Terry Gorry video on his difficulty getting rid of a non paying tenant

Leo said:
think the legislation means when talking of licensees in the Residential Tenancies acts
Click to expand...
I’ve been trying to get to grips with the whole topic of licensees for a long while and after reading many posts and discussions, I think I have to agree with @DannyBoyD about guests.
Tenancy agreements allow guests, some have restrictions on frequency or length of stay but I’ve never seen one that granted the tenant permission to take in long term paying lodgers or short term holiday visitors. In fact, any residential lease I’ve seen prohibits any kind of business activity in the dwelling. A tenant who takes in a lodger/licensee or an Airbnb type guest is receiving either rental or trading income for providing accommodation - both taxable activities. Also is activity without the owner’s authorisation (or any required PP) breaking the lease terms?

And afaik, a landlord’s property insurance covers tenants, their guests, people with permission to be on the property, and even trespassers. I’m not sure it covers long term occupants without permission to be there but other posters might know more about how the occupiers liability insurance works for landlords.

The section in the RTA that mentions licensees is about security of tenure for multiple tenants / occupants where a Part4 tenancy exists. I’ve always felt the part about a landlord accepting a request from a licensee to become a tenant was connected to S39 (3) & (4) where the tenant died and the specific list of lawful occupants (ie spouse, civil partner, child, parent) could request to become a legal tenant. But I’ve been told my understanding was wrong and any tenant is entitled to have any ‘licensee’ living in the property based on this:

S50 (7) A person who is lawfully in occupation of the dwelling concerned as a licensee of the tenant or the multiple tenants, as the case may be, during the subsistence of a Part 4 tenancy F138[may, F139[subject to section 3B(d) and subsection (7A)], request] the landlord of the dwelling to allow him or her to become a tenant of the dwelling.

The ‘lawfully in occupation’ must carry some importance imo and is mentioned in a few places in the act. To me it means the tenant with a valid lease and anyone else permitted by the owner to live there with the leaseholder eg, children of the tenants who are not on the lease. Also, anyone in ‘lawful occupation’ can only be removed under a very strict set of criteria which doesn’t apply to visitors, guests, lodgers or to actual licensees such as workmen or landlord agents who have permission to be on the premises.

That’s my two cents anyway.
 
Last edited:
bipped said:
But I’ve been told my understanding was wrong and any tenant is entitled to have any ‘licensee’ living in the property based on this:
Click to expand...
Yeah, the legislation covers the possibility of a tenant taking in paying guests or licensees. It's clear they do not inherit the protections of tenancy, but may request same from that landlord. A landlord must prohibit sub-letting in the lease if they do not wish that situation to arise. Even the RTB sample tenancy agreement includes the conditions required to prohibit sub-letting, they likely see that as best to avoid conflict.


bipped said:
The ‘lawfully in occupation’ must carry some importance imo and is mentioned in a few places in the act. To me it means the tenant with a valid lease and anyone else permitted by the owner to live there with the leaseholder eg, children of the tenants who are not on the lease.
Click to expand...
Yes, licensees, guests, family, etc. are not legally in occupation of the property, and can only stay with the permission of the tenant while the tenancy remains valid. Once that tenancy terminates, they must also leave and any subsequent occupation of the property would be unlawful.
 
Leo said:
A landlord must prohibit sub-letting in the lease if they do not wish that situation to arise
Click to expand...
Ok. I get that sub-letting is where the tenant moves out, becomes the landlord to the second tier tenant and that tenancy has to be registered with the rtb. Clearly that situation can be prohibited in a lease.

But that’s different to the tenant staying put and taking in guests/lodgers to live in the dwelling, and then that person can request to become a tenant and the landlord may not unreasonably refuse. To me that sounds like a tenant can take in as many guests as they like, paying or not, long or short term, and those guests can request to become tenants and the landlord has to agree.

Unless I’m understanding it wrong and the request to become a tenant must be made to the person the guest pays ie. the leaseholder and not the owner who granted the tenancy. I can see that a guest doesn’t have any relationship with the owner.
So is it that the leaseholder could reasonably refuse because they don’t have the owner’s permission? Leaving aside the tenants tax affairs, how does an owner ensure that doesn’t or can’t happen? It has me stumped tbh.

Edit: just read this again from your earlier reply; “It's clear they do not inherit the protections of tenancy, but may request same from that landlord”. Ok, think that answers it, thank you.
 
Last edited:
bipped said:
But that’s different to the tenant staying put and taking in guests/lodgers to live in the dwelling, and then that person can request to become a tenant and the landlord may not unreasonably refuse. To me that sounds like a tenant can take in as many guests as they like, paying or not, long or short term, and those guests can request to become tenants and the landlord has to agree.
Click to expand...
Yes, they can unless the landlord explicitly prohibits doing so via terms in the lease. Tenants sub-letting in such arrangements are even entitled to claim Rent a Room Relief.
 
stormy said:
You have to wonder whether TDs are even aware of how heavily the system leans toward tenants
Click to expand...

I suspect that they are. But they are completely terrified of the uncritical, open door approach that the Irish media allows opposition TDs and charity spokespersons on housing/homelessness issues, thus are afraid to make any attempt to move towards a fairer system.
 
Here is more on this, interviews on Newstalk a couple of days ago. Again, landlords with houses wrecked and thousands of euros of damage caused got no help from the RTB. As they say in the interviews the whole process is pro-tenant. Others are on talking about how no rent was paid and it took, like Terry Gorry, a year or two to get the tenant out. Again, a pro-tenant RTB and the landlord got no compensation for either the damage or the unpaid rent.

Newstalk - no one is getting into the rental game
 
Greenbook said:
landlords with houses wrecked and thousands of euros of damage caused got no help from the RTB.
Click to expand...


Something that should make every decent* politician in Dáil Éireann very, very ashamed of their shocking disregard for landlord's rights.

* a category of politician that, ipse facto, excludes opposition TDs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top