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
Landlord trying to kick tenant out
Comments
-
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
The provision allowing the termination of a further part 4 has been abolished.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
The provision allowing the termination of a further part 4 has been abolished.
The tenancy will reset after the elapse of the current Part IV - and there are set reasons for ending the tenancy- one of which has to be used- you can't just take the property back as you could under the old legislation.0 -
There are no sets of reasons in the RTA 2004 to 2016 for a section 34(b) notice of termination. As I said in previous post which was heavily criticised by people with limited knowledge of the legislation, section 34(b) termination notice has not been abolished by the RTA 2016 (AAA and Sinn Fein almost managed to do this last week):The_Conductor wrote: »The provision allowing the termination of a further part 4 has been abolished.
The tenancy will reset after the elapse of the current Part IV - and there are set reasons for ending the tenancy- one of which has to be used- you can't just take the property back as you could under the old legislation.
"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 or risk termination."
Check directly with the RTB, this is a "very badly drafted" section 34(b) notice template:
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/sample-notice---terminating-before-a-further-part-4-commences-16-01-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=2
That is why I am repeating to the original OP, you run a serious risk of your tenancy being legally terminated in 12 months time, even if you win this RTB case and even if your landlord is very unprofessional and a chancer. My suggestion is to plan for what is going to happen in 9-12 months.
This is not a popularity contest, the OP has skin-in-the game and he is risking his place where he lives unlike many popular posters in this thread, he should be told what he is risking, instead of "he is getting a good deal" by going to RTB. In my opinion his tenancy beyond the 12 months horizon is seriously compromised given that on 01/02/2018 his part 4 rights end.0 -
There are no sets of reasons in the RTA 2004 to 2016 for a section 34(b) notice of termination. As I said in previous post which was heavily criticised by people with limited knowledge of the legislation, section 34(b) termination notice has not been abolished by the RTA 2016 (AAA and Sinn Fein almost managed to do this last week):
"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 or risk termination."
Check directly with the RTB, this is a "very badly drafted" section 34(b) notice template:
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/sample-notice---terminating-before-a-further-part-4-commences-16-01-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=2
That is why I am repeating to the original OP, you run a serious risk of your tenancy being legally terminated in 12 months time, even if you win this RTB case and even if your landlord is very unprofessional and a chancer. My suggestion is to plan for what is going to happen in 9-12 months.
This is not a popularity contest, the OP has skin-in-the game and he is risking his place where he lives unlike many popular posters in this thread, he should be told what he is risking, instead of "he is getting a good deal" by going to RTB. In my opinion his tenancy beyond the 12 months horizon is seriously compromised given that on 01/02/2018 his part 4 rights end.
You keep advising the OP and those in their situation that they run the risk of their tenancy being legally terminated in 12 months time. And I can only think that this is something that a unprofessional chancer of a LL would consider. The fact that you keep flaming on about it makes me think that this is what you personally would do in these circumstances.
Don't you get it. Faced with that which the OP faces, whats a tenant supposed to do??? Bend over as you're suggesting! Please answer at least this one, please.
When you're at it could you also address the points that you were pulled up on so far in this thread- You originally implied op should have negotiated an illegal rent increase to keep the LL happy
- You said tenants should accept maintenance obligations on the property instead of illegal rent rises
- You maintain LL's in this situation should just take the property off the rental market for two years then sell.
- That LL's introduce "fee's", yet admit this is just an attempt to circumvent the law and to increase your rental income
0 -
There are no sets of reasons in the RTA 2004 to 2016 for a section 34(b) notice of termination. As I said in previous post which was heavily criticised by people with limited knowledge of the legislation, section 34(b) termination notice has not been abolished by the RTA 2016 (AAA and Sinn Fein almost managed to do this last week):
"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 or risk termination."
Check directly with the RTB, this is a "very badly drafted" section 34(b) notice template:
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/sample-notice---terminating-before-a-further-part-4-commences-16-01-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=2
That is why I am repeating to the original OP, you run a serious risk of your tenancy being legally terminated in 12 months time, even if you win this RTB case and even if your landlord is very unprofessional and a chancer. My suggestion is to plan for what is going to happen in 9-12 months.
This is not a popularity contest, the OP has skin-in-the game and he is risking his place where he lives unlike many popular posters in this thread, he should be told what he is risking, instead of "he is getting a good deal" by going to RTB. In my opinion his tenancy beyond the 12 months horizon is seriously compromised given that on 01/02/2018 his part 4 rights end.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7F4D66320A5B7A3880257F5C00349E68
Look at this case. A reason has to be given.0 -
Advertisement
-
Claw Hammer wrote: »http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7F4D66320A5B7A3880257F5C00349E68
Look at this case. A reason has to be given.
Yes but any reason at all. "My dog doesn't like the colour of your shoes"' would suffice.
Edit: on reading the case you linked it actually says a reason does not have to be given, RTB found in favour of the LL, the tenant appealed but not on grounds of no reason given and the case was referred to another tribunal.0 -
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.
The landlord is in the wrong.
- max increase allowed is 4%
- earliest date he can look to give you a termination notice with any old reason is 01/02/18, which will be subject to 112 days notice period
The PRTB will rule in the tenant's favour. The tenant should 1) stay and 2) continue to pay 850E per month0 -
.Brooklyn Bewildered Window wrote: »Yes but any reason at all. "My dog doesn't like the colour of your shoes"' would suffice.
Edit: on reading the case you linked it actually says a reason does not have to be given, RTB found in favour of the LL, the tenant appealed but not on grounds of no reason given and the case was referred to another tribunal.
Where are you getting that nonsense from? Ther Court found the RTB had got the law wrong regarding not giving a reason.
From the case report:
Part 1: Issue
1. Must a notice of termination served on a ‘Part 4 tenant’ under s.34(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, as amended, state a reason for that termination?
11. Section 62(1) sits in Part 5. It requires that “A notice of termination to be valid shall…(e) if the duration of the tenancy is a period of more than 6 months, state (where the termination is by the landlord) the reason for the termination”. There is nothing in the Act of 2004 to suggest that this requirement does not apply to the notice of termination that is required under s.34(b).Thus the court’s answer to the question posed in the opening sentence of this judgment is that a notice of termination served on a ‘Part 4 tenant’ under s.34(b) of the Act of 2004 must state a reason for that termination.0 -
.
Where are you getting that nonsense from? Ther Court found the RTB had got the law wrong regarding not giving a reason.
From the case report:
Part 1: Issue
1. Must a notice of termination served on a ‘Part 4 tenant’ under s.34(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, as amended, state a reason for that termination?
11. Section 62(1) sits in Part 5. It requires that “A notice of termination to be valid shall…(e) if the duration of the tenancy is a period of more than 6 months, state (where the termination is by the landlord) the reason for the termination”. There is nothing in the Act of 2004 to suggest that this requirement does not apply to the notice of termination that is required under s.34(b).Thus the court’s answer to the question posed in the opening sentence of this judgment is that a notice of termination served on a ‘Part 4 tenant’ under s.34(b) of the Act of 2004 must state a reason for that termination.
I read it very quickly but took the below to mean that as the notice complied otherwise that the omission of a reason could be overlooked as a "slip or omission" and would not render a notice invalid. I may be wrong though as I only skimmed the details and read only the conclusion in detail.Should the Tenancy Tribunal so convened consider it proper to invoke s.64A of the Act of 2004 it may or may not wish to note this Court’s view that (a) the omission of the reason for the termination from the notice of termination of 18th June, 2014, has not resulted in any prejudice of the type described in s.64A(a) of the Act of 2004, and (b) apart from the omission of the reason for termination, the notice of termination of 18th June, 2014, appears otherwise to be in compliance with the Act of 2004; indeed the contrary appears never to have been pleaded by Ms Dunivya.0 -
Brooklyn Bewildered Window wrote: »I read it very quickly but took the below to mean that as the notice complied otherwise that the omission of a reason could be overlooked as a "slip or omission" and would not render a notice invalid. I may be wrong though as I only skimmed the details and read only the conclusion in detail.
You entirely missed the finding of the Court that a reason was required. You also said the tenant appealed on some other ground, which is utterly wrong. The court was only suggesting that the omission could be dealt with using the accidental slip rule. Legal judgments have to be read in their entirety, not just the last paragraph.0 -
Advertisement
-
LuckyLloyd wrote: »The landlord is in the wrong.
- max increase allowed is 4%
- earliest date he can look to give you a termination notice with any old reason is 01/02/18, which will be subject to 112 days notice period
The PRTB will rule in the tenant's favour. The tenant should 1) stay and 2) continue to pay 850E per month
Thats what i'll be doing. Better to have 12 months to vacate that 1 or 2 weeks.
So 850 + 4% = 884 right?0 -
Thats what i'll be doing. Better to have 12 months to vacate that 1 or 2 weeks.
So 850 + 4% = 884 right?
Based on your OP, assuming the correct notice was given (90 days) and for simplicity say the notice is sent on the third anniversary of the start of the tenancy.
The formula is R x (1 + 0.04 x t/m). t in this instance would be 36 months plus the 3 months notice and m would be 24 since it's the first rent review. This means the allowable increase is 6.5% or ~€55.0 -
Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »Based on your OP, assuming the correct notice was given (90 days) and for simplicity say the notice is sent on the third anniversary of the start of the tenancy.
The formula is R x (1 + 0.04 x t/m). t in this instance would be 36 months plus the 3 months notice and m would be 24 since it's the first rent review. This means the allowable increase is 6.5% or ~€55.
Threshold told me that if valid written rent review comes after 27/01/2017 then it's only max increase of 4% full stop. So 850 + 4% = 884 euro... but i'd settle at an even 50.0 -
Threshold told me that if valid written rent review comes after 27/01/2017 then it's only max increase of 4% full stop. So 850 + 4% = 884 euro... but i'd settle at an even 50.
Threshold are wrong, and not for the first time. The RTB examples are clear on the increase allowed, see example 1 for instance.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
Threshold told me that if valid written rent review comes after 27/01/2017 then it's only max increase of 4% full stop. So 850 + 4% = 884 euro... but i'd settle at an even 50.
Do not rely on information supplied by Threshold- they are on record (on RTE and elsewhere) supplying seriously dubious advice to tenants.0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »Do not rely on information supplied by Threshold- they are on record (on RTE and elsewhere) supplying seriously dubious advice to tenants.Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »Threshold are wrong, and not for the first time. The RTB examples are clear on the increase allowed, see example 1 for instance.
RTB will have a rent calculator up soon which will make things easier for tenants and landlords.
Threshold might not get all their facts straight but they are very helpful for tenants with concerns.0 -
-
But not if their facts are wrong and or misleading!
Exactly. In fact there's only one situation where 4% is the max increase allowed, that's the second (and subsequent) rent increase after the new law came in and only if the review and notice periods are on the same dates.
Example 1, an existing tenancy can only have a review 24 months after the last or the start of the tenancy. If there were a rent review two years ago with 28 days notice under the old law, i.e. review 31st Jan 2015, new rent 28th Feb, the next review is allowed 31st Jan 2017 with 90 days notice for new rent 1st May. That's 26 months between the two new rents. That allows for 4%*26/24 or 4.33% increase. If the tenancy started on 31st Jan 2015, the difference is 27 months between rent and increase allowed is 4.5%.
Example 2, new tenancy after introduction of cap. Say it starts today and an rent review is allowed in one year on 31st Jan 2018 with 90 days notice. That's a period of 15 months between start of tenancy and new rent. So the formula is 4%*15/12 which is 5% allowed increase.
Example 3, the only case where 4% is the max is when it's the second review.
3a. For an existing tenancy which has the first review today and second on 31st Jan 2018, the second new rent comes in on the same date in 2018 as the first new rent in 2017 so the formula is 4%*12/12 or 4% max.
3b. For a new tenancy starting today, first review is 31st Jan 2018 and second review is 31st Jan 2019 with both rents coming into force on the same date 90 days after the review. Again the formula would then be 4%*12/12 or 4% max.0 -
Sorry for your trouble OP but you are in a sticly situation.
The LL can only increas the rent 4% or maybe a bit more, even if there is a new tennant, make sure that he finds this out from the RTB.
From a LL's side it's very fustrating, he's been good to you in the past and kept the rent low. Now he's after been made a fool of by the goverment.
If he's had jacked up the rent each year to keep pace with inflation or market rates he's be OK but now for who knows how long he's locked in to below market rates while everybody lease is charging more and there is very little he can do about it.
If he see you as a good tennant who keeps the place well and pays on time that's OK you may get to stay. But as far as I know you are covered under the old part four rules. I a year he can ask you to leave with out a reason. That's changes undere the new rules but it may not apply to existing tennants, you need to check that!!!!
If you can win him over you'll be fine but if you can't he'll ask you go in a year (if he can). The thing is he can't increase the rent more that 4% then either so maybe you can convince him it's not worth the risk of a bad tennant moving in after you. Having to pay to have the place painted ......0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement