Landlord trying to kick tenant out

varuka

Tenant moves into dwelling in D24 area 3 years ago on 01/02/2014 paying 850 euro p/m and lives happily with no rent increases for 3 years until 2 weeks before end of lease the landlord shows up with new lease with rent increase of 100 euro... tenant refuses to sign as 4% rent cap is in affect so 1 week later landlord sends email to tenant saying that he will not be renewing the lease and tenant has to vacate the dwelling at end of lease because tenant did not notify the landlord that he intends to stay past lease end but tenant does want to stay.

So tenant thinks the invalid rent notice is turning into an invalid termination.
PRTB dispute filed by tenant.
IS the tenant or IS the landlord breaking the law?

Advice appreciated.

nhunter100

varuka wrote:

Tenant moves into dwelling 3 years ago on 01/02/2014 paying 850 euro p/m and lives happily with no rent increases for 3 years until 2 weeks before end of lease the landlord shows up with new lease with rent increase of 100 euro... tenant refuses to sign as 4% rent cap is in affect so 1 week later landlord sends email to tenant saying that he will not be renewing the lease and tenant has to vacate the dwelling at end of lease because tenant did not notify the landlord that he intends to stay past lease end but tenant does want to stay.

Tenant hasn't recieved a rent review in 3 years. Lucky tenant. The 4% cap only applies to identified pressure areas. While 100 extra based on 850 is alot, what are comparable properties renting for? Maybe try and compromise with the LL regarding increase.

Boater123

Invalid reason for terminating a part IV tenancy, LL is in the wrong.

varuka

nhunter100 wrote: »

Tenant hasn't recieved a rent review in 3 years. Lucky tenant. The 4% cap only applies to identified pressure areas. While 100 extra based on 850 is alot, what are comparable properties renting for? Maybe try and compromise with the LL regarding increase.

Edited with location.
Rents for 1 bed apt go from 700 to 1400 in D24 area on daft.
Landlord won't budge on increase.

Michael D Not Higgins

Landlord is in the wrong, wrong notice period and type for rent increase, wrong limit applied, invalid notice of termination, etc. They clearly are ignorant of the law and also of the recent changes. A slam dunk in front of the RTB.

Boater123

Either a LL whom hasn't a clue, or a sly one trying to get around the RPZ legislation by hoping the tenant hasn't a clue.

There are a few things you can do, but the easiest would be to refuse their demands, not sign a new lease, and if the LL has a problem let them bring you to the RTB if they can.

You have strong part IV tenancy rights and it looks like its 4%pa for you for the foreseeable future.

Lucky so and so.

GGTrek

Boater123 wrote: »

Either a LL whom hasn't a clue, or a sly one trying to get around the RPZ legislation by hoping the tenant hasn't a clue.

There are a few things you can do, but the easiest would be to refuse their demands, not sign a new lease, and if the LL has a problem let them bring you to the RTB if they can.

You have strong part IV tenancy rights and it looks like its 4%pa for you for the foreseeable future.

Lucky so and so.

His strong part 4 rights will terminate in exactly one year. If the op wishes to stay there long term I suggest to explain to the landlord without being confrontational.

Boater123

GGTrek wrote: »

His strong part 4 rights will terminate in exactly one year. If the op wishes to stay there long term I suggest to explain to the landlord without being confrontational.

I was thinking of the 6 years. My Bad. Confrontation, as some would see it, has started, rtb dispute was filed by the OP

Still a good deal for the OP, €34pcm rise after 3 years, below market rent, a lengthier notice period than LL is saying now and longer again if needed in 12 months time.

No financial advantage to the LL to get rid in a year either, still will only get 4% with the next tenant. And be down income with down periods associated with change of tenancy, rtb reg fee's, advertising etc.

Claw Hammer

Boater123 wrote: »

I was thinking of the 6 years. My Bad. Confrontation, as some would see it, has started, rtb dispute was filed by the OP

Still a good deal for the OP, €34pcm rise after 3 years, below market rent, a lengthier notice period than LL is saying now and longer again if needed in 12 months time.

No financial advantage to the LL to get rid in a year either, still will only get 4% with the next tenant. And be down income with down periods associated with change of tenancy, rtb reg fee's, advertising etc.

The landlord will need a valid reason to terminate a further part 4.

Claw Hammer

varuka wrote: »

IS the tenant or IS the landlord breaking the law?

Advice appreciated.

How can it be against the law to refer a dispute to the RTB? That is what it is there for, to determine disputes.

Aye Bosun

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The landlord will need a valid reason to terminate a further part 4.

no reason is needed in the first 6 month of the further part 4 tenancy but still needs to give the proper notice ie 112 days.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html

campingcarist

Boater123 wrote: »

I was thinking of the 6 years. My Bad. Confrontation, as some would see it, has started, rtb dispute was filed by the OP

My understanding is that a Further Part 4 tenancy now starts after 6 years, as you were thinking. Am I incorrect?

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The landlord will need a valid reason to terminate a further part 4.

Further part 4 does not kick in for 6 months after the original part 4 ends, in this 6 months no reason is needed to terminate.

campingcarist wrote: »

My understanding is that a Further Part 4 tenancy now starts after 6 years, as you were thinking. Am I incorrect?

Only for tenancies which commenced since the new legislation came in. Any existing tenancy (even if it started one day before the legislation came into force) is still a 4 year part 4 term.

campingcarist

Aubrie Beautiful Riot wrote: »

Only for tenancies which commenced since the new legislation came in. Any existing tenancy (even if it started one day before the legislation came into force) is still a 4 year part 4 term.

Thank you.

varuka

Can someone explain what compensation for losses they're on about in the last sentence in this link...

http://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/the-three-stages-of-a-tenancy/ending-fixed-term-tenancies

Also does partIV tenancy restart from 6 months after each new lease is signed or from initial lease .I signed a new lease last year and the year before.

Sarn

Part IV is dated from the start of the tenancy.

GGTrek

There are so many wrong statements about the law in this thread that I wouldn't know where to start.

1) PART IV rights start 6 months after you have first occupied the dwelling, the additional leases that you sign do not count and you are not obliged to sign them

2) HOWEVER PART IV is not indefinite (as some socialists/communists thinkers of this forum would like), for current tenancies started before 24th of December 2016 it ends at 4 years from the first date of occupation of the dwelling, for tenancies that started afterward it would end at 6 years from the first date of occupation of the dwelling.

3) For tenancies whose 4 years expired after the 24th of December 2016 and received no notice of termination from Landlord, PART IV is automatically renewed right from the first day for 6 years (the first 6 months of the further part tenancy are gone with the repeal of section 42)

4) If landlord provides a notice of termination before the 4 years are up with at least 112 days of notice period and this notice expires after the 4 years, PART IV rights are deemed terminated and the tenant HAS to vacate (which in plain English means he can be evicted). There are reasons to provide for this type of termination, but they are not the reasons that people think (like sale or own use or breach of tenancy obligations), they could be as simple as "you have paid your rent late by one day once" or "the landlord does not wish to grant you a new part iv tenancy". Basically when the 4 years/6 years are up, security of tenure for tenant is gone and he can be "forced" to accept a new lease by the landlord, if he wants to remain at the dwelling, with much worse conditions (believe me in the current climate setup by the Irish govvie the conditions will be much worse) or vacate/leave the dwelling.

Someone was saying that the original OP was getting a good deal in contesting the rent review at the RTB and only getting a (possible depends on the specifics of the case which are not clear) 4% increase and the landlord would get no benefit in getting a new tenant in one year time since he could not increase rent. Well I beg to strongly disagree, a tenant that takes the landlord to RTB without first negotiating or trying to mediate with him is going to cause the landlord a lot of aggravations and costs (obviously the naive poster does not undertand how much time and money the RTB process will cost to the landlord) and he is going to go first in the queue for termination when the 4 years are up.

The landlord would be much more likely to find a better tenant (i.e. that costs less money and time) than him in the open market even if the rent was set at the same level as previous tenant (what counts is net rent, not gross rent!). In addition when part IV rights are gone, the law that says that rent level should be the same as previous lease is for all practical purposes unenforceable and impossible to monitor (RTB database is all over the place and even address details are verified with the parties and corrected by RTB officers when setting up a dispute!). Through the new lease various service charges can be added leaving nominal rent at the same level, but increasing net rent which is what matters: with new lease the landlord has numerous ways to circumvent the limitations set.

<mod snip: on thread discussion of moderation is contrary to the forum charter>

So if a tenant really cares about staying at the property long term, the RTB should be his absolute last option, not the first one as suggested by many posters in this forum. A long term tenancy needs a good long term business relationship with the landlord, a good business relationship needs good negotiating, negotiating means taking and giving (some posters here are missing the giving part of negotiating). RTB is the easy escape valve short term for the tenant, but long term it will hit the tenant hard.

Sarn

In this case Part IV rights were obtained after 6 months but they are dated from the commencement of the tenancy when considering the 4/6 year period.

Browney7

@GGTrek all well and good with you speech there but there is no excusing the conduct of the landlord here - he's either ignorant of the law (which you are entitled to disagree with) or he's chancing his arm trying to get a rent increase outside the law by threatening the tenant. Neither situation should be tolerated by the tenant and landlord should be told in the nicest possible way to go sing for it.

PhoenixParker

I thought the rent review max was 4% per year not 4% fullstop?

In that case a tenancy of 3 years duration without increase, starting at E850, the landlord would be entitled to increase the rent to E956? or E106, meaning the rent increase is potentially legal?

The notice would still have to be compliant.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/rent_increases.html

Rent Pressure Zones: Under the new Rent Predictability Measure, annual rent increases will be allowed in future in designated Rent Pressure Zones. Rent increases in these zones are capped at 4% per year.

. . .

Notice of rent review
The notice of new rent must comply with the provisions of Section 26 of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015. The notice must:

State the amount of new rent and the date from which is to have effect
Include a statement that any dispute about the setting of the rent must be referred to the RTB before the date the new rent takes effect, or within 28 days from the date that the tenant gets the notice, whichever is the later
Include a statement by the landlord that, in their opinion, the new rent is not greater than the market rent, having regard to the other terms of the tenancy and to letting values of dwellings of a similar size, type and character and situated in a comparable area
Specify the rent amount being asked for 3 dwellings of a similar size, type and character and in a comparable area, which have been advertised for rent in the 4-week period immediately before the notice
Be signed by the landlord or their authorised agent and include the date on which it was signed
In a Rent Pressure Zone designated under the Rent Predictability Measure, the notice must also comply with Section 35 of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016.

In a Rent Pressure Zone, the landlord must also provide information and calculations to demonstrate that the rent increase is not more than 4% per year for the period since the rent was last set.
The RTB has published a sample notice of rent review, which includes the extra information required in Rent Pressure Zones.

GGTrek

Browney7 wrote: »

@GGTrek all well and good with you speech there but there is no excusing the conduct of the landlord here - he's either ignorant of the law (which you are entitled to disagree with) or he's chancing his arm trying to get a rent increase outside the law by threatening the tenant. Neither situation should be tolerated by the tenant and landlord should be told in the nicest possible way to go sing for it.

Landlord in this case looks either unprofessional or trying his chances, but from initial post it is not possible to understand if the tenant tried to explain and negotiate the situation with landlord, it looks like tenant does not seem to appreciate that he had the good fortune of paying well below market for many years and should try to communicate and negotiate the situation before going to RTB. Especially knowing that his four years are up in exactly 12 months taking straight away a case to RTB is not the smart solution if he wants to stay long term at the property, the landlord will probably hire a solicitor that will advise him to kick the tenant out in 12 months time.
Some landlords are just d@@ks (I met a few) but in my long experience with tenants I would say 70% of tenants are completely unable to negotiate or communicate and in very few cases they act in bad faith which for me is unforgivable in a business relationship.

Boater123

GGTrek wrote: »

Someone was saying that the original OP was getting a good deal in contesting the rent review at the RTB and only getting a (possible depends on the specifics of the case which are not clear) 4% increase and the landlord would get no benefit in getting a new tenant in one year time since he could not increase rent. Well I beg to strongly disagree, a tenant that takes the landlord to RTB without first negotiating or trying to mediate with him is going to cause the landlord a lot of aggravations and costs (obviously the naive poster does not undertand how much time and money the RTB process will cost to the landlord) and he is going to go first in the queue for termination when the 4 years are up.

...Through the new lease various service charges can be added leaving nominal rent at the same level, but increasing net rent which is what matters...

I said the new laws have left the OP in good circumstances, not a rtb adjudication

I am not "naive" and can understand perfectly how a RTB hearing can cause a LL time and expense. (And in this case the LL deserves every lost minute and cent, for trying to pull a fast one)

And I still maintain that it would be a stupid LL that takes such a course of action due to a "grudge" and ignore sound financial reasoning. The LL still might decide to terminate after 48 months, but what should a tenant do, take an illegal rent increase just to keep the LL happy.

Whether the RTB database is in a mess or not (and I don't know how you can decide what state it is in or what plans are in the pipeline to improve), a higher rent increase than is permitted is still illegal.

And I'm sure the RTB will deem new charges as a way to increase "net rent" just as you have said, despite what you meant.

You do realize that you are advocating that a tenant in this situation should just ignore their rights, and "negotiate" a new rent higher than that permitted by law..... all to keep the big bad LL happy so he doesn't throw you out in 12 months time?

3DataModem

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The landlord will need a valid reason to terminate a further part 4.

A reason. Not a valid reason.

4ensic15

3DataModem wrote: »

A reason. Not a valid reason.

A valid reason must be given under Part 34.

varuka

Boater123 wrote: »

I said the new laws have left the OP in good circumstances, not a rtb adjudication

I am not "naive" and can understand perfectly how a RTB hearing can cause a LL time and expense. (And in this case the LL deserves every lost minute and cent, for trying to pull a fast one)

And I still maintain that it would be a stupid LL that takes such a course of action due to a "grudge" and ignore sound financial reasoning. The LL still might decide to terminate after 48 months, but what should a tenant do, take an illegal rent increase just to keep the LL happy.

Whether the RTB database is in a mess or not (and I don't know how you can decide what state it is in or what plans are in the pipeline to improve), a higher rent increase than is permitted is still illegal.

And I'm sure the RTB will deem new charges as a way to increase "net rent" just as you have said, despite what you meant.

You do realize that you are advocating that a tenant in this situation should just ignore their rights, and "negotiate" a new rent higher than that permitted by law..... all to keep the big bad LL happy so he doesn't throw you out in 12 months time?

This tenant must agree with you here. The RTB was setup for disputes and for people to do everything by the law. In my case the the landlord gave me 2 weeks to sign a new invalid lease which i didn't and so he's trying to get me out of the property so he can get he's 100 euro increase even though he might knows that the 4% rule applies for new tenants too.

The landlord wants the property vacated by end of lease(in 4 days) and the landlord said he has cancelled the rent standing order( which he can't do) further to intimidate.

The 2 parties have been in rent review negotiation through email for about a week which turned into eviction emails which made me the tenant go to friends and Threshold which recommended to open a dispute with RTB.

So fellow tenants if negotiations fail then go to RTB.
Don't be bullied.

varuka

4ensic15 wrote: »

A valid reason must be given under Part 34.

It's all good and well bringing up laws and numbers but a lot of tenants won't know or understand those laws and numbers.
Landlords will take advantage of this to their benefit.

So fellow tenants go to Threshold and get help/ clarity.

GGTrek

I shall give an example of negotiating ability and I am not advocating to break the law. If the tenant undestands that he has the good fortune of paying well below market rent he can tell the landlord: "My understanding is that you can only increase 4% but I will perform small repairs out of my own pocket or pay for a re-painting of a room in bad need of a redecoration if you offer me a new long term lease that complies with new regulations". These are smart negotiating tactics, if instead the tenant tells the landlord: "screw you, it is my right, I take you to RTB" like some posters here suggest, then the tenant is not very smart in a long term view, he is not offering anything but aggravation to the landlord and landlord will terminate at first possible occasion. It is not a "grudge" for the landlord, it just does not make any business sense to keep a tenant like the second one. You might have a different opinion, but I am giving you a clear view of the landlord side. The first tenant is smart and the second one very naive, since reality is not as simple as the law or the Irish govvie would like it to be.

With the new rent controls and a property rented at well below market, the landlord has every incentive to legally terminate tenancy and leave the property empty for 2 years in order to recover market value for sale: this is the law of unintended consequences that the Irish govvie and the naive tenants did not think about.

varuka

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I thought the rent review max was 4% per year not 4% fullstop?

In that case a tenancy of 3 years duration without increase, starting at E850, the landlord would be entitled to increase the rent to E956? or E106, meaning the rent increase is potentially legal?

The notice would still have to be compliant.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/rent_increases.html

It's 4% going forward from valid written notice date (90 days) not retrospectively.

Browney7

GGTrek wrote: »

I shall give an example of negotiating ability and I am not advocating to break the law. If the tenant undestands that he has the good fortune of paying well below market rent he can tell the landlord: "My understanding is that you can only increase 4% but I will perform small repairs out of my own pocket or pay for a re-painting of a room in bad need of a redecoration if you offer me a new long term lease that complies with new regulations". These are smart negotiating tactics, if instead the tenant tells the landlord: "screw you, it is my right, I take you to RTB" like some posters here suggest, then the tenant is not very smart in a long term view, he is not offering anything but aggravation to the landlord and landlord will terminate at first possible occasion. It is not a "grudge" for the landlord, it just does not make any business sense to keep a tenant like the second one. You might have a different opinion, but I am giving you a clear view of the landlord side. The first tenant is smart and the second one very naive, since reality is not as simple as the law or the Irish govvie would like it to be.

With the new rent controls and a property rented at well below market, the landlord has every incentive to legally terminate tenancy and leave the property empty for 2 years in order to recover market value for sale: this is the law of unintended consequences that the Irish govvie and the naive tenants did not think about.

In fairness this case from what the OP says is a slam dunk in his favour. Negotiations have failed. The threat of the RTB in this case should be enough for any landlord with 2 brain cells to rub together to desist with his actions and reissue a valid review. If he's idiotic enough to actually contest it he has no one but himself to blame for the hassle he's bringing on himself.

In the OP's case I'd give the advice "never argue with stupidity, it drags you down to it's level and beats you with experience"

varuka

Browney7 wrote: »

In fairness this case from what the OP says is a slam dunk in his favour. Negotiations have failed. The threat of the RTB in this case should be enough for any landlord with 2 brain cells to rub together to desist with his actions and reissue a valid review. If he's idiotic enough to actually contest it he has no one but himself to blame for the hassle he's bringing on himself.

In the OP's case I'd give the advice "never argue with stupidity, it drags you down to it's level and beats you with experience"

Yes that's why negotiations were halted and RTB were brought in to deal with my case. RTB will sort out the stupidity.

Boater123

GGTrek wrote: »

...... You might have a different opinion, but I am giving you a clear view of the landlord side.....

......With the new rent controls and a property rented at well below market, the landlord has every incentive to legally terminate tenancy and leave the property empty for 2 years in order to recover market value for sale....

I don't want to argue the 4% with you anymore, an illegal rent increase is an illegal rent increase. It's deflection to say that you were suggesting tenants should under take maintenance rather than pay more than legal rent limits. It is also weak argument and an impractical suggestion.

How would you enforce it if the tenant decided not to keep up their end of the bargain?

How do you get around the bit about it being the legal responsibility of the LL? For the next 6 years with new tenants?

Thank you for your clear view but I am a landlord, 26 years next September, and I can assure you that's not the clear view of every LL. The tenant would have to have done a lot more than pull me up on an illegal NOT and rent increase for me to terminate.

Then again I never would have thought to try a path of illegal NOT and RI.

Go down 2 years rent to return to a market where prices are unknown??

Heh!!

To use the OP's case as example the LL goes down current gross rent of €850 by 24 months so €20,400, not including +4%pa, plus incur LPT, insurance, upkeep, security risk, possible management fee's, etc. Only to return to a future property market where then prices are unknown and both sale and rent markets could be vastly different than today. That's some risk.