Landlord told us he was selling the house, ten days after leaving its up for rent

MSVforever

I feel for the OP.

There is a lot of ****e going on in the private rental market in Ireland (for both tenants and landlords).
Long term rentals seem to be unusual unlike in Germany, Holland etc where you can actually make the rented property your home.
I don't want the landlords granny furniture either so unfurnished should be the way to go.

You are either lucky enough to get a heavily subsidized council house which has to be kitted out to EU standards (unlike the private rented house) and where you can't be kicked out (unless you are antisocial and keep "missing" paying rent).

Or you can afford to buy which is getting more difficult with increasing rents plus paying for childcare....

Lantus

You appear to of been illegally evicted.

Keep all documents. Take screen shots of rent.ie before the listing goes with dates wherever possible.

Document the entire timeline.

Report to ptb. You have nothing to lose and you may well be due compensation for what has been done to you.

April 73

OP - I wouldn't bother with a solicitor at all. Get your documentation together & open a case with the RTB. You don't need a solicitor to do that.
You need to write down the events chronologically to tell your story. Especially important are the dates you received notice, when the house was listed for sale & for how long, when you vacated & when the house was taken off the market & relisted for renting. The very fact that it has been delisted without giving you first refusal is wrong.

I once tookacase against a bank to the Financial Ombudsman & won (no solicitor involved in my side) because I had the documentation & proof & could tell the story of what happened chronologically.

Don't waste money on a solicitor. You have nothing to lose by taking a case to the RTB. Never mind compensation - it's a point of principle.

tim3000

GarIT wrote: »

I would actually advise against this. If the OP complains now the landlord can offer the OP the opportunity to move back in and if the OP refuses all is considered resolved with no harm done. If the OP waits until there is a new tenant in the house and the landlord can't offer the OP the option to move back in then the OP will have to be compensated.

I am going to wait until such time as I receive (or more likely don't receive) first refusal. The house will likely be rented soon I'd say.

April 73 wrote: »

OP - I wouldn't bother with a solicitor at all. Get your documentation together & open a case with the RTB. You don't need a solicitor to do that.
You need to write down the events chronologically to tell your story. Especially important are the dates you received notice, when the house was listed for sale & for how long, when you vacated & when the house was taken off the market & relisted for renting. The very fact that it has been delisted without giving you first refusal is wrong.

I once tookacase against a bank to the Financial Ombudsman & won (no solicitor involved in my side) because I had the documentation & proof & could tell the story of what happened chronologically.

Don't waste money on a solicitor. You have nothing to lose by taking a case to the RTB. Never mind compensation - it's a point of principle.

I am likely going to a solicitor to asses if he can come back at me should I lose on the day (if it gets that far). The responses here are heartening as your case was. And your're right its the principle of the matter not financial compensation that I am after. I wouldn't do it to someone and I don't expect it done to me.

I have found this link below stating that it is indeed illegal should the house not have been sold in due course so the next stage is to see if the house has been sold and relisted by someone else (highly unlikely)

http://www.thejournal.ie/landlord-selling-property-2742723-May2016/

Also on further googling it seems that we weren't served with the appropriate notice period of 112 days though I believe that this point is moot as a claim has to be entered within 28 days of receipt of notice.

https://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/how-your-landlord-may-end-your-tenancy/

I a likely going to open this with the RTB soon but I would like to see it re-rented to put the final nail in the coffin so to speak

Thanks for all the encouragement

Xterminator

Hollister11 wrote: »

Sounds like the OP wants to be a member of the compo culture we have here.... Give the man a break.

If the OP is right about the landlord breaking the law of the land then his is entitled to compensation.

When a tenant lives in a house its their home. If someone whips your home out from under you in an underhand manner then they are deserving of every single bit of comeuppance they get.

And karma's not a liar, She keeps receipts

Lantus

tim3000 wrote:

I am likely going to a solicitor to asses if he can come back at me should I lose on the day (if it gets that far). The responses here are heartening as your case was. And your're right its the principle of the matter not financial compensation that I am after. I wouldn't do it to someone and I don't expect it done to me.

Don't bother with solicitor. An rtb hearing will go for or against you. The landlord cannot counter Sue if you lose!

tomwaits48

Lantus wrote: »

Don't bother with solicitor. An rtb hearing will go for or against you. The landlord cannot counter Sue if you lose!

yeah but what actually happens to the landlord? He can just ignore the RTB can't he. Do they have any teeth?

michaelp97

Just curious as to the for sale sign that was up for a few days, does the sign itself have to be up for a minimum amount of time before the LL could change his mind and decide it's not going to meet his asking price so he'll just rent again?

tim3000

michaelp97 wrote: »

Just curious as to the for sale sign that was up for a few days, does the sign itself have to be up for a minimum amount of time before the LL could change his mind and decide it's not going to meet his asking price so he'll just rent again?

The for sale sign was erected around 5 days after he gave us notice so maybe the 14th 15th of May. It was taken down at best guess around the 26-27th of August less than 10 days after we vacated the house. He did have viewings maybe 4 in all, but we reckon he he deliberately priced himself out of the market in order to re-rent it. Looking online it hasn't been sold since we left. This is all conjecture on my part but its likely whats after happening.

On Monday I am going to lodge it formally with the RTB and see what they say.

xpletiv

I have absolutely no sympathy for the landlord here and those that are saying that they should 'get over it', well, you're pretty awful people... this should absolutely be pursued to full extent. Letting landlords get away with this shady practice is ruining the country and ruining lives. Greed mentality should not be just let go.

Don't get over it, get even.

Very interested in finding out the outcome!

DirkVoodoo

The attitudes here are shocking and part of the reason we are in a crisis of not enough rental properties at affordable prices. Ah sure he's only a poor oul sod, let him off.

No, he broke the law, he created a stressful situation for a family and threatened a very basic and essential need that they had.

Security of tenancy is something we as a nation seem to really struggle with. You can't just throw people out because your agent has said you could be getting more rent, you just need to break the law first.

"Chancer", "gas character", "cute hoor"...we're great at excusing pathetic law breaking. Time for it to stop.

tim3000

xpletiv wrote: »

I have absolutely no sympathy for the landlord here and those that are saying that they should 'get over it', well, you're pretty awful people... this should absolutely be pursued to full extent. Letting landlords get away with this shady practice is ruining the country and ruining lives. Greed mentality should not be just let go.

Don't get over it, get even.

Very interested in finding out the outcome!

I will keep you all updated. I am hoping that this thread will act as a reference point for others in a similar situation. I visited Threshold yesterday and the lady said it is quite common. i am just hoping that in the event of legal proceedings that I haven't overlooked anything.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Going by what you have said OP, it seems the landlord at least made some effort to market the property for 3 months.

This is their prime obligation when using the sale of a property to end a lease.

From what I can see, if they didn't sell the property in that period, then the only mistake they have made is to not offer you the property first, before going back to the rental market.

I hope you get sorted but I don't see there being major implications for the LL by going down the RTB route, as the landlord may have simply "made a mistake", and you may be offered the property again, however not at the previous rent.

Given you are not in a RPZ I think the RTB will be quite lenient on the LL, as they are entitled to up the rent to any figure they wish, whenever you were still in the property or not.

This is just my basic understanding, correct me if I'm wrong (likely).

tim3000

Ridge Hundreds Whiff wrote: »

Going by what you have said OP, it seems the landlord at least made some effort to market the property for 3 months.

This is their prime obligation when using the sale of a property to end a lease.

From what I can see, if they didn't sell the property in that period, then the only mistake they have made is to not offer you the property first, before going back to the rental market.

I hope you get sorted but I don't see there being major implications for the LL by going down the RTB route, as the landlord may have simply "made a mistake", and you may be offered the property again, however not at the previous rent.

Given you are not in a RPZ I think the RTB will be quite lenient on the LL, as they are entitled to up the rent to any figure they wish, whenever you were still in the property or not.

This is just my basic understanding, correct me if I'm wrong (likely).

An effort was made (he even had a painter in to paint some of the rooms while we were moving out) but I think the for sale sign was just to save face in front of us while we were there. On the RTB website there is a sample letter on it stating
"The reason for the termination of the tenancy is due to the fact that the landlord intends to enter into a binding contract for sale within three months of the termination of the tenancy and to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer for full consideration of his or her interest in the
premises".

I think the fact that it was immediately relisted for rent and not entered in to this binding contract of sale will be key (likely before it changed hands) with a stipulation of a minimum of a 1 year might mean he is breaking the law according to new regulations that I only found out and are quoted above in that Journal article I linked some posts back.

I imagine they will be lenient on him all right, he owns several properties and is extremely well off, which matters a lot in this country it seems

q85dw7osi4lebg

tim3000 wrote: »

An effort was made (he even had a painter in to paint some of the rooms while we were moving out) but I think the for sale sign was just to save face in front of us while we were there. On the RTB website there is a sample letter on it stating
"The reason for the termination of the tenancy is due to the fact that the landlord intends to enter into a binding contract for sale within three months of the termination of the tenancy and to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer for full consideration of his or her interest in the
premises".

I think the fact that it was immediately relisted for rent (likely before it changed hands) with a stipulation of a minimum of a 1 year might mean he is breaking the law according to new regulations that I only found out and are quoted above in that Journal article I linked some posts back.

I imagine they will be lenient on him all right, he owns several properties and is extremely well off, which matters a lot in this country it seems

Understood. it sounds like he has done the absolute bare minimum, which to me sounds like a box ticking exercise, meaning he may well believe he has done everything by the book just to keep himself out of trouble.

Hope you get sorted.

fishy_fishy

There was a thread on here a while ago where something similar happened. The renter lost the PRTB case because the landlord said he was only offering it for rent because someone interested in buying it wanted to see what it could fetch for rent.

It might be worth waiting until it has been let.

tim3000

Ridge Hundreds Whiff wrote: »

Understood. it sounds like he has done the absolute bare minimum, which to me sounds like a box ticking exercise, meaning he may well believe he has done everything by the book just to keep himself out of trouble.

Hope you get sorted.

Thanks Ridge Hundreds Whiff I hope it gets sorted too.

Browney7

Ridge Hundreds Whiff wrote: »

Going by what you have said OP, it seems the landlord at least made some effort to market the property for 3 months.

This is their prime obligation when using the sale of a property to end a lease.

From what I can see, if they didn't sell the property in that period, then the only mistake they have made is to not offer you the property first, before going back to the rental market.

I hope you get sorted but I don't see there being major implications for the LL by going down the RTB route, as the landlord may have simply "made a mistake", and you may be offered the property again, however not at the previous rent.

Given you are not in a RPZ I think the RTB will be quite lenient on the LL, as they are entitled to up the rent to any figure they wish, whenever you were still in the property or not.

This is just my basic understanding, correct me if I'm wrong (likely).

Based on what the OP said, their rent was reviewed in 2016 by €100 so it would have been set at the reviewed level for two years until 2018 and could have been reviewed upwards to "market" rent at that point. This also begs the question, was the original rent review delivered in the required format - in writing, three comparable properties etc?

Also, curious the LL had the property listed for sale on Daft but the Rental on Rent.ie - may have been hoping the OP wouldn't have seen it readvertised (I've never looked at rent.ie before).

My guess is the LL didn't want to wait a further 6-9 months to review rent or else was anticipating the area becoming a RPZ and was trying to be smart getting the OP out and hoped he'd get away with it

tim3000

Browney7 wrote: »

Based on what the OP said, their rent was reviewed in 2016 by €100 so it would have been set at the reviewed level for two years until 2018 and could have been reviewed upwards to "market" rent at that point. This also begs the question, was the original rent review delivered in the required format - in writing, three comparable properties etc?

Also, curious the LL had the property listed for sale on Daft but the Rental on Rent.ie - may have been hoping the OP wouldn't have seen it readvertised (I've never looked at rent.ie before).

My guess is the LL didn't want to wait a further 6-9 months to review rent or else was anticipating the area becoming a RPZ and was trying to be smart getting the OP out and hoped he'd get away with it

You are correct the rent increased from 600 to 700 in March 16. I don't think it was delivered in the correct format rather he showed up and said that it will have to go up. We didn't question the lack of writing at the time as we were happy it didn't go up further!

The area will likely become a RPZ in the near future and the increase of 400 is inline with other prices in the area.

OnDraught

Have to despair at the landlord class on here wanting to give this guy a pass for an illegal eviction. Dirt.

Michael D Not Higgins

OnDraught wrote: »

Have to despair at the landlord class on here wanting to give this guy a pass for an illegal eviction. Dirt.

Mod: This is not acceptable posting. We do not allow 'us vs them' posting on the forum and especially not referring to people as 'dirt'.

Doniekp

Hollister11 wrote: »

Sounds like the OP wants to be a member of the compo culture we have here.

OP, yes it's ****ty but get over it. It's his house, and because of the government sticking their noses in, instead of building houses he's ROI is greatly affected. Give the man a break.

Rules are rules and he broke them. He was happy enough to take their money for the 5 yrs previous. He should have offered them the place again if he wasn't selling.

April 73

Browney7 wrote: »

My guess is the LL didn't want to wait a further 6-9 months to review rent or else was anticipating the area becoming a RPZ and was trying to be smart getting the OP out and hoped he'd get away with it

As the saying goes...If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck...

Agree with your assessment of what went on.

April 73

OnDraught wrote: »

Have to despair at the landlord class on here wanting to give this guy a pass for an illegal eviction. Dirt.

Complete generalisation based on knowing nothing about the individual posters.

For what it's worth I am a landlord but also a citizen who knows right from wrong & rental law. My own advice to the OP was to follow up on this. This LL behaved badly & it's fully within the OP's right to follow up on it & he should.

michaelp97

michaelp97 wrote: »

If you found somewhere else to rent I wouldn't push any further what's to gain from it? Granted what the LL is doing may be annoying but at the end of the day he owns the house and purchased or inherited it with the intention of making money from it, if you were in their shoes of owning an other property wouldn't you try and get as much money from it as you could? It might be a ****ty way to look at it but in my eyes he has done something right to own more than one property, he could've said he wanted to raise the rent agreed but maybe he didn't get anywhere near his asking price so decided to rent again

This folks is why we have laws to protect consumers/workers/Tenants!!

Nabber

is it possible that the house was bought by a cash buyer.
The estate agent and an investor could have an agreement, whereby the investor is notified when a certain area comes up for sale.
House goes up for sale, investor offers cash on day 1, house is sole, investor tells estate agent to begin renting.

I'm not saying that is what happened to the OP. But I don't see why that couldn't happen.

rsynnott

Nabber wrote: »

is it possible that the house was bought by a cash buyer.
The estate agent and an investor could have an agreement, whereby the investor is notified when a certain area comes up for sale.
House goes up for sale, investor offers cash on day 1, house is sole, investor tells estate agent to begin renting.

I'm not saying that is what happened to the OP. But I don't see why that couldn't happen.

It's _possible_, but even with a cash buyer closing in 10 days would be ambitious.

q85dw7osi4lebg

rsynnott wrote: »

It's _possible_, but even with a cash buyer closing in 10 days would be ambitious.

There's a possibility the house was agreed in June / July either.

B.A._Baracus

Hey op.
Only my two cents....
While this sucks what happened, and it really does, I would just move on.

Anything that could come about from making a compliant would take forever and even IF at the same time.

All in all if you do decide to report just be ready for a negative outcome you know yourself.

Donal55

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Hey op.
Only my two cents....
While this sucks what happened, and it really does, I would just move on.

Anything that could come about from making a compliant would take forever and even IF at the same time.

I'd say their ex landlord is hoping they 'move on'.
I'd be more inclined to get even with him and pursue it to the end.
Different horses for courses I suppose.