Landlord has re-let property after terminating tenancy with intent to sell

AeoNGriM

Hi all,

Looking for some advice with this issue, if I could pick your brains!

Long story short, 1 year fixed term lease started in Aug 2014. Remained on under Part 4 tenancy after this. Landlord served invalid notice of rent increase in Dec 2015. We attempted to negotiate in good faith for a slightly lower increase, landlord refused. We then refused increase as our rent was fixed from 24 months from start of tenancy under new regulations introduced recently, after getting advice from Threshold.

End of January landlord served us valid notice of termination with intent to sell within 3 months. We obliged and vacated last month. Last week, less than 3 weeks after vacating, the apartment is up on daft for a 1/3 increase in our original rent. Asked a friend to book a viewing to confirm it was the same apartment, which they did and were able to confirm it was definitely our old address.

I've taken screenshots of the Daft ad, have witness statements from my friend who viewed the apartment, have emails between myself and the landlord and have both the notice of rent increase and the termination letter so am well covered in terms of proving my case.

We obviously want to file a dispute with the PRTB, however we're unsure if this constitutes an illegal eviction or not?

On the PRTB website when filing a dispute, there are a number of options to choose from when defining the nature of the complaint. One of these is Unlawful Termination of Tenancy (Illegal Eviction) however it seems to only apply to the use of force or intimidation to deny the tenant access to the property.

My question really is does this apply to our situation? Would this also mean the the notice of termination is also invalid, given that the landlord obviously had no intention of selling?

Any advice is most welcome, thanks!

bigpink

Mighy have changed his mind on selling

Michael D Not Higgins

You almost certainly have a case. I'd file it under invalid notice of termination if that's a heading.

JimmyMW

bigpink wrote: »

Mighy have changed his mind on selling

Changing his mind is not a valid excuse, he must offer the property back to the evicted tenant at the original rent. Yes OP you have a case, are you in a new property now?

Caliden

Similar thread a few weeks back OP.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057575493

Open a case with the PRTB with all your evidence.

Michael D Not Higgins

JimmyMW wrote: »

Changing his mind is not a valid excuse, he must offer the property back to the evicted tenant at the original rent. Yes OP you have a case, are you in a new property now?

That's incorrect, that only applies if it's available for re-letting within 6 months after termination on the grounds of use by the landlord or family member, renovation or change of use.

However, the PRTB are likely to see the notice as invalid and rule in OP's favour.

cnocbui

bigpink wrote: »

Mighy have changed his mind on selling

Yeah, I have heard that seeing pigs fly past one's window will lead to all manner of strange thoughts.

DaraDali

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057580370

Here is a amazing thread on the same issue from last month, check it out

JimmyMW

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That's incorrect, that only applies if it's available for re-letting within 6 months after termination on the grounds of use by the landlord or family member, renovation or change of use.

However, the PRTB are likely to see the notice as invalid and rule in OP's favour.

Its available for rent within 3 weeks, sorry am I missing something here, I was under the impression that if a landlord evicted a tenant due to selling the property and if that did not happen for whatever reason ie no sale or change of mind that it would have to be offered back to the tenant prior to it being offered to the open market for rent?

magicmushroom

I'd ring the PRTB and ask them how best to file the complaint.

AeoNGriM

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You almost certainly have a case. I'd file it under invalid notice of termination if that's a heading.

That is an option on the site, however there is a 28 day time limit to appeal a notice of termination and that has expired. We would technically be appealing the grounds for the notification rather than the notification itself but it's definitely an option, thanks for your input!

We were thinking of filing for Breach of Landlord Obligations (for denying us use of the property by unlawfully terminating the tenancy and for intentionally serving a notice of termination without actually intending to sell), Invalid Notice of Termination of Tenancy (for intentionally serving a notice of termination without actually intending to sell) and for Unlawful Termination of Tenancy (Illegal Eviction) for terminating the tenancy by intentionally serving a notice of termination without actually intending to sell, just to increase the rent.

Our case is that the landlord had no intention to sell which makes all of their actions an offence under the Residential Tenancies Act, and that given the evidence we will be presenting the landlord will find it impossible to prove they did intend to sell.

JimmyMW wrote: »

Changing his mind is not a valid excuse, he must offer the property back to the evicted tenant at the original rent. Yes OP you have a case, are you in a new property now?

Yes we have moved to a different property, and I believe the apartment has been re-let as the ad is no longer up on Daft. We were never offered the property back either!

Michael D Not Higgins

JimmyMW wrote: »

Its available for rent within 3 weeks, sorry am I missing something here, I was under the impression that if a landlord evicted a tenant due to selling the property and if that did not happen for whatever reason ie no sale or change of mind that it would have to be offered back to the tenant prior to it being offered to the open market for rent?

No that only applies for certain reasons of termination that I listed. The implication in the law is that if you intend to sell then you're not going to be renting it out again so there's no obligation to offer to the original tenant.

The dispute would centre around the fact that the notice was invalid because there was no intention to sell.

AeoNGriM

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

No that only applies for certain reasons of termination that I listed. The implication in the law is that if you intend to sell then you're not going to be renting it out again so there's no obligation to offer to the original tenant.

The dispute would centre around the fact that the notice was invalid because there was no intention to sell.

Indeed, and that the termination of the tenancy was unlawful because of this.

Caliden wrote: »

Similar thread a few weeks back OP.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057575493

Open a case with the PRTB with all your evidence.

Thanks! Some good info in there, looks like someone in the thread had a previous case that was identical and the PRTB ruled it an illegal eviction. That makes things a little clearer in term of how we should proceed.

DaraDali wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057580370

Here is a amazing thread on the same issue from last month, check it out

Another great read, thanks!

garhjw

OP, is there any evidence the landlord even put the property on the market for sale? (Doubtful there is given that only a couple of weeks elapsed) This would help cover al bases in your case.

theteal

This issue seems to becoming more common - there have been a couple of similar threads iirc. I suspect my cousin is in a similar position but they're not aware of the potential issue yet i.e. 7-8 months into lease, now landlord wants to sell so they're out at the end of the month

Anyway OP, I can't offer anything by way of support other than best wishes

Is it definitely the same LL that's letting it? i.e. It wasn't sold and is being re-let by the new owner.

I know it's very very unlikely but you didn't mention that your friend met your LL just that it was the same address for sure.

AeoNGriM

garhjw wrote: »

OP, is there any evidence the landlord even put the property on the market for sale? (Doubtful there is given that only a couple of weeks elapsed) This would help cover al bases in your case.

Since receiving the notification of termination, I've searched the interwebs high and low and didn't find any listing for the property, and it definitely was not listed on Daft.

Considering we initially rented the property from an advert on Daft, and it's been re-let there you'ld think the landlord would have advertised it for sale on there too but nope, nada.

I am also 100% positive that the property hasn't been sold privately. It's definitely the same landlord.

AeoNGriM

theteal wrote: »

This issue seems to becoming more common - there have been a couple of similar threads iirc. I suspect my cousin is in a similar position but they're not aware of the potential issue yet i.e. 7-8 months into lease, now landlord wants to sell so they're out at the end of the month

Anyway OP, I can't offer anything by way of support other than best wishes

Thanks for the support and the positive thoughts! I hope your cousin is able to resolve their problem also!

JimmyMW

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

No that only applies for certain reasons of termination that I listed. The implication in the law is that if you intend to sell then you're not going to be renting it out again so there's no obligation to offer to the original tenant.

The dispute would centre around the fact that the notice was invalid because there was no intention to sell.

Oh ok, I misunderstood the legislation. In that situation so could a landlord not put the property up for sale for an extortionately high price on donedeal for €3 for the notice period and a few weeks after that and then just re-let it claiming that he could not sell it at the price he wanted. Would he be after circumnavigating the legislation this way? Even if he put it up at market price on DD or daft and managed it himself and claimed he failed to sell how could he be disproved?

Michael D Not Higgins

JimmyMW wrote: »

Oh ok, I misunderstood the legislation. In that situation so could a landlord not put the property up for sale for an extortionately high price on donedeal for €3 for the notice period and a few weeks after that and then just re-let it claiming that he could not sell it at the price he wanted. Would he be after circumnavigating the legislation this way? Even if he put it up at market price on DD or daft and managed it himself and claimed he failed to sell how could he be disproved?

Each case would be taken on its own merits. It's likely that most landlords who try to circumvent the law like this are unlikely to go to too much effort to cover their trails. Losing three months rent is likely to be worse than losing the difference to market rent until the next review.

Hollister11

Why was his rent increase invalid ? Was it invalid because you decided that you didn't want to pay higher rent ?

Michael D Not Higgins

Hollister11 wrote: »

Why was his rent increase invalid ? Was it invalid because you decided that you didn't want to pay higher rent ?

The new legislation means it has to be at least 24 months from the start of a tenancy to perform a rent review.

JimmyMW

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Each case would be taken on its own merits. It's likely that most landlords who try to circumvent the law like this are unlikely to go to too much effort to cover their trails. Losing three months rent is likely to be worse than losing the difference to market rent until the next review.

Yes but its possible and still be within the law. No one would suggest 3 months but if you had to give a tenant 6 weeks notice and advertise for that 6 weeks along with a further 2 weeks and you would have a plausible case there then. If its possible to do this there are serious holes in the legislation.

Michael D Not Higgins

JimmyMW wrote: »

Yes but its possible and still be within the law. No one would suggest 3 months but if you had to give a tenant 6 weeks notice and advertise for that 6 weeks along with a further 2 weeks and you would have a plausible case there then. If its possible to do this there are serious holes in the legislation.

The RTA states intention to transfer interest so I'm sure it wouldn't be looked favourably just to advertise it for a limited time.

housetypeb

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The new legislation means it has to be at least 24 months from the start of a tenancy to perform a rent review.

True, but the OP said that landlord gave notice of a rent increase in December.
He might have given the notice before December 4th,which is when the new legislation came into affect.

Michael D Not Higgins

housetypeb wrote: »

True, but the OP said that landlord gave notice of a rent increase in December.
He might have given the notice before December 4th,which is when the new legislation came into affect.

The OP seems to have a working knowledge of the legislation so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that it came after the enactment of the amendment.

quadrifoglio verde

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The new legislation means it has to be at least 24 months from the start of a tenancy to perform a rent review.

Does this not apply to leases started in 2015
OPs started in 2014

Michael D Not Higgins

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Does this not apply to leases started in 2015
OPs started in 2014

Yes it does, I've read the legislation. It applies to all leases that started less than 24 months before the enactment date and leases that have had a rent review in the 12 months before the enactment date.

anothernight

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Yes it does, I've read the legislation. It applies to all leases that started less than 24 months before the enactment date and leases that have had a rent review in the 12 months before the enactment date.

Doesn't that mean that the 24 month period kicked in before the 90 day notice rule? What a weird way to enact legislation.

PRTB wrote:

The new [notice] period applies to any notice to increase rent served on or after the 4 December 2015. Any notice served prior to this date will be subject to the previous 28 day period.

http://www.prtb.ie/search-results/news/article/2015/12/04/new-amendments-to-the-legislation-on-rent-increases-and-notices-of-termination-effective-from-4th-december-2015

Michael D Not Higgins

anothernight wrote: »

Doesn't that mean that the 24 month period kicked in before the 90 day notice rule? What a weird way to enact legislation.



http://www.prtb.ie/search-results/news/article/2015/12/04/new-amendments-to-the-legislation-on-rent-increases-and-notices-of-termination-effective-from-4th-december-2015

I'm not sure what you're getting at. There's two parts here, rent reviews before and after the enactment date.

Before was a review with 28 days notice of the new rent and only once every 12 months.

After it's 90 days notice and only every 24 months, with the conditions of it having to be at least 24 months after the start of the tenancy and 24 months after the last rent review if one was done in the 12 months before the enactment date.

anothernight

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

It's a bit irrelevant really, don't worry about it.