then interview the prospective tenants face to face.0
-
John DoeReMi wrote: »How hard can it be in this day and age to find decent tenants when even the most respectable people can't afford to buy a house? As long you don't take rent allowance tenants - many of whom are the kind of welfare dependant toerags you wouldn't touch with a bargepole - it's a golden age for landlords. Demand references from employers and previous landlords, follow up on those references and then interview the prospective tenants face to face.
Yeh, with USC, PRSI, higher taxes, Property tax, paring away loan interest, over regulation, over emphasis on tenant rights .... sure it's a bonanza.... for the industry.0 -
Which part of the legislation are you referring to? Have a look at the exemptions where a tenancy will not arise under the act, if its not there it was excluded from the exemptions.
Put it like this, if the act had to exclude holiday accommodation, where a tenancy could never have arisen.....
What is a licensee:
1. persons staying in hotels, guesthouses, hostels, etc.,
2. persons sharing a house/apartment with its owner e.g. under the ‘rent a room’ scheme or ‘in digs’,
3. persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal license arrangement with the owner where the occupants are not entitled to its exclusive use and the owner has continuing access to the accommodation and/or can move around or change the occupants, and
4.persons staying in rented accommodation at the invitation of the tenant.0 -
Cuddlesworth wrote: »The RTB won't take the case because of locus standi.
Look I feel this has been well covered over the last 14 years since the introduction of the act and previously under the landlord and tenant acts, no one claiming these type of claims can actually link a single case despite claiming they know of cases. So I suppose either link a case or don't claim you have examples at all. Even on the link you've posted above, it gives the examples of guesthouse, b&b & owner occupied dwellings, all of which can be linked back to the RTA itself.
I wouldn't believe anyone who runs a property in this manner and claims to be legal which I suppose goes back to actually finding a case where it has been tested.
Residential tenancys act, 2004
12.—(1) In addition to the obligations arising by or under any
, other enactment, a landlord of a dwelling shall—
(a) allow the tenant of the dwelling to enjoy peaceful and exclusive
occupation of the dwelling,
If you cannot provide exclusive occupation of the dwelling, then you cannot meet the very first criteria of a tenant landlord relationship.
Have you any test cases to link to, where the landlord claimed and had proof the tenant had no exclusive use of the property, where the RTB was bypassed and the case was taken by a court?Which part of the legislation are you referring to? Have a look at the exemptions where a tenancy will not arise under the act, if its not there it was excluded from the exemptions.
Put it like this, if the act had to exclude holiday accommodation, where a tenancy could never have arisen.....
Why don't you start linking to cases where your point is made, rather then keep fronting that evidence exists to support your argument, but providing none.
Why would I be able to link to test cases where the RTB was bypassed? That cases for the example you gave exist was your claim? You particularly said you know of landlords had been to the RTB?
"Allow" does not infer that you can choose or that lack of prevents a tenancy occuring.
As for providing evidence, the legislation which is entire basis should be evidence enough? I did say you could research tenancy yourself, you can do the same for exclusive occupation vs possession. Again just 1 test used by the RTB.0 -
Cuddlesworth wrote: »The RTB won't take the case because of locus standi.
Look I feel this has been well covered over the last 14 years since the introduction of the act and previously under the landlord and tenant acts, no one claiming these type of claims can actually link a single case despite claiming they know of cases. So I suppose either link a case or don't claim you have examples at all. Even on the link you've posted above, it gives the examples of guesthouse, b&b & owner occupied dwellings, all of which can be linked back to the RTA itself.
I wouldn't believe anyone who runs a property in this manner and claims to be legal which I suppose goes back to actually finding a case where it has been tested.
Residential tenancys act, 2004
12.—(1) In addition to the obligations arising by or under any
, other enactment, a landlord of a dwelling shall—
(a) allow the tenant of the dwelling to enjoy peaceful and exclusive
occupation of the dwelling,
If you cannot provide exclusive occupation of the dwelling, then you cannot meet the very first criteria of a tenant landlord relationship.
Have you any test cases to link to, where the landlord claimed and had proof the tenant had no exclusive use of the property, where the RTB was bypassed and the case was taken by a court?Which part of the legislation are you referring to? Have a look at the exemptions where a tenancy will not arise under the act, if its not there it was excluded from the exemptions.
Put it like this, if the act had to exclude holiday accommodation, where a tenancy could never have arisen.....
Why don't you start linking to cases where your point is made, rather then keep fronting that evidence exists to support your argument, but providing none.
Why would I be able to link to test cases where the RTB was bypassed? That cases for the example you gave exist was your claim? You particularly said you know of landlords had been to the RTB?
"Allow" does not infer that you can choose or that lack of prevents a tenancy occuring.
As for providing evidence, the legislation which is entire basis should be evidence enough? I did say you could research tenancy yourself, you can do the same for exclusive occupation vs possession. Again just 1 test used by the RTB.Levi Damaged Collarbone wrote: »Which part of the legislation are you referring to? Have a look at the exemptions where a tenancy will not arise under the act, if its not there it was excluded from the exemptions.
Put it like this, if the act had to exclude holiday accommodation, where a tenancy could never have arisen.....
What is a licensee:
1. persons staying in hotels, guesthouses, hostels, etc.,
2. persons sharing a house/apartment with its owner e.g. under the ‘rent a room’ scheme or ‘in digs’,
3. persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal license arrangement with the owner where the occupants are not entitled to its exclusive use and the owner has continuing access to the accommodation and/or can move around or change the occupants, and
4.persons staying in rented accommodation at the invitation of the tenant.
See the previous posts.0 -
Advertisement
-
John DoeReMi wrote: »How hard can it be in this day and age to find decent tenants when even the most respectable people can't afford to buy a house? As long you don't take rent allowance tenants - many of whom are the kind of welfare dependant toerags you wouldn't touch with a bargepole - it's a golden age for landlords. Demand references from employers and previous landlords, follow up on those references and then interview the prospective tenants face to face.
I have no idea how hard it is as I have never let before. Wouldn't rule out anyone, plenty of people on hap work maybe on lower wages, just want someone decent who respects the place and pays on time.0 -
Why would I be able to link to test cases where the RTB was bypassed? That cases for the example you gave exist was your claim? You particularly said you know of landlords had been to the RTB?
"Allow" does not infer that you can choose or that lack of prevents a tenancy occuring.
As for providing evidence, the legislation which is entire basis should be evidence enough? I did say you could research tenancy yourself, you can do the same for exclusive occupation vs possession. Again just 1 test used by the RTB.
The licensees tried to lodge a case with the RTB, it was denied based on the RTB guidelines on what is or isn't a licensee. No case records because no case.
The RTB is the first port of call for tenancy related issues, not the courts. If you do not have a tenancy, then the RTB won't take your case and the RTA isn't applicable.
Like I said before, if you believe that not to be the case then feel free to take a tenancy like this(lots of them out there) and take a case through the courts to establish something other then a RTB ruling. Because right now, if the landlord is very clear on non-exclusive use of the property and has a wealth of evidence, the RTB does nothing.0 -
Cuddlesworth wrote: »Why would I be able to link to test cases where the RTB was bypassed? That cases for the example you gave exist was your claim? You particularly said you know of landlords had been to the RTB?
"Allow" does not infer that you can choose or that lack of prevents a tenancy occuring.
As for providing evidence, the legislation which is entire basis should be evidence enough? I did say you could research tenancy yourself, you can do the same for exclusive occupation vs possession. Again just 1 test used by the RTB.
The licensees tried to lodge a case with the RTB, it was denied based on the RTB guidelines on what is or isn't a licensee. No case records because no case.
The RTB is the first port of call for tenancy related issues, not the courts. If you do not have a tenancy, then the RTB won't take your case and the RTA isn't applicable.
Like I said before, if you believe that not to be the case then feel free to take a tenancy like this(lots of them out there) and take a case through the courts to establish something other then a RTB ruling. Because right now, if the landlord is very clear on non-exclusive use of the property and has a wealth of evidence, the RTB does nothing.
The Rtb doesn't deny cases before the hearing where are you getting this from? So if there was a decision where the RTB decided it was outside of the application of act there would of course be record.
No courts use guidelines to the legislation, they use legislation, binding judgements etc. Guidelines are more like a guide for the public to try and understand, sometimes they are wrong or misleading.
I don't think I need to become a tenant of one of these slums to test it, you advised someone that it works, kindly verify that it does.0 -
The Rtb doesn't deny cases before the hearing where are you getting this from? So if there was a decision where the RTB decided it was outside of the application of act there would of course be record.
.
The RTB certainly does refuse cases before a hearing. Case officers contact people and tell them in is not an RTB matter. It is probably unlawful. but it happens.0 -
John DoeReMi wrote: »How hard can it be in this day and age to find decent tenants when even the most respectable people can't afford to buy a house? As long you don't take rent allowance tenants - many of whom are the kind of welfare dependant toerags you wouldn't touch with a bargepole - it's a golden age for landlords. Demand references from employers and previous landlords, follow up on those references and then interview the prospective tenants face to face.
A lot of the time is professionals who trash a house. Also sometimes people use a dummy person to pass the check then move someone else in.
Some people spend their entire lives planning scams and ways to work the system. Most other people will have spent a fraction of that time trying to avoid getting scammed.
The govt could fix this or greatly reduce it with a national register and a bond system. But it's pretty clear they aren't interested.0 -
-
Levi Damaged Collarbone wrote: »
The exemptions are in the act itself, so holiday accommodation etc. No what you linked to are not the rules, just educational and incorrectly interpreted by some. I know it refers to holiday accommodation, the same text is usually accompanied by examples of guesthouses etc. There is a big warning on the bottom of the page you should also read.0 -
The Rtb doesn't deny cases before the hearing where are you getting this from? So if there was a decision where the RTB decided it was outside of the application of act there would of course be record.
.
The RTB certainly does refuse cases before a hearing. Case officers contact people and tell them in is not an RTB matter. It is probably unlawful. but it happens.
Some rogue administrator dispensing judgements? Or telephone mediation?0 -
The Student wrote: »Have you considered renting to council on one of their long term rental schemes.
Not recommended.
Council will pay a fraction of the rental market rate and lock you into that rate for 4 years (initially). Then a 3 year rent review after that.
There's a huge number of hoops to jump through while they validate your property and you've no say in who they put in... which will be guaranteed to be
social housing tenants.
One thing to note, once you start renting you lose your mortgage interest relief at source, so you have to notify your mortgage provider. On the other side, I believe starting next year you can claim tax credit on 100% of your mortgage interest payments. Note it's a tax credit, so if you pay €3000 in mortgage interest you'd likely only get half of that back.0 -
If you rent out your house and presumably live elsewhere, do you have to tell your bank that its not your principal residence and therefore must be changed to a buy-to-let mortgage, potentially losing your tracker?
Just wondering, we bought a second house recently and the mortgage was reclassified as buy-to-let. Didn't have an impact as the rates are currently the same, emphasis on currently.
No idea on this but will have to find out. Still living there until mid Dec and will be moving into new house then0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Levi Damaged Collarbone wrote: »Your previous posts are attempts at explaining it away but they don’t, the fact is that there are situations where a licensee situation can occur even when the LL does not live there and the fact that it is acknowledged in the rules 100% confirms this.
Yes, there was a case reported in the Irish Times some months ago (afraid I can't find the link): in the reported case, it was student accommodation. Students had exclusive use of en-suite room, sharing the rest of the apartment (kitchen/livingroom) with others. The landlords had the right to enter the property to clean and inspect once a month I think, also there were limitations on the rights of the licencee (no overnight guests was one rule I recall, which they had breached) . PRTB refused the case as it was not a tenancy, far as i remember tenants took the landlord to court and lost because of the terms of their licence meant they could not claim the protections of a tenant re. termination or a tenancy.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement