Property in an RPZ Below Market Rate

dubal

Surely, saying something illegal, doesn't then remove the landlord's legal rights to take possession of his own property indefinitely? That couldn't make any sense.

Circumstances can change.

Dubal

amcalester

Why weren't you so involved during the many months that this was in the news?

GGTrek

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

One thing i would ask. Is there any good book that goes into detail on this business of the law on what precisely you want the property back for. I can find nothing on the internet that deals with real life situations like where the Landlord says: Look I ned a rent increase BUT if you don't want to pay, so be it - I will just have to manage by taking the place back for myself. All the legal websites simply say that the Landlord can take the place back for himself. None of them say what happens if you give the tenant a choice: pay increased rent or i need the place for weekends. If anyone can mention such a book I would be grateful and will quote the material here.

OP, there are some books but they are all out of sync with current legislation. I believe you have reached a point where you need legal advice. If you PM me, I can provide you the contact details of a top Tenancy law solicitor in Dublin (one of the few who has High Court experience with tenancy law and went a few times to RTB tribunals hearings), legal advice will not be cheap (we are talking several hundreds of euros), but for example in my case (admittedly much easier than yours) it was worth every penny since I kicked out all sorts of tenants (from the anti-social one who was my top priority) to the passive ones (of the style I pay my rent I do not have any additional responsibility), to the ones who were blatantly breaching leases.

I too was and I am living outside Ireland and in the past left things running for peace of mind: you cannot do that! Landlording is a business and needs to be taken care of in an active way. Now I go to Dublin every two months and I don't give an inch to the very few tenants left (soon on their way out), any breach is properly documented and warning notices provided, followed up by termination notices. Even if the tenant was just passive, I just provided them section 34(b) notices (which you would be smart to provide already before the govvie goes into Christmas present mode) and by April 2018 I will be left with 2 of the original 10 tenancies I had (and then by end of 2018 just one). I scaled-up legal action after the introduction of RPZ, now I consider government and tenants as counterparties who are out there to screw me (so I take immense precautions and all new lets are short term: no one stays more than 6 months, but preferably 3 months).

Funny enough one of my best tenants is a rent allowance tenant who has been staying almost 8 years and helps big time (however my worst tenant was a rent allowance tenant put in by previous owner), even if her rent is 30% below market I do not care since she takes care of the rubbish, does the meter reading, cleans common areas, warns me immediately if there is something wrong, does not have long term guests, careful with the electric appliances (never broke a thing) ... basically this is what a good tenant should be like, but the vast majority are not, they behave like a short term tenant (full of entitlements and treat property like ... saying that it is not their fault things break which the law allows) and then they want long term tenancies (which the govvie allows) or had the audacity of asking for bigger flats when they became available (which of course was quickly shot down). Think about what your tenants effectively do, are they like my good tenant or are they just passive tenants riding on your naivety?

Galadriel

But even if your Brother gets the tenants out and 'occupies' the property for six months, he STILL cannot increase the rent by more than 4% unless he's done substantial renovations in the house.

jamesthepeach

Galadriel wrote: »

But even if your Brother gets the tenants out and 'occupies' the property for six months, he STILL cannot increase the rent by more than 4% unless he's done substantial renovations in the house.

Where is the house?
He can short term it.

dubal

If the property is 50% under market rate, leaving it idle for 2 years probably makes sense in the long term.

I can't imagine this was the intention of the law though.

Dubal

Lumen

dubal wrote: »

If the property is 50% under market rate, leaving it idle for 2 years probably makes sense in the long term.

In this case it seems that the four year part 4 tenancy cycle applies, so after two more years it can be terminated.

In which case it definitely doesn't make sense to leave it idle.

Which then loops back to the point that in the circumstances described there is no sane reason to kick out the tenants.

The_Conductor

Galadriel wrote: »

But even if your Brother gets the tenants out and 'occupies' the property for six months, he STILL cannot increase the rent by more than 4% unless he's done substantial renovations in the house.

Unless its vacant for 2 years- and the current RPZ legislation will run-out in December 2019 come what may (unless its extended)- so the guys options are limited.

OP- you need proper legal advice- you're grasping at all sorts of straws here- just go get proper advice.

Galadriel

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Where is the house?
He can short term it.

He can't if he's evicting the tenants because he wants the property for his own use.

Dr Crayfish

I have a brother who lives abroad but rents his place out for 1100, and it could easily get 14 or 1500. His tenants are a nice couple with a child who never gave him any bother. The first thing I thought when I read your post was this is pure greed and no thought for the people involved at all. I feel for the couple having to deal with someone like that, like they caused the problem. Well they didn't cause any problem actually. I can't imagine my brother getting a call from his concerned tenants any time soon wondering if he'd like a few hundred more a month. I know which side I'll be rooting for in this case.

jamesthepeach

Galadriel wrote: »

He can't if he's evicting the tenants because he wants the property for his own use.

He can if a family member moves in for a bit.
Then he can Airbnb it while he's there and Airbnb when he moved out too.

Galadriel

jamesthepeach wrote: »

He can if a.family manner moves in for a bit.
Then he can Airbnb it while he's there and Airbnb when he moved out too.

Yes a family member can move in but that's not what you said above.

jamesthepeach

Galadriel wrote: »

Yes a family member can move in but that's not what you said above.

I said a couple of things in posts above.
Add them together.
But the gist of it is I suggested he move in into his brother's house and do Airbnb.

I wonder if the tenant has been withholding revenues 20%.

GarIT

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

The tenants are offering to "do a deal" but in my view this is blackmail.

Is there any way around all these technicalities?

Is needing a place for occasional weekends enough to get it back?

So your brother blackmailed his tenants with the threat that if they don't agree to an illegally large rent increase he will break the law to take the house off them illegally anyway. Then the tenants offered to "do a deal" which I assume means they will not pursue legal action and will accept an illegally large rent increase just not to the extent your brother wants yet you are trying to say they are blackmailing him? He can go to jail (almost never happens) or pay 5 figure compensation for the threats he made if he follows through with them and you think he is in the right?

Not legally there isn't.

No.

GarIT

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

It was all done by e-mail unfortunately. BUT he did emphasize that without the extra money he would be stuck for a place when he visits

He's ****ed, he has put in writing that he intends to break the law to get them out if they don't agree to an illegally high rent increase. If he follows through with anything he said he will end up paying their rent for the next 1-2 years, they have him over a barrel, he should just issue the legal maximum rent increase and try to have this situation forgotten quickly.

davindub

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

The legal dictionaries online say that occupation means to possess or enjoy property. It says nothing about "living in it". On that basis you could occupy a property by having possession of it (the key) so that you could use it or enjoy it whenever you want. So you could be the "occupier" of a holiday home even though you only live in it from time to time. Which is exactly our point.

I feel this would be another attempt to illegally evict the tenants and then increase the rent in breach of the RPZ legislation. Despite what way you phrase the attempt to blackmail the tenants, it was an attempt to breach legislation and you have clearly stated that if the additional rent was not paid, your brother would evict them, so I don't see any court accepting this is a bona fide attempt to use the property for his own occupation.

Just to be clear, if you do evict the tenants illegally or legally, the RPZ still applies and you cannot review the rent for another year as you have already reviewed the rent recently (illegal rent reviews count in terms of review carried out). The act applies to all residential lettings as outlined in the act and any other use of the property is a breach of planning legislation. All these are further breaches of Irish law.

So I fail to see what actions you are expecting the law to provide at this stage and if you are intending to breach the law, why would you provide enough information here to tie this thread back to your case? I'm sure the tenant is googling for information on this too.

ThehPatroniser

GGTrek wrote: »

OP, there are some books but they are all out of sync with current legislation. I believe you have reached a point where you need legal advice. If you PM me, I can provide you the contact details of a top Tenancy law solicitor in Dublin (one of the few who has High Court experience with tenancy law and went a few times to RTB tribunals hearings), legal advice will not be cheap (we are talking several hundreds of euros), but for example in my case (admittedly much easier than yours) it was worth every penny since I kicked out all sorts of tenants (from the anti-social one who was my top priority) to the passive ones (of the style I pay my rent I do not have any additional responsibility), to the ones who were blatantly breaching leases.

I too was and I am living outside Ireland and in the past left things running for peace of mind: you cannot do that! Landlording is a business and needs to be taken care of in an active way. Now I go to Dublin every two months and I don't give an inch to the very few tenants left (soon on their way out), any breach is properly documented and warning notices provided, followed up by termination notices. Even if the tenant was just passive, I just provided them section 34(b) notices (which you would be smart to provide already before the govvie goes into Christmas present mode) and by April 2018 I will be left with 2 of the original 10 tenancies I had (and then by end of 2018 just one). I scaled-up legal action after the introduction of RPZ, now I consider government and tenants as counterparties who are out there to screw me (so I take immense precautions and all new lets are short term: no one stays more than 6 months, but preferably 3 months).

Funny enough one of my best tenants is a rent allowance tenant who has been staying almost 8 years and helps big time (however my worst tenant was a rent allowance tenant put in by previous owner), even if her rent is 30% below market I do not care since she takes care of the rubbish, does the meter reading, cleans common areas, warns me immediately if there is something wrong, does not have long term guests, careful with the electric appliances (never broke a thing) ... basically this is what a good tenant should be like, but the vast majority are not, they behave like a short term tenant (full of entitlements and treat property like ... saying that it is not their fault things break which the law allows) and then they want long term tenancies (which the govvie allows) or had the audacity of asking for bigger flats when they became available (which of course was quickly shot down). Think about what your tenants effectively do, are they like my good tenant or are they just passive tenants riding on your naivety?

Thank you for this incredibly detailed response. It is good to know that there are others who realise that it's not all one way traffic - that all tenants are not saints and not all landowners are baddies.

Dr Crayfish

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

Thank you for this incredibly detailed response. It is good to know that there are others who realise that it's not all one way traffic - that all tenants are not saints and not all landowners are baddies.

But you pretty much told us these tenants were perfect. Your brother is 100% a baddie. This thread has really angered me and I've sent it to loads of people.

ThehPatroniser

GarIT wrote: »

He's ****ed, he has put in writing that he intends to break the law to get them out if they don't agree to an illegally high rent increase. If he follows through with anything he said he will end up paying their rent for the next 1-2 years, they have him over a barrel, he should just issue the legal maximum rent increase and try to have this situation forgotten quickly.

Unfortunately, I am getting this from a whole bunch of sources.
I would strongly advise anyone who is thinking of tackling tenants to talk to the lawyers first - not afterwards. And I don't mean your local friendly solicitor - I mean one of the lads that specializes in RTB.

And secondly I have been told that e-mails are 100% admitted in RTB court proceedings. If you object to the e-mails they will offer you the choice of getting them checked at your own expense and if you are wrong you are in even worse trouble.

Lastly I'm told that we should have gone to the Landlord's Association at the very beginning.

Dr Crayfish

Why didn't he talk to them and try and come to some kind of fair agreement maybe, a reasonable rise? 1000 euro ffs.

gizmo81

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

Unfortunately, I am getting this from a whole bunch of sources.
I would strongly advise anyone who is thinking of tackling tenants to talk to the lawyers first - not afterwards. And I don't mean your local friendly solicitor - I mean one of the lads that specializes in RTB.

And secondly I have been told that e-mails are 100% admitted in RTB court proceedings. If you object to the e-mails they will offer you the choice of getting them checked at your own expense and if you are wrong you are in even worse trouble.

Lastly I'm told that we should have gone to the Landlord's Association at the very beginning.

Having been at multiple adjudications and tribunals the tenant can submit the emails as they have copies. They don't need permission.

ThehPatroniser

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Why didn't he talk to them and try and come to some kind of fair agreement maybe, a reasonable rise? 1000 euro ffs.

The tenants offered to split the difference but the brother didn't realise that that was probably a very good offer...He looked at that offer as meaning they would be 500 under market value i.e. costing him €6,000 a year....

ThehPatroniser

gizmo81 wrote: »

Having been at multiple adjudications and tribunals the tenant can submit the emails as they have copies. They don't need permission.

Do you mind me asking if in your experience the RTB would take into account the fact that the landowner is now based in France and can reasonably visit Ireland very often. We have an elderly parent and that surely entitles us as a family to the use of our own property?

Does the RTB take into account aged parents?

The_Conductor

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

Unfortunately, I am getting this from a whole bunch of sources.
I would strongly advise anyone who is thinking of tackling tenants to talk to the lawyers first - not afterwards. And I don't mean your local friendly solicitor - I mean one of the lads that specializes in RTB.

This- is the best advice I've heard yet.
Your brother should have gotten proper advice- before he contacted the tenants at all. Unfortunately the e-mail he sent them- is dynamite for them. However, even discussing it is after the fact..........

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

And secondly I have been told that e-mails are 100% admitted in RTB court proceedings. If you object to the e-mails they will offer you the choice of getting them checked at your own expense and if you are wrong you are in even worse trouble.

E-mail, text messages etc- are all admissable, unfortunately, from your brother's perspective. Honestly- if you don't want something to haunt you- don't put it in writing- and don't say it out loud in front of witnesses. I've learnt this the hard way- so too, have you and your brother. Just don't go there.

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

Lastly I'm told that we should have gone to the Landlord's Association at the very beginning.

Honestly- I'm not entirely clear what you expect the landlords Association (I presume you're referring to the IPOA) can do for you. You need the services of a good solicitor who is thoroughly familiar with the Residential Tenancies Act- and all the consequent rulings and adjudications.

There are a few good solicitors with such knowledge out there- including, ironically, a few who have had to emigrate during the downturn- you need to find one and pay them whatever they cost. Sometimes you might get lucky with your solicitor- or even better, have one in the family- other times, they're more difficult to find.

gizmo81

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

Do you mind me asking if in your experience the RTB would take into account the fact that the landowner is now based in France and can reasonably visit Ireland very often. We have an elderly parent and that surely entitles us as a family to the use of our own property?

Does the RTB take into account aged parents?

I'm not qualified to answer that.

You will have opportunity to plead your case though.

pansophelia

This is an odd one, and reflects very poorly on both you and your brother.

Your brother has an investment property. He has very good tenants who have never caused difficulty. Over the past couple of years Ireland has undergone a change and due to a lack of supply rents have increased dramatically. Your brother either didn't notice, or didn't mind that the rent was below market rates. The government has attempted to intervene to allow tenants some security of tenure.
There is a 4% per year increase allowed within an RPZ - well above general inflation, and in line with the standard increase written into most leases when I was living in London.
At the end of the day, after this 4% increase your brother will be making more money than he made last year. Over 5 years this will be a 20% increase - not bad for any investment. He is actually going to be financially better off than he was last year but seems to have this crazy idea that he's been conned in some way.
On top of this he has an asset which has increased in value by probably 40-50% in the past few years.
The attempt to portray the tenants as difficult in this scenario is astonishing.

ThehPatroniser

Disaster

The brother is now a nervous wreck. He phoned the main tenant and said that he would be prepared to do a deal and accept half of what he was originally looking for, rather than let the case go to court with bad publicity for everyone. She told him that he could speak to her solicitor but that they they have withdrawn their offer. CAN THEY DO THAT?? They openly offered half and now when he is prepared to accept that proposal they have slapped him in the face and said that they will see him in court. This is the last straw. We'll get nothing. How can they be permitted to offer a deal and then back down on it. Surely every person can reject an offer at first but come back later and say "We've thought about it and we'll take it" It's a nightmare
Also there are huge nursing home fees in our family.

ThehPatroniser

pansophelia wrote: »

This is an odd one, and reflects very poorly on both you and your brother.

Your brother has an investment property. He has very good tenants who have never caused difficulty. Over the past couple of years Ireland has undergone a change and due to a lack of supply rents have increased dramatically. Your brother either didn't notice, or didn't mind that the rent was below market rates. The government has attempted to intervene to allow tenants some security of tenure.
There is a 4% per year increase allowed within an RPZ - well above general inflation, and in line with the standard increase written into most leases when I was living in London.
At the end of the day, after this 4% increase your brother will be making more money than he made last year. Over 5 years this will be a 20% increase - not bad for any investment. He is actually going to be financially better off than he was last year but seems to have this crazy idea that he's been conned in some way.
On top of this he has an asset which has increased in value by probably 40-50% in the past few years.
The attempt to portray the tenants as difficult in this scenario is astonishing.

As a family we need this money for genuine reasons. We are not talking about Spanish holidays here. We are talking about nursing homes and trying to break even.

gizmo81

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

Disaster

The brother is now a nervous wreck. He phoned the main tenant and said that he would be prepared to do a deal and accept half of what he was originally looking for, rather than let the case go to court with bad publicity for everyone. She told him that he could speak to her solicitor but that they they have withdrawn their offer. CAN THEY DO THAT?? They openly offered half and now when he is prepared to accept that proposal they have slapped him in the face and said that they will see him in court. This is the last straw. We'll get nothing. How can they be permitted to offer a deal and then back down on it. Surely every person can reject an offer at first but come back later and say "We've thought about it and we'll take it" It's a nightmare
Also there are huge nursing home fees in our family.

They cannot offer something that isn't legal. They probably felt coerced.

Even if they paid the increase they can go to the RTB in a years time and try claim it back because it's not legal.

amcalester

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

Disaster

The brother is now a nervous wreck. He phoned the main tenant and said that he would be prepared to do a deal and accept half of what he was originally looking for, rather than let the case go to court with bad publicity for everyone. She told him that he could speak to her solicitor but that they they have withdrawn their offer. CAN THEY DO THAT?? They openly offered half and now when he is prepared to accept that proposal they have slapped him in the face and said that they will see him in court. This is the last straw. We'll get nothing. How can they be permitted to offer a deal and then back down on it. Surely every person can reject an offer at first but come back later and say "We've thought about it and we'll take it" It's a nightmare
Also there are huge nursing home fees in our family.

Because even at €500 a month it was an illegal rent increase.

Tell your brother to read up on what he can and can't do and then do what he is allowed to do i.e. Increase the rent by 4% (or whatever the RTB calculator allows).