presidenttttt
Registered User
- Messages
- 392
The primary test is in whether the property has been let in its entirety and whether ongoing access is maintained. If you let by the room, clearly detailing exclusive use of a specified bedroom along with shared access to common areas, and maintain landlord access then you should avoid the requirements for a tenancy. Keeping some element of the property for exclusive use of the landlord is a good way of showing the entire property is not let.Leo, could you say more about the license and where the line rests?
If a case is brought, I would imagine a group such as Threshold would have a stake.it be RTB or licensee who would go to court though
They have no role in the dispute resolution process. Either party is free to consult whoever they like in preparing their case of course, but that's it.If a case is brought, I would imagine a group such as Threshold would have a stake.
As always be aware of what RTB says on their website
"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".
I am of the opinion, that if it came to a complaint with the RTB, I don't believe renting the average single family home / apartment on a room basis would be accepted as a licensee arrangement.
But until this is tested via RTB / courts; we could either of us be right.
You are referring to the recent court case, where tenant claimed to be in adverse posession?
And court ruled that registration with RTB did not create a tenancy.
As I recall from the newspaper report, there was no evidence of contract / lease / rent payment.
Calling tenants licensees to avoid RTB registration may not work out.
You pays your money, you takes your chances.
It's highly likely that there is already compelling common law jurisdiction case law on this if anyone has the money and motivation to pay legal experts for clarity on it.That still doesn't determine what is and what is not a licensee vs. tenancy.
....
We may debate as much as we like online, until it's tested, we don't know.
I however won't be the test case.
And of course, that law can change.You are referring to the recent court case, where tenant claimed to be in adverse posession?
And court ruled that registration with RTB did not create a tenancy.
As I recall from the newspaper report, there was no evidence of contract / lease / rent payment.
Calling tenants licensees to avoid RTB registration may not work out.
You pays your money, you takes your chances.
On the bright side, it never changes overnight so anyone letting under a license arrangement would have plenty of time to terminate in advance of an unfavourable amendment to legislation. Provided of course they keep a watch on legislative developments.And of course, that law can change.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?