Rogue landlord eviction notice

zotapex

hello all
i recently posted a thread on my rights as a tenant concerning personal insurance and received a lot of good advice. things have deteriorated to an all time low between myself and landlord. before i explain my situation, i will just say i'm well aware of
citizens advice
prtb (which he is currently not registered with and know that doesn't affect my rights as a tenant)
and will be contacting them both in the morning but would like some advice on the right questions to be asking
ok i am currently renting a "3" bedroom apartment by myself but have the other bedrooms for my children who i have on the weekends or some weekdays.
i have been in the premises for over 3 years but less than 4 years, according to threshold my notice should be 84 days.
i had an insurance man have a look at premises and he told me there was no way that the apartment could be legal and to get it checked out which i did and the fire department came and looked at it and found that the building in which there are three units was refused planning permission and should never have been rented. the fire department has apparently told the LL that changes have to be made and he has given me a letter stating that since my intervention with the local council meant that he had to make changes he was giving me 28 days to find another place. i.e terminating my lease. the other apartments in building are exactly the same but no termination notice for them. i need to contact the fire department to find out what changes need to made. to find out if he knowingly put me and my childrens lives in danger because i'm guessing he was told why planning was refused. the problem seems to stem from the 3rd floor "bedroom" and no fire escape, stairwell to narrow and completely pine wood walls. the fire officer told me that the first and second floors were ok to occupy, which is all i need until things are fixed. the loft conversion is also to small to be classed as a bedroom in rented accommodation but its on the lease as a bedroom, as a tenant am i supposed to know the proper dimensions before moving in. or even if the place is legal to be rented at all. basically, i can't afford to move even if i have to. should i show the letter to the corporation? its not my fault that he broke nearly every rule in the book and i'm being forced to become homeless and i certainly haven't enough money to put my possessions in storage and find a bedsit. haven't got the bond.
any advice would be greatly appreciated before i approach the authorities
thanks in advance

Santa Cruz

The landlord has been instructed to make changes. If the building is unsafe he is perfectly in his rights to have you move out as soon as possible. His insurance company would demand same. You left it a long time to find out whether or not the tenancy was registered with PRTB. You are not in a position to tell the landlord how he goes about the renovation. If the apartment needs a lot of refurbishment then it will be like a building site and there will be no insurance cover for tenants.

djimi

If you are on a part 4 tenancy then one of the termination clauses allows for the landlord to seek termination should the property require rennovation. Im afraid the only issue that you have here is the notice period; you are entitled to 84 days notice.

Its also worth bearing in mind that once the tenancy rolls into the 5th year and the start of the next 4 year cycle you can be asked to leave for any reason with 112 days notice, so if he really wants you gone he only need to bide his time for a short while more. Its up to you whether or not you want to wait it out, but you are really only delaying the inevitable, so if it were me Id start looking for someone else to live now, and negotiate a notice period that allows you time to find somewhere else but doesnt tie you to the property for months to come.

zotapex

basically what i'm saying is, the first two floors are safe, i haven't the money to move under such short notice, the neighbours flats are exactly the same and the urgency to move the tenants or make repairs to them doesn't exist in his mind. i intend to move but need time to get money together. he has a difficulty with me because i raised questions. the corporation and fire department have known about this for months and deemed it was safe to reside here if i didn't sleep in 3rd floor. a question i would like to know is what are his responsibilities to tenants as far as knowingly housing people and children in an unsafe building and charging for the benefit, surely that can't be legal.

Pawwed Rig

djimi wrote: »

If you are on a part 4 tenancy then one of the termination clauses allows for the landlord to seek termination should the property require rennovation. Im afraid the only issue that you have here is the notice period; you are entitled to 84 days notice.
.

This is correct in general but in the event that the property is deemed a fire hazard and therefore uninhabitable I fear that the LL may be correct to ask the tenant to leave pretty much immeadiately. I would think the onus is on the LL to provide alternative accommodation but have no source to back that up. One of the legal guys might provide clarity.
PRTB, Threshold, Fire office and CIC should be able to provide the relevant details to the OP in this case.

Grandpa Hassan

Agree with the other posters. Any complaint you make to PTRB will only serve to punish the LL for his historic actions (no registration etc). It will not help you stay in the property. The LL can serve notice based on the fact that he needs to renovate (a LL is within his rights to serve the appropriate notice if he wants to renovate at any time). The only question is the notice period...your best case is that you manage to stay there for another 2 months beyond the 28 day notice period that you have been served. You are better off looking for somewhere else immediately, and speaking to your LL to try to arrange a more flexible leaving date

djimi

Im not really sure how the situation with the other two properties is going to help you tbh. The landlord has been made aware of issue in your property that need to be sorted and he has (by the sounds of it) taken steps to get them sorted. Whatever his motivation, that is the bottom line it seems. Whether he does the same with the other properties is a seperate matter and not really your concern.

I understand your annoyance, but the fact of the matter is that the law allows for the landlord to terminate the tenancy if renovations are required, and by the sound of it that is exactly what he is doing. If you are not on a fixed term lease then you do not have the security that it offers; a part 4 tenancy affords you many rights but it is not a guarantee of security in the property.

zotapex

just one more thing, the three flats are identical, i have been in them all, how can only 1 of them be uninhabitable because of fire danger and require the tenant to move immediately but not the others. they are in the same building, same city, same county, same country. no different laws apply here.

djimi

zotapex wrote: »

just one more thing, the three flats are identical, i have been in them all, how can only 1 of them be uninhabitable because of fire danger and require the tenant to move immediately but not the others. they are in the same building, same city, same county, same country. no different laws apply here.

You need to ask this question to the fire department or whoever it was that carried out the inspection.

djimi

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This is correct in general but in the event that the property is deemed a fire hazard and therefore uninhabitable I fear that the LL may be correct to ask the tenant to leave pretty much immeadiately. I would think the onus is on the LL to provide alternative accommodation but have no source to back that up. One of the legal guys might provide clarity.
PRTB, Threshold, Fire office and CIC should be able to provide the relevant details to the OP in this case.

True. Im sort of working off the assumption that the work needs to be done to bring the place up to code but that it is not an immediate safety concern (if such a thing is possible). If the place has been deemed to be an actual safety hazard then shorter notice would be appropriate, but then again if the place is an actual safety hazard I dont know of anyone in their right mind who would want to fight to remain in such a property (especially when children are involved)!

Grandpa Hassan

djimi wrote: »

I understand your annoyance, but the fact of the matter is that the law allows for the landlord to terminate the tenancy if renovations are required, and by the sound of it that is exactly what he is doing. If you are not on a fixed term lease then you do not have the security that it offers; a part 4 tenancy affords you many rights but it is not a guarantee of security in the property.

And also worth noting that the LL is allowed to terminate the tenancy if he simply wants to make renovations for cosmetic reasons, rather than only in the event that they are actually required for safety reasons.

Thus what he intends to do with the other properties is not really relevant

mitosis

So, basically you just want the other tenants out also? Maybe yours was the only one inspected.

You made a complaint (correctly), got the LL in trouble (his own fault), and now you are unhappy with the consequences?

If the place is unsafe, as you have said, why do you not want to get out immediately? Or were you reporting him to punish him? And now it has backfired?

zotapex

please read op
the apartment is unsafe on the third floor in case of fire, it is not going to self combust. the fire department has said its safe just don't sleep on the third floor. i have said i cannot afford to move straight away because i don't have the money. i am not asking for anyone else to get kicked out. i'm making the point the LL is using double standards, i will go to the authorities tomorrow, i was asking for advice on what questions to ask them. i originally inquired to council because someone suggested it may pose a hazard in case of fire. i didn't "report" anyone.

djimi

zotapex wrote: »

please read op
the apartment is unsafe on the third floor in case of fire, it is not going to self combust. the fire department has said its safe just don't sleep on the third floor. i have said i cannot afford to move straight away because i don't have the money. i am not asking for anyone else to get kicked out. i'm making the point the LL is using double standards, i will go to the authorities tomorrow, i was asking for advice on what questions to ask them. i originally inquired to council because someone suggested it may pose a hazard in case of fire. i didn't "report" anyone.

As I have said, the bottom line is that, regardless of his motivation, the law allows for the landlord to terminate the tenancy if renovations are required, and it sounds like that is what they are doing.

You can appeal the termination notice if you feel that it is not valid (doesnt properly give the reason, doesnt allow enough notice etc) but thats about as much of a case as you are going to have, and that is only really going to delay the matter (this might be sufficient for you).

Grandpa Hassan

zotapex wrote: »

please read op
the apartment is unsafe on the third floor in case of fire, it is not going to self combust. the fire department has said its safe just don't sleep on the third floor. i have said i cannot afford to move straight away because i don't have the money. i am not asking for anyone else to get kicked out. i'm making the point the LL is using double standards, i will go to the authorities tomorrow, i was asking for advice on what questions to ask them. i originally inquired to council because someone suggested it may pose a hazard in case of fire. i didn't "report" anyone.

But if the LL has decided that he wants to renovate your flat, there is nothing you can do to stay, other than ensure that he gives you the correct amount of notice. What he does with the other flats is not relevant. He is entitled to renovate any of his properties at any time he wants

I know that his behaviour has been poor, but, generally speaking, as much as there are rules to protect a tenant (through part 4 tenancy), there has to be a mechanism whereby LLs can get their property back for renovation (or indeed their own use).

Marcusm

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

But if the LL has decided that he wants to renovate your flat, there is nothing you can do to stay, other than ensure that he gives you the correct amount of notice. What he does with the other flats is not relevant. He is entitled to renovate any of his properties at any time he wants

I know that his behaviour has been poor, but, generally speaking, as much as there are rules to protect a tenant (through part 4 tenancy), there has to be a mechanism whereby LLs can get their property back for renovation (or indeed their own use).

The entitlement to terminate to renovate is not absolute, it is qualified to the extent that the renovation requires the property to be empty. Putting up a fire escape should not require the property be empty. In any event, OP, as DJMI has pointed out, the landlord will shortly get a 6 month window in which he can, with 112 days notice, terminate without giving a reason. I'd start looking now if I were you.

The relevant ground for termination for renovation is:
5. The landlord intends to substantially refurbish or renovate the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling in a way which requires the dwelling to be vacated for that purpose (and, where planning permission is required for the carrying out of that refurbishment or renovation, that permission has been obtained) and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—

(a) specifying the nature of the intended works, and

(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) the dwelling becomes available for reletting, and

(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table.

Grandpa Hassan

Marcusm wrote: »

The entitlement to terminate to renovate is not absolute, it is qualified to the extent that the renovation requires the property to be empty. .

But it isn't hard for a LL to do enough work that they can justify the property being empty....add in an entire internal paint job or some other redecoration and the PTRB would not find against the LL.

I needed to do so recently with my property (I moved to London and am a reluctant LL). I did an entire internal redecoration....purely cosmetic, but required me to give notice to tenants in part 4

foggy_lad

zotapex wrote: »

the fire department came and looked at it and found that the building in which there are three units was refused planning permission and should never have been rented.

You should report this to the local council.

Grandpa Hassan

foggy_lad wrote: »

You should report this to the local council.

I think the OP is intending to to this. Their question was whether he can avoid the inevitable eviction. And the general consensus is that he might succeed is delaying it by a couple of months, but he should start looking for somewhere else to live. Reporting the property gets the LL in trouble but won't help him stay for any longer than the mandatory notice periods

Marcusm

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

But it isn't hard for a LL to do enough work that they can justify the property being empty....add in an entire internal paint job or some other redecoration and the PTRB would not find against the LL.

I needed to do so recently with my property (I moved to London and am a reluctant LL). I did an entire internal redecoration....purely cosmetic, but required me to give notice to tenants in part 4

I can see why you felt to expedient to have the house vacant but I doubt that coud be seen as "required" which in the context would be construed as necessary. Redecorations, new floors, new bathrooms, new kitchens and even new heating systems are undertaken with the occupants in place daily.

Grandpa Hassan

Marcusm wrote: »

I can see why you felt to expedient to have the house vacant but I doubt that coud be seen as "required" which in the context would be construed as necessary. Redecorations, new floors, new bathrooms, new kitchens and even new heating systems are undertaken with the occupants in place daily.

Not sure I agree with that. Such work may on occasion be carried out with occupants in place, but I think that is down to the LL not wanting to lose good tenants and incur re-letting costs, and therefore coming to an agreement with them about the nature, scope and timing if the work. If a LL wanted to carry out redecorating works and wanted an empty house to do so (in my case I wanted to stay there myself as I was doing it), the PTRB would not find against them.

(as long as they actually do the work of course, rather than just say they are going to, in order to evict tenants, and not following through)

Victor

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

And also worth noting that the LL is allowed to terminate the tenancy if he simply wants to make renovations for cosmetic reasons, rather than only in the event that they are actually required for safety reasons.

"Cosmetic reasons" is decoration, not renovation.

Marcusm

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Not sure I agree with that. Such work may on occasion be carried out with occupants in place, but I think that is down to the LL not wanting to lose good tenants and incur re-letting costs, and therefore coming to an agreement with them about the nature, scope and timing if the work. If a LL wanted to carry out redecorating works and wanted an empty house to do so (in my case I wanted to stay there myself as I was doing it), the PTRB would not find against them.

(as long as they actually do the work of course, rather than just say they are going to, in order to evict tenants, and not following through)

For the work you describe, with tenants willing to remain in situ, I would be shocked if any tribunal or court was willing to give you an eviction order. It neither amounts to renovation or refurbishment or vacant possession is not "required". I have no issue if your tenants left willingly and no doubt your new tenants benefit from the refreshed paintwork etc but it's not sufficient to end their tenure, IMO.

The_Conductor

zotapex wrote: »

i have been in the premises for over 3 years but less than 4 years, according to threshold my notice should be 84 days.
i had an insurance man have a look at premises and he told me there was no way that the apartment could be legal and to get it checked out which i did and the fire department came and looked at it and found that the building in which there are three units was refused planning permission and should never have been rented. the fire department has apparently told the LL that changes have to be made and he has given me a letter stating that since my intervention with the local council meant that he had to make changes he was giving me 28 days to find another place. i.e terminating my lease.

Once the Fire Department became involved- they will have issued an enforcement notice to the Landlord. The 84 days notice does not apply- in general, you would be asked to leave immediately, but at a stretch a month's notice might be given. You have 28 days- that is as good as it is going to get- you need to start searching for accommodation immediately. Aside from any action the landlord takes or does not take- you can now be evicted and forced to leave by the council. Sure- this would be onerous on you- but you're only following in the footsteps of several thousand tenants forced to vacate unsafe dwellings in the last year alone (for example- look at the very high profile forced evacuation of the Priory Hall dwellings- and this is only one high profile case- its estimated that we may have several thousand developments around the country in a similar or worse state).

Start looking for new accommodation- you are going to have to leave, one way or the other.

Grandpa Hassan

Marcusm wrote: »

For the work you describe, with tenants willing to remain in situ, I would be shocked if any tribunal or court was willing to give you an eviction order. It neither amounts to renovation or refurbishment or vacant possession is not "required". I have no issue if your tenants left willingly and no doubt your new tenants benefit from the refreshed paintwork etc but it's not sufficient to end their tenure, IMO.

'Refurbishment' is the reason outlined in the part 4 rules. I agree that it has to more than a paint job. But a comprehensive paint job, new carpets, new bathroom counts as refurbishment and I would be astounded if the PTRB overturned an eviction notice in that scenario

Cosmetic work, if extensive enough, would count as 'refurbishment'

In my case I also wanted to live there myself while I was doing it, which is another valid reason to give a termination notice. if you are an overseas LL you have no choice but to move in yourself while doing the work. The PTRB are reasonable, and I am 100% sure that they would not have found against me if the tenants had complained

Santa Cruz

If I was the landlord I would want you out as well. You are coming across as a right know all whinger who wants everything his own way. It's the landlords property and if he decides its better to have the property empty when it is been renovated then that's his right. When you have your own property you will see his point.

MouseTail

Santa Cruz wrote: »

If I was the landlord I would want you out as well. You are coming across as a right know all whinger who wants everything his own way. It's the landlords property and if he decides its better to have the property empty when it is been renovated then that's his right. When you have your own property you will see his point.

In fact the LL may not renovate, those works may be costly, so he may leave it vacant. In any case the OP must vacate within 28 days. I'm surprised it's as much as 28 days tbh, I thought it would be shorter.

zotapex

thanks for a lot of good advice, i do intend to leave but need my full notice period ie. 84 days to actually have enough money to do so. its a tricky one a lot of people say its his responsibility to find temporary accommodation until its fixed and i do know someone who has been in that situation and the LL did rehouse until premises was fit for purpose. i really don't know. was away for a week and arrived home after hours friday night with everything closed and a termination notice, so i turned to boards for info to start asking questions on monday morning. as far as revenge goes that was being mentioned i'd say LL is the one terminating because i made an enquiry and exposed his wrong doing. i've done nothing wrong
there are a few things i'd like to know and will find out from council and will meet with a councilor. they are

Fact No. 01
My landlord was refused planning permission and went ahead anyway without informing council
Question: Is this legal?

Fact No. 02
He advertised property for lease and took in tenants
Question: is this legal?

if he only has to install a fire escape it won't interfere with me at all but i will find out the reason off the fire department tomorrow. i will contact prtb and i have a solicitor who will answer questions and advise me on the legal stuff on a pay later basis.
anyway thanks for all the responses, it amazes me that a person could and this is pure speculation because i don't know the reason for planning refusal.
knowingly lease a dwelling illegally and put peoples lives in danger (a possibility) renting a place without it ever being approved (fact) and to make it worse rent it as 3 bedrooms when in fact it is 2 bedrooms with a loft conversion (fact) and have no responsibilities (seems so). crazy if it is true. yes i will be moving when i get the deposit and money saved because i can't see him giving me back my deposit, because i've inconvenienced him so much

ABajaninCork

If the landlord refuses to give back your deposit, then chase for it through the PRTB.

MouseTail

I can't see you getting 84 days notice. The LL has been served a very serious notice with severe penalties if he refuses to comply. Get in touch with threshold, I really don't think you need a solicitor, particularly if you are struggling to get a deposit together.

Grolschevik

Anyone else find it unusual for an insurance agent to come out to view the place for what would only be contents cover? And who called out the fire safety guy?

I'm not usually cynical on things like this, but it really looks to me like the OP was looking for leverage against the landlord for some reason, called the authorities, and now it's backfired.