Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Terminated tenancy due to Landlord selling - Property now up for rent

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    Grandpa Hassan wrote: »
    How do you know that the owner wasn't trying to sell it before the eviction? We don't know enough either way. The OP will have to take a case to the PTRB, and maybe the LL is not able to prove anything. Or maybe he is. Then you are in a debate about what is a reasonable amount of time to change your mind. We do not know that it is as cut and dried as the OP makes out. Meanwhile the OP is living somewhere else, so the case would be taken purely to punish the LL, and the OP risks it not being found in their favour.
    6 months is reasonable and the tenants have to be offereed first refusal. They would also have to adhere to rules on rental increases if the last change was less than 12 months tenancy previous.


  • Options
    #33
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    Grandpa Hassan wrote: »
    so the case would be taken purely to punish the LL

    That's generally how the legal system is supposed to work when someone breaks the law.


  • Options
    #34
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    Thomas D wrote: »
    6 months is reasonable and the tenants have to be offereed first refusal. They would also have to adhere to rules on rental increases if the last change was less than 12 months tenancy previous.

    Is that first refusal and period acceptable to change ones mind enshrined in law?


  • Options
    #35
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    drumswan wrote: »
    That's generally how the legal system is supposed to work when someone breaks the law.

    And what benefit to the OP to take a case that may or may not be cut and dried as the OP suggests? They are already living somewhere else.


  • Options
    #36
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    Grandpa Hassan wrote: »
    And what benefit to the OP to take a case that may or may not be cut and dried as the OP suggests? They are already living somewhere else.

    Considerable financial benefit via compensation. The benefit to the rest of us is obvious - a deterrent to landlords using the loopholes of selling the house or moving in a family member illegally to evict sitting tenants.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Diane Selwyn
    Registered Users Posts: 257 ✭✭Diane Selwyn


    Crash wrote: »
    Hi folks, looking for a bit of info here - we had a fixed term tenancy on an apartment, the LL informed us that the property would be up for sale in negotiation with the bank, and they required vacant possession before putting it up on the market.


    I wonder if the bank refused the LL permission to sell? It still puts you in the middle and is probably still not legal but maybe explains why he did it anyway.


  • Options
    #38
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,384 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Grandpa Hassan wrote: »
    And what benefit to the OP to take a case that may or may not be cut and dried as the OP suggests? They are already living somewhere else.

    Financial compensation for the hassle? Also a sense of justice. Punishing someone for breaking the law? All good reasons imho


  • Options
    #39
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Windy Arbour wrote: »
    Sounds like you have been fraudulently evicted. Contact the Gardai.

    No PRTB.


  • Options
    #40
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    P.S. Might be the bank who "own" the property now and they are renting it out. As mentioned earlier, a lot of rules go out the window when a bank is involved.

    However... Your notice of termination is from the landlord, not the bank.


  • Options
    #41
    dissed doc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭dissed doc


    If notice was served properly for a legitimate reason, then everything has been done properly. It's none of the OPs concern if the landlord later decides to re-rent the property, paint it a different colour or sit around naked.

    Is it the landlords property? Yes. Can he within law give notice to terminate a tenancy based on intention to sell? Yes. All within the law.

    The self-righteousness of some posters here is a real eye opener at times.

    No law has been broken.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,384 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    dissed doc wrote: »
    No law has been broken.
    In your opinion but unfortunately the RT act of 2004 does not agree with you.
    Crash wrote: »
    Now, less than three days after handing back the keys, I find the property up for let on Daft at increased rent (about 500 euro a month over what we were paying).
    The OP said that vacant possession was required prior to putting the house on the market. Within 3 days of moving out, the house was advertised on Daft. 3 days is not a reasonable period to try to sell a house. If the house is re let at the higher price then the landlord is in breach of the act and a law has been broken and the tenancy was terminated illegally. The tenant is therefore entitled to make a claim for illegal eviction under the 2004 act and be compensated accordingly (the compensation amounts often end up being 5 figure settlements). The OP needs to wait and see if the property is re let. This can be checked on the PRTB website if the LL registers it or else the OP can just pop around (to collect their mail) and chat to the new occupiers. If it is re let under the same landlord then the OP will most likely win a subsequent case. Cha ching


  • Options
    #43
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    dissed doc wrote: »
    If notice was served properly for a legitimate reason, then everything has been done properly. It's none of the OPs concern if the landlord later decides to re-rent the property, paint it a different colour or sit around naked.
    I'm afraid not chief, tenants actually have rights in this country. If you want to be free to do what you like with a property then don't rent it to someone else.
    Is it the landlords property? Yes. Can he within law give notice to terminate a tenancy based on intention to sell? Yes. All within the law.

    The self-righteousness of some posters here is a real eye opener at times.

    No law has been broken.

    If there was no intention to sell then the law has been broken.


  • Options
    #44
    dissed doc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭dissed doc


    drumswan wrote: »
    I'm afraid not chief, tenants actually have rights in this country. If you want to be free to do what you like with a property then don't rent it to someone else.



    If there was no intention to sell then the law has been broken.


    If he intended to sell, served notice as per the law, and the tenancy ended as per the law, the landlord can do as he likes with the property.

    Once the tenancy has ended, which it did, within the law, the OP has no further business. I refer to the Moving On act of 1997, the case of Grow Up vs. Sore Loser.

    The tenancy had expired. The landlord can choose to do what he wants from the moment the tenancy expired.

    Let's ask the OP: did the apartment get readvertised during his own period of tenancy? Or, as is what appears to be the case, the apartment was readvertised after the OPs tenancy ended.

    Where is the law determining how strongly you intend to do something. Does it mean feelings in your head? Casually looking at estate agents? Talking with the auctioneers? Contracting the auctioneers? This is fantastic stuff, legislating the degree to which someone may or may not have intended to possibly do something. MY god.


  • Options
    #45
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    dissed doc wrote: »
    If he intended to sell, served notice as per the law, and the tenancy ended as per the law, the landlord can do as he likes with the property.

    You ain't getting it lad. If there was no intention to sell then the law was broken. Re listing the property to rent and going on to rent it without attempting to sell would be concrete proof that there was no intention to sell, and that the law was broken, in both the letter and the spirit. The RTA and the PRTB exist to put an end to this cute hoorism in the landlord sector, with many give figure fines handed out annually.

    Unfortunately some landlords think they are feudal lords, not operating a business with legal obligations.


  • Options
    #46
    The_Morrigan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    dissed doc wrote: »
    If he intended to sell, served notice as per the law, and the tenancy ended as per the law, the landlord can do as he likes with the property.

    Once the tenancy has ended, which it did, within the law, the OP has no further business. I refer to the Moving On act of 1997, the case of Grow Up vs. Sore Loser.

    The tenancy had expired. The landlord can choose to do what he wants from the moment the tenancy expired.

    Let's ask the OP: did the apartment get readvertised during his own period of tenancy? Or, as is what appears to be the case, the apartment was readvertised after the OPs tenancy ended.

    Where is the law determining how strongly you intend to do something. Does it mean feelings in your head? Casually looking at estate agents? Talking with the auctioneers? Contracting the auctioneers? This is fantastic stuff, legislating the degree to which someone may or may not have intended to possibly do something. MY god.
    Could you cut out the trolling....Thanks.


  • Options
    #47
    dissed doc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭dissed doc


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    Could you cut out the trolling....Thanks.

    I disagree with the argument that has been put forward by many other posters that someone is breaking the law by changing their mind about selling their property, with the previous tenancy having already ended appropriately.

    Calling that trolling, is actually trolling.

    Show me the legislation that says a landlord cannot change his mind on a vacant property he owns about selling or renting. #

    The tenancy ended, the property becomes vacant. Landlord can do what he likes, as thankfully the fascist-leftists cannot as yet force a private person to sell or let a property which has no sitting tenant or active tenancy.


  • Options
    #48
    The_Morrigan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    dissed doc wrote: »
    I disagree with the argument that has been put forward by many other posters that someone is breaking the law by changing their mind about selling their property, with the previous tenancy having already ended appropriately.

    Calling that trolling, is actually trolling.

    Show me the legislation that says a landlord cannot change his mind on a vacant property he owns about selling or renting. #

    The tenancy ended, the property becomes vacant. Landlord can do what he likes, as thankfully the fascist-leftists cannot as yet force a private person to sell or let a property which has no sitting tenant or active tenancy.

    Don't argue a mod instruction on thread, it's a breach of the charter.


  • Options
    #49
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    Is there a law that says that 1. The evicted tenant should get first refusal and 2. Prescribes a time limit for mind changing.

    We don't know whether the LL had been trying to sell the house before the eviction, and the OP does not know whether the situation is as cut and dried as they think it is. It makes no sense for the LL to do what they did, which makes me think that there is more to the story. They are already loving somewhere else so this is not a dispute about a withheld deposit or the likes.


  • Options
    #50
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    Grandpa Hassan wrote: »
    Is there a law that says that 1. The evicted tenant should get first refusal and 2. Prescribes a time limit for mind changing.

    We don't know whether the LL had been trying to sell the house before the eviction, and the OP does not know whether the situation is as cut and dried as they think it is. It makes no sense for the LL to do what they did, which makes me think that there is more to the story. They are already loving somewhere else so this is not a dispute about a withheld deposit or the likes.

    The PRTB adjudicate on the spirit of the law. Legislation is not there to describe every possible permutation and punishment.


  • Options
    #51
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    Grandpa Hassan wrote: »
    It makes no sense for the LL to do what they did, which makes me think that there is more to the story.
    If it is the case that the LL cannot seek another rent increase for 12 or part thereof calendar months, then the temptation to evict and re-lease in a rapidly rising market is obvious.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    dissed doc wrote: »
    I disagree with the argument that has been put forward by many other posters that someone is breaking the law by changing their mind about selling their property, with the previous tenancy having already ended appropriately.

    Calling that trolling, is actually trolling.

    Show me the legislation that says a landlord cannot change his mind on a vacant property he owns about selling or renting. #

    The tenancy ended, the property becomes vacant. Landlord can do what he likes, as thankfully the fascist-leftists cannot as yet force a private person to sell or let a property which has no sitting tenant or active tenancy.

    Here you go fella

    If your landlord ends your tenancy for a specific purpose and subsequently does not carry out the intention stated, you can report him/her to the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB), which will investigate your claim and take further action as appropriate.

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html


  • Options
    #53
    torqtorq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭torqtorq


    world wide web .threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/how-your-landlord-may-end-your-tenancy/

    Suspect more than one law has been broken by LL.


  • Options
    #54
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    How could a tenant block the sale of a property?


  • Options
    #55
    Sarn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Sarn


    dissed doc wrote: »
    In this case, the landlord appropriately ended the tenancy having likely had the intention to sell within three months. If he had intended to occupy it himself or family member, refurbish it, or change it's purpose he would be required to offer the OP a new tenancy, but as he intended to sell, this requirement is not needed, as per the website.

    In my opinion, this makes sense as otherwise a tenant could spuriously prevent any sale of a property, by virtue of the fact that a tenancy would be effectively unendable.

    If the landlord's intention was to sell, a for sale/auction ad would be appearing on myhome or daft within three months, or the property would remain vacant. This would prevent the tenant blocking a sale.

    Within three days of the tenant leaving, an ad to rent appeared, based on this information the landlord would appear to have had no intention of selling. It looks like the reason to sell was used to illegally get around the tenant's rights under PArt IV, and in my opinion not only goes against the spirit of the law, but the law itself.


  • Options
    #56
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,336 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Thomas D wrote: »
    How could a tenant block the sale of a property?

    By refusing viewings and/or failing to vacate subsequent to a sale.


  • Options
    #57
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    Marcusm wrote: »
    By refusing viewings and/or failing to vacate subsequent to a sale.

    Neither would block a legal sale.


  • Options
    #58
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,336 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Thomas D wrote: »
    Neither would block a legal sale.

    A failure to permit viewings (which no tenant can be FORCED to permit) would seriously impede the marketing of a property such that it would be hard to achieve an offer not to mind a sale.

    Where relevant, Prior to executing a sale, a solicitor will require the purchaser's solicitor to commit to providing vacant possession and may even require a written undertaking from tenants. Post execution and prior to completion, a failure by a tenant to vacate would, in the context of most mortgages, cause a failed completion. Even with cash buyers, investor purchasers will be recommended to seek vacant possession.


  • Options
    #59
    Dredd_J
    Registered Users Posts: 202 ✭✭Dredd_J


    What if the landlord had thought he wanted to sell the property.
    Was waiting until the tenant moved out before going ahead, then discovered that he didnt actually need to sell it, or it wasnt worth what he thought it was.
    He then had the thought to rent it again, until such a time as he gets an agent in to value it, in the summer maybe.
    Or he could be waiting for the summer, on the advise of a friend who is experienced in such matters, to put it on the market but in the meantime he advertises it for someone looking for a short term rental.

    He was just clearing the way for the sale in good time for clarity for both himself and the OP.

    None of these would result in any paper trail of trying to sell the house, yet he did want to sell it at the time, and may still want to.

    I think the horse has bolted on this one.


  • Options
    #60
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Dredd_J wrote: »
    I think the horse has bolted on this one.

    Previous adjudications from the PRTB and judgments from the Courts would differ from your thinking.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    diegroblers
    Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭diegroblers


    Dredd_J wrote: »

    [...] He was just clearing the way for the sale in good time for clarity for both himself and the OP.

    None of these would result in any paper trail of trying to sell the house, yet he did want to sell it at the time, and may still want to.

    I think the horse has bolted on this one.

    Renting a property out is not like putting a PC or a bike on Adverts.ie or donedeal; there are laws that has to be adhered to.


Advertisement