Landlord ending tenancy for renovation - can we leave earlier than the notice period

CruelCoin

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Because they've chosen to rent out the property and that gives some of their rights to the property away according to the law. So, if the renovations are not significant - and they're clearly not in this case - they can't chuck the tenant out.

We're not talking about putting in a new kettle.

Bath out, shower in, and the whole lot will need to be re-tiled, given that the existing probably no longer exist on the market.

What exactly is minor about that?

Quackster

CruelCoin wrote: »

We're not talking about putting in a new kettle.

Bath out, shower in, and the whole lot will need to be re-tiled, given that the existing probably no longer exist on the market.

What exactly is minor about that?

And replacing a bathroom requires a house to be vacated..?! :rolleyes:

LuckyLloyd

As posted earlier in the thread:

From the RTB website FAQS

HOW ?SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED? DOES A PROPERTY NEED TO BE TO QUALIFY FOR AN EXEMPTION?
A ?substantial change? must be a significant change to the dwelling resulting in increased market value of the tenancy. Therefore this would involve significant alterations or improvements which add to the letting value of the property ? this may include, among other things, building works or works requiring planning permission. For example, simple repainting or replacement of white goods would not be sufficient.

https://www.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones/faqs

CruelCoin wrote: »

We're not talking about putting in a new kettle.

Bath out, shower in, and the whole lot will need to be re-tiled, given that the existing probably no longer exist on the market.

What exactly is minor about that?

Landlord has no right to remove a tenant for such works. It's an inconvenience, sure, but not a substantial change.

GGTrek

Quackster wrote: »

CruelCoin wrote: »

We're not talking about putting in a new kettle.

Bath out, shower in, and the whole lot will need to be re-tiled, given that the existing probably no longer exist on the market.

What exactly is minor about that?

And replacing a bathroom requires a house to be vacated..?! :rolleyes:

Again in this forum, opinions are spouted without looking at the reality and law. Yes replacing a bathroom is a proper reason to issue a termination notice (again tested at RTB myself). These are the reasons:
1) Section 6 of the Housing Standards Regulations 2008 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2008/si/534/made/en/print  which states:

 6. (1) There shall be provided within the habitable area of the house, for the exclusive use of the house:
(a) A watercloset, with dedicated wash hand basin adjacent thereto with a continuous supply of cold water and a facility for the piped supply of hot water, and
(b) A fixed bath or shower with continuous supply of cold water and a facility for the piped supply of hot water.

So first of all if the landlord does not provide a bathroom to a tenant is in breach of Section 6.

Second it is an obligation of the landlord to perform repairs that are necessary Section 12(1)(b) of the RTA:

2.—(1) In addition to the obligations arising by or under any other enactment, a landlord of a dwelling shall—
       
(b) subject to subsection (2), carry out to—
       
(i) the structure of the dwelling all such repairs as are, from time to time, necessary and ensure that the structure complies with any standards for houses for the time being prescribed under section 18 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992 , and

(ii) the interior of the dwelling all such repairs and replacement of fittings as are, from time to time, necessary so that that interior and those fittings are maintained in, at least, the condition in which they were at the commencement of the tenancy and in compliance with any such standards for the time being prescribed,

notice the underlined section where the Standard regulations linked above applies, so the landlord has not got a choice, it is an OBLIGATION!

Third Section 34 of the RTA 2004-2016 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/enacted/en/print#sec34):

 5. The landlord intends to substantially refurbish or renovate the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling in a way which requires the dwelling to be vacated for that purpose (and, where planning permission is required for the carrying out of that refurbishment or renovation, that permission has been obtained) and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—
(a) specifying the nature of the intended works, 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 becomes available for reletting, 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.

There were many discussions in this forum about what constitutes "substantially refurbish", I shall tell you how this rule is applied in practice by adjudicators, it is a very simple questions: WOULD THE DWELLING BE LIVEABLE/HABITABLE WHILE THE REFURBISHMENT/REPAIRS HAPPEN? They would of course consider the length of the repairs. The obvious answer is that a dwelling is NOT habitable without a bathroom (it is a pretty fundamental part of any dwelling).

In addition as other posters can see from Section 34 there is no obligation for a landlord to use a contractor (although it would be wise to do so) or request planning permission to repair a bathroom, but this does not mean that section 34 table 5 does not apply!

Try to check how long it takes to completely remodel a decent size bathroom in practice (done it several times, but you might be ignorant of the reality): https://www.thespruce.com/how-long-to-remodel-small-bathroom-1821360

The article says 23 working days, but I would say that even for a tiny bathroom never took my contractors less than a week, now ask yourself: "Can I reasonably live in an apartment or a house with no bathroom for a full week?". Now try to make the same question to an adjudicator (usually a solicitor with practice in law) and see what the answer is.

[RANT START]
So your "smart" exclamatory sentence does not have any foundation in law and in practice. As I said previously I am sick of posters in this forum spouting opinions with no foundations that might have very adverse effects on the OP, as of late I only enter the forum to stop the most egregious examples like this one. People spout short and "smart" sentences without stopping and thinking a bit about all the details and difficulties of the task of repairing/refurbishing, in this way oversimplifying and diminishing the value of the people performing the task: this is what Irish politicians do so well. [RANT CLOSED]

Quackster

GGTrek wrote: »

[RANT START]
So your "smart" exclamatory sentence does not have any foundation in law and in practice. As I said previously I am sick of posters in this forum spouting opinions with no foundations that might have very adverse effects on the OP, as of late I only enter the forum to stop the most egregious examples like this one. People spout short and "smart" sentences without stopping and thinking a bit about all the details and difficulties of the task of repairing/refurbishing, in this way oversimplifying and diminishing the value of the people performing the task: this is what Irish politicians do so well. [RANT CLOSED]

My point stands. I completely replaced the main bathroom in my house recently and it didn't inconvenience me so much that I had to move out of my house for the duration of the works.

I can understand from a legal perspective why the RTB would side with a landlord on this matter but I think that a landlord who uses bathroom refurbishment to kick out their tenants is a person of very poor character.

CruelCoin

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Landlord has no right to remove a tenant for such works. It's an inconvenience, sure, but not a substantial change.

Really?

I'd hate to see your idea of "substantial"....Demolition of half the house?

runawaybishop

Quackster wrote: »

My point stands. I completely replaced the main bathroom in my house recently and it didn't inconvenience me so much that I had to move out of my house for the duration of the works.

I can understand from a legal perspective why the RTB would side with a landlord on this matter but I think that a landlord who uses bathroom refurbishment to kick out their tenants is a person of very poor character.

Depends how many bathrooms are in the house.

gizmo81

The landlord completely replaced our bathroom over a weekend, including all new tiles floor and ceiling and new suite. We were resident.

<quote snipped: please don't quote lengthy posts as it makes it difficult for mobile readers>

seamus

GGTrek is right here.

For the avoidance of confusion, The reason for the termination is valid because the nature of the works will render the property uninhabitable for their duration. There will be no water and no toilet facilities, therefore the property is uninhabitable.

The landlord is not obliged to provide the name of any contractors nor the duration of the works for this kind of notice. (Edited)

seamus

Quackster wrote: »

My point stands. I completely replaced the main bathroom in my house recently and it didn't inconvenience me so much that I had to move out of my house for the duration of the works.

gizmo81 wrote: »

The landlord completely replaced our bathroom over a weekend, including all new tiles floor and ceiling and new suite. We were resident.

And we had to get ours done, whole suite replaced, room retiled, it took the guts of a week and we had to move out, because perhaps shockingly, you can't live in a house that has no toilet, no water and no heating.

Your experiences and willingness to take your sh1ts down the local pub are somewhat irrelevant. A house without water is not an habitable rental property.

Quackster

seamus wrote: »

- The reason for the termination is valid because the nature of the works will render the property uninhabitable for their duration. There will be no water and no toilet facilities, therefore the property is uninhabitable. .

There will be water, except in the bathroom being renovated. Whether there are toilet facilities depends on whether there is another toilet in the house, which the OP didn't specify.

gizmo81

There's no need to be rude. I am explaining my experience.

We had water. We poured a bucket down the loo as advised by the landlord.

seamus wrote: »

And we had to get ours done, whole suite replaced, room retiled, it took the guts of a week and we had to move out, because perhaps shockingly, you can't live in a house that has no toilet, no water and no heating.

Your experiences and willingness to take your sh1ts down the local pub are somewhat irrelevant. A house without water is not an habitable rental property.

seamus

Quackster wrote: »

There will be water, except in the bathroom being renovated. Whether there are toilet facilities depends on whether there is another toilet in the house, which the OP didn't specify.

Well you don't actually know that unless you've been in there and seen the plumbing. Depending on where it was fitted and by whom, there may indeed be no valves that can isolate the room sufficiently. Or part of the works may involve replacing the valves, which requires the water to be shut off at a higher level.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what is and isn't required for a house you know nothing about.

howayahorse

seamus wrote: »

GGTrek is right here.

For the avoidance of confusion;

- The reason for the termination is valid because the nature of the works will render the property uninhabitable for their duration. There will be no water and no toilet facilities, therefore the property is uninhabitable.

- The landlord is not obliged to provide the name of any contractors nor the duration of the works for this kind of notice.

The RTB have advised that a valid notice should include the duration and contractor name in the case that no planning permission is required.

gizmo81

Refurbishment/Renovation
You must be given a copy of
the planning permission if it is required and, where this is not the case, details of the work, the contractor if relevant and the dates and expected duration of the works.

http://www.threshold.ie/download/pdf/thresholdending_a_tenancy.pdf

Quackster

seamus wrote: »

Well you don't actually know that unless you've been in there and seen the plumbing. Depending on where it was fitted and by whom, there may indeed be no valves that can isolate the room sufficiently. Or part of the works may involve replacing the valves, which requires the water to be shut off at a higher level.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what is and isn't required for a house you know nothing about.

At most, water would have to be shut off for a short period to isolate the works, something that would cause minimal inconvenience.

seamus

howayahorse wrote: »

The RTB have advised that a valid notice should include the duration and contractor name in the case that no planning permission is required.

My bad, I missed that part, it's added into a separate section of the act. What a mess that legislation is.

Any road, the reason for the termination is fine, but it would appear that the notice is in fact invalid, probably because he did a copy/paste from the RTB site, which is apparently out of date.

So I'd bull on with the appeal, but start looking for somewhere else to live anyway.

crossmolinalad

seamus wrote: »

And we had to get ours done, whole suite replaced, room retiled, it took the guts of a week and we had to move out, because perhaps shockingly, you can't live in a house that has no toilet, no water and no heating.

Your experiences and willingness to take your sh1ts down the local pub are somewhat irrelevant. A house without water is not an habitable rental property.

Ours is done in three days
They started on Monday morning and were done on Wednesday evening
Got back a complete clean house done by landlord and his wife
Landlord organized also for the Monday evening a B&B for us
Next week we get a new kitchen and will take another 3 days
For two days we can go take a reasonable dinner paid by landlord
So a week for a bathroom is stupid were lazy builders or they did things somewhere else in between the job

Quackster

crossmolinalad wrote: »

Ours is done in three days
They started on Monday morning and were done on Wednesday evening
Got back a complete clean house done by landlord and his wife
Landlord organized also for the Monday evening a B&B for us
Next week we get a new kitchen and will take another 3 days
For two days we can go take a reasonable dinner paid by landlord
So a week for a bathroom is stupid were lazy builders or they did things somewhere else in between the job

No two bathrooms are the same and the 'under-the-hood' work required can vary a lot so a week would definitely not be out of the question.

howayahorse

crossmolinalad wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

And we had to get ours done, whole suite replaced, room retiled, it took the guts of a week and we had to move out, because perhaps shockingly, you can't live in a house that has no toilet, no water and no heating.

Your experiences and willingness to take your sh1ts down the local pub are somewhat irrelevant. A house without water is not an habitable rental property.

Ours is done in three days
They started on Monday morning and were done on Wednesday evening
Got back a complete clean house done by landlord and his wife
Landlord organized also for the Monday evening a B&B for us
Next week we get a new kitchen and will take another 3 days
For two days we can go take a reasonable dinner paid by landlord
So a week for a bathroom is stupid were lazy builders or they did things somewhere else in between the job

Wow! My landlord is the polar opposite,  She has been really unreasonable. Manipulated a situation to encourage me to stay at the last rent review and then took a year to complete some simple improvements that I negotiated on that would bring the value of the property closer to what she wanted to charge for it. One of them is still outstanding.
I decided to tolerate it now that I had rent security with the new rules but she is clearly trying to dodge it with this bathroom renovation. All this despite telling me I'm the model tenant. (I am by the way! but the way she has treated me makes me feel like I should be more demanding of my next landlord and not let any minor repairs requirements slip etc.)
A dispute isn't going to do anything except buy me time. My first Part 4 tenancy comes to an end in October and I'm guessing she will ask me to leave then as a result of the dispute. But I want to proceed with the dispute just to stand up to her and fight for what I'm entitled to even if it is short lived.

GGTrek

Again a lot of small misinterpretations of the law in this thread. A cost estimate and a schedule of the work done by a contractor will be very helpful at an RTB hearing, but in no way they have to be included in the notice to be valid. It is none of the business of the tenant to know how and how much the work will cost. The RTA states IF contractor is used. What the landlord needs to provide is a conservative estimate for the time needed for the renovation and is not obliged in any way to provide alternative accommodation, he just has to discount the pro-rated rent for the full period of the renovations. Only this period has to be stated in the notice and the offer to give back the dwelling to the same tenants. In effect this is the only piece of information that is important to the tenants. Who is the contractor performing or if the refurbishment requires planning permission is none of the tenant's business.

A word of warning to the "smart" tenants that raise RTB adjudications on a correct and valid termination notice: you are seriously risking a counterclaim for damages (check the RTB procedures booklets) which is very cheap for a landlord to raise (15 eur and raised online) and very convenient since the counterclaim adjudication hearing will happen at exactly the same time as the tenant's claim so no extra time and money will be spent by landlord to raise and attend.

For example a "smart" tenant that decided to create problems at the RTB with a big renovation planned well in advance will cause the landlord extra costs with the delays. Who do you think will pay for the delay at the RTB counterclaim adjudication?
If the tenant is working he has a lot to loose and he better think well about being too "smart". Clearly this does not apply to HAP and rent allowance tenants since they are penniless, which is why many landlords don't want them as tenants. Call it discrimination but for me it is just risk reduction. Nothing to do with the person, the system is just too stack in favour of this type of tenants. A bank does not lend money to penniless non-working people, why should the law/state force house owners to lend a house/apartment to the same type of people: this is hypocrisy of the highest order from the Irish govvie. If the Irish govvie was serious to help this type of tenants it would have to put its money where its mouth is: guarantee rent and damages done by this type of tenants. Instead in their typical hipocrite ways they just passed a feel good law on "discrimination" which did not cost them a penny and it looks good on the media.

A suggestion to the OP to smooth things out instead of going to RTB (which is a lot of stress for all parties involved): negotiate a big rent reduction for the period left in your part 4 tenancy due to all the hassle the renovation work will cause you and if you do not like the landlord start investigating the possibility of alternative accommodation. Best of luck in any case.

davindub

<quote snipped: please don't quote lengthy posts as it makes it difficult for mobile readers>

As you have claimed to have tested this at the RTB, perhaps you can link to the case, that way those of us who are sceptical can be certain.