"Substantial" refurbishment - eviction notice!

Glasgow83

I'm currently renting a 3 bed property with another 2 tenants and have been given a rather shady looking eviction notice. The lease is almost 9 years old, we are good tenants with no issues.

Our landlord has increased our rent in the past. A few months later he came back again looking for more but was prevented from doing so by the rent freeze legislation. Now to circumvent this he has issued us with an eviction notice for the following works;

1. Heating system and controls upgraded - temperature & time controlled zonal heating (its a fairly new house everything is working okay and does not need replaced)

2. Insulation of the property, cavity walls and attic (house is perfectly warm)

3. Repainting of the dwelling (doesn't need painted)

The proposed works will take between 6 - 8 weeks (!) and according to the notice there will be no heat, running water or electricity.

The landlord has stated verbally that after the works have been carried out we can come back but the rent will be upped to the "market rent" because now the house will be in a higher energy efficiency bracket.

Can someone here please give me an informed opinion as to whether these works constitute major refurbishments that require us to leave AND an increase in rents afterwards?

I've been onto threshold who have stated that the notice is invalid because he hasn't given us a statutory declaration but to be honest the woman who was handling this was over worked and a bit patchy. I've done my own research and can't see what shes talking about. I think she has confused my refurbishment notice with a selling notice which does require a statutory declaration.

Me and the other tenants have decided to fight this but I want to make sure that I have all of my ducks in a row before we write back to him and raise a dispute with the PRTB. We have been sitting this for a while for various reasons and it has now gone by the 28 days limit to dispute all of this. Can we still fight?

Attached is our eviction notice,

Thank you for your time

the_syco

Looking at https://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/sample-notices-of-termination it seems mostly legit, except for the time that you have to be out of the house by.

7 years or longer but less than 8 years|28 weeks (196 days)
8 years or longer|32 weeks (224 days)

Although that part is invalid, you cannot bring a case to the PTRB over that, as per https://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-process-faqs

The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 imposes time limits on certain cases being taken to the RTB. Cases that solely refer to Invalid Notice of Termination must be referred to the Board within 28 days of receipt of the notice. Time limits also apply in respect of cases dealing with a rent dispute following the termination of a tenancy. In all other cases the Statute of Limitations will apply, i.e. the case must be referred before the expiry of six years from the accrual of the cause of action.

Perhaps get legal advice (FLAC if you don't have the cash) and see if you can still fight the eviction over the place not needing a refurb, but it may be best to just move.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Do the RTB mean 28 days or 28 working days?

davo10

Priscilla Sticky Nail wrote: »

Do the RTB mean 28 days or 28 working days?

It says "days", both have long passed in this case. Letter looks legit.

the-syco, the notice period is correct as it was within 7 and 8 years. Tenancy started 03/09, notice received 02/07.

To be fair, putting in a new heating system/insulation that changes the EE is hard to argue against. The government wants houses to me more efficient, they even give grants to do it, so arguing against that would be pointless. Unfortunately it is not up to you to decide what refurbishments are needed. Time to move on I'm afraid, if the rent was market rate, you might have been better to pay it but too late now.

The_Conductor

OP- there are specific government grants available to landlords (and others)- which are specifically for the works you've outlined.

Depending entirely on how difficult it is to coordinate the various people doing the different jobs- its definitely weeks work, not days- and some aspects of it do involve turning off the water.

Its the perfect time of the year for doing this sort work- insofar as there ever is a perfect time.

At this point- if you have not already done so- I'd search for alternate accommodation immediately- and failing that- I'd suggest approaching the landlord and seeing if you can have a few additional weeks to get things in order.

It does look legit, unfortunately- and this is the mechanism the government are allowing landlords for validly increasing rents. Government policy is to increase the energy efficiency of all residential units (not just rental units)- and they specifically grant aid this (via the SEAI).

judeboy101

Had all that work done to our house and more. Never turned off drinking water, was about 5 days without showers, and they did all non bedrooms first then did bed rooms inorder. Basically its not as big a job as you would think if he has a proper crew in.

Lantus

Insulation shouldn't have any impact on occupation. Cavity is done from the outside and walking up to the loft is not an imposition. 2 days work I'd say.

Heating controls are fairly quick to fit and disruption to heat and water minimal. 1 to 2 days work tops.

Painting can be also be done in a fairly phased and quick manner. 3 to 5 days to paint a house with 2 painters doesn't seem unreasonable.

The works are potentiallycheap enough to warrant eviction to benefit from rent increases long term. I would check to see the works were done. If the landlord changes his mind and the only people who can validate the works have left who's to say they were even done.

If it's a modern house as you say the returns would be minimal. None of this really benefits the landlord directly.

The_Conductor

judeboy101 wrote: »

Had all that work done to our house and more. Never turned off drinking water, was about 5 days without showers, and they did all non bedrooms first then did bed rooms inorder. Basically its not as big a job as you would think if he has a proper crew in.

I was 3 days without water- for the heating system- but didn't get the other jobs done. We bought in crates of bottled water for the duration- and showered in work (and at swimming for the kids).

Me pointing at my experience- or you at yours- is moot.
I got lucky- I had a few guys in to do the heating they arrived at 7AM each morning- and left at 6 in the evening. They had to do masonry drilling and other associated works- as the pre-existing heating was only on the one loop.

Some aspects of the jobs the OP has detailed- are time consuming- I wouldn't suggest the new heating system is the major job.

Key to how long this takes- is lining up the various companies and trying to get them to work together, or in close succession. Its far from unusual to get someone in to do a job- start on the job- and vanish for 10 days etc.

I paid extra to get people in and out- and did all the clean up myself- which took two days- and included replacing a carpet.

Its a bit of a how long is a piece of string question- how long the list of jobs will take- and the landlord has offered the tenant the property back @ market rates- if they want to return after the work (as they are legally obliged to)- if the tenant wants to find somewhere short term for the duration- they have the option of coming back to a much more efficient property.

Its very hard to point at a previous job and say- hey, because that took 2-3 days- that job over there will be similar- the list of jobs the OP has posted- is substantial- and is not a simple upgrade of a heating system.

Graham

Glasgow83 wrote: »

Me and the other tenants have decided to fight this but I want to make sure that I have all of my ducks in a row before we write back to him and raise a dispute with the PRTB. We have been sitting this for a while for various reasons and it has now gone by the 28 days limit to dispute all of this. Can we still fight?

OP, contact the RTB on Monday. I suspect any grounds you may have had for appealing the notice are long since passed as a result of waiting almost 5 months since you received the notice.

the_syco

davo10 wrote: »

the-syco, the notice period is correct as it was within 7 and 8 years. Tenancy started 03/09, notice received 02/07.

Ah, missed that part. Surprised the LL didn't just just issue eviction notice to coincide with the ending of the second four years?

4ensic15

the_syco wrote: »

Ah, missed that part. Surprised the LL didn't just just issue eviction notice to coincide with the ending of the second four years?

Some landlords are stupid. Others would be aware that if they don't upgrade they are caught by the 4% limit. I would think that this notice is inspired by the 4% rather than any objection to the o/p remaining in the property.

Glasgow83

Thank you for all of your responses. If its of any interest to you I will post more as the situation develops.

jamjgo

Glasgow83 wrote: »

I'm currently renting a 3 bed property with another 2 tenants and have been given a rather shady looking eviction notice. The lease is almost 9 years old, we are good tenants with no issues.

Our landlord has increased our rent in the past. A few months later he came back again looking for more but was prevented from doing so by the rent freeze legislation. Now to circumvent this he has issued us with an eviction notice for the following works;

1. Heating system and controls upgraded - temperature & time controlled zonal heating (its a fairly new house everything is working okay and does not need replaced)

2. Insulation of the property, cavity walls and attic (house is perfectly warm)

3. Repainting of the dwelling (doesn't need painted)

The proposed works will take between 6 - 8 weeks (!) and according to the notice there will be no heat, running water or electricity.

The landlord has stated verbally that after the works have been carried out we can come back but the rent will be upped to the "market rent" because now the house will be in a higher energy efficiency bracket.

Can someone here please give me an informed opinion as to whether these works constitute major refurbishments that require us to leave AND an increase in rents afterwards?

I've been onto threshold who have stated that the notice is invalid because he hasn't given us a statutory declaration but to be honest the woman who was handling this was over worked and a bit patchy. I've done my own research and can't see what shes talking about. I think she has confused my refurbishment notice with a selling notice which does require a statutory declaration.

Me and the other tenants have decided to fight this but I want to make sure that I have all of my ducks in a row before we write back to him and raise a dispute with the PRTB. We have been sitting this for a while for various reasons and it has now gone by the 28 days limit to dispute all of this. Can we still fight?

Attached is our eviction notice,

Thank you for your time

PM'd you there

davindub

OP there are two parts to this. The landlord has confused two distinct parts of the legislation.

1. Substantial refurbishment to allow the landlord terminate a part 4 tenancy. See section 34 of the act. As far as I am aware, no notice has been challenged as yet on the grounds it is not "substantial", but this is the most likely challenge to be accepted. Stretching it a bit would be unnecessary in the opinion of the tenant. But worth trying.

2. Unique to areas that a RPZ is in operation, the 4% cap applies to all RTB properties. There is one exception, where a property undergoes a "substantial change in nature" where it serves to increase market value. There is much confusion here, some people have misread this term as substantial refurbishment, substantial change, anything which increases market value but few note "in nature". The nature of a rented 3 bedroom house is unlikely to change by refurbishments, the intention of the act may have been specifically targeted at landlords changing bedsit units into flats etc.

You can contact FLAC / Threshold about your options on this, but while the landlord can terminate your part 4, IMO they cannot increase the rent beyond the 4%.

Slydice

The RTB.ie has a document up:
https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/landlord-intends-to-substantially-refurbish-or-renovate.pdf

about substantial refurbishment, it says:

the tenant being given first refusal to resume the tenancy should the dwelling become available for re-letting

It's listed here:

Notice of Termination
(Landlord intends to substantially refurbish/renovate)
Where a Part 4 tenancy is in place, regardless of the expiry of a fixed term lease, the tenancy may only be terminated by the landlord pursuant to Section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act (as amended) for the below listed reasons:
1. The tenant has failed to comply with the obligations of the tenancy (having first been notified, in writing, of the failure, and given an opportunity to remedy it.)
2. The landlord intends to sell the dwelling within the next 3 months
3. The dwelling is no longer suited to the needs of the occupying household
4. The landlord requires the dwelling for own or family member occupation (not applicable to Approved Housing Bodies)
5. Vacant possession is required for substantial refurbishment of the dwelling
6. The landlord intends to change the use of the dwelling

For the last 3 listed grounds, the termination notice must contain certain additional details as specified in the Act relating to the tenant being given first refusal to resume the tenancy should the dwelling become available for re-letting.

The_Conductor

Honestly- I think all the points have been addressed by the landlord. The OP has been offered first-refusal on the property after the refurbishment- providing he/she keeps their contact details up to date with the landlord- which is pretty standard.

The letter of termination of the tenancy- would appear to be valid- and in order.

The only outstanding issue- is the tenant deciding to dispute the termination of the tenancy (and note- it is a termination of the tenancy- *not* an eviction- despite the manner in which the OP has phrased it).

I honestly don't see any particular reason to keep this thread open. OP- if you'd like the thread re-opened, please PM me directly, and I'll reopen it on your behalf.