Is a lodger in my house a "licensee"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr Strangelove said:
Has anyone reading this thread (including several posters who would seem to be legal practitioners) ever heard of a successful case in the District Court in Ireland of a licensee receiving a remedy for being asked to leave a dwelling?
Click to expand...
No, but nor have I heard of a case in which a property owner obtained an eviction order against a licensee who decline to leave when asked. I don't know that we should read too much into this, either way.

You'll find cases in the higher courts where licensees's rights are litigated; Balders93's post #17 mentions a couple of them. But the licences in those cases weren't licences for lodging. And since what is going on in these cases is the enforcement of contract terms, the actual terms of the contract are very important.

But, precisely because contracts for lodging are not covered by the residential tenancies legislation, the principles that apply here are fairly well settled; they're the same principles that apply to contracts generally — contracts must be observed; their are remedies for breach; the remedies available include an award of damages and the possibility of an order for specific performance; etc, etc. Anybody who argues that this is not the case would need to be able to point to legislation or court precedents to back up their position.

My guess is that contracts for lodgings in someone elese's home are not often litigated because, on any reasonable interpretation, most of them are terminable on relatively short notice anyway. If you pay weekly or monthly the courts might imply a notice period of a week or a month; if the facts supported it they might imply a notice period to, say, the end of term. If the property owner evicts me wrongly, the damages I can recover are limited to compensation for the breach of contract up to the point where they could have legitimately evicted me; in many cases that won't be worth suing for. And, if I do sue, the property owner (after a word with his solicitor) might well settle; it won't cost much to settle, and so will be cheaper than fighting the case.

The fact of the matter is that a lodger doesn't enjoy much security. I don't think it's correct to say that they have no rights, that they can be turned out without notice for no reason and there is no remedy. But that isn't really the problem that concerns lodgers, is it? Not many homeowners who have taken in lodgers behave like this. What's much more likely to happen is that the homeowner, for whatever reasons, no longer wants to have a lodger, or no longer wants to have this lodger, and they give notice — end of the month, end of the term, whatever. In most cases that's not going to be a breach of the express or implied terms of the licence, and the licensee will have no remedy.
 
DannyBoyD said:
Thats because you don't need one. A guest must leave when asked to do so.
Click to expand...
Yeah. And the landlord of a lodger must observe the terms of the contract for lodging.

But, in both cases, what you do you do if someone declines to do what he is supposed to do?
 
Civil mattter! If you call the police because a lodger won't leave, and the lodger tells the police that he has a contract for lodgings that entitles him to remain on the premises, the police will not remove him. It's a civil matter, to be settled in the courts.

And, since you're in the business of asking for court judgments, you've stated repeated in this thread that a lodger is a guest, and must leave immediately if asked. Can you point to an Irish court judgment that says these things?
 
DannyBoyD said:
Bored now, so not repeating myself anymore.
Click to expand...
Repeating yourself? Sorry, I missed where you cited the court case or legislation that founded your assertion that a lodger is a guest with no contractual rights. I won't ask you to repeat it, but can you just link back to the post?
 
Give me strength.

The Constitution declares that the dwelling of a citizen is inviolable. Anyone entering does so only with your permission.

(Entry under warrant or other legal authority is outside the scope of this discussion.)

Once that permission is withdrawn, the guest must leave.
 
DannyBoyD said:
The Constitution declares that the dwelling of a citizen is inviolable. Anyone entering does so only with your permission.
Click to expand...
The Constitution doesn't say the second bit.

What Article 40.5 actually says is:

The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law.
Click to expand...

So, that only restricts forcible entry, not entry in general, much less remaining on the premises when already there.

And there's absolutely nothing in there that says a citizen can't enter into a contract that entitles someone to enter, or be in, their dwelling, or that such a contract is null and void. On the contrary, the article is qualified with "save in accordance with law". Contracts are legal instruments; they create legal rights and obligations. If you grant someone a contractual right to be in your dwelling then, clearly, the article is worded to accommodate that.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that, if you have a lodger, your home is not just your dwelling; it's also their dwelling. Why would this article of the Constitution protect you, but not them?

Is there a court case that upholds your interpretation of this article?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top