RTB adjudication

beauf

beauf wrote: »

I know why you're suggesting that, but that can be an even bigger nightmare.

Why would you think that? I see it as a great option with little or no chance of nightmares. I've spent many years living in this type of setup and the LL's have had it easy as could be.

tuisginideach

Quote
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Tenants can be moved to facilitate the sale of a house.
Only under strictly controlled conditions since the new rules came in. House must be sold within a certain period and if not sold must be offered back to previous tenant at the same rent.


Isn't that so so ridiculous? How many houses can be prepared for viewing, viewed, contracts signed and deal closed within 3 months???????????

beauf

Apollo Gorgeous Quarrel wrote: »

Why would you think that? I see it as a great option with little or no chance of nightmares. I've spent many years living in this type of setup and the LL's have had it easy as could be.

One bad tenant drives the rest out leaving them the whole but paying for one room. Getting them out then is a problem. Also bills will often be in the LL name so can be liable for tenants use of utilities.

Where they are paying for the whole house, the risk of being liable for bills, damage, and rent for other tenants in the house often make them self policing. Peer pressure as it were.

That said from a LL rights point of view, they removed almost all of them for LL renting a house, whereas as i think is your point, the LL still retains them if renting a room, particularly if they retain a room in the house for personal use.

Being a LL is fine until there is a problem then is very difficult.

foggy_lad

beauf wrote: »

One bad tenant drives the rest out leaving them the whole but paying for one room. Getting them out then is a problem. Also bills will often be in the LL name so can be liable for tenants use of utilities.

Where they are paying for the whole house, the risk of being liable for bills, damage, and rent for other tenants in the house often make them self policing. Peer pressure as it were.

That said from a LL rights point of view, they removed almost all of them for LL renting a house, whereas as i think is your point, the LL still retains them if renting a room, particularly if they retain a room in the house for personal use.

Being a LL is fine until there is a problem then is very difficult.

If the rooms are rented out singly with only the rooms rented with use of "common areas" then the people living there are licensees not tenants and are easier to evict if needed. Landlord would just pay bills each month and divide cost between the "guests".

beauf

The hope is to avoid getting to that in the first place.

Graham

foggy_lad wrote: »

Only under strictly controlled conditions since the new rules came in. House must be sold within a certain period and if not sold must be offered back to previous tenant at the same rent.

What are the 'new rules' that have come in to section 34 that relate to terminating a tenancy in order to sell?

I'm sure the other provisions you mentioned have been in place since before the 2015 amendments.

foggy_lad

Graham wrote: »

What are the 'new rules' that have come in to section 34 that relate to terminating a tenancy in order to sell?

I'm sure the other provisions you mentioned have been in place since before the 2015 amendments.

There is a time limit now where there was no strict time-frame before just a willingness to have the property "for sale".

Michael D Not Higgins

foggy_lad wrote: »

There is a time limit now where there was no strict time-frame before just a willingness to have the property "for sale".

There was always a 3 month time limit of intention to transfer interest from the RTA 2004. There have just been a couple of cases where the court has ruled that there needs to be a firm intention. There is no hard and fast rule on what that entails, but it does mean you can't give notice if you're just trying to get them out ahead of any advertising, open viewings, etc.

Michael D Not Higgins

foggy_lad wrote: »

Only under strictly controlled conditions since the new rules came in. House must be sold within a certain period and if not sold must be offered back to previous tenant at the same rent.

Also, there's no requirement to offer back the property to the original tenant. The requirement only applies to paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 related to change of use, use by the landlord or family member or extensive renovations, and the period is 6 months from the expiry of the notice or if available for reletting after renovations are complete.

MarkAnthony

Onthefence wrote: »

Update following the adjudication last week: invalid notice of termination according to rtb. It appears that because this family have ALWAYS paid their rent late over almost three years then that's ok and we have no right to either chase them for rent or evict them...Days after hearing the result I must admit I'm still fairly speechless.

Playing devil's advocate here a bit I admit, but I can see where they are coming from (custom and practice) and this should act as a warning to other LLs to keep it strictly business like I'm afraid. The same goes for tenants - the LL isn't being a w***er they're trying to protect themselves for issue like this.

As for the letter of the law it should be noted it's arbitration and two competing constitutional rights are at play - the right to earn a living and the rights surrounding the dwelling. The latter will always take precedence over the former, despite it having gone so far in one direction that people are getting out of the rental game wherever they can.

Milly33

I would second guess everything the RTB tell you. After recently dealing with them they are fairly useless and advise wrongly on a lot of things.. Maybe tis solicitor time

foggy_lad

foggy_lad wrote: »

There is a time limit now where there was no strict time-frame before just a willingness to have the property "for sale".

That being said we had a thread on here recently where a tenant was given notice as the house was being "sold" and the the place was back up for rent again straight away. In that instance the RTB didn't find in favour of the tenant.

Onthefence

Thanks for all your input, boarders. We are strongly considering appeal but because there was a small amount awarded to the tenants "being damages for breach of obligations in respect of the tenancy" we are worried that this amount could escalate dramatically if we were to lose at tribunal. This seems doubly unfair considering we had to take time off work to attend the hearing whereas the tenants wouldn't have that issue!

We spoke to the rtb in an attempt to ascertain when/if we are permitted to chase the tenants for rent from now on. The lady couldn't tell us this! When pushed she said the only way to determine this is to appeal!!

Before we decide for sure we'll get advice from our solicitor. If not appealing, we'll wait until the part IV runs out and terminate then. I imagine this can also be disputed by the tenants though!!

Over and out until I have more to add! Cheers.

MarkAnthony

They can't dispute the termination at the end of the Part IV. For the love of God though get that handled by your solicitor. If they cock it up you've their malpractice insurance to fall back on.

Onthefence

"Any issue as to the validity of this notice or the right of the landlord to serve it, must be referred to the Residential
Tenancies Board under Part 6 of the Residential Tenancies Acts 2004 to 2015 within 28 days from the date of receipt of
it."

I quoted above from the rtb's own sample notice of termination at end/beginning of part iv. Surely that's a right to dispute?! Trying to brace myself in advance!!

MarkAnthony

Onthefence wrote: »

"Any issue as to the validity of this notice or the right of the landlord to serve it, must be referred to the Residential
Tenancies Board under Part 6 of the Residential Tenancies Acts 2004 to 2015 within 28 days from the date of receipt of
it."

I quoted above from the rtb's own sample notice of termination at end/beginning of part iv. Surely that's a right to dispute?! Trying to brace myself in advance!!

Sorry I did not choose my words carefully! I can certainly understand your caution given the ridiculousness you've gone through. I should have said any dispute would be unsuccessful.

Onthefence

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I should have said any dispute would be unsuccessful.

Now THAT'S what I wanted to hear. Thanks!

MarkAnthony

Onthefence wrote: »

Now THAT'S what I wanted to hear. Thanks!

Well assuming they have no grounds* :pac: hence why I say get the solicitor to issue it!

*Which is a bit like saying black is black and white is white.

GreatDefector

foggy_lad wrote: »

Only under strictly controlled conditions since the new rules came in. House must be sold within a certain period and if not sold must be offered back to previous tenant at the same rent.

I'd love to believe you but...
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057584985/1

Clearly the LL was relisting at a higher price

Another ridiculous PRTB ruling

Ciara22

OP, I strongly suggest you appeal this, if you are still within the appeal period. (21 days I think)

As an agent, I've been through a lot of cases and the RTB have made some crazy decisions at adjudications. They don't expect appeals which is why many landlords just give up but every time I have appealed it's been overturned.

You need to treat the Appeal like a new case so all documents have to be resubmitted and the case is heard like new. Don't leave anything out! The panel of 3 are very black and white which is very different to an Adjudication or even the dreaded and useless telephone mediation.

An appeal is €100 but I'd be surprised if you didn't win it. However, doesn't mean tenants will vacate either. They can still ignore this, you can lodge an enforcement request with the RTB which they will take at least a year to respond to and then say they won't act on your behalf.

If you win the appeal and the tenant still doesn't vacate, then go to your solicitor and take a case yourself.

If they won't vacate for arrears, they certainly won't vacate if you want to sell so don't waste time.

Onthefence

Onthefence wrote: »

Thanks for all your input, boarders. We are strongly considering appeal but because there was a small amount awarded to the tenants "being damages for breach of obligations in respect of the tenancy"

This case gets more ridiculous, the RTB really are a complete joke. How on earth could they come to the conclusion you breached your obligations?

Please appeal, the decision is a total joke.

free_man

Apollo Gorgeous Quarrel wrote: »

Onthefence wrote: »

Thanks for all your input, boarders. We are strongly considering appeal but because there was a small amount awarded to the tenants "being damages for breach of obligations in respect of the tenancy"

This case gets more ridiculous, the RTB really are a complete joke. How on earth could they come to the conclusion you breached your obligations?

Please appeal, the decision is a total joke.

RTB is not the most efficient organisation or most powerful even in landlord/renter issues.
The reason provided suggests 'you were a fool to not flag the rent pay delay before and hence you have no position to argue about the delay'. I am not trying to talk down to OP but instead suggesting to use the reason to smarten up.

The major issue here is that the renter doesn't pay on time. I did not see OP mention any other issues with renter.

Send a letter to renter suggesting a new date for payment as last date was not suitable to him/her. As RTB as ruled that payment date on contract is null and void, you need to setup a new date. If the renter doesn't agree to a new date, use that in appeal as renter is unwilling to change. If renter agrees, send him/her notice next time he/she is delayed and slap a termination notice once he/she doesn't pay in 14 days.

beauf

free_man wrote: »

...The major issue here is that the renter doesn't pay on time. ...

Its actually so late its in arrears.

Milly33

Apollo Gorgeous Quarrel wrote: »

That being said we had a thread on here recently where a tenant was given notice as the house was being "sold" and the the place was back up for rent again straight away. In that instance the RTB didn't find in favour of the tenant.

I didn't think the OP on the other thread came back to say that!

Id leave the RTB OP and just stay with the solicitor.. Like that they should be able to tell you yes or no, this is the way to do it. But they do not seem to know much really.Best of luck with it either way

Graham

Milly33 wrote: »

I didn't think the OP on the other thread came back to say that!

That's not far off what was said.

The OP in that thread lost his complaint as 3 months hadn't yet passed for the landlord to fulfil his 'intent to sell'. The RTB essentially ignored the fact the landlord has been advertising the property for rent at an increased rate and showing the property to potential tenants.

gustus

Hi just read this thread.
Im a landlord and just had my adjudication yesterday. There was one adjudicator. I had rock solid proof the tenants had fraudulently altered the contract and this was the cornerstone of their defence. Although they didn't believe the changes were made in good faith they also didn't make a meal of it. I was looking for 2 months rent plus damages. I got one month and no damages.
Im happy cause I essentially won but it just seems tenants can do anything and not really get penalised heavily. They stayed 2 weeks without paying rent so I essentially only got 2 weeks unpaid rent for all the hassle, time wasting etc and they illegally changed a contract...
Thé prtb really are a joke but the look on the tenants face was priceless

pilly

gustus wrote: »

Hi just read this thread.
Im a landlord and just had my adjudication yesterday. There was one adjudicator. I had rock solid proof the tenants had fraudulently altered the contract and this was the cornerstone of their defence. Although they didn't believe the changes were made in good faith they also didn't make a meal of it. I was looking for 2 months rent plus damages. I got one month and no damages.
Im happy cause I essentially won but it just seems tenants can do anything and not really get penalised heavily. They stayed 2 weeks without paying rent so I essentially only got 2 weeks unpaid rent for all the hassle, time wasting etc and they illegally changed a contract...
Thé prtb really are a joke but the look on the tenants face was priceless

Tbf you got off very lightly with 2 weeks unpaid rent, there's one LL on here that's now 5 months down.

gustus

pilly wrote: »

Tbf you got off very lightly with 2 weeks unpaid rent, there's one LL on here that's now 5 months down.

I understand that. Im talking more about the inadequacy of the RTB though.

pilly

gustus wrote: »

I understand that. Im talking more about the inadequacy of the RTB though.

I agree, that's why the poster I mentioned is in such a ****ty position and my heart goes out to them because there's absolutely nothing they can do but wait.

4ensic15

gustus wrote: »

Hi just read this thread.
Im a landlord and just had my adjudication yesterday. There was one adjudicator. I had rock solid proof the tenants had fraudulently altered the contract and this was the cornerstone of their defence. Although they didn't believe the changes were made in good faith they also didn't make a meal of it. I was looking for 2 months rent plus damages. I got one month and no damages.
Im happy cause I essentially won but it just seems tenants can do anything and not really get penalised heavily. They stayed 2 weeks without paying rent so I essentially only got 2 weeks unpaid rent for all the hassle, time wasting etc and they illegally changed a contract...
Thé prtb really are a joke but the look on the tenants face was priceless

How did you get a result on the spot? In any adjudication I have been to, the adjudicator simply says they will be filing a report. It takes weeks and the result is delivered by post. No chance of seeing the other side's reaction.