Landlord mixing AirB&B with long term tenants - RTB fine for non-notice

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
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 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.
 
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.
Ah, but I didn't say that, did I?

Seeing as you're such an expert on the legislation, perhaps tell us where that kicks in?
 
I'm trying to understand this so say the description of short-term lets is not used here at all for illustration. Then it looks like the landlord is letting 4 rooms to 4 separate tenants who each have a tenancy agreement, of differing durations, for their own room plus access to the common areas. Is that right?
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.

Unless the whole property was originally let to four tenants jointly and two left which is a different story with a several possible outcomes as well as the rtb ruling.
 
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.
 
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.

They couldn't be licensees (in a different room) of a tenant who was only renting one room, or of the LL because not his PPR. They cant be Airbnb either for the same reasons unless a tenant let out their room at weekends for example and then would they need LL permission for that?
So they must all be tenants renting individual rooms for different time periods and with access to common areas.

I thought all tenants have the same rights except part4 gives additional in terms of termination/notice periods - is that right?

So if STL's doesn't apply and all four occupants are equal tenants with equal rights, how can one longer-term tenant restrict the landlord from freely accessing the common areas?
I find this very interesting as to how the RTB made that decision.
 

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?

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 one longer-term tenant restrict the landlord from freely accessing the common areas?
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.
 
I think this is right.

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?
How can you rent individual rooms, how can that be registered on RTB. I don't think it is allowed.
 

Thanks for taking the time to reply, much appreciated.
I think the joint/multiple tenancy situation is clear enough, it's a single tenancy agreement that the landlord registers with several named parties who may or may not change over time.

The other situation is where say four individuals were each renting a separate room and had a separate lease with the landlord, but because the rooms are not self-contained dwellings (they share kitchen, bathroom, garden and bathroom - similar to bed-sits in the past) then the property would be considered as a single unit by the rtb? Is that how it works? How does a landlord register that - is it four tenancies?
Sorry, its complicated
 
Last edited:
According to Threshold:
 
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.
 

Thanks. That's clear enough that the set-up can't be changed mid way.

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?

How would they be licensees if it's not his PPR?
 
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:

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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
Again I would suggest that calling it a license does not necessarily make it so.

If you have a house w X bedrooms & shared facilities; you can choose to select the tenant (Joanne) that will occupy Room N.

You add Joanne to the existing tenancy registered with RTB, removing Joseph who previously rented it.

Thats what letting on a room basis means.

If Room N is unoccupied for 6 weeks, you take the hit on rent.

Each tenant has the protections of RTB / legislation.

What is unclear to me however is if the new tenant inherits part 4 from the date of the original lease.

There are property owners who do this method; but we don't have HMO legislation as they do in the UK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.