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

Butters1979

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

Sorry to go off on a tangent here again. The LL cannot terminate mid lease even if they are selling the property, unless they have a specific clause in the lease to allow this.

How long a lease did your cousin sign and was their anything about selling the property in the lease?

AeoNGriM

Sorry, should have clarified. Rent increase letter was received after the new legislation came into effect, wasn't dated and didn't give enough notice so even if we weren't protected by the new legislation the notice itself wasn't valid.

I think I've got enough to proceed with the claim, thanks so much for all the advice. I'll be sure to keep the thread updated and post the final outcome

the world wonders

Here is a recent High Court case that may interest you:

Notice terminating lease on family home deemed invalid
A mere intention to sell was not sufficient to terminate lease, court rules
...
[Ms Justice Marie Baker] did not consider the Oireachtas intended to permit termination of a Part 4 tenancy merely in anticipation of the commencement of the sale or advertising process, the judge said. While not saying there had to be an identified sale, there must be more than an intention to sell.

AeoNGriM

the world wonders wrote: »

Here is a recent High Court case that may interest you:

Interesting read, thanks for posting this!

Update on dispute : finally managed to get all of our evidence together and have registered the dispute with the PRTB.

Filed the dispute under Breach of Landlord Obligations, Invalid Notice of Termination and Unlawful Termination of Tenancy.

Took ages as the PRTB site is a bit quirky, but relatively straightforward to use. For anyone looking for info on the PRTB website, a lot of the pages are broken, plain and simple, and have been since September last year. Fairly shocking state of affairs from the PRTB!

The only way I was able to get the info from the PRTB site was to find the web address of the broken page I needed and use Wayback Machine to find an archived version of the page, so fecking time consuming!

Anyways, got it logged with them and requested Adjudication. Will update when I hear back, thanks again all

ED E

You should try and separately report the broken pages to their webmaster, hopefully get them fixed.

AeoNGriM

ED E wrote: »

You should try and separately report the broken pages to their webmaster, hopefully get them fixed.

Have been reporting this to them since 2012! It periodically gets fixed and then borks again.....D'oh!

AeoNGriM

Hey all,

Quick update, my Adjudication Hearing is tomorrow at 10am. Spending this evening getting all my ducks in a row and checking all the paperwork is in order.

Not sure how long the hearing will take, but have taken the day off work. The Adjudicator will look at the evidence of both sides (landlord has not uploaded any to the PRTB website) and issue a recommendation within 21 days of the hearing. Hoping they find in my favour!

Interestingly enough, when my landlord found I'd logged the dispute I got a call from them all but begging to sort it out without having to go down the PRTB route. All they were short of doing is offering me money!

Anyways, I'll let you know how it goes and ultimately how it's resolved

Cheers

JupiterKid

OP - sounds like your landlord was a very nasty piece of work. But they messed with the wrong tenant! Hope the PRTB Adjudication went in your favour.

athtrasna

Mod note

This is not a soap opera, the OP may come back in their own time. Please stop asking for updates.

AeoNGriM

Hi, sorry for the lack of an update. I didn't want to post anything until I've heard back from the PRTB. There's a letter at home today so am thinking that's the adjudicator's determination order. I'll confirm and post an update on how the hearing went and what the outcome is asap

endacl

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Hi, sorry for the lack of an update. I didn't want to post anything until I've heard back from the PRTB. There's a letter at home today so am thinking that's the adjudicator's determination order. I'll confirm and post an update on how the hearing went and what the outcome is asap

Hope it goes your way.

AeoNGriM

Hey guys,

Final update on the adjudication hearing and the PRTB's decision.

The hearing itself was quite informal, just myself, landlord & their witness and the adjudicator. The adjudicator explained the process at the start of the hearing and then asked each of us a number of questions on the evidence we had submitted. My landlord rambled on a bit, protesting their innocence fairly indignantly, I've been a landlord for x number of years I've never done anything illegal or untoward to my tenants kind of thing.

The witness they had brought was the person who showed my friends around the apartment when they viewed it at my request, and both the witness and the landlord claimed that they had listed the apartment, and then physically showed prospective tenants around just to establish the market rate of the property for any prospective investors, which was complete nonsense.

We were pretty much done after about 25 minutes and the adjudicator said that she had enough to proceed with a determination order, and she would issue a report on everything in the next 10 days.

So the report from the PRTB arrived yesterday, and after everything my claim was not upheld. Given that 3 months hadn't passed since I vacated the property, I'm unable to claim that we've been unjustly deprived of possession of the property. So my landlord escaped on a technicality really as they are still within their 3 month notice of intention to sell period.

I'm a little disappointed as it was fairly plain to see that the landlord was trying to re-rent at a higher market rate, however the landlord did submit documentation at a very late stage which shows they have at least listed the property for sale on a number of property websites. This was all done after they were made aware of the dispute I filed with the PRTB, so it's really little more than an arse covering excercise after having tried to re-let the apartment.

Overall I'm glad I went ahead with the process, and I hope that I've at least inconvenienced the landlord somewhat having to keep the property vacant for the last 2 months and run around trying to drum up some sort of documentation to make it look like they were going to sell the place.

I have a sneaky feeling the landlord will re-let the property after things have died down so I'll be keeping an eye on it in case this happens

Thanks again for all your help and support, if there's anyone going through something similar and needs some advice or has any questions about any of the process, post a reply here or lob me a PM and I'll be happy to chat!

Graham

Not quite the result you were hoping for which is a little disappointing but well done for following through with the PRTB, you've done your fellow renters a great service.

That's one landlord that won't be so quick to illegally evict in the future and the lost rent for a minimum of three months will have wiped out any sort-term financial advantage of behaving as he did.

Michael D Not Higgins

AeoNGriM wrote: »

So my landlord escaped on a technicality really as they are still within their 3 month notice of intention to sell period.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/notice-terminating-lease-on-family-home-deemed-invalid-1.2599202
It's disheartening to see the RTB are not taking heed of rulings in higher courts.

The text of the RTA 2004 does not cover intention to sell but

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.

There's an important distinction here. The intention to sell is not enough. Having it on a property selling website is not enough to show compliance with the law as stipulated. It needs to be demonstrable that there is intention to complete a sale within those three months.

AeoNGriM

Graham wrote: »

Not quite the result you were hoping for which is a little disappointing but well done for following through with the PRTB, you've done your fellow renters a great service.

That's one landlord that won't be so quick to illegally evict in the future and the lost rent for a minimum of three months will have wiped out any sort-term financial advantage of behaving as he did.

If nothing else I would hope that the landlord would think twice about doing something similar to another tenant. Given the current chronic shortage in available properties and the massive rents landlords are asking, it's getting increasing more difficult for prospective tenants to get a fair deal.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/notice-terminating-lease-on-family-home-deemed-invalid-1.2599202
It's disheartening to see the RTB are not taking heed of rulings in higher courts.

The text of the RTA 2004 does not cover intention to sell but


There's an important distinction here. The intention to sell is not enough. Having it on a property selling website is not enough to show compliance with the law as stipulated. It needs to be demonstrable that there is intention to complete a sale within those three months.

My landlord was arguing that they will have to sell as they can no longer afford the mortgage on the property. I believe that they had 2 choices, bump the rent or actually sell, so there may be a grain of truth in there somewhere, however every action they took up to being notified of the dispute clearly showed the intention to re-let at a much higher rent. I probably should have waited until another tenant had moved in before logging the dispute, as that would have made the whole thing clear cut.

Bob24

AeoNGriM wrote: »

If nothing else I would hope that the landlord would think twice about doing something similar to another tenant. Given the current chronic shortage in available properties and the massive rents landlords are asking, it's getting increasing more difficult for prospective tenants to get a fair deal.

Even though you lost the case, I indeed think it will have an impact on that landlord. It seems like his intend was obviously to re-rent, and they won't be able to do that for some time, which will clearly cause inconvenience. And I assume the PTRB is keeping track of previous disputes, so they must know that if the play the same trick again in the future that history will make them look bad shall another tenant go through the process again.

By the way, my understanding is that you are not interested in moving back into that property? So should the PTRB have sided with you, what kind of compensation would you have expected? (could the PTRB have order anything else than requesting the landlord to take you back as a tenant at the previous rent level?)

AeoNGriM

Bob24 wrote: »

Even though you lost the case, I indeed think it will have an impact on that landlord. It seems like his intend was obviously to re-rent, and they won't be able to do that for some time, which will clearly cause inconvenience. And I assume the PTRB is keeping track of previous disputes, so they must know that if the play the same trick again in the future that history will make them look bad shall another tenant go through the process again.

By the way, my understanding is that you are not interested in moving back into that property? So should the PTRB have sided with you, what kind of compensation would you have expected? (could the PTRB have order anything else than requesting the landlord to take you back as a tenant at the previous rent level?)

That was mentioned, the adjudicator did ask what I was hoping for in terms of a resolution or any sort of compensation. I advised that I would wait for their recommendation and wasn't looking for anything specific, except that I definitely wasn't looking to be re-instated to the property. That would have led to a fairly toxic relationship with the landlord and they would have bumped the rent to unaffordable levels come August either way.

Back home with my folks atm and resigning myself to a long search for a place at an affordable price now

matrim

In terms of compensation for similar cases, I think a fair minimum would be the difference between the current rental market price for a similar apartment and the previous rent. The exact amount could be calculated based on how long it is until the landlord could put up the rent again

For example, if there are 10 months until the landlord can raise the rent, and the rent was 1200. If the current market rent is 1500 for a similar apartment, then the compensation would be (1500 - 1200) * 10 = €3000. And that would be ignoring any costs associated with moving.

You could even use what the landlord tried to re-rent the apartment as a guide for the current market rent.

Graham

matrim wrote: »

In terms of compensation for similar cases, I think a fair minimum would be the difference between the current rental market price for a similar apartment and the previous rent. The exact amount could be calculated based on how long it is until the landlord could put up the rent again

For example, if there are 10 months until the landlord can raise the rent, and the rent was 1200. If the current market rent is 1500 for a similar apartment, then the compensation would be (1500 - 1200) * 10 = €3000. And that would be ignoring any costs associated with moving.

You could even use what the landlord tried to re-rent the apartment as a guide for the current market rent.

I'd suggest the compensation should be 2 or 3 times the cumulative difference in rent. It would act as an incentive for tenants to report such behaviour and a significant deterrent to landlords.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

I'd suggest the compensation should be 2 or 3 times the cumulative difference in rent. It would act as an incentive for tenants to report such behaviour and a significant deterrent to landlords.

Considering the PRTB found in favour of the LL isn't talking about fines a bit pointless? No reason to suggest a similar case won't have a similar outcome either.

Graham

Keegan Ancient Revolutionary wrote: »

Considering the PRTB found in favour of the LL isn't talking about fines a bit pointless? No reason to suggest a similar case won't have a similar outcome either.

Similar does not equal same or same outcome.

If that's a roundabout way of suggesting PRTB need to get tough, then I agree on both rogue landlords and rogue tenants.

TheDoc

So basically with no evidence showing the property as listed to sell, and the ONLY evidence showing the property listed to sell AFTER the case was taken, they ruled in the LL favour.

As a tenant that is pretty disheartening stuff. Obviously only reading one side of the story, but taking you at face value sounds a ridiculous ruling. The adjudicator you mentioned, and PTRB as a hole. Are they are actual legal entity that can make binding rulings and enforce stuff, or are they just some mediator?

Appreciate your response to the question of what you were looking for, but I would have been firmer in stating I'd be looking for a form of compensation for being forced into a move unlawfully in your eyes(moving is regarded as one of the most stressful situations for normal people) also accounting for the time taken of work to attend the hearing, and the inconvenience of being upped and moved. Not saying that it would make a difference, but reading that outcome has really boiled my piss

Lux23

So the trick is to wait until the three months is up before you bring the dispute?

Bob24

Lux23 wrote: »

So the trick is to wait until the three months is up before you bring the dispute?

Hoping that it is not a catch 22 situation whereby if you wait the PRTB will tell you you waited too long to raise your dispute.

Michael D Not Higgins

OP, look at it this way, if he kept you for the extra 6 months, he'd have gotten 6 months of your rent. You say he was advertising at 1/3 more, so 4/3 of your rent at 6 months would have been 8 months of your old rent max.

His max increase was two months rent and he's lost more than 2 months with this RTB dispute so he's down overall. It should teach him to consider the law next time.

Michael D Not Higgins

Bob24 wrote: »

Hoping that it is not a catch 22 situation whereby if you wait the PRTB will tell you you waited too long to raise your dispute.

Indeed, 28 days after your notice has been received is the limit I believe. There's definitely scope for appeal based on other rulings.

AeoNGriM

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Indeed, 28 days after your notice has been received is the limit I believe. There's definitely scope for appeal based on other rulings.

It's 28 days to challenge the notice of termination, I did log this when filing my dispute and the RTB advised I was outside this limit and removed it from the list of grievances.

I suppose in hindsight I should have waited the three months, or until new tenants had moved in. I would have thought with everything submitted and presented that it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that the landlord was in the wrong and chancing their arm, but for the claim not to be upheld on a technicality is especially disappointing!

I've considered appealing however I'm reasonably satisfied that being dragged to the RTB and losing a couple months rent is enough of a slap on the wrist for the landlord. Still wouldn't have said no to monetary compensation though I wouldn't have asked or pushed for it!