When letting on a room by room basis, the landlord has the option to stay outside the RTB process, but as above and the quote from the RTB site, the agreement must be clear.
Landlord mixing AirB&B with long term tenants - RTB fine for non-notice
- Thread starter Paul001
- Start date
- Status
Ok. This is my understanding for an individual property or building with no resident LL.
I can see how a replacement person into an existing lease is a tenant. They get their own personal part4 rights after 6 months occupancy and then fall into line with the existing lease terms.
If theres a joint/multiple lease, say 4 friends, and one leaves, the three left are responsible for the full rent but the leaver can assign their interest to a replacement (with LL agreement). If the leaver doesnt assign, the other three can just pay the full rent, or, take in a licensee who can request the LL to become a tenant and go on the lease. The LL cant decide to put someone in in place of the leaver. One single tenancy registration with various names. All straightforward enough.
Its a different situation when there is no tenancy in the first place.
Looking at the earlier link, that can happen if a LL rents by the room, LL decides who can occupy a room, for how long, or can leave it empty. The occupants of other rooms are not liable for the entire rent roll of the property. The room occupants share some facilities and LL has access to common areas and vacant rooms only. If there was a tenancy agreement with the first person, then they could tell the LL to take a hike if the LL wanted to let out other rooms. So in the absence of a lease for the entire property/building, the room renter has a license for restricted occupation, ie., no access to other renters private rooms. This wouldn't be so in a joint/multiple tenancy as each of those tenants would have equal access to all areas of the property and they can also restrict who enters the property including the LL.
The other situation is where each room/unit in the building is self-contained, there is a common building entrance, each units occupant is a tenant with separate registration.
I can see how a replacement person into an existing lease is a tenant. They get their own personal part4 rights after 6 months occupancy and then fall into line with the existing lease terms.
If theres a joint/multiple lease, say 4 friends, and one leaves, the three left are responsible for the full rent but the leaver can assign their interest to a replacement (with LL agreement). If the leaver doesnt assign, the other three can just pay the full rent, or, take in a licensee who can request the LL to become a tenant and go on the lease. The LL cant decide to put someone in in place of the leaver. One single tenancy registration with various names. All straightforward enough.
Its a different situation when there is no tenancy in the first place.
Looking at the earlier link, that can happen if a LL rents by the room, LL decides who can occupy a room, for how long, or can leave it empty. The occupants of other rooms are not liable for the entire rent roll of the property. The room occupants share some facilities and LL has access to common areas and vacant rooms only. If there was a tenancy agreement with the first person, then they could tell the LL to take a hike if the LL wanted to let out other rooms. So in the absence of a lease for the entire property/building, the room renter has a license for restricted occupation, ie., no access to other renters private rooms. This wouldn't be so in a joint/multiple tenancy as each of those tenants would have equal access to all areas of the property and they can also restrict who enters the property including the LL.
The other situation is where each room/unit in the building is self-contained, there is a common building entrance, each units occupant is a tenant with separate registration.
The RTB says they do.
That's exactly it, a licensee in the true sense is not renting a property but a share in one. It's a more onerous arrangement for landlords as they have to interview and manage each licensee individually and it's a more limited market where people don't tend to stay long.
Last edited:
The piece I quoted above where they say you can is directly taken from the RTB site. You need to read on beyond that first example!
Ultimately, the RTB is the decision maker here & they only make decisions based on claims brought to them.
So even if you think you are fully covered, should one of your tenants make a complaint (as we started out here with the OP); RTB can make a determination that this is not a license but a tenancy.
Again, I don't believe you would succeed in the case of a private dwelling house, let on a room basis.
All we can do is debate; we don't get to make the determinations.
So lets see what the outcome of OPs appeal is & then we'll all know more.
So even if you think you are fully covered, should one of your tenants make a complaint (as we started out here with the OP); RTB can make a determination that this is not a license but a tenancy.
Again, I don't believe you would succeed in the case of a private dwelling house, let on a room basis.
All we can do is debate; we don't get to make the determinations.
So lets see what the outcome of OPs appeal is & then we'll all know more.
I found it, the third point below.
from. https://www.rtb.ie/registration-and-compliance/beginning-a-tenancy/types-of-tenancies-and-agreements
Licences
Typically most licence arrangements do not come under the remit of the RTB. Please note that because a licence is named as such, it does not necessarily mean it is not operating as a tenancy for the purposes of the RTB.
Examples of a licence are a person staying in hotel, hostel or guesthouse or a person sharing a house with the owner.
What is a licence?
A licensee is a person who occupies accommodation under license. Licensees can arise in all sorts of accommodation but most commonly in the following four areas;
- Persons staying in hotels, guesthouses, hostels, etc
- Persons sharing a house/ apartment with its owner e.g. under the 'rent a room' scheme or 'in digs';
- 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
- Persons staying in rented accommodation at the invitation of the tenant.
Yeah, if the RTB hadn't spelled it out like that I would have doubted it myself.
In defining where the legislation applies, it makes reference to the letting of a property, including elf-contained units. A license to share is more restricted.
makesense001
Registered User
- Messages
- 35
Where? What section defines a 15 day tenancy as 'long term'?
makesense001
Registered User
- Messages
- 35
No, read it again, it clearly states: "In this section short term let means...". Clearly, that means that definition is restricted to that section only, and cannot be relied upon elsewhere.
Again, show me the section that defines "long term"? Arthur Cox's guidance clearly indicates short term lets include ones of more than 14 days, perhaps they don't understand the law either
Last edited:
makesense001
Registered User
- Messages
- 35
'
So if STL's doesn't apply and all four occupants are equal tenants with equal rights, how can one longer-term tenant restrict the landlord from freely accessing the common areas?
I find this very interesting as to how the RTB made that decision.'
- This is what is really odd. Basically the RTB is saying one set of tenant (what it terms shorter term tenant (albeit not short term tenants per legislation) have lesser rights to full part term tenants in that the first set of tenant cannot provide myself with permission to enter the common areas in order to serve.
Clearly the RTB have determine that this tenant is entitled to the protections of a Part 4 tenancy.
makesense001
Registered User
- Messages
- 35
Leo the legislation defines short term stays. Everything else remains the same unless legislation is introduced.No, read it again, it clearly states: "In this section short term let means...". Clearly, that means that definition is restricted to that section only, and cannot be relied upon elsewhere.
Again, show me the section that defines "long term"? Arthur Cox's guidance clearly indicates short term lets include ones of more than 14 days, perhaps they don't understand the law either
Yet the RTB themselves say that you can.
- Status