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

Dredd_J

Graham wrote: »

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

Got a link to the ones that are the same as this case?
Id be interested to read them.

coolisin

Paulownia wrote: »

I sometimes wonder how people would behave if their positions were reversed. If all tenants were landlords and all landlords were tenants, would it be a perfect world.
Unfortunately landlords have to buy the property, pay the taxes and repairs on the property, pay tax on the income from the property AND it can't be easy judging by all the repossessions at the moment.
On the other hand the tenant who rents the property from the owner somehow l sees the property as theirs for as long as they choose to stay there.
It is a tough one for everyone but who would be a landlord?
It seems logical to me having read this thread why so many properties remain empty and are not let by their owners

Nobody forced people into purchasing property to Rent to make a quick few bucks when the times where good.

When the property is rented it is the renters house or apartment for however long the lease is agreed and they should be allowed do what they want to it. Once it is returned to the same state as when they originally rented it.

I would contact the PRTB on this one OP purely to make sure he doesn't do it again. Give them all the facts as you see it and see what the outcome is.

makeorbrake

coolisin wrote: »

Nobody forced people into purchasing property to Rent to make a quick few bucks when the times where good.

There's an undercurrent of irish begrudgery evident throughout this thread (and in umpteen boards threads which implicate landlord vs. tenant).

coolisin wrote:

I would contact the PRTB on this one OP purely to make sure he doesn't do it again. Give them all the facts as you see it and see what the outcome is.

By his own admission, the OP doesn't have ALL the facts. To go running straight to the PRTB right now - without contacting the landlord - would be cowardly - there's no other word for it. At least give the landlord the opportunity to clarify. Once clarified, if the OP is not happy and satisified that his rights have been infringed, then go to the PRTB.

dissed doc

coolisin wrote: »

Nobody forced people into purchasing property to Rent to make a quick few bucks when the times where good.

When the property is rented it is the renters house or apartment for however long the lease is agreed and they should be allowed do what they want to it. Once it is returned to the same state as when they originally rented it.

I would contact the PRTB on this one OP purely to make sure he doesn't do it again. Give them all the facts as you see it and see what the outcome is.

There are three scenarios in Tenancy law that require the landlord to offer the property to previous tenant. These are listed here: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

I quote the website: "or for the following specific purposes:

• If the landlord needs the property for him/herself or for an immediate family member
• If the landlord intends to refurbish the property substantially
• If the landlord plans to change the business use of the property (for example, convert it to office use)"

As per the law, a tenancy (including Part 4 tenancy, as per the website) can be ended if a landlord intends to sell the property within 3 months.

As such,
- it is not a requirement for the property in this case to be offered to the previous tenant as intention to sell is not one of the three specific scenarios requiring a landlord to offer a new preferential tenancy
- intending to sell within 3 months is within the RTA 2004 listed circumstances for sale, as such, the tenancy ended correctly.
- notice of intention to sell the property is legal grounds for ending a Part 4 tenancy, as per the website on the RTA. There is no listed requirement for a sale to be completed. "If the landlord intends to sell the property within 3 months"
- Once the tenancy has ended (giving proper notice for ending a Part 4 tenancy due to intention to sell within 3 months), the landlord is free to continue to sell or re-let the property.

Graham

dissed doc wrote: »

As per the law, a tenancy (including Part 4 tenancy, as per the website) can be ended if a landlord intends to sell the property within 3 months.

As such,
- it is not a requirement for the property in this case to be offered to the previous tenant as intention to sell is not one of the three specific scenarios requiring a landlord to offer a new preferential tenancy
- the landlord can continue with a sale or re-let the property as he pleases, as long as the previous tenancy was ended according to the RTA (2004)
- intending to sell within 3 months is within the RTA 2004 listed circumstances for sale, as such, the tenancy ended correctly.
- notice of intention to sell the property is legal grounds for ending a Part 4 tenancy, as per the website on the RTA. There is no listed requirement for a sale to be completed. "If the landlord intends to sell the property within 3 months"

You may be better off referring to the full act rather than a summary interpretation of it.

Residential Tenancies Act 2004

Section 34

Grounds for Termination

*3. The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.


Section 56 (1) this section applies where

(c) (i) in case the ground cited is that specified in paragraph *3 of that Table, the thing mentioned in that paragraph is not done within the period specified in that paragraph,


(3) An adjudicator or the Tribunal, on the hearing of such a complaint, may, if he or she or it considers it proper to do so, make—

(a) a determination comprising a direction that the landlord shall pay to the complainant an amount by way of damages for that deprivation of possession,

(b) subject to section 118 , a determination comprising a direction that the complainant be permitted to resume possession of the dwelling concerned, or

(c) subject to section 118 , a determination comprising both of the foregoing directions.

Source: Residential Tenancies Act 2004:
http://www.acts.ie/en.act.2004.0027.8.html#partiv-chapiii-sec34
http://www.acts.ie/en.act.2004.0027.12.html

coolisin

makeorbrake wrote: »

There's an undercurrent of irish begrudgery evident throughout this thread (and in umpteen boards threads which implicate landlord vs. tenant).

Ain't no begrudging out of me!!

Its just if you wish to invest fair play but there are risks involved. Too many people choose to ignore or not research risks. Do not whine if it doesn't work out or because you have to pay tax. If it works out congrats and well done.

I was more wound up by the post I quoted orginally.


And I apologise I meant go to the PRTB when you have all the facts.

dissed doc

Graham wrote: »

You may be better off referring to the actual act rather than an interpretation of it.

Residential Tenancies Act 2004

Section 34

Grounds for Termination

*3. The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.


Section 56 (1) this section applies where

(c) (i) in case the ground cited is that specified in paragraph *3 of that Table, the thing mentioned in that paragraph is not done within the period specified in that paragraph,


(3) An adjudicator or the Tribunal, on the hearing of such a complaint, may, if he or she or it considers it proper to do so, make—

(a) a determination comprising a direction that the landlord shall pay to the complainant an amount by way of damages for that deprivation of possession,

(b) subject to section 118 , a determination comprising a direction that the complainant be permitted to resume possession of the dwelling concerned, or

(c) subject to section 118 , a determination comprising both of the foregoing directions.

Source: Residential Tenancies Act 2004:
http://www.acts.ie/en.act.2004.0027.8.html#partiv-chapiii-sec34
http://www.acts.ie/en.act.2004.0027.12.html

That is useful to see. So the three months is based on the intention to sell within three months after the termination of the tenancy; so by definition, the previous tenancy must have ended; therefore I think advising a PTRB resolution is incorrect as the tenancy had already ended.

Secondly, it could mean he could do short term lets once the previous tenancy is over as well, as it gives a window. If you intend to sell in six months, youcannot use this part of the act obviously. From what I read, there is no requirement that the intention to sell to remain after the tenancy ends. But, in three months sales can easily fall through and new buyers can turn up.

Could the landlord simply be doing high-value short term lets for a month or two until a sale completes?

Finally, once the tenancy has ended, the RTA no longer applies to either party. The intention to sell from an RTA-compliant notice period on a Part 4 tenancy is only valid obviously if there is an active tenancy.

Graham

dissed doc wrote: »

That is useful to see. So the three months is based on the intention to sell within three months of the tenancy ending. That could mean he could do short term lets once the previous tenancy is over as well, as it gives a window. If you intend to sell in six months, you cannot use this part of the act obviously.

Could the landlord simply be doing high-value short term lets for a month or two until a sale completes?

My interpretation of the above would be:

The landlord is within his rights to issue notice based on his intention to sell. (Tenancy ends shortly thereafter).

If those intentions are not realised, section 56 applies.

I don't see anything in section 56 to say it doesn't apply if the landlord really tried hard to perform his intentions.

Pawwed Rig

coolisin wrote: »

Nobody forced people into purchasing property to Rent to make a quick few bucks when the times where good.

coolisin wrote: »

Ain't no begrudging out of me!!

:rolleyes:

Your quote is hardly representative of landlords in Ireland. Those that did buy during the boom times are currently crippled with debt and many of them unable to meet payments. There was very little to be made in rental incomes during the boom as the cost of property was alot more than the rental yield. Those that did make money were the one that had pre boom properties (and more power to them). You will find many landlords on here that never wanted to be one but were unable to afford to keep their homes so moved and rented out to cover their costs. Many of these now have families with not enough space and are still unable to get the mill stone from around their neck. The media driven image of the fat landlord rubbing his hands together pulling in piles of cash is a falacy. I am one of the lucky landlords who bought early enough so is nearly breaking even on my investment. Not in 10 years have I made a cent on the property. I am hoping that 20 years down the line when it is finally paid off that I will have some income to replace the state pension (which may not be around at that point) or to pay a portion of my nursing home fees. I would not recomend being a landlord to anyone. It is an absolute pain in the bum.

Dredd_J

Graham wrote: »

You may be better off referring to the full act rather than a summary interpretation of it.

Residential Tenancies Act 2004

Section 34

Grounds for Termination

*3. The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.


Section 56 (1) this section applies where

(c) (i) in case the ground cited is that specified in paragraph *3 of that Table, the thing mentioned in that paragraph is not done within the period specified in that paragraph,


(3) An adjudicator or the Tribunal, on the hearing of such a complaint, may, if he or she or it considers it proper to do so, make—

(a) a determination comprising a direction that the landlord shall pay to the complainant an amount by way of damages for that deprivation of possession,

(b) subject to section 118 , a determination comprising a direction that the complainant be permitted to resume possession of the dwelling concerned, or

(c) subject to section 118 , a determination comprising both of the foregoing directions.

Source: Residential Tenancies Act 2004:
http : //ww w.acts.ie/en.act.2004.0027.8.html#partiv-chapiii-sec34
http : //ww w.acts.ie/en.act.2004.0027.12.html

I see nothing that says the LL cant change their mind there though?

Also I would be very interested in reading the links to to PRTB cases that are the same as this one, that you mentioned in a post above. Can you post those? They would settle it once and for all in my mind.

Graham

Dredd_J wrote: »

I see nothing that says the LL cant change their mind there though?

Also I would be very interested in reading the links to to PRTB cases that are the same as this one, that you mentioned in a post above. Can you post those? They would settle it once and for all in my mind.

The landlord can change his mind and decide not to sell in which case (the thing mentioned in that paragraph is not done within the period specified in that paragraph) so Section 56 applies.

The exact legislation doesn't convince you of the legal position?

Grandpa Hassan

Do we know that the LL didn't intend to? This LL is being beaten up on a hell of an assumption

Dredd_J

Graham wrote: »

The landlord can change his mind and decide not to sell in which case (the thing mentioned in that paragraph is not done within the period specified in that paragraph) so Section 56 applies.

The exact legislation doesn't convince you of the legal position?

Not at all convincing.
But what would be convincing are links to the cases you were talking about above?
Can you post the links?
That would settle it once and for all im sure.

coolisin

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Your quote is hardly representative of landlords in Ireland. Those that did buy during the boom times are currently crippled with debt and many of them unable to meet payments. There was very little to be made in rental incomes during the boom as the cost of property was alot more than the rental yield. Those that did make money were the one that had pre boom properties (and more power to them). You will find many landlords on here that never wanted to be one but were unable to afford to keep their homes so moved and rented out to cover their costs. Many of these now have families with not enough space and are still unable to get the mill stone from around their neck. The media driven image of the fat landlord rubbing his hands together pulling in piles of cash is a falacy. I am one of the lucky landlords who bought early enough so is nearly breaking even on my investment. Not in 10 years have I made a cent on the property. I am hoping that 20 years down the line when it is finally paid off that I will have some income to replace the state pension (which may not be around at that point) or to pay a portion of my nursing home fees. I would not recomend being a landlord to anyone. It is an absolute pain in the bum.

Alright sorry for jumping in.

Never meant offence or anything towards people. I know people who are currently renting houses to cover costs as the houses they bought where too small "but a good step onto the ladder to climb".

xper

Relevant excerpts from the Residential Tenancies Act 2004:

Part 4, Section 34 - Grounds for termination by landlord:

34.—A Part 4 tenancy may be terminated by the landlord—
(a) on one or more of the grounds specified in the Table to this section if—
(i) a notice of termination giving the required period of notice is served by the landlord in respect of the tenancy, and
(ii) that notice of termination cites as the reason for the termination the ground or grounds concerned ...

TABLE - Grounds for termination
1. ...
2. ...
3. The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.
...

Part 4, Section 56- Damages for abuse of section 34 termination procedure:

56.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a tenant under a Part 4 tenancy, or under a further Part 4 tenancy, has vacated possession of the dwelling concerned on foot of a notice of termination served under section 34 (a),

(b) that notice of termination cited as the reason for the termination one or more of the grounds specified in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the Table to section 34 , and

(c) (i) in case the ground cited is that specified in paragraph 3 of that Table, the thing mentioned in that paragraph is not done within the period specified in that paragraph,
...

(2) Where this section applies, the tenant may make a complaint to the Board under Part 6 that, by reason of the matters mentioned in subsection (1), he or she has been unjustly deprived of possession of the dwelling concerned by the landlord.

(3) An adjudicator or the Tribunal, on the hearing of such a complaint, may, if he or she or it considers it proper to do so, make—

(a) a determination comprising a direction that the landlord shall pay to the complainant an amount by way of damages for that deprivation of possession,

(b) subject to section 118 , a determination comprising a direction that the complainant be permitted to resume possession of the dwelling concerned, or

(c) subject to section 118 , a determination comprising both of the foregoing directions.

...

(6) For the avoidance of doubt—

(a) this section applies even though the tenant vacated possession of the dwelling only after a dispute in relation to the validity of the notice of termination was finally determined under Part 6 (but in such a case subsection (1) has effect as if the paragraph set out in the Table to this section were substituted for paragraph (c) of that subsection), and

(b) this section is without prejudice to the tenant's right to put in issue, in a dispute in relation to the validity of the notice of termination referred to the Board under Part 6, the bona fides of the intention of the landlord to do or, as appropriate, permit to be done the thing or things mentioned in the notice.

TABLE

(c) (i) in case the ground cited is that specified in paragraph 3 of that Table, the thing mentioned in that paragraph is not done within the period of 3 months after the dispute in relation to the validity of the notice of termination is finally determined,
...

An interesting (and complicated) recent PTRB Tribunal case:
Tribunl Ref: TR1013-000484 Case Ref: 1212-03745 27 January, 2014 Report Link
Among the several other matters dealt with, the report findings (see section 7) include
1) the landlord genuinely intended to sell the property at the time that the notice to terminate the tenancy was served;
2) that no sale occurred within three months of the tenancy ending and that therefore the tenant was entitled to damages
In this case, the damages were relatively small, mitigated by other matters.

Graham

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Do we know that the LL didn't intend to? This LL is being beaten up on a hell of an assumption

It doesn't matter what the landlords intentions were. If he doesn't carry them out section 56 applies.

I'm not suggesting the landlord didn't intend to sell but if he doesn't sell within 3 months then section 56 applies.

drumswan

Dredd_J wrote: »

I see nothing that says the LL cant change their mind there though?

Are you joking? If the landlord doesn't follow through with his written stated intention to sell (because he has changed his mind or for any other reason) section 56 applies, a complainant can go to the PRTB, who can order damages, allow him to regain possession, both or neither.

Its right there in black and white.

Dredd_J

drumswan wrote: »

Are you joking? If the landlord doesn't follow through with his written stated intention to sell (because he has changed his mind or for any other reason) section 56 applies, a complainant can go to the PRTB, who can order damages, allow him to regain possession, both or neither.

Its right there in black and white.

There is nothing there that says a landlord cant change their mind.

However in the case linked by xper, it does say that the finding was that the landlord must follow through.

So there we have it. Someone backed up their assertion with proof and im happy to accept it.

So according to that case the OP can chase the landlord for damages - if he doesnt sell the property. But the fact that it is for rent now is not proof that it is not being sold either. So he'll have to wait.

drumswan

Dredd_J wrote: »

There is nothing there that says a landlord cant change their mind.

Except the bit that says he is liable for damages if he does.

Anyway nice to see some of our happy landlords in this thread being educated on the law. Maybe there should be some kind of required class for landlords before they enter into business arrangements providing professional services on this scale.

Dredd_J

drumswan wrote: »

Except the bit that says he is liable for damages if he does.

Anyway nice to see some of our happy landlords in this thread being educated on the law. Maybe there should be some kind of required class for landlords before they enter into business arrangements providing professional services on this scale.

I still dont see any text that says he cant change his mind.
But obviously the PRTB do. So I bow down.

All of the landlords I've ever had were not ogres looking to screw people, though my current one is an ignorant fcuker all the same, but that doesnt make him out to screw me. There is a lot of hate rained down on them at the slightest opportunity here. You would think that 100% of landlords were screwing their tenants. I have seem far more tenants screw landlords than vice versa.

Its still not clear if the OP has a case though. But if they do, they should go to the PRTB all the same.

xper

After all the back and forth in this thread, it may be worth considering the following.

One purpose of he Residential Tenancies Act, and particularly Part 4, is to recognise that leasing a self-contained residential unit is a perfectly legitimate means of securing a home for yourself and that, as long as you meet the obvious responsibilities of paying the rent, maintaining the property in good keep, etc., you are entitled to be expect to retain your home for a reasonable foreseeable period. Thus, a four year period is considered during which only a limited number of legitimate circumstances are specified in which the landlord's requirements supersede those of the tenant. One of those is the intention to sell the property. Intention is specifically used because there are various issues with placing a property for sale with a tenant in situ. Equally, the Act recognises that a stated intention is slim grounds by itself and could open the whole provision of security of tenure open to abuse. So the Act also requires that the intention be fulfilled within a specified period. Overall, its just spelling out common sense, albeit there are some quirks in the detail.


Clearly, from the information provided in the OP's case, there is strong if not yet conclusive evidence that the property concerned may not be sold in the immediate future. That evidence should be recorded and the situation monitored over the next few weeks. The OP may be advised to contact the PTRB to ask, without getting into specifics, whether a complaint like this can or should be taken now or whether to wait for the three months to elapse.

It has been suggested that the RTA doesn't apply since the tenancy concerned is now ended. This is utter nonsense. Laws clearly can and do apply to past events and circumstances. A landlord, like any property owner is, of course, perfectly entitled to change their mind regarding selling a property. You can do this long after you've engaged agents, solicitors and gone sale agreed, for that matter. They also have to recognise that having commenced the process, there may be financial penalties incurred because you have caused expense (financial, time, opportunity) to others. Try telling your solicitor that they are not getting paid because you have changed your mind and you are pulling out of a sale at the last minute!

Graham

Dredd_J wrote: »

I still dont see any text that says he cant change his mind.

He can, in which case section 56 applies after 3 months and the tenant can seek 'Damages for abuse of section 34 termination procedure' as has now been pointed out several times.

odds_on

dissed doc wrote: »

That is useful to see. So the three months is based on the intention to sell within three months after the termination of the tenancy; so by definition, the previous tenancy must have ended; therefore I think advising a PTRB resolution is incorrect as the tenancy had already ended.

Secondly, it could mean he could do short term lets once the previous tenancy is over as well, as it gives a window. If you intend to sell in six months, youcannot use this part of the act obviously. From what I read, there is no requirement that the intention to sell to remain after the tenancy ends. But, in three months sales can easily fall through and new buyers can turn up.

Could the landlord simply be doing high-value short term lets for a month or two until a sale completes?

Finally, once the tenancy has ended, the RTA no longer applies to either party. The intention to sell from an RTA-compliant notice period on a Part 4 tenancy is only valid obviously if there is an active tenancy.

Yes, it can and does apply:
If the notice of termination is/was invalid.

In your scenario, then, once the tenancy has terminated, a tenant has no right to make a claim with the PRTB for a deposit not returned?

Paulownia

A quick story, a friend was in the situation that this tenant was in. He was asked to move because the landlord wanted posession because a relation of his needed somewhere to live. A valid reason apparently. My friend reluctantly left, after offering to increase the rent he was paying if he was allowed to stay,
The landlord re-painted the apartment and re-let it. My friend was outraged as he heard of this through the agents he had rented his new apartment from who had handled the letting.
He took legal advice and was told that, in order to make a case, he would have to prove that the landlord NEVER intended to put a relation into the apartment AT ALL, and that that would be virtually impossible to do.
He had lived there for nearly ten years.

Thomas D

Paulownia wrote: »

A quick story, a friend was in the situation that this tenant was in. He was asked to move because the landlord wanted posession because a relation of his needed somewhere to live. A valid reason apparently. My friend reluctantly left, after offering to increase the rent he was paying if he was allowed to stay,
The landlord re-painted the apartment and re-let it. My friend was outraged as he heard of this through the agents he had rented his new apartment from who had handled the letting.
He took legal advice and was told that, in order to make a case, he would have to prove that the landlord NEVER intended to put a relation into the apartment AT ALL, and that that would be virtually impossible to do.
He had lived there for nearly ten years.

He would have won his case with the PRTB.

drumswan

Paulownia wrote: »

He took legal advice and was told that, in order to make a case, he would have to prove that the landlord NEVER intended to put a relation into the apartment AT ALL, and that that would be virtually impossible to do.

The act isnt in complicated language, it is clear that that is not the case. Either you are mistaken or he was given incorrect legal advice and should pursue that.

RustyNut

Paulownia wrote: »

A quick story, a friend was in the situation that this tenant was in. He was asked to move because the landlord wanted posession because a relation of his needed somewhere to live. A valid reason apparently. My friend reluctantly left, after offering to increase the rent he was paying if he was allowed to stay,
The landlord re-painted the apartment and re-let it. My friend was outraged as he heard of this through the agents he had rented his new apartment from who had handled the letting.
He took legal advice and was told that, in order to make a case, he would have to prove that the landlord NEVER intended to put a relation into the apartment AT ALL, and that that would be virtually impossible to do.
He had lived there for nearly ten years.

Im sure the onus would be on the landlord to prove that he did intend to put a relation into the property and explain why he didnt.

Paulownia

RustyNut wrote: »

Im sure the onus would be on the landlord to prove that he did intend to put a relation into the property and explain why he didnt.

Even I could do that! My brother decided to stay in Montreal having told us he was coming home!

Graham

Have a read through the previous posts. Under the legislation intention doesn't matter, if you evict someone using reason X you have 3 months to do X.

RustyNut

Paulownia wrote: »

Even I could do that! My brother decided to stay in Montreal having told us he was coming home!

You said someone got legal advice stating that the tenant had to prove that the landlord didn't intend to move a family member in, I don't think that's the case.