Do I need to register with RTB

[stormy]

perhaps I’ll have to cease or limit to family or friends in future

Glad it helped. Three things on your follow-up.

First, at €750 under market, your current tenant has a lot more incentive to stay and enforce her rights.

Second, be careful with “she can use my bedroom”. The best thing you had going for the residence argument was a room that stays yours. In TR0001285 the landlord kept his bedroom locked. Handing yours over for her visitors is evidence that the whole house is hers.

Third, family and friends aren’t the same thing in law:

• Family is covered. The Act doesn’t apply to a dwelling where the landlord’s spouse, civil partner, parent or child lives, provided nobody living there has signed a written lease or tenancy agreement (s.3(2)(h)). Note the conditions: it covers only those relatives, and the exemption is lost if there’s anything in writing.
• Friends are not covered. A friend paying rent is a tenant like anyone else. It’s also the classic way these arrangements end up at the RTB, because there’s never a written agreement and everyone’s memory differs once things go wrong.

Worst case.
I’m not trying to scare you off. Most tenancies never go near the RTB, and yours has worked for ten years. But if one does, this is what you’re facing, and none of it is unusual.

• Your notice is thrown out over a detail. In TR0001393 the warning letter demanded EUR913 when the true arrears were EUR903. The tenants didn’t turn up. The Tribunal found the EUR10 discrepancy itself and held the notice invalid. That’s a year gone, and the warning-letter process starts again from zero.
• You end up owing them money. In TR0001404 the tenant drafted a new lease at a higher rent, agreed it by email, and both signed. There was no statutory rent review notice, so the increase “shall not have effect”. Sixteen months of the increase was clawed back and the arrears recalculated: EUR11,300 claimed, EUR7,725 awarded.
• Some mistakes can’t be fixed at all. In TR0001481 a notice found compliant in every other respect failed on a service point, and the right to end the tenancy expired while the case ran. A remedial notice cannot revive it.
• Meanwhile rent accrues, but nothing makes them pay it. There’s no fine and no interest. The eventual order is often an instalment plan the landlord never agreed to: Roscam was EUR16,000 at EUR200 a month, finishing in 2033.
• Then you enforce it yourself, in the District Court. The RTB’s register shows 98 orders enforced through the courts in 2024, 71 in 2025, and 92 so far this year. Those are only the ones someone took the trouble to chase.

Each step is a separate referral and a separate hearing. Strung together, that’s years, for a landlord who did nothing worse than let a room.

You might think, worst case I can serve notice for my own use. That means swearing a statutory declaration that you require the house as your residence, and meaning it: moving back from London, not July and August. If it’s vacated again within 12 months you must offer it back to her, and if the Tribunal decides you never really needed it, that’s s.56 damages (EUR15,000 in TR0001023). The “require” test is getting stricter too. Even a genuine own-use notice has to be drafted and served perfectly.

To give you a flavour, 26 Determination Orders were published today. The RTB found problems with every one of these terminations:

• DR0006408 (McGlynn v Connolly, Kildare): notice of termination invalid, so the possession claim failed. The landlord was still awarded EUR13,575 in rent arrears, at EUR1,000 a month.
• DR0007229 (O’Doherty v Gilmour, Monaghan): notice invalid and the tenancy ended by frustration. The tenant was awarded EUR5,653 for repairs the landlord failed to make.
• DR0007228 (Skrzydlewska v Silke, Swords): landlord found to have abused the s.34 termination procedure (a s.56 complaint), EUR5,000 damages.
• DR0008576 (Brady v O’Callaghan, Dublin): landlord breached the s.34 termination procedure, tenant awarded EUR3,700.
• DR0007151 (Mullen v Moloney, Clare): notice invalid, EUR2,000 for unlawful termination plus EUR1,000 for repairs.
• DR0003203 (Ryan v Boneaset Ltd, Limerick): a company landlord’s notice invalid, tenancy continues.

*A note on “published today”: that’s the upload date, not the decision date. The orders themselves are months old. DR0007228, for example, was made on 26 August 2026 and went up this afternoon. The register entry carries no date at all, so the only way to find out when an order was made is to open each PDF. The RTB used to date its uploads; for some of these it has stopped.

 

[Foreright]

Thanks stormy. Very much good for thought
In the future do you think I could rent my home on a Mon to Friday basis ? One or both rooms ? So I can have all weekends . And I keep entire house for the summer
Is this safer?

 

[TomEdison]

I think if you're renting to the same person week after week; if they get to leave their stuff in their rooms over the weekend; if they get to keep a set of keys over the weekend — then it looks very iffy. The mere fact that they are not there at a particular time doesn't mean that they are not in occupation at that time — after all, I'm still occupying my own home when I'm away on holidays. If their clothes, possessions, etc are in their rooms, if they still have a set of keys (or access to a set of keys) so that they can let themselves in on Monday morning, then I think the Tribunal is likely to consider that this is not a series of separate five-day arrangements, but a single continuous arrangement involving continuous occupation.

 

[stormy]

In the future do you think I could rent my home on a Mon to Friday basis ? One or both rooms ? So I can have all weekends . And I keep entire house for the summer
Is this safer?

No. TomEdison has it. Changing the timetable doesn’t change the analysis, and the RTB won’t give you the benefit of the doubt. The burden is on you to prove it isn’t a tenancy, and it looks at what actually happens, not at what the agreement says.

Three cases show how this goes:

• TR0823-006633 (Dublin 9). The landlord kept his bedroom locked and had his post delivered to the house. He still lost. He was never there at the same time as the tenants, and his texts about “moving back in” and calling down for the rent were “not capable of any other interpretation”. The Tribunal said the burden was on him to prove a licence, and he hadn’t.
• TR0924-008009 (Dundalk). The landlord had a bed, his tools and a TV in a locked living room, and said he lived there while renovating. His family lived five minutes away. The Tribunal was “at a loss to understand” why he needed to stay there, and didn’t accept his explanation for his own WhatsApps (“I will come to collect rent on Friday”). Locking the tenants out cost him €5,000.
• TR1124-008193 (Dublin 15). The written licence said in terms that the occupiers had no exclusive occupation. But they had their own key, nobody entered their room, and the arrangement simply rolled over when the term ended. It was a tenancy. On clauses written to stop a tenancy arising, the Tribunal said they count only if there is “a genuine reason” for them other than avoiding the Act.

A Monday-to-Friday deal with the same person, the same room, their belongings left in place and a key kept is one continuous tenancy with weekends reserved for you. The reservation itself is a breach of peaceful occupation. And you’d be making the argument from London, with your messages saying “I’ll be over Friday” in evidence.

If you want certainty, it’s family with nothing in writing (s.3(2)(h)), or accepting it’s a tenancy, registering it and running it as one. Anything designed to keep the Act out is the arrangement the RTB looks hardest at.

 

[patfert1]

The sad thing is that such arrangements are not uncommon and work for everyone concerned.
I rented a house for 8 months not too many years ago on the common understanding the owners would get it back before the summer. Everybody won.
Now, they would be mad to rent it out on such conditions.

 

[Greenbook]

The sad thing is that such arrangements are not uncommon and work for everyone concerned.

Commonly as well a person going abroad for a year or so would rent out their house on the understanding they would get it back when they returned. Again, you'd be absolutely mad to do that now.

I told the story before of neighbours of mine who when he was transferred to Singapore rented their house at a low rent to the son of a social acquaintance. On return, they spent quite a long time living in the front room of her sister's house. Their tenant had decided to stay put, he was being kicked out of his home apparently.

 

[Foreright]

Stormy
You’re telling me that not alone could this person stay here for 6 years- I would not be permitted from coming at the weekends I do which is one a month?

 

[stormy]

You're telling me that not alone could this person stay here for 6 years- I would not be permitted from coming at the weekends I do which is one a month?

Not quite on either point. One is worse than you think and one is better.

How long: it isn't six years. It's indefinite. Once a tenancy passes six months it becomes a tenancy of unlimited duration, running in six-year blocks. For tenancies like hers (assuming it started in after 1 Mar 26), the 2026 changes make it harder still. Under s.35B, a landlord with three or fewer tenancies can't end it within each six-year block to sell, to refurbish or to change its use. You'd have to serve notice timed to expire at the end of the block. The only exception for sale is narrow: you need the proceeds for your own home, or to clear a debt of at least 15% of the price, or you're insolvent.

The one ground that stays open to you is needing it to live in yourself or for family (s.34, para 4). That needs a statutory declaration that you require it as your residence, and you have to mean it: moving back from London, not July and August. If the Tribunal decides you never really needed it, that's s.56 damages. It was €15,000 in TR0001023.

Your visits: you're not banned. With her agreement you can come as you do now, and at €750 under market she has every reason to keep agreeing. But you can't insist. If she objects, each visit becomes a breach of her peaceful and exclusive occupation, and that's damages.


What else is at stake

• The discount is locked in. Your house is in a Rent Pressure Zone, so rent reviews within the tenancy are capped by the s.19 formula. A rent €750 under market stays well under market for as long as she stays.
• Summer is gone the year she says no. If she decides to stay in June, you have no ground that gets the house back for July. Greenbook's neighbours in #26 spent their return living in a relative's front room.
• Enforcement is slow. Even a valid notice she ignores means an overholding referral, then a hearing, then the District Court if she still won't go. Each step takes months.
• Damages add up. The cap is €20,000 or twice the annual rent, up to €60,000 (s.115), and each breach is a separate claim.

@patfert1 and @Greenbook are right that this used to work for everyone, and yours has for ten years. The risk isn't that it fails tomorrow. It's that it now runs entirely on her goodwill, and the law gives you almost nothing to fall back on the year that runs out.

 

[patfert1]

Your visits: you're not banned. With her agreement you can come as you do now, and at €750 under market she has every reason to keep agreeing. But you can't insist. If she objects, each visit becomes a breach of her peaceful and exclusive occupation, and that's damages.

To add to the doom and gloom scenarios, she could then take in a paying lodger into "your room" and even avail of the rent-a-room tax relief recently increased to 16k/year. Technically you could prevent this with a written lease agreement disallowing lodgers, but that would mean you would have to formalise her as a tenant which you don't wish to do...what a lovely catch-22.

Rent a room tax relief scheme

Rent-a-room relief makes it possible to earn tax-free rental income when you rent out a room in your home to private tenants.

www.citizensinformation.ie

Do I have to own the property to qualify?​

You do not have to own the property to qualify for rent-a-room relief. You could be a tenant and be sub-letting to someone else. In this case, you should check with your landlord that sub-letting is allowed.

 

[stormy]

Technically you could prevent this with a written lease agreement disallowing lodgers, but that would mean you would have to formalise her as a tenant which you don't wish to do...what a lovely catch-22.

Good point, patfert1. Without anything in writing, Foreright is very exposed to her taking in lodgers. Here's how it plays out in real cases.

First, subletting and lodgers are treated differently:

• Subletting is already covered under the RTA. Under s.16(h) a tenant can't assign or sublet without the landlord's written consent, lease or no lease. If she sublets without asking, that's a breach and a s.34 ground for a notice of termination.
• Lodgers aren't covered. Nothing in the Act stops a tenant taking a lodger into her own home. Her only statutory duty is to tell you who is living there (s.16(n)); she doesn't need your consent. Only a term of the tenancy can stop it. Without a written "no other occupants without consent" clause, she can let your room tomorrow. The RTB would treat it the way it did in TR0001285: a lodger living with the person they pay is outside the Act as against her. You'd have no say over who lives in your house.

And a lodger can then ask to become your tenant. Under s.50(7), anyone lawfully in occupation as a licensee of the tenant during a Part 4 tenancy can ask the landlord to make them a tenant. Under s.50(8) you "may not unreasonably refuse", and under s.76(4) the lodger can bring you to the RTB if you do. Once accepted, after six months they have the full protection of the Part 4 tenancy (s.50(3)). So a stranger you never chose could end up with the same rights in your house as she has.

That word "lawfully" is the reason to put it in writing. A lodger who moved in against a written term requiring your consent isn't lawfully in occupation, so s.50(7) shouldn't apply to them. Without the term, it's hard to see what would stop it.

It can also drift further, into tenancies nobody intended:

• TR0001680: a head tenant who didn't live there let out rooms, and the room renters were held to be tenants with full Part 4 rights. If she takes a lodger and then moves out, that lodger is no longer living with the person they pay, and their position changes.
• TR1124-008193: the occupiers found their own replacements and passed deposits between them, and the Tribunal said that is exactly how a house-share tenancy works. A rolling cast of her friends in your room, with nobody asking you, is a slow walk to the same place.
• TR0924-008065: "licence agreements" for individual rooms still added up to a single Part 4 tenancy, and the landlord ended up €34,000 down.

TR0001285: https://rtb.ie/disputes/dispute-outcomes-and-orders/adjudication-and-tribunal-orders/?_search=TR0001285

TR0001680: https://rtb.ie/disputes/dispute-outcomes-and-orders/adjudication-and-tribunal-orders/?_search=TR0001680

TR1124-008193: https://rtb.ie/disputes/dispute-outcomes-and-orders/adjudication-and-tribunal-orders/?_search=TR1124-008193

TR0924-008065: https://rtb.ie/disputes/dispute-outcomes-and-orders/adjudication-and-tribunal-orders/?_search=TR0924-008065

 

[Bronte]

I live in London and return to dublin once a month for 4 days and spend most of July and August in dublin

So you are resident in the UK and own a property in Ireland that you use occasionally. Presumably you are renting in London or own a property there and presumably you are UK tax resident.

I have a 2 bedroom house and every sept over the last 10 years I’ve advertised for a tenant( sept to June) who was happy to rent my 2nd bedroom when have use of house to themselves for 3.5 weeks a month and then when I return home they vacate the property

Whatever about the summer, they are not actually vacating the property for the 4 days each month, because they leave all their stuff there.

I’ve had new tenants every year. Usually people in the country for a short while or someone going through a marital breakup - that sort of stuff
I’ve never registered any of them with the RTB
Was I wrong?

Sounds like tenancies to me. Just shorter ones than normal. You might think you are 'living' in 2 places, but you're very much living in London.

The people to ask about the rules are the RTB. Because you've been so very careful with who you rent to it's worked out so far. I wouldn't like to be the one explaining how they are not proper tenants to a judge though.

 

[stormy]

The people to ask about the rules are the RTB.

That's the one thing I'd warn against. The RTB's advice doesn't bind its own Tribunals, and landlords who followed it have lost on exactly that.

• TR0001481: the Tribunal accepted the landlord had "probably followed the RTB's own published guidance" on service, and found his notice "in full compliance with the Act in all other respects". It struck the notice out anyway, and he lost his termination ground for good.
• TR0725-008907: a landlord asked the RTB which notice to use. She told the Tribunal the RTB said she didn't need to give a reason in the first six months, and that her notice was "the correct and lawful one". The Tribunal recorded that, awarded her €25,814 in arrears, and held the notice invalid.
• The service guidance itself: until this spring the RTB's website told landlords to send the RTB its copy of a notice "on the same day you send it" to the tenant. After the High Court ruled in Argutinski that a posted notice isn't served until it arrives, the website was quietly changed to "serve". Landlords who followed the earlier version are still losing notices at Tribunals.

The RTB's own pages describe themselves as a "simplified" summary and "not a substitute" for the Act. So when the advice is wrong, the landlord carries the cost, not the RTB.

Ask the RTB by all means, but check what it tells you against the Act before relying on it.

TR0001481: https://rtb.ie/disputes/dispute-outcomes-and-orders/adjudication-and-tribunal-orders/?_search=TR0001481
TR0725-008907: https://rtb.ie/disputes/dispute-outcomes-and-orders/adjudication-and-tribunal-orders/?_search=TR0725-008907
RTB website, 13 March 2026: https://web.archive.org/web/20260313023557/https://rtb.ie/renting/how-a-landlord-can-end-a-tenancy/
RTB website, 20 May 2026: https://web.archive.org/web/20260520154327/https://rtb.ie/renting/how-a-landlord-can-end-a-tenancy/

 

[DannyBoyD]

Again, simple solution for OP - once the lodgers term is up, close up shop.

Theres no upside to keeping this arrangement going.

 

[Greenbook]

Again, simple solution for OP - once the lodgers term is up, close up shop.

In a sensible world, there is every reason for keeping the arrangement going. The lodger gets a nice, cheap house and the OP gets a rent and can stay 4 days a month. Both sides benefit.

But the PRS has no logic at this stage, so you are correct, the only sensible course is to stop this arrangement when the current person leaves. There is too much risk of losing the house entirely for the sake of €750 per month.