Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What to do

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    listermint wrote: »
    It appears now from the updated post from the OP the landlord now has suddenly been informed of these professional obligations and has realised that they cant just chuck a tenant out of a home due to the conditions above.

    You still appear to be operating under the flawed premise that a landlord has to forego his rights to gain possession of his property to conform to your special interpretation of 'professional'.

    Meanwhile, back on topic.

    Delighted for you OP, it looks like you've been put through some serious stress for nothing over the last few days.


  • Options
    #93
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Dayana Sticky Eyeglass wrote: »
    A LL is not obliged to keep renting a house to someone if he chooses to live in himself, a family member wants to move in.

    What other meaning can we take from your posts other than you think that asking tenants to move out in order to move in a family member is somehow not keeping their obligations when you are replying to posts saying a LL is perfectly entitled to give notice in this instance with comments about it not being professional and not respecting obligations.

    I never ever ever said a landlord is obliged to keep renting a house if he chooses to live in himself.

    You understand what contractual obligations are ?

    Youve read my posts?

    Il spell it out to you, the landlord has to give the tenant notice of termination for above requirements.

    The landlord in the OP obviously didnt understand that obligation which makes them unprofessional and treating the asset like a personal play thing.

    He has since realised that he cant literally just chuck the OP out and has to serve notice of which is relatively extensive due to length of tenancy. So it cleared dawned on him that his brother will just have to cop it and get his own rental to tide him over.


    Alas , you missed all of that and decided to post some nonsense i never posted. But i suppose some folks just need posts spelt out for them, especially when there is multiple opens saying the same thing over and over and over..... and over...


  • Options
    #94
    SetOverSet
    Registered Users Posts: 421 ✭✭SetOverSet


    OP, I haven't fully read the thread, so someone may have already pointed this out, but you mentioned that your landlord requires the property for a family member, specifically his wife's brother, i.e. his brother-in-law. Is this correct?

    s.34 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, as amended, provides that a landlord may terminate a tenancy on certain grounds. Those grounds are set out in the table to s.34 and they include at paragraph 4 that: "A Part 4 tenancy may be terminated by the landlord if 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..."

    That seems straightforward, however, the following section, s.35, is the interpretation section for that table and s.35(4) provides a definition of family member for the purpose of paragraph 4: "In paragraph 4 of the Table the reference to a member of the landlord's family is a reference to any spouse, child, stepchild, foster child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, step parent, parent-in-law, brother, sister, nephew or niece of the landlord or a person adopted by the landlord under the Adoption Acts 1952 to 1998."

    It appears to me that you may be able to appeal any notice on the grounds that the landlord's wife's brother, his brother-in-law, is not a 'member of his or her family' for the purpose of s.34, as defined by s.35(4), and so the reason for termination is not valid.


  • Options
    #95
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    listermint wrote: »
    You understand what contractual obligations are ?

    A part 4 tenancy is legislation, not a contract agreed between a landlord tenant. Under that legislation a landlord is entitled to recover the property under certain specific circumstances subject to other specific conditions.

    Pretending the landlord in question was going to "just chuck the OP" doesn't change that.


  • Options
    #96
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Graham wrote: »
    A part 4 tenancy is legislation, not a contract agreed between a landlord tenant. Under that legislation a landlord is entitled to recover the property under certain specific circumstances subject to other specific conditions.

    Pretending the landlord in question was going to "just chuck the OP" doesn't change that.

    A tenancy is a contract, Because it is a tenancy it becomes an obligation under legislation.

    Dont try to get mealy mouthed now because you didnt read any of my posts.


    Worming out and having a go at a poster because you didnt bother reading posts isnt my problem.

    And i think you know full well the landlord in this case thought he could have the OP out in a couple of weeks.

    Super professional. Classic case of someone who doesnt understand the law. Sure defend them because they rent out a property knock yourself out.

    I think youll find ive nothing against landlords but everything against people who dont understand what their obligations are.


    lol.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    listermint wrote: »
    A tenancy is a contract, Because it is a tenancy it becomes an obligation under legislation.

    Dont try to get mealy mouthed now because you didnt read any of my posts.


    Worming out and having a go at a poster because you didnt bother reading posts isnt my problem.

    And i think you know full well the landlord in this case thought he could have the OP out in a couple of weeks.

    Super professional. Classic case of someone who doesnt understand the law. Sure defend them because they rent out a property knock yourself out.

    I think youll find ive nothing against landlords but everything against people who dont understand what their obligations are.


    lol.

    I'm not sure why you find it necessary to throw in a couple of personal digs with every point you're struggling to make.

    I'd be happy for you to point me at the specific legal definition of a 'professional landlord' that suggests it is unprofessional to end a tenancy for one of the permitted reasons.

    In the absence of such a link, I suggest we leave this here rather than continue to drag the thread further off topic.


  • Options
    #98
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    listermint wrote:
    He has since realised that he cant literally just chuck the OP out and has to serve notice of which is relatively extensive due to length of tenancy. So it cleared dawned on him that his brother will just have to cop it and get his own rental to tide him over.


    When did the OP say that the LL was "chucking" him out with no notice? He didn't.


  • Options
    #99
    Sarn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Sarn


    pilly wrote: »
    When did the OP say that the LL was "chucking" him out with no notice? He didn't.

    I have to agree with this point. There is nothing in the OP's posts that indicate that the LL was unaware of his obligations. There is nothing stated that says he has suddenly been made aware and is now backtracking.

    As a lot of the earlier advice advised, once appropriate notice is given and the brother in law moves in, it will all be above board. Getting it all in writing (as required) to ensure that the LL doesn't try to get around the OP's rights should minimise issues. However, there is no evidence based on the available information to suggest that the LL is trying to be dodgy.


  • Options
    #100
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Graham wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you find it necessary to throw in a couple of personal digs with every point you're struggling to make.

    I'd be happy for you to point me at the specific legal definition of a 'professional landlord' that suggests it is unprofessional to end a tenancy for one of the permitted reasons.

    In the absence of such a link, I suggest we leave this here rather than continue to drag the thread further off topic.
    pilly wrote: »
    When did the OP say that the LL was "chucking" him out with no notice? He didn't.

    The landlord phoned up the OP said NOTHING about serving a notice of termination. Just told him he needs the house for his brother. The OP then speaks to the landlord some days later outlining the obligations under tenancy agreement and then landlord goes off. Then comes back and tells him actually no the brother is sorting something else out.


    1) i think its quite clear the landlord didnt comprehend the dimensions of tenancy agreements

    2) i think the landlord just assumed, sure like its my brother like can you move out by like february, its my brother like

    3) regardless of what he did , i think the fact the guy owns a house and tenants it out youd defend him to the hilt.


    All fairly amusing none the less. Its the little things in life that make one smile. Like pointing out the bleedin obvious.


  • Options
    #101
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Oh yeah and there is a weird siege mentality in threads like this, Look lads its just tenancy it comes with conditions abide by them no need to think that everyone thinks harshly about you.


    Hilarious stuff


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    listermint wrote:
    The landlord phoned up the OP said NOTHING about serving a notice of termination. Just told him he needs the house for his brother. The OP then speaks to the landlord some days later outlining the obligations under tenancy agreement and then landlord goes off. Then comes back and tells him actually no the brother is sorting something else out.


    Think you've concocted a whole little scenario in your own head that doesn't exist.

    But sure if it's the little things that make you happy off with you.


  • Options
    #103
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    pilly wrote: »
    Think you've concocted a whole little scenario in your own head that doesn't exist.

    But sure if it's the little things that make you happy off with you.

    Ah grand so,

    1) so the landlord did serve notice when phoned up ? and explained that to the OP, also said they would send that all on ?

    2) the OP didnt have to contact the Landlord indicating notice would have to be served and timeframes ?

    3) after the above the landlord didnt contact the OP back and say actually no tis all good brother will be sorted elsewhere ?



    hmmm. Wouldnt want to be inspector clouseau for this one would you.


    Embarrassing stuff fellas. Its like trump supporter syndrome. Weird stuff altogether and you dont even know this guy...


  • Options
    #104
    Sarn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Sarn


    listermint wrote: »
    The OP then speaks to the landlord some days later outlining the obligations under tenancy agreement and then landlord goes off. Then comes back and tells him actually no the brother is sorting something else out.

    It's only been a little over 24 hours since the first post. In fairness, I think you need to reread the OP's posts again. The LL doesn't appear to be the big bad wolf huffing and puffing at the door.


  • Options
    #105
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    listermint wrote:
    2) the OP didnt have to contact the Landlord indicating notice would have to be served and timeframes ?


    Correct. Read thread again.


  • Options
    #106
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Sarn wrote: »
    It's only been a little over 24 hours since the first post. In fairness, I think you need to reread the OP's posts again. The LL doesn't appear to be the big bad wolf huffing and puffing at the door.

    Strange, again twisting my posts where did i say the Landlord is the big bad wolf ?

    I think it clearly states i said the landlord didnt understand their obligations to the tenancy. If that makes him the big bad wolf that would be you inferring that not me.


  • Options
    #107
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    pilly wrote: »
    Correct. Read thread again.

    The OP contacted the Landlord after advisement here.


    The landlord then changed their tune.


    Its not a slight on landlords fellas its the facts, Its kinda like the borg here im perplexed


  • Options
    #108
    Sarn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Sarn


    listermint wrote: »
    I think it clearly states i said the landlord didnt understand their obligations to the tenancy. If that makes him the big bad wolf that would be you inferring that not me.

    There is no evidence that indicates that the LL did not know his obligations. The LL could very well have been giving the OP a heads up of what could happen in the future. The OP has not stated that he has advised the LL of his obligations.

    The limited information that we have means that all of us are speculating based on the information that we have and can only interpret based on what the OP has said.


  • Options
    #109
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    listermint wrote: »
    The OP contacted the Landlord after advisement here.


    The landlord then changed their tune.

    I must be missing posts.


  • Options
    #110
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Sarn wrote: »
    There is no evidence that indicates that the LL did not know his obligations. The LL could very well have been giving the OP a heads up of what could happen in the future. The OP has not stated that he has advised the LL of his obligations.

    The limited information that we have means that all of us are speculating based on the information that we have and can only interpret based on what the OP has said.


    Ok grand, we will go with that story so.

    Cheers Lads, im out

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #111
    Specialun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,068 ✭✭✭Specialun


    Just to clarify

    The landlord didnt know i had rights to proper time. He asked me to be gone by first week of march. To which i obviously declined and informed him of my rights..this led to him actually investigating the law


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    Specialun wrote: »
    Just to clarify

    The landlord didnt know i had rights to proper time. He asked me to be gone by first week of march. To which i obviously declined and informed him of my rights..this led to him actually investigating the law

    I dont know if I missed it as I came from page 1. But is everything else in the tenancy above board? You mention dogs - are they prohibited in the lease? I don't meant to worry you - but I think the lease can be terminated for breach with a shorter notice period?

    Just be ready *just* in case it turns sour..


  • Options
    #113
    Sarn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Sarn


    Specialun wrote: »
    Just to clarify

    The landlord didnt know i had rights to proper time. He asked me to be gone by first week of march. To which i obviously declined and informed him of my rights..this led to him actually investigating the law

    Ok, fair enough. Clearly he didn't know his obligations. At least now he has been set straight and hopefully leaves you be. It highlights the importance of knowing your rights.

    My LL contacted me last July with two weeks notice that the rent was going up in a week. I had to point out to her that as the rent was only reviewed a year previously that she couldn't increase it for another year. I let the short notice slide as it was invalid. It worked out amicably in the end but shows that some people are unaware, deliberately or not, of their legal obligations.


  • Options
    #114
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    km991148 wrote: »
    I dont know if I missed it as I came from page 1. But is everything else in the tenancy above board? You mention dogs - are they prohibited in the lease? I don't meant to worry you - but I think the lease can be terminated for breach with a shorter notice period?

    Just be ready *just* in case it turns sour..

    OP must be given the opportunity to remedy any breach even if the landlord did take that approach.


  • Options
    #115
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Specialun wrote: »
    Just to clarify

    The landlord didnt know i had rights to proper time. He asked me to be gone by first week of march. To which i obviously declined and informed him of my rights..this led to him actually investigating the law

    Thanks OP,

    Ouch lads, Ouch. dont join the guards or anything we would be riddled with unsolved crimes.


  • Options
    #116
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    listermint wrote: »
    Thanks OP,

    Ouch lads, Ouch. dont join the guards or anything we would be riddled with unsolved crimes.

    I'm impressed that you knew the facts before the OP presented them.


  • Options
    #117
    Specialun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,068 ✭✭✭Specialun


    km991148 wrote: »
    I dont know if I missed it as I came from page 1. But is everything else in the tenancy above board? You mention dogs - are they prohibited in the lease? I don't meant to worry you - but I think the lease can be terminated for breach with a shorter notice period?

    Just be ready *just* in case it turns sour..


    Yup he knows well about them..his seen them plenty


  • Options
    #118
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Graham wrote: »
    I'm impressed that you knew the facts before the OP presented them. :rolleyes:

    Im impressed it wasnt blatantly obvious, but i suppose when you see what you want to see then it tends to colour the subject matter.

    You do know the OP came on here asking for what the obligations where, which means the Landlord didnt actually outline them ergo understand them


    Anyway enough solving easy riddles. Good night graham, we may meet again. Probably not who knows. but i enjoyed the banter regardless. it was fun its what forums are for. :)


  • Options
    #119
    Sarn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Sarn


    I believe in a fair trial before someone is convicted.


  • Options
    #120
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Sarn wrote: »
    I believe in a fair trial before someone is convicted.

    'Trial'

    lol, this really is like being on facebook and saying something against the new president of the states. Great way to twist the daily mail knob to the max.


    night night Sarn.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Sarn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Sarn


    You were the one that brought the guards into it.

    Interesting discussion and I hope it works out well for the OP. :)


Advertisement