RTB publish their views on repeal of section 42

Fian

https://www.rtb.ie/search-results/news/article/2017/01/19/further-changes-to-policy-and-the-law

this seems to have been published some time ago but i have not seen it in this forum.

It seems the RTB are clear on their view of the implications of the repeal of Section 42:

Terminating a Further Part 4 tenancy has changed since 17th January 2017. Where a landlord is seeking to terminate a Further Part 4 tenancy in the first six months (the probationary period), they will be required to rely upon one of the Section 34 grounds (the fixed term lease termination restrictions continue to apply). Prior to this change a landlord could terminate a Further Part 4 in the first 6 months without providing a reason.

For ease of reference the section 34 grounds are:

The landlord can end a Part 4 tenancy only in the following circumstances:

If you do not comply with the obligations of the tenancy
If the property is no longer suited to your needs (for example, if it is overcrowded)
If the landlord intends to sell the property within 3 months (however, if the landlord plans to sell 10 or more dwellings in a development within a 6-month period, he must show that the market value with a sitting tenant is over 20% below the market value with vacant possession, and that preventing him from terminating the tenancy would be unduly onerous on him or would cause him undue hardship)
or for the following 3 specific reasons:

If the landlord needs the property for their own use or for an immediate family member (this only applies to private landlords)
If the landlord intends to refurbish the property substantially
If the landlord plans to change the business use of the property (for example, convert it to office use)
See 'Notice of termination' below for more details.

At first glance this would appear to mean that in their view all part IV tenancies, including ones which were in existence before the 2016 amendments, have become indefinite, except in the section 34 circumstances. However sperately they state:

Preventing a further Part 4 tenancy

If your landlord wishes to stop a further Part 4 tenancy coming into existence, they may serve a notice during the original Part 4 tenancy, with the notice period expiring on or after the end of the tenancy. A notice served in this way should provide a reason for termination. The reason does not need to be one of the valid grounds for terminating a Part 4 tenancy.

this means that if you want to prevent a part 4 tenancy from rolling over you must serve a notice before the first has expired but with the notice expiring after the second has commenced. It will be absolutely vital that this notice is valid in all respects or you might find yourself out of time to restart.

You would wonder what was the point in changing the rule that further part 4 can't be stopped in the first 6 months when you can just end the tenancy anyway before the further part 4 comes into existence.

I know some people were under the impression that a tenancy can't be ended at all but at least this confirms it once and for all that tenancies can still be ended for any reason at the end of a part 4 cycle. It would be insane to have a situation where a LL can't end a tenancy every few years if he feels like it, 6 years is far too long too the original 4 years for part 4 was a much fairer system.

Browney7

Erin Thundering Gold wrote: »

You would wonder what was the point in changing the rule that further part 4 can't be stopped in the first 6 months when you can just end the tenancy anyway before the further part 4 comes into existence.

I know some people were under the impression that a tenancy can't be ended at all but at least this confirms it once and for all that tenancies can still be ended for any reason at the end of a part 4 cycle. It would be insane to have a situation where a LL can't end a tenancy every few years if he feels like it, 6 years is far too long too the original 4 years for part 4 was a much fairer system.

But if a tenant is fulfilling their obligations and not causing trouble and seeing as by law you can't charge the next tenant more what's the justification for ending the tenancy if you wish to continue in business? Would it be just because you feel like changing it up?
Would imagine many landlords would snap your hand off for a trouble free tenant for ten years?

Browney7

Browney7 wrote: »

But if a tenant is fulfilling their obligations and not causing trouble and seeing as by law you can't charge the next tenant more what's the justification for ending the tenancy if you wish to continue in business? Would it be just because you feel like changing it up?
Would imagine many landlords would snap your hand off for a trouble free tenant for ten years?

The longer people are there the more they will feel it's their house and the greater the chance of over holding etc so changing tenants every so often may be less risky. Also it's only rent pressure zones you can't up the rent as much as you want and even that is unlikely to last long term as once it's challenged it will have to be abolished.

Leaving all that aside the fact is there should be an avenue for a person to retake control of their property just because they feel like it.

Graham

Erin Thundering Gold wrote: »

The longer people are there the more they will feel it's their house and the greater the chance of over holding etc so changing tenants every so often may be less risky. Also it's only rent pressure zones you can't up the rent as much as you want and even that is unlikely to last long term as once it's challenged it will have to be abolished.

I'm not entirely convinced occurrences of over holding increase with the length of tenancy.

mdebets

Erin Thundering Gold wrote: »

The longer people are there the more they will feel it's their house and the greater the chance of over holding etc so changing tenants every so often may be less risky.

I would say it's the opposite. People are more likely to overhold, if they think they are trested unfairly, e.g. thrown out for no good reason. You also increase the risk that your new tenants are stop paying rent or destroying your property. Less likely if they are already staying there for 4 or 6 years.

GGTrek

Browney7 wrote: »

Erin Thundering Gold wrote: »

You would wonder what was the point in changing the rule that further part 4 can't be stopped in the first 6 months when you can just end the tenancy anyway before the further part 4 comes into existence.

I know some people were under the impression that a tenancy can't be ended at all but at least this confirms it once and for all that tenancies can still be ended for any reason at the end of a part 4 cycle. It would be insane to have a situation where a LL can't end a tenancy every few years if he feels like it, 6 years is far too long too the original 4 years for part 4 was a much fairer system.

But if a tenant is fulfilling their obligations and not causing trouble and seeing as by law you can't charge the next tenant more what's the justification for ending the tenancy if you wish to continue in business? Would it be just because you feel like changing it up?
Would imagine many landlords would snap your hand off for a trouble free tenant for ten years?

Section 34(b) is the last real right left to landlords in the RTA. It is not questionable by the the tenant and the pro-tenant adjudicators who believe me even try to negotiate longer termination periods on behalf of the tenants when they see these notices

The RTA has became a tenants charter, this charter is only broken by section 34(b) nowadays (before there was section 42) and only after 6 very long years. In my opinion most tenants don't care about their responsibilities of section 16, if they pay the rent it is extremely difficult to evict a tenant for breaking even repeatedly section 16 obligations. This means that a tenant causes major headaches to landlord and believes the law allows him to be very irresponsible (which is true). Let's not talk about how difficult it is to evict for antisocial behaviour that does not fall in the criminal sphere (section 17(c)), the landlord will need to register, cctv, get witnesses (neighbours or other tenants willing to go to personally to RTB), ... prove that repeated written warnings were provided, be subject to appeal and it is going to take 6 months to a year if the tenant digs in. In the meantime the good tenants and neighbours will suffer due to the pro-bad-tenant law and adjudicators.

With section 34(b) there is no such discussion: tenant behaved badly or was irresponsible: you simply say "get out".

However for the smartest tenants I always provide in the notice a full list of reasons of all the s..t they have done since the start of the tenancy, since they tend to forget it and some of them behave all uppity when they receive the termination notice. If they challenge at RTB I take all the written notices and proof of their behaviour and I love seeing them having to explain or plainly lie in front of the evidence about what they have done at the adjudication.

The_Conductor

Graham wrote: »

I'm not entirely convinced occurrences of over holding increase with the length of tenancy.

I'd love to see some stats on this- however, I suspect they'd be hidden away somewhere on data protection grounds.

4ensic15

Browney7 wrote: »

But if a tenant is fulfilling their obligations and not causing trouble and seeing as by law you can't charge the next tenant more what's the justification for ending the tenancy if you wish to continue in business? Would it be just because you feel like changing it up?
Would imagine many landlords would snap your hand off for a trouble free tenant for ten years?

After for or six years the place will need to freshened up or overhauled. Only when it is vacated can it be really seen what needs to be done. The notice periods rise each year up to year 8 so getting a new tenant brings the notice periods back down. This maintains the liquidity of the asset.

Baby01032012

My own situation I prevented a further Part IV gave tenants notice before end of Part IV expiring on Part IV anniversary. They were there 4 years. Only 1 of original 4 remained. The apartment was 20 years old, had some water damage early this year. So took opportunity to undergo complete renovation, new bathroom kitchen re plumb and rewire. Yes I will be looking to charge market rate because of extent of refurb. Which I've run by RTB. I know the risk of this being challenged but that's already been covered in another thread.