Read the legislation again, the use of the definition is restricted. Note the use of 'In this Section' prior to introducing the definition to signify that the definition is not to be relied upon universally. A letting of 15 days is still a short term letting, just not one to which the restrictions outlined in that section apply. The alternative is a Part 4 tenancy,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.
Leo I'm sorry however you are incorrect. You say 15 days is legislated as a short term let (this is wrong) however in which case when does a long term stay kick in (ie at what point?)? Part 4 generally refers to after 6 months.Read the legislation again, the use of the definition is restricted. Note the use of 'In this Section' prior to introducing the definition to signify that the definition is not to be relied upon universally. A letting of 15 days is still a short term letting, just not one to which the restrictions outlined in that section apply. The alternative is a Part 4 tenancy,
Ah, but I didn't say that, did I?You say 15 days is legislated as a short term let (this is wrong) however in which case when does a long term stay kick in (ie at what point?)? Part 4 generally refers to after 6 months.
Given that the RTB have accepted jurisdiction, they have established that at least some of the tenants enjoy the protections that come with Part 4.How does the length of any of those tenancy agreements impose obligations on a landlord to get permission from everyone if he/she is only entering the common areas for cleaning or maintenance? It's not entering the individual rooms which rightly would be illegal.
Given that the RTB have accepted jurisdiction, they have established that at least some of the tenants enjoy the protections that come with Part 4.
If all residents were clearly licensees, the RTB wouldn't have a role.
AFAIK Doing it this way means each new tenant gains all the rights of the original tenants, from the dates of the original tenants. It not really letting on a room by room basis.
I am currently registering a 4 room property, one of the rooms is empty. The rent reflects 3 rooms !
The landlord needs permissions of any long-term tenant to access any part of the property. This whole scenario sounds like a mess where I suspect the landlord is trying to encourage tenants with full Part 4 rights out through the introduction of short-term tenants. If there was a clear licensee arrangement in place with all tenants, the landlord would only have had to show that to remove any power from the RTB to impose penalties or restrictions.how can one longer-term tenant restrict the landlord from freely accessing the common areas?
I think this is right.I was told that only applies when it is a joint tenancy for the entire dwelling and one of the joint/multiple tenants moves out, and the replacement takes on their rights and responsibilities. The replacement then gets their personal part4 rights after 6 months occupancy. After that they fall in line with the other multiple tenants and lease dates etc in terms of termination/notice or rent increases.
How can you rent individual rooms, how can that be registered on RTB. I don't think it is allowed.Does each individual not acquire their own part4 rights after 6 months occupancy? If tenants are renting individual rooms, how could a new tenant get the same rights as a person in another room in occupation for say 5 years?
Of course you can, you can have more than one tenant on a lease.rent individual rooms, how can that be registered on RTB. I don't think it is allowed
The landlord needs permissions of any long-term tenant to access any part of the property. This whole scenario sounds like a mess where I suspect the landlord is trying to encourage tenants with full Part 4 rights out through the introduction of short-term tenants. If there was a clear licensee arrangement in place with all tenants, the landlord would only have had to show that to remove any power from the RTB to impose penalties or restrictions
Do I have the right to privacy?
When you rent an entire property from a private landlord, even though they own the property, it is your home. During your tenancy the landlord or their authorised agent has an obligation to ensure you have peaceful occupation of the property. Unless there is an emergency situation (e.g. fire or flood), a landlord should not call to the property unannounced or enter the property without your permission.
If renting on a room-by-room basis the landlord may access the common areas without consent and may show vacant rooms to prospective tenants.
If renting on a room-by-room basis the landlord may access the common areas without consent and may show vacant rooms to prospective tenants.
From the OPs point of view its RTB who are making the decisions here; lets see what the result of the appeal is.Its strange that rtb and threshold are different.
That's where I suspect the OP is trying to shift from a full tenancy situation to one of separate licensees by stealth. If the landlord was intending to operate under the licensee system from the outset, the terms of the agreements with the tenants should have made that very clear. If that was the case, when the RTB started investigating the complaint, all the landlord would have had to do was to show them the agreements and the RTB could not have issued the finding that they did.If renting on a room-by-room basis the landlord may access the common areas without consent and may show vacant rooms to prospective tenants.
Thanks for that arbitron. So according to Threshold, if the OP was renting room by room, the OP can enter without permission. Its strange that rtb and threshold are different.
That's where I suspect the OP is trying to shift from a full tenancy situation to one of separate licensees by stealth. If the landlord was intending to operate under the licensee system from the outset, the terms of the agreements with the tenants should have made that very clear. If that was the case, when the RTB started investigating the complaint, all the landlord would have had to do was to show them the agreements and the RTB could not have issued the finding that they did.
If they are all let from the start under licences, then they do not come under the remit of the RTB and no registration is required. They briefly mention it here:But, say a landlord was starting out with a four bed property, and didn't want a joint/multiple tenancy arrangement for whatever reason, and leased each bedroom (with access to kitchens etc) to four separate people, does he need to register each lease separately with the rtb, ie., he would have four tenants?
Had the OP started off with this arrangement property documented, there would be no case for the RTB to demand they get occupants permission to enter the premises.What is a License:
...
Persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal license arrangement with the owner where the occupants are not entitled to its exclusive use and the owner has continuing access to the accommodation and/or can move around or change the occupants
Apart from the OP situation, I thought that letting on a room by room basis with shared kitchen, common entrance etc was the same set-up as bedsits from years ago, and would be included under rtb remit as tenants. But, in a room only letting, it is not self-contained so it can't be a 'dwelling'. The link posted earlier saying it is a licensee situation fits better.Unlikely that the OPs letting arrangement would be considered a license.
Again from RTB
"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."