Eviction Notice

lpool2k05

My sister has been renting a house for the past 3 and a half years..Today she received a letter which stated she will be evicted in 84 days so the house can be renovated. No timeline or explanation of whats been renovated was in the letter. Her rent is 1450 at the moment. It went up by 50 euro in January 2016.

She wasnt told how long these renovations will take but she is aware she will have first choice when the house becomes available again but only at the market rate of around 1700-2000 a month.

Whats her rights in this situation?Could it be a ploy to increase the rent to the current market rate?

Thanks for any help

Paulw

lpool2k05 wrote: »

Whats her rights in this situation?Could it be a ploy to increase the rent to the current market rate?

No, the landlord MUST make major renovations to increase the rent to market rate. If they don't then the previous could and should lodge a complaint with the RTB.

cronos

Paulw wrote: »

No, the landlord MUST make major renovations to increase the rent to market rate. If they don't then the previous could and should lodge a complaint with the RTB.

Define major

Paulw

cronos wrote: »

Define major

http://www.rtb.ie/media-research/news-centre/latest-news

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/34/enacted/en/html

Michael D Not Higgins

The notice of termination must also contain details about the renovations including the contractor involved (if any) and whether or not planning permission is required (and copy of same). Without these the notice is invalid and you would have grounds for a dispute.

Lux23

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The notice of termination must also contain details about the renovations including the contractor involved (if any) and whether or not planning permission is required (and copy of same). Without these the notice is invalid and you would have grounds for a dispute.

That's interesting. What if the landlord is a builder?

Lux23

Lux23 wrote: »

That's interesting. What if the landlord is a builder?

Or doing the work DIY in the evenings/weekends.

Paulw

No matter who the landlord is, or what they plan to do, they must meet the requirements as set out in the legislation.

jimmycrackcorm

Lisa Thankful Switch wrote:

Or doing the work DIY in the evenings/weekends.

The builder being the landlord is irrelevant if there is before and after evidence of renovations.

garhjw

Is the RTB actually going to inspect properties where evictions have been made for the purposes of renovations?

Renovations are the only reason I have ever had to evict tenants - rewiring, re plumbing, insulating etc - but nobody ever checked up on us to see if we actually did the work.

I find it hard to believe the RTB has the competence to manage this

the_syco

garhjw wrote: »

I find it hard to believe the RTB has the competence to manage this

I think it's up to the tenants to supply proof that said renovations didn't happen.

GGTrek

the_syco wrote: »

garhjw wrote: »

I find it hard to believe the RTB has the competence to manage this

I think it's up to the tenants to supply proof that said renovations didn't happen.

This is not how the RTB works and you are providing wrong advice. In such case the tenant just has to present in the initial dispute petition for invalid notice of termination the section 34 termination notice where the landlord himself/herself stated that he/she was going to perform works in the dwelling. It is then up (as always in the biased RTB world even when tenants accusations are totally up in the air, which is not this case) to the landlord to present evidence that he is planning the works or he has started/completed the works. For example photographs of the works and invoices for material (in DIY case this would be enough), in case a building company is hired then in addition to photographs of the works, invoices or building contracts would be acceptable evidence.

Again if the OP decides to go the RTB way, he/she will be unlikely to get the place back especially after she is out of the door, it is a very confrontational and expensive (for the landlord) way to deal with the landlord that will break any type of business relationship you had with him/her. The go-to-RTB-first brigade folks here have mostly no skin-in-the-game and little knowledge of the RTB process that is why they come up with such high-risk suggestions.

OP, my suggestion is to take a more diplomatic way: your sister should call her landlord or his/her agent, discuss openly with them all the questions that were put in the first post even the new rent level (which is likely going to be higher if the renovation is "substantial"). I mean the landlord would spend a good deal of money to renovate your sister place, why shouldn't he be expected to recoup over the years part of his investment (which your sister would be benefiting from) through higher rent.

GGTrek

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The notice of termination must also contain details about the renovations including the contractor involved (if any) and whether or not planning permission is required (and copy of same). Without these the notice is invalid and you would have grounds for a dispute.

Again, there is absolutely no need in law to provide the name of the contractor even if the landlord is planning to use one. This is a matter between the landlord and the contractor and none of the business of the tenant. The lanldord has only got to provide a brief description of the works and why the works will make the dwelling unsuitable for living. This is enough for the termination notice to be valid.

I point you to:
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/landlord-intends-to-substantially-refurbish-or-renovate.pdf?sfvrsn=2

And there are contact conditions for the tenant to compy with as well and if tenant decides to take landlord to RTB, the landlord will not be willing to re-let the dwelling which is one of the conditions to provide it back to the original tenant:
"The  following  works  will  be  carried  out:  (for  example- The  renovation  work  involves  a  total replacement  of  internal  plumbing  which  will  require  the  water  supply  to  be  shut  off  for  the foreseeable future.  Planning permission is not required for these renovations.
The landlord will offer you the opportunity to re-occupy the dwelling if:
(a) the dwelling becomes available for re-let;
(b) the tenancy to which this notice relates has not otherwise been validly terminated by reason of a
ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of the Table to section 34 of the 2004 to 2015 Acts;
(c) you provide your contact details to the landlord within 28 days from the
service of this notice or the final determination of a dispute referred to the Board relating to the validity of this notice; and
(d) you notify the landlord as soon as possible of any change in your contact details."

Hopefully the OP'sister will undestand that the RTB should be the last option and probably not very effective at all in such case and start an amicable discussion with his/her landlord.

76544567

Porter Helpful Stutterer wrote: »

Or doing the work DIY in the evenings/weekends.

Some time ago I put new floors down throughout an apartment and I replaced the kitchen.
I did all of this over a number of weeks between myself and a friend in the evenings.
Id like to see someone tell me those werent major renovations.

I wouldnt do it nowadays, even if I was staying as a property investor, as the major expense is not recoverable anymore, so it probably wouldnt.

And tbh if I was doing that type of renovation I would only be doing it for the purposes of short term letting afterwards, so effectively the property would be coming off the rental market, even the offering back to the tenant afterwards clause wouldnt be coming up.

Michael D Not Higgins

GGTrek wrote: »

Again, there is absolutely no need in law to provide the name of the contractor even if the landlord is planning to use one. This is a matter between the landlord and the contractor and none of the business of the tenant. The lanldord has only got to provide a brief description of the works and why the works will make the dwelling unsuitable for living. This is enough for the termination notice to be valid.

I point you to:
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/landlord-intends-to-substantially-refurbish-or-renovate.pdf?sfvrsn=2

And there are contact conditions for the tenant to compy with as well and if tenant decides to take landlord to RTB, the landlord will not be willing to re-let the dwelling which is one of the conditions to provide it back to the original tenant:
"The  following  works  will  be  carried  out:  (for  example- The  renovation  work  involves  a  total replacement  of  internal  plumbing  which  will  require  the  water  supply  to  be  shut  off  for  the foreseeable future.  Planning permission is not required for these renovations.
The landlord will offer you the opportunity to re-occupy the dwelling if:
(a) the dwelling becomes available for re-let;
(b) the tenancy to which this notice relates has not otherwise been validly terminated by reason of a
ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of the Table to section 34 of the 2004 to 2015 Acts;
(c) you provide your contact details to the landlord within 28 days from the
service of this notice or the final determination of a dispute referred to the Board relating to the validity of this notice; and
(d) you notify the landlord as soon as possible of any change in your contact details."

Hopefully the OP'sister will undestand that the RTB should be the last option and probably not very effective at all in such case and start an amicable discussion with his/her landlord.

You might want to read your own link again. It clearly states the conditions on making the contractor.

GGTrek

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You might want to read your own link again. It clearly states the conditions on making the contractor.

Please quote me the paragraph in section 34 and/or in the RTB interpretation and sample notice where it is stated that name of contractor is necessary to make the termination notice valid. Only if planning permission is required, then name of contractor might be required, but by the planning permission conditions not by RTA.

4ensic15

76544567 wrote: »

Some time ago I put new floors down throughout an apartment and I replaced the kitchen.
I did all of this over a number of weeks between myself and a friend in the evenings.
Id like to see someone tell me those werent major renovations.

I wouldnt do it nowadays, even if I was staying as a property investor, as the major expense is not recoverable anymore, so it probably wouldnt.

And tbh if I was doing that type of renovation I would only be doing it for the purposes of short term letting afterwards, so effectively the property would be coming off the rental market, even the offering back to the tenant afterwards clause wouldnt be coming up.

These weren't major renovations. they could be carried out while a person was living in the property. the are upgrades rather than renovations. A tenant could have, on receipt of notification that these works were to be carried out have complained to the RTB that these were not major works on that basis. The reason the works have to be itemised is to enable the RTB to assess the scale of the proposed works. In the event of a dispute the landlord will have to show that he was genuinely proposing to do the works and the scale of the works was such that vacant possession was required. A landlord saying that he was going to do the works DIY over several weeks is most unlikely to impress the RTB.

sydthebeat

GGTrek wrote: »

Please quote me the paragraph in section 34 and/or in the RTB interpretation and sample notice where it is stated that name of contractor is necessary to make the termination notice valid. Only if planning permission is required, then name of contractor might be required, but by the planning permission conditions not by RTA.

You should read it again.

It's quite clear.

76544567

4ensic15 wrote: »

These weren't major renovations. they could be carried out while a person was living in the property. the are upgrades rather than renovations. A tenant could have, on receipt of notification that these works were to be carried out have complained to the RTB that these were not major works on that basis. The reason the works have to be itemised is to enable the RTB to assess the scale of the proposed works. In the event of a dispute the landlord will have to show that he was genuinely proposing to do the works and the scale of the works was such that vacant possession was required. A landlord saying that he was going to do the works DIY over several weeks is most unlikely to impress the RTB.

Proof that these weren't major works and that I was not allowed to do them myself?
And that the tenant could have stayed while.they were going on?
Not that I would do anything like that ever again since there is no way to recover the money spent anymore. And I certainly wouldn't be swallowing the cost of getting a contractor in to do them.

4ensic15

76544567 wrote: »

Proof that these weren't major works and that I was not allowed to do them myself?
And that the tenant could have stayed while.they were going on?
Not that I would do anything like that ever again since there is no way to recover the money spent anymore. And I certainly wouldn't be swallowing the cost of getting a contractor in to do them.

It would be up to you to prove they were major works, not the tenant to disprove it. The indicia of major works have to be adduced by the landlord. Not having a contractor and doing the work part time leads to an inference that the works aren't major. This whole farce will lead to landlords not making upgrades during the tenancy so they can have a periodic "major renovation" enabling them to get rid of the tenant and break free from the rent cap.

76544567

There's far too much scaremongering getting going on about the RTB. It's mentioned in every second post how they'll come and get ya when it gets dark.
There should be a way to challenge them.on their unfair treatment of landlords, but there isn't. No landlord can afford to take them.on, so it's always going to be a case of fear mongering.

Also a someone should be able to go to them and get pre-adjudication.
For example, "I intend to ask the tenant to leave on these grounds, please adjudicate now, in advance, so we all know where we stand and aren't living in fear of overholding while the RTB take six months to go with whichever way the wind is blowing that day."

Michael D Not Higgins

GGTrek wrote: »

Please quote me the paragraph in section 34 and/or in the RTB interpretation and sample notice where it is stated that name of contractor is necessary to make the termination notice valid. Only if planning permission is required, then name of contractor might be required, but by the planning permission conditions not by RTA.

It's in your link, but the requisite part is section 35 as amended.

76544567

4ensic15 wrote: »

It would be up to you to prove they were major works, not the tenant to disprove it. The indicia of major works have to be adduced by the landlord. Not having a contractor and doing the work part time leads to an inference that the works aren't major. This whole farce will lead to landlords not making upgrades during the tenancy so they can have a periodic "major renovation" enabling them to get rid of the tenant and break free from the rent cap.

So that's a no proof then.
But you are right. Landlords will never make any updates to property anymore. They won't get the money back. They won't even upgrade them between tenancies once the rent is locked.
If they don't sell they will.probably.just strip a property to the bare minimum and put it on the market at their govt reduced max and say there you go, that's what you get for market rate minus 25% that I'm.stuck charging. Take it or leave it. And you'll get your electric heating and your job fixed etc if it breaks, but everything else is as seen.
It is a farce alright.
It was predicted long ago in other threads here, with examples of what happened when rent controls came in elsewhere. I think a poster called murphaph posted examples and predicted it pretty well spot on.
I can see it happening already with people I've spoken too who are not getting out of property investment at this stage.

GGTrek

sydthebeat wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

Please quote me the paragraph in section 34 and/or in the RTB interpretation and sample notice where it is stated that name of contractor is necessary to make the termination notice valid. Only if planning permission is required, then name of contractor might be required,  but by the planning permission conditions not by RTA.

You should read it again.

It's quite clear.

Yes it is quite clear:
"Where planning permission is not required the following must be provided
The name of the contractor, if any, employed to carry out the intended works"
So I stand to what I said, a landlord might not know the name of the contractor when he is planning to perform the renovation works, the RTA does not request such explicit information and the RTB adjudicator would be a fool to request such information in the termination notice in order to be deemed valid. What the RTB adjudicator can ask is contractor invoces or cost estimates as evidence as I said in previous post to prove that works have been effectively performed. Remember that termination notice might preceed the actual works by many months, so even evidence of serious issues for example of the water plumbing of the dwelling would be enough evidence without any contractor name before the works start, in such case Housing Regulations 2008-2009 would provide a strong support to the landlord case to terminate.

Michael D Not Higgins

GGTrek wrote: »

Yes it is quite clear:
"Where planning permission is not required the following must be provided
The name of the contractor, if any, employed to carry out the intended works"
So I stand to what I said, a landlord might not know the name of the contractor when he is planning to perform the renovation works, the RTA does not request such explicit information and the RTB adjudicator would be a fool to request such information in the termination notice in order to be deemed valid. What the RTB adjudicator can ask is contractor invoces or cost estimates as evidence as I said in previous post to prove that works have been effectively performed. Remember that termination notice might preceed the actual works by many months, so even evidence of serious issues for example of the water plumbing of the dwelling would be enough evidence without any contractor name before the works start, in such case Housing Regulations 2008-2009 would provide a strong support to the landlord case to terminate.

That's a clear climb down from your first post and I do accept a contractor's name isn't always required as I did use the "if any" qualifier in my first post.

GGTrek

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That's a clear climb down from your first post and I do accept a contractor's name isn't always required as I did use the "if any" qualifier in my first post.

I agree you posted it, but your initial explanation was too short and giving no background information. I shall also add that the RTB link is just the interpretation of the law provided by an RTB officer, which might not match determination orders on such matter.
There is no mention in section 34 and in section 35 as well about contractor's name, so the RTB putting the contractor name statement in that link is stretching the law and I guarantee you from personal experience that no contractor name is necessary in a termination notice for refurbishment when you have a surveyor report that states that the dwelling needs repairs, RTB adjudicator refusing validity of termination in such case would expose the RTB itself to damage claims if it refused termination notice validity on such spurious notion that the contractor name was required in the termination notice.
So for all practical purposes (which is what matters): a contractor's name is not a requirement for a termination notice according to section 34 ground of termination 5 to be deemed valid.

Michael D Not Higgins

GGTrek wrote: »

I agree you posted it, but your initial explanation was too short and giving no background information. I shall also add that the RTB link is just the interpretation of the law provided by an RTB officer, which might not match determination orders on such matter.
There is no mention in section 34 and in section 35 as well about contractor's name, so the RTB putting the contractor name statement in that link is stretching the law and I guarantee you from personal experience that no contractor name is necessary in a termination notice for refurbishment when you have a surveyor report that states that the dwelling needs repairs, RTB adjudicator refusing validity of termination in such case would expose the RTB itself to damage claims if it refused termination notice validity on such spurious notion that the contractor name was required in the termination notice.
So for all practical purposes (which is what matters): a contractor's name is not a requirement for a termination notice according to section 34 ground of termination 5 to be deemed valid.

Again, section 35 as amended in 2015 does require the contractor's name if any for major renovations. Stop strawmanning the argument, your initial position as stated on this thread was shown to be wrong, I'm not arguing your moved goalposts position.

garhjw

If you have to give a tenant 6 or even 12 months notice, how can you know who the contractor will be? <mod snip>

Michael D Not Higgins

Okay, going round in circles now. OP, if you need any more advice please pm me or one of the other mods to reopen this thread.