Its scenarios like this that have painted all landlords in a bad light. Perhaps a good time to lock the thread, mod?
Its scenarios like this that have painted all landlords in a bad light. Perhaps a good time to lock the thread, mod?@Paul001, from what you've said it looks like the tenant was well within their rights and you've behaved disgracefully. You don't seem to understand your responsibilities as a landlord or the rights that your tenants have. I've been a landlord and I wouldn't dream of doing what you've done. Have aa read of this.
I think you've got away lightly. I agree that you should seek legal advice but only to fund a way to extract yourself from the position in which your own appalling behaviour has placed you.
It doesn't fit into current planning law. In order to rent out rooms in a unit you don't live in as holiday lets - and a let with a fixed term of 6 weeks arguably meets the definition of a holiday let, you need PP. If your tenants realise that expect an enforcement order to come from your local council also for breach of planning as I assume you do not have PP to short let the property, even if it doesn't fall under the "14 days or less" that defines a short-let under section 3A of the 2019 revision of the planning act.Whats awful? Renting the rooms out on fixed term contracts of between 1- 8 months? Whats so awful about that?
Yes it does. Short term stays are defined in the Act as a lease or licence of a house (including an apartment) or part of a house for a period of 14 days or less.I imagine you have misunderstood the legislation. The 14 day prohibition does not limit the interpretation of short term letting to just that of 14 days or less.
There isnt such an distinction. There are short term stays (14 days or less). Everything else is regarded as long term tenancies.None. You are offering them a house share, not a quasi hotel with strangers arriving on holidays etc. They are perfectly entitled to expect that the remainder of the house is let to long term tenants like themselves.
We know what is defined as holiday lets (ie 14 days or less). After 6 months its solely part 4 which just falls under tenancy legislation. I fail to see where the grey area is. Legislation is clear in respect to what is short term or not. Quiet enjoyment can be rectified via tenancy house rules. ie the tenants between them agree when / how to provide myself with permission.It doesn't fit into current planning law. In order to rent out rooms in a unit you don't live in as holiday lets - and a let with a fixed term of 6 weeks arguably meets the definition of a holiday let, you need PP. If your tenants realise that expect an enforcement order to come from your local council also for breach of planning as I assume you do not have PP to short let the property, even if it doesn't fall under the "14 days or less" that defines a short-let under section 3A of the 2019 revision of the planning act.
You've stumbled into a legal gray area in some ways here, you might even have a route to an appeal under a technicality with RTB (on the basis that there currently isn't a strict set of regulations around short lets longer than 14 days but not exceeding 6 months), but your existing 2 tenants are still entitled to peaceful enjoyment of what is their home, and not for it to be turned into a holiday home with different sets of strangers arriving every 6 weeks.
lock the thread because you disagree? This is a discussion thread.Its scenarios like this that have painted all landlords in a bad light. Perhaps a good time to lock the thread, mod?
That is only in the context of that particular restriction. If you read the link I posted they mention that restriction does not apply to " short term lettings longer than 14 days".Yes it does. Short term stays are defined in the Act as a lease or licence of a house (including an apartment) or part of a house for a period of 14 days or less.
It is, but it's an example of someone not listening to what everyone is trying to tell them, so is at risk of being of little merit continuing.lock the thread because you disagree? This is a discussion thread.
Trying to tell me? Are you listing to what I am trying to tell you?It is, but it's an example of someone not listening to what everyone is trying to tell them, so is at risk of being of little merit continuing.
Would you like to expand on your comment? What exactly are you trying to say?That is only in the context of that particular restriction. If you read the link I posted they mention that restriction does not apply to " short term lettings longer than 14 days".
I think you need to tone it back here. You come here asking a question that you did not ask for ages and then berate people who give their opinions. If you know the answer, or won't listen to the views of others, why are you even bothering to ask or post here ?Would you like to expand on your comment? What exactly are you trying to say?
That article states ' Short term letting is defined in the Act as a lease or licence of a house (including an apartment) or part of a house for a period of 14 days or less. The legislation does not apply to short term lettings longer than 14 days. That is the strict letter of the law. '
- if there are other factors at play they do not include the length of the stay given this is already clearly defined.
- If commenting going forward pls be specific.
I decided to do this as the current tenants were a pain so I want to do it this way instead.
One of the original tenants complained to the RTB that I am not permitting her to have peace in the property as I do not give her notice when new tenants arrive or indeed when the cleaners arrive. I obtain permission to enter the property from the shorter term tenants.
RTB awarded the tenant €3k as they agreed with her. However I do obtain permission from the other shorter term tenants and that should be sufficient to enter the property.
This is the crux of it. You thought it should be but you are wrong. You'll have to make alternative arrangements.RTB awarded the tenant €3k as they agreed with her. However I do obtain permission from the other shorter term tenants and that should be sufficient to enter the property.
I don't know how I can make it any simpler, than what I already said, The definition of a short term let as lasting 14 days or under is in reference to the legislation that mandates change of use planning permission in RPZs where the landlord wants to let for 14 days or less at a time. You can't infer that definition applies to other areas of legislation.Would you like to expand on your comment? What exactly are you trying to say?
Sure - but this is an open conversation so you can't expect to draw a box around what you want to discuss and exclude what others want to discuss.Trying to tell me? Are you listing to what I am trying to tell you?
I was seeking to discuss residential laws and process - not morals.
Thanks for your well thought out msg Arbitron.It sounds like you are renting the place by room to individual tenants. In other words, this is not just 1 lease with multiple tenants/sublets.
If it is on a room basis then you could have John in Room A on a 1-year lease, Jane in Room B on a 6-month lease, and then Room C and Room D have new people every few weeks but no-one ever signs a lease for fewer than 14 days. Is that the gist?
If it is on a room-by-room basis then you should not need everyone's permission to enter the common areas, but you cannot enter private bedrooms.
This reads as though you are doing the short term lets in order to annoy or force out the long-term tenants.
It sounds like the RTB recognises that this arrangement is probably a nightmare for the long-term tenants. The fact that you only ever seek permission from the short-stay tenants does not look good.
You seem like you are focused on following the bare letter of the law and ignoring the spirit. If the RTB is within its rights to make a judgement on a tenant's enjoyment and peace in the property then I can see why you got the result you did.
As I already mentioned - short term lettings are defined by legislation as less than 14 days. I have already confirmed that my lettings are all in excess of this and hence do not fall under short term legislation. You're misreading the link from Arthur Cox.I don't know how I can make it any simpler, than what I already said, The definition of a short term let as lasting 14 days or under is in reference to the legislation that mandates change of use planning permission in RPZs where the landlord wants to let for 14 days or less at a time. You can't infer that definition applies to other areas of legislation.
Have you read the link I posted where Arthur Cox provide guidance on that restriction, and explicitly mention it does not apply to "short term lettings longer than 14 days". Their legal credentials and knowledge of residential tenancies legislation carry a lot more weight than much of the advice you will get on here. When they say short term lettings can be longer than 14 days, you can be pretty sure they're right.
Yes, but in the context of the specified planning requirement. It does not imply that a 15 day letting is anything other than a short term let, just that it is not a short term let of a duration that would give rise to the requirement to apply for a change of use.As I already mentioned - short term lettings are defined by legislation as less than 14 days.
Leo you have it backwards. a 14 day stay is regarded as a short term let as defined by law. Short term legislation does not apply to anything in excess of that. Of course one can call a 15 day stay anything they wish except for a short term stay as defined by legislation.Yes, but in the context of the specified planning requirement. It does not imply that a 15 day letting is anything other than a short term let, just that it is not a short term let of a duration that would give rise to the requirement to apply for a change of use.