tenancy termination letter near 4 years

gizmo81

Squatter wrote: »

Given that the OP was looking for informed advice rather than opinion, it would probably be a lot more helpful for her if you had kept your unqualified opinions to yourself.

Do you genuinely believe that your unqualified knee-jerk opinion has helped her in any way?

As opposed to what 'informed advice' she received from other posters? What qualifications have other posters?

accensi0n

gizmo81 wrote: »

As opposed to what 'informed advice' she received from other posters? What qualifications have other posters?

The ability to read and interpret the legislation, and then to disseminate that information without letting emotion take over.

gizmo81

Landlord seeks illegal rent increase of 25% ignoring the law, now landlord wants the protections under the law to evict tenant because they didn't get the illegal rent increase.

Teyla Emmagan

gizmo81 wrote:

Landlord seeks illegal rent increase of 25% ignoring the law, now landlord wants the protections under the law to evict tenant because they didn't get the illegal rent increase.

That's just your interpretation. Regardless of rent review the landlord is perfectly within their rights to issue termination now.

gizmo81

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

That's just your interpretation. Regardless of rent review the landlord is perfectly within their rights to issue termination now.

They are entitled to and the OP is entitled to refer a case back to the RTB to judge whether or not the eviction is punitive.

gizmo81

chakwal wrote: »

hi,
These days it is very difficult to get to another apartment near by with small 2 kids. any advise for if there is any possibility that tenancy act can make us live here more than 4 years.

Squatter wrote: »

Given that the OP was looking for informed advice rather than opinion, it would probably be a lot more helpful for him/her if you had kept your unqualified opinions to yourself.

Do you genuinely believe that your unqualified, knee-jerk opinion - with references to the recent deaths of homeless people - has helped them in any way?

The OP was looking for advice to stay in their home. It's within some literature I received from the RTB that you cannot be punished for referring a dispute.

Graham

Mod Note stop the personal digs.

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

The OP was looking for advice to stay in their home. It's within some literature I received from the RTB that you cannot be punished for referring a dispute.

Feel free to share the literature or link to the source.

gizmo81

Graham wrote: »

Feel free to share the literature or link to the source.

I am trying to find it, I always back up my assertions.

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

I am trying to find it, I always back up my assertions.

Thank you.

Until then the OP would be wise to consider the advice as an unqualified interpretation

gizmo81

Graham wrote: »

Thank you.

Until then the OP would be wise to consider the advice as an unqualified interpretation

Are you saying that a tenant hasn't the right to refer a dispute to the RTB?

gizmo81

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 2004

PART 2

Tenancy Obligations of Landlords and Tenants

Chapter 1

14.—(1) A landlord of a dwelling shall not penalise a tenant for—

(a) referring any dispute between the tenant and the landlord to the Board for resolution under Part 6,

(b) giving evidence in any proceedings under Part 6 to which the landlord is a party (whether the tenant is a party to them or not),

(c) making a complaint to a member of the Garda Síochána or to a public authority in relation to any matter arising out of, or in connection with, the occupation of the dwelling or making an application regarding such a matter to a public authority, or

(d) giving notice of his or her intention to do any or all of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/enacted/en/print#part2

You're welcome.

C3PO

gizmo81 wrote: »

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 2004

PART 2

Tenancy Obligations of Landlords and Tenants

Chapter 1

14.—(1) A landlord of a dwelling shall not penalise a tenant for—

(a) referring any dispute between the tenant and the landlord to the Board for resolution under Part 6,

(b) giving evidence in any proceedings under Part 6 to which the landlord is a party (whether the tenant is a party to them or not),

(c) making a complaint to a member of the Garda Síochána or to a public authority in relation to any matter arising out of, or in connection with, the occupation of the dwelling or making an application regarding such a matter to a public authority, or

(d) giving notice of his or her intention to do any or all of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/enacted/en/print#part2

You're welcome.

Grasping at straws .. again!

Paz-CCFC

gizmo81 wrote: »

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 2004

PART 2

Tenancy Obligations of Landlords and Tenants

Chapter 1

14.

Just to add another very important part of section 14 regarding your point, in subsection 3:

(3) Such action may constitute penalisation even though it consists of steps taken by the landlord in the exercise of any rights conferred on him or her by or under this Act, any other enactment or the lease or tenancy agreement concerned if, having regard to—


(a) the frequency or extent to which the right is exercised in relation to the tenant,

(b) the proximity in time of its being so exercised to the tenant's doing the relevant thing referred to in subsection (1), and

(c) any other relevant circumstances,

it is a reasonable inference that the action was intended to penalise the tenant for doing that thing.

Rights granted under any piece legislation are not viewed in isolation. They are not absolute and are interpreted with regard to the overall context. Just because one has the right to do something generally does not mean that the exercise of that right will always be accepted in every circumstance. Tenancy laws are quite similar to employment laws in this regard. Take for example, the dismissal of an employee. If an employee has been employed for less than 12 months, the employer is free to dismiss him or her without having to give a reason (kind of like the way a landlord can terminate a Part 4 within the first six months for any reason). But say the employee became pregnant, the employer found out and dismissed her the next day, without giving a reason. The employer could claim that he/she is exercising rights to terminate the employment. But, given the proximity to another event, it is likely that a court/tribunal would see this as merely a cloak for what is really a dismissal based on discrimination against one of the protected grounds. The employer would need to show a good reason that this was not the case, to shift the burden back onto the other side. Penalisation is also prohibited by employment legislation. So, if an employee were to take action against or make a complaint about their employer and shortly after, the employer began doing certain things regarding that employee, such as a reduction in hours or not granting a pay increase which was likely due, it could be viewed as penalisation. The mere fact that the employer has the general right to do these things is not a defence if it can be reasonably inferred from the facts that this was done as a result of the employee's previous actions.

This is similarly the case with tenancy law. A court/tribunal will not simply accept that something a landlord did was necessarily valid because they are generally entitled to do that thing. As section 14 states above, penalisation can come in the form of an act that the landlord is normally entitled to do. Could the OP's situation, where a landlord exercises his rights to terminate a tenancy granted by the 2004 Act, following an invalid notice of a rent review and a lost case in the RTB constitute penalisation? It would depend on the particular facts (and on a forum thread, we're likely not getting the full facts). But the mere fact that the landlord has a right to terminate the tenancy under section 34(b) does not necessarily mean that it did not constitute penalisation. If a notice of termination were granted in short proximity of an invalid rent review/RTB case, then I think that there's a good chance that this would be seen as prima facie evidence to shift the burden onto the landlord to show that the notice of termination was not done so as to penalise.

Whether an tenant in such as situation as the OP believes that it is something worth pursuing is up to themselves to decide, being in possession of the full facts. And imo, a landlord who decides to take any action such as terminating a tenancy should have a long think, look at the overall context and, if the situation warrants it, seek professional legal advice. Some landlords might believe they are clever in finding a way to remove a tenant they no longer want. Others might make an innocent mistake. But at least a professional adviser will afford them the chance to make such a decision in a fully informed manner and make them realise the potential consequences of their actions, as such consequences can be quite severe.

beauf

The LL either accepts to 4~2% or sells up.

wordofwarning

gizmo81 wrote: »

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 2004

PART 2

Tenancy Obligations of Landlords and Tenants

Chapter 1

14.—(1) A landlord of a dwelling shall not penalise a tenant for—

(a) referring any dispute between the tenant and the landlord to the Board for resolution under Part 6,

(b) giving evidence in any proceedings under Part 6 to which the landlord is a party (whether the tenant is a party to them or not),


You're welcome.

How do we know this tenant is being penalised? If this landlord evicts every tenant after the 4 years so they don't enter into another part IV. How can you say this tenant is being penalised, when the landlord is treating the tenant like every other tenant?

You are making the assumption that back in January, if they accepted the rent increase he was not going to evict them after Part IV kicked in. It is a bit of stretch IMO.

If the landlord has a history of evicting every tenant after 4 years (most landlords do). I think it will be very hard to prove he penalised them.

gizmo81

wordofwarning wrote: »

How do we know this tenant is being penalised? If this landlord evicts every tenant after the 4 years so they don't enter into another part IV. How can you say this tenant is being penalised, when the landlord is treating the tenant like every other tenant?

You are making the assumption that back in January, if they accepted the rent increase he was not going to evict them after Part IV kicked in. It is a bit of stretch IMO.

If the landlord has a history of evicting every tenant after 4 years (most landlords do). I think it will be very hard to prove he penalised them.

What stats have you "evicting every tenant after 4 years (most landlords do)"?

I said refer a dispute, I provided the section of the legislation this could come under and Paz-CCFC reinforced how even in pursing their rights under the legislation actions by the landlord could be considered punitive.

The_Conductor

beauf wrote: »

The LL either accepts to 4~2% or sells up.

The actual increase- is specified by a strict formula- and if the tenant has been there 4 years, and has not had their rent reviewed since the commencement of the tenancy- the landlord can seek an 8% increase as per the RPZ Calculator here: https://www.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones/rpz-calculator

After the initial review- its then 4% per annum- thereafter. At the outset- the formula is based on a 24 month basis for the first review- but a 12 month basis thereafter.

Vis-a-vis the rights and wrongs and whether or not you are being penalised for having taken the landlord to the RTB earlier- honestly- if you dispute the termination of the tenancy- it could go either way. If the landlord could be shown to be ending other tenancies in a similar manner- or having significant work lined up to do on the units which they are trying to schedule- it would be hard to try and argue the point.

Your Part IV tenancy- is up- and you have been advised its not being renewed- which is what a significant cohort of landlords are doing- to schedule periodic or significant works- the abortive rent review aside last January- would you be similarly trying to fight the end of the tenancy if you had not brought the landlord to the RTB?

I'm not advising you to either fight it- or not to do so- I'm suggesting that it is not a foregone conclusion that if you do fight it, that you will win the case- and I think, even if you do decide to fight it- that it would be prudent to try and line up alternate accommodation.

There are a few large scale units in Dublin at the moment- who are habitually ending 4 year Part IV contracts- both to extinguish the contracts- but also to undertake significant works (structural in nature- in the case of the developments in Smithfield)- arguably to extinguish the RPZ rent levels- so they can be reset to market rates.

The legislation as it stands- doesn't suit anyone- tenants or landlords- however, if it is made even more onerous- the only winners aside from the Revenue Commissioners- will be solicitors.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

What stats have you "evicting every tenant after 4 years (most landlords do)"?

I said was refer a dispute, I provided the section of the legislation this could come under and Paz-CCFC reinforced how even in pursing their rights under the legislation actions by the landlord could be considered punitive.

There are entire developments ending Part IV tenancies in due course as they arise- Threshold mentioned one particularly notorious development in Smithfield in their interview on Thursday. I'm not aware that a majority of landlords are doing it- however, it is becomming an issue.

davo10

I think this thread has now tipped over into grandstanding about morality and social problems rather than offering the op solid advice. If in doubt about your situation or rights, refer to the relevant legislation, that legislation states that it is legal to end a Part 4 tenancy after 4 years, giving a reason. Thankfully GGTrek posted a pertinent ruling. Op, the ruling outlines your position clearly.

beauf

I'll be curious to see how it all works out for the op. It's a pity an agreement can't be worked out with the agent.

Paz-CCFC

Just further on the point of penalisation, see this case, which involved a notice of termination within the first six months of a further Part 4 tenancy. Landlords normally had the right to do this (at the time, prior to the recent amendments), however the tribunal held that, notwithstanding the general right, this attempt to terminate was as a result of the tenants referring a dispute to the RTB. The service of the notice of termination was viewed as retaliatory and the landlord was deemed to have penalised the tenants.

On the flip side, see also this case where the notice was deemed valid, as the landlord could show that it was not served in consequence of the tenant's RTB dispute and it was not his intention to penalise the tenant. In that case, the notice was served before any determination order as opposed to after it, it gave more than the required notice period and the landlord offered alternative accommodation.

The_Conductor wrote: »

The legislation as it stands- doesn't suit anyone- tenants or landlords- however, if it is made even more onerous- the only winners aside from the Revenue Commissioners- will be solicitors.

This is such an empty, lazy statement. It's just thrown out there, with nothing to back it up, because solicitors are an easy group to have a pop off. The Residential Tenancies Acts have been the exact opposite of making "winners" out of lawyers, as it's made it easier and cheaper for laypeople to use the system and take cases without the need for legal representation that people would feel the need to opt for if the case were heard in a court. These kinds of statements are no better than throwing out the "greedy landlord" ones, because it's easy to paint them as the bad guys.

GGTrek

A Section 14 challenge (the tenant in the case I quoted tried it and lost it, please read the content) is very onerous on the tenant and any landlord with decent legal advice will easily defend it unless he was so stupid to write it down or say it in front of witnesses like the agent in the case did: "She said that she subsequently received a call from the landlord’s agent to say that the tenants would have to leave if they did not withdraw the application for dispute resolution they had lodged with the PRTB". I mean how stupid can some people be! The case also outlines why any landlord should always request bills paid before returning any deposit. Bord Gais made the landlord pay the reconnection fee due to previous tenant being a thief who used gas for free. A few smart a.. tenants will try a section 14 and fail miserably if the landlord and his agent are not dumb. So in the particular case of the OP, which is very similar to the one I quoted: rent increase challenged followed by section 34 (b) termination the OP will not stand a chance in front of an RTB tribunal (he may be in front of a lone socialist adjudicator). Socialists / communists in this forum have to understand that Ireland is not yet the socialist / communist paradise they hope for and it is perfectly legal to terminate a tenancy at 4 years for pure business (non socialist) reasons. If a landlord cannot make a profit with the locked rent the govvie has decided he should charge, then the landlord is free to interrupt the the business relationship at 4 years which is when the tenancy contract ends. In reality when the business contract started the setting of rent was different and the govvie changed fundamental contract terms (the rent setting) while the contract was running. Who caused the issue here is the govvie that decided to pander to special interests (like Threshold) and by stretching its powers to the limit changed the statutory contract terms.

The_Conductor

davo10 wrote: »

I think this thread has now tipped over into grandstanding about morality and social problems rather than offering the op solid advice. If in doubt about your situation or rights, refer to the relevant legislation, that legislation states that it is legal to end a Part 4 tenancy after 4 years, giving a reason. Thankfully GGTrek posted a pertinent ruling. Op, the ruling outlines your position clearly.

I'm inclined to agree with Davo10.
OP- you've been offered a wealth of information and given details of various RTB rulings on the matter. How you decide to proceed is your prerogative. I'm going to close your thread on this note- and wish you the very best of good luck with however you decide to proceed.