taking house back for my own use

Bluebells1

I am thinking of giving my tenant notice as my husband and I would like to start using our house some weekends as our holiday home.

In order to cover expenses we were thinking of doing weekly holiday letting for just a few weeks in the summer. Is this allowed as Tenant is there over 5 years?

bleary

Bluebells1 wrote: »

I am thinking of giving my tenant notice as my husband and I would like to start using our house some weekends as our holiday home.

In order to cover expenses we were thinking of doing weekly holiday letting for just a few weeks in the summer. Is this allowed as Tenant is there over 5 years?

No, you can't evict your tenants on that basis from their home,
You can evict them if you have a need for the property but this couldn't be justified as a second home
If you leave the property within 6 months you would have to offer it back to the tenant
iF you offer it for weekly letting someone and your tenant spots the ad they would be entitled to take a case to the rtb and apply for damages, the last case i saw was an award for 10,000
If you want your tenants to leave I think you will have to come to another arrangement

foggy_lad

You would have to offer some incentive to your tenants to get them to give up their part 4 rights. Otherwise they can stay until the end of the 2nd 4year term.

jcd5971

I'm all for Tennant's rights hell I am one, but I do find it a bit ridiculous that owner can't do what s/he wants with his/her own house

athtrasna

jcd5971 wrote: »

I'm all for Tennant's rights hell I am one, but I do find it a bit ridiculous that owner can't do what s/he wants with his/her own house

As with any other law, there are people who will agree and people who will disagree but it is the law.

jcd5971

athtrasna wrote:

As with any other law, there are people who will agree and people who will disagree but it is the law.

Yeah your right I don't dispute that at all, I just find it odd is all, but then again I don't want my rent going up every 2 weeks either, I just can see it from both sides I suppose.

myshirt

jcd5971 wrote: »

I'm all for Tennant's rights hell I am one, but I do find it a bit ridiculous that owner can't do what s/he wants with his/her own house

Is this post for real?

We'll gladly sit in the sun under all the economic lunacy giveaways that led to such high second home ownership in this country, but say f"ck you to any laws?

It is OUTRAGEOUS the amount of second home owners there are in this country, and even more outrageous they believe they achieved it off their own batt. They didn't. There are Nobel laureates who will want to pass into the grace of God every time they hear someone say that as relates to Ireland.

Does this post at all exhibit the most basic of an education in economics or sense around oneself? Rights of the tenant should be strengthened further and further, and anyone with a second home/holiday home needs to be met with some serious, serious costs for the economic environment that afforded them that in this country.

athtrasna

Mod note

Myshirt, please familiarise yourself with the forum charter before posting on here again. We appreciate helpful posts, but attacking posters is not welcome.

myshirt

athtrasna wrote: »

Mod note

Myshirt, please familiarise yourself with the forum charter before posting on here again. We appreciate helpful posts, but attacking posters is not welcome.

Edited to remove any ambiguity that I am but attacking the post and not the poster.

sunnysoutheast

bleary wrote: »

No, you can't evict your tenants on that basis from their home,
You can evict them if you have a need for the property but this couldn't be justified as a second home
If you leave the property within 6 months you would have to offer it back to the tenant
iF you offer it for weekly letting someone and your tenant spots the ad they would be entitled to take a case to the rtb and apply for damages, the last case i saw was an award for 10,000
If you want your tenants to leave I think you will have to come to another arrangement

No argument on the re-rental aspect of your post, but why would it not be valid to terminate if the LL wanted to use the property as a second home?

There is nothing I can see in the RTA about a requirement for the property to be a PPR for a valid termination notice, just the name of the new occupier, relationship to LL and expected duration.

"4. The landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or her own occupation or for occupation by a member of his or her family and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—

(a) specifying—

(i) the intended occupant's identity and (if not the landlord) his or her relationship to the landlord, and

(ii) the expected duration of that occupation,

and

(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) the dwelling is vacated by the person referred to in subparagraph (a) within the period of 6 months from expiry of the period of notice required to be given by the notice or, if a dispute in relation to the validity of the notice was referred to the Board under Part 6 for resolution, the final determination of the dispute, and

(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table."

jcd5971

myshirt wrote:

Is this post for real?

myshirt wrote:

We'll gladly sit in the sun under all the economic lunacy giveaways that led to such high second home ownership in this country, but say f"ck you to any laws?

Riiiight then.

My point is, while obviously I don't agree with a landlord evicting somebody to then re-let for a higher rent.

I find it strange that they can't just decide "I don't want to rent at all anymore I want to use my second home for myself as a holiday home" as after all it is their asset.

I never disputed the law in my post, and just for clarification I rent myself and own no property.

I merely posted a point of view. And stated I was trying to see it from both points of view.

I am happy to debate with you or have a conversation, but your post is a bit too vitriolic and "ranty" for me.

foggy_lad

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

No argument on the re-rental aspect of your post, but why would it not be valid to terminate if the LL wanted to use the property as a second home?

There is nothing I can see in the RTA about a requirement for the property to be a PPR for a valid termination notice, just the name of the new occupier, relationship to LL and expected duration.

"4. The landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or her own occupation or for occupation by a member of his or her family and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—

(a) specifying—

(i) the intended occupant's identity and (if not the landlord) his or her relationship to the landlord, and

(ii) the expected duration of that occupation,

and

(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) the dwelling is vacated by the person referred to in subparagraph (a) within the period of 6 months from expiry of the period of notice required to be given by the notice or, if a dispute in relation to the validity of the notice was referred to the Board under Part 6 for resolution, the final determination of the dispute, and

(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table."

If the landlord "requires" the property for their own occupation or occupation by a member of the landlord's family that would be fine once the notice is correct BUT firstly as the landlord does not "require" the property as they already have their ppr they can't use that as a reason and also if the landlord is found to be letting out the property afterwards the eviction of the tenant becomes an illegal eviction and the tenant would be entitled to thousands in compensation and might also be granted occupation of the property(regardless of its current occupier) for the remaining duration of their previous lease or part 4 tenancy.

sunnysoutheast

foggy_lad wrote: »

If the landlord "requires" the property for their own occupation or occupation by a member of the landlord's family that would be fine once the notice is correct BUT firstly as the landlord does not "require" the property as they already have their ppr they can't use that as a reason and also if the landlord is found to be letting out the property afterwards the eviction of the tenant becomes an illegal eviction and the tenant would be entitled to thousands in compensation and might also be granted occupation of the property(regardless of its current occupier) for the remaining duration of their previous lease or part 4 tenancy.

Any evidence for this point of view?

No arguments about the re-letting, I understand that.

If, for example, I have my main family house in Dublin and I own and rent out a place in (say) Kerry. I want to use (or "require") the place in Kerry as a holiday home for the weekends. I give the correct notice to the tenant, they move out and I occupy the property only at the weekends.

What is the issue here?

4ensic15

The o/p here is talking about taking back the house for vacation, not occupation. As such it is not covered by the own occupation provision.

foggy_lad

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Any evidence for this point of view?

No arguments about the re-letting, I understand that.

If, for example, I have my main family house in Dublin and I own and rent out a place in (say) Kerry. I want to use (or "require") the place in Kerry as a holiday home for the weekends. I give the correct notice to the tenant, they move out and I occupy the property only at the weekends.

What is the issue here?

If you occupy the house it should be an occupation as in your main dwelling not as a vacation dwelling and there would also be an issue with letting the property after the illegal eviction of the tenants. If you want a more definitive answer you should contact the PRTB and get their spin on your hypothetical scenario.

apkmbarry

jcd5971 wrote: »

I'm all for Tennant's rights hell I am one, but I do find it a bit ridiculous that owner can't do what s/he wants with his/her own house

Well, that's why a contract is produced, so people cant just **** over their tenants. Yeah, they can be served with an eviction notice, but there has to be a good reason, and reasonable notice. Neither of which they would have.

Canadel

myshirt wrote: »

Is this post for real?

We'll gladly sit in the sun under all the economic lunacy giveaways that led to such high second home ownership in this country, but say f"ck you to any laws?

It is OUTRAGEOUS the amount of second home owners there are in this country, and even more outrageous they believe they achieved it off their own batt. They didn't. There are Nobel laureates who will want to pass into the grace of God every time they hear someone say that as relates to Ireland.

Does this post at all exhibit the most basic of an education in economics or sense around oneself? Rights of the tenant should be strengthened further and further, and anyone with a second home/holiday home needs to be met with some serious, serious costs for the economic environment that afforded them that in this country.

If a person has the money, they can spend that money on anything they like within the limits of the law, including property.

The only problem I have is when the same people who own multiple properties perpetuate this narrative about "Irish people being obsessed with property" in relation to people opposed to long term to life term renting.

As for the law surrounding the situation here. I agree with it. Yes, the Op owns the property. But they entered the property into a lease with the tenants and with that comes responsibility and tenant's rights which really are required for a fair and functioning rental system.

sunnysoutheast

4ensic15 wrote: »

The o/p here is talking about taking back the house for vacation, not occupation. As such it is not covered by the own occupation provision.

As I said to the other poster, can you provide evidence to support your interpretation?

sunnysoutheast

foggy_lad wrote: »

If you occupy the house it should be an occupation as in your main dwelling not as a vacation dwelling and there would also be an issue with letting the property after the illegal eviction of the tenants. If you want a more definitive answer you should contact the PRTB and get their spin on your hypothetical scenario.

I'll say it again, I understand the issue about re-letting.

You are making the statement about the property being the "main dwelling", do you have any evidence to back this up?

athtrasna

Mod note

Sunnysoutheast please do not demand replies from other posters, thanks.

Sarn

As with a lot of legislation, interpretation can vary. However, I can't see how the use of a holiday home at weekends would fall under "required" use as it is not a necessity. The LL or a member of their family would not become homeless if they were denied use.

the_pen_turner

what would happen if you wanted to move from one house to the other.

could the op move for a few months then change their minds and move back

foggy_lad

the_pen_turner wrote: »

what would happen if you wanted to move from one house to the other.

could the op move for a few months then change their minds and move back

Yes but only after the tenants period of tenancy ends. Notice is only valid under certain specified conditions and moving in part-time is not one of them.

the_pen_turner

foggy_lad wrote: »

Yes but only after the tenants period of tenancy ends. Notice is only valid under certain specified conditions and moving in part-time is not one of them.

yes
but if you wanted to sell the other house and move into this house. this house would be your primary house . you could give notice if you we moving back permanently. put the second house up for sale and a high end value but don't sell it
then move back for a few months but change your mind and move back

foggy_lad

the_pen_turner wrote: »

yes
but if you wanted to sell the other house and move into this house. this house would be your primary house . you could give notice if you we moving back permanently. put the second house up for sale and a high end value but don't sell it
then move back for a few months but change your mind and move back

If you moved into the rented house and move back out within 6months you must offer the house back to the tenant.

There is very few ways around the RTA and falling foul of the law could cost an absolute fortune as many landlords have found out.

myshirt

myshirt wrote: »

Edited to remove any ambiguity that I am but attacking the post and not the poster.

Regarding your post, most with 2 properties have paid for them or are doing so, what's your problem?

newacc2015

Canadel wrote: »

If a person has the money, they can spend that money on anything they like within the limits of the law, including property.

The only problem I have is when the same people who own multiple properties perpetuate this narrative about "Irish people being obsessed with property" in relation to people opposed to long term to life term renting.

As for the law surrounding the situation here. I agree with it. Yes, the Op owns the property. But they entered the property into a lease with the tenants and with that comes responsibility and tenant's rights which really are required for a fair and functioning rental system.

I don't think you are too familiar with the rental industry. Landlords arent opposed to long term leasing. In fact most tenants only want short term leases. Look at students who will refuse anything more than a 9 month lease. Very few tenants will want to sign a lease for 10 years. I don't know anyone who doesnt want to buy their own home. People including you talk about people wanting low term leases, but when you actually speak to people in the industry ie Landlords and people in REITs, tenants dont want long term leases. Some do, but it is not reflective of most tenants

IMO we can't have long term leasing in Ireland. If it was introduced I imagine tens of thousands of LL's would sell up. Look at it this way since 2008. The Government has introduced LPT, cut the mortgage interest relief, put USC and PRSI on rental income. There is also the fact LL's can't get long term fixed mortgages. Meaning a LL entering into a lease can have his tax burden increased by a third over night or have his mortgage interest double over night as they cant fix their mortgage long. What rational LL would into long term lease if they can have their income halved in the middle of it? Even if their property had to go to repossession which is probably due to their income being halved, their property would sell for a reduced amount of its worth due to a sitting tenant

By saying 'fair and functioning rental system', you are really only taking about one that benefits the tenant. Dont worry! That is already the case. Rental laws in Ireland only benefit the tenant. If you have a none paying tenant, it can take up to 12 months to evict them. If you have an social tenant, likewise it can take forever to evict them.

If people want LLs to start treating the industry like a business and give tenants more rights. That needs to come from the Government down ie quicker evictions for tenants, no ad hoc changes in tax law etc

LiamoSail

This seems absolutely outrageous to me, the idea that as owner you can't recover the house for your own use, even if that use is only periodical.

foggy_lad

LiamoSail wrote: »

This seems absolutely outrageous to me, the idea that as owner you can't recover the house for your own use, even if that use is only periodical.

By renting out the house you are giving up certain rights to the use of the property and must abide by the RTA. Remember it is still the property of the Landlord but it is the "Home" of the tenant!

It is very basic stuff so anyone renting out their property should know this or should not be renting out their house.

Eric Cartman

bleary wrote: »

No, you can't evict your tenants on that basis from their home,
You can evict them if you have a need for the property but this couldn't be justified as a second home
If you leave the property within 6 months you would have to offer it back to the tenant
iF you offer it for weekly letting someone and your tenant spots the ad they would be entitled to take a case to the rtb and apply for damages, the last case i saw was an award for 10,000
If you want your tenants to leave I think you will have to come to another arrangement

* Corrections : landlords house. it is not the tenants home, it is a collection of bricks they exchange money for the temporary use of. Emphasis on temporary.

OP talk to a solicitor, there are a few who have some ways that may have the tenant leave legally.

athtrasna

Eric Cartman wrote: »

* Corrections : landlords house. it is not the tenants home, it is a collection of bricks they exchange money for the temporary use of. Emphasis on temporary.

OP talk to a solicitor, there are a few who have some ways that may have the tenant leave legally.

If you want to be fussy, chances are it's mostly the bank's house but I can assure you a rented dwelling can be a home and in this case the tenants are there five years so I'd be pretty sure they consider it their home!

As for talking to a solicitor, that would be a waste of money imo, the RTA is one of the most relatively clear pieces of legislation in recent years. I suspect you're referring to that legislation that is still on the statute books but predates the foundation of the state. I have yet to see evidence of success using that.