Experts in the rental sector have indicated that individuals residing in leased shared accommodations might lack the same rights and protection as tenants renting directly from property owners. A recent judgement by the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB), which mediates disputes between landlords and tenants, proved this point. It was determined that a female tenant cohabitating in an apartment in Dublin 8 had no formal agreement with the corporate property owner.
The woman had established contact with the primary tenant via the social networking site, Facebook in September 2023. This interaction facilitated her stay in the apartment. The rent for the two-bedroom property was a monthly sum of €2,023, which was the responsibility of the primary tenant to pay to the property owner.
In an unfortunate turn of events, the woman, who was contributing €650 each month to the primary rent payment, was evicted by the primary tenant in January 2024. She then attempted to sue the property owner, alleging an unlawful expulsion from the property. The property owner refuted the claim at the tribunal, stating their lack of knowledge about rooms being sublet within the apartment. The tribunal concluded that due to the absence of a formal rental agreement between the woman and the property owner, they had no jurisdiction over the case.
In another case adjudicated by an alternative RTB tribunal, the decision was partially in favour of two tenants whose dealings regarding their living arrangements were with a primary tenant and not the property owner. The two women, Brazilian in nationality, had chosen to pursue legal action against the property owner. The duo were awarded €500 each in damages due to the property owner’s failure in providing his contact details, which constituted a violation of the Residential Tenancies Act. Furthermore, they received compensation for unconscionable rent increments brought about by the primary tenant, but were denied any remuneration for being deceived about the extent of the unfair rent increases.
Threshold’s advocacy officer, Ann-Marie O’Reilly, expressed that individuals who are renting rooms or beds in a shared property, and communicating with fellow tenants instead of the landlord, could be categorised as licensees rather than tenants. This often signifies they might not be covered by the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB). Nonetheless, critical subtleties might establish whether individuals have rights.
Ann-Marie explained that many people might find themselves in such informal rental agreements, where the principal tenant doesn’t fall under the same obligations that a landlord does. However, those in a licensee agreement, following a six-month period, could appeal to the landlord to recognise them as a tenant.
She added that students living in purpose-built accommodations are also licensees but remain protected under the legal provisions. Conversely, people with accommodation provided by their employers aren’t covered and could face eviction if they lose or quit their job.
In scenarios where an individual rents a property from the owner and subsequently rents it to others, they assume the role of a “sub-landlord”, with the duties and responsibilities of a landlord. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, a residence must be a “self-contained unit” to qualify as tenancy, as indicated by barrister Martin Canny.
If a shared apartment or house sublet doesn’t have separate kitchen and bathroom facilities, it cannot be formally recognised as a tenancy. In shared accommodations, replacements are usually made in the master lease upon a tenant’s exit, however, this is not a common practice as it complicates matters for landlords.
Furthermore, tenants who avoid involving the landlord are considered licensees of the individual offering them the room and most likely do not hold the tenancy rights that the RTB governs.