Termination notice to Substantially Refurbish

davo10

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

"Substantial refurbishment: should involve major renovation works, such as rewiring, extensions, increasing the number of bedrooms or substantially reducing energy usage through insulation or new windows and doors, which clearly improve the quality of the accommodation being offered, to the extent that would merit an increased rent. It’s not envisaged that this would include merely cosmetic improvement works like re-painting of a property or new carpets/flooring."


So I'd dispute it personally and roll the dice.

As a matter of interest, how many apartments have you seen that were capable of extension, increasing number of bedrooms, need new windows/doors etc? If the Act was not meant to apply to apartments, surely it would hav said so, maybe it does? Assuming the Act does apply to apartments, how much refurbishmemt can be done? Again, I'd say the list above is about the maximum which can be done so it's hard to argue that it isn't substantial relative to the type of property.

That last line in your post is everything that is wrong with the RTB, it allows for vexatious claims. The claimant should be made pay the landlords/panel costs of the proceedings if they are unsuccessful.

FishOnABike

davo10 wrote: »

Is there a clause in the Act specifically prohibiting apartment owners from terminating when doing substantial renovations/refurbishment? I can't find it, you might be able to point it out please.

If there isn't, then is there any more "substantial" refurbishment that can be done to an apartment than outlined in the list?

The point I was trying to make was that although the refurbishment is substantial enough to support a termination notice the works will not provide "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy" and therefore will not support a rent increase above the current RPZ cap.

The LL will be down two months rent, the cost of the refurbishment and reletting and will not be able to cover those costs as they will still be limited in the when and by how much they can raise the rent by the RTA and RPZ rules.

If the increase to 1260 is recent it will have to be relet at the same rate and future increases will still be subject to the RPZ cap. The LL would appear to be going to a lot of trouble for nothing.

FishOnABike

__..__ wrote: »

But he only has to argue that he is doing substantial ronovations, which he clearly is.

Substantial renovations would support the termination notice but would arguably not support an increase above the RPZ cap as they would not result in "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy".

It seems an expensive way of potentially achieving nothing.

Tigger

landlord wants tenant out
dontbknownwhy but thats the story

syntheticjunk

liam7831 wrote: »

Just offer the LL the rate the other apartments are getting and save a load of hassle

That's exactly that I've done. When LL told us that he's going to sell the apartment - offered full market price starting next month. Problem solved.

Browney7

FishOnABike wrote: »

The point I was trying to make was that although the refurbishment is substantial enough to support a termination notice the works will not provide "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy" and therefore will not support a rent increase above the current RPZ cap.

The LL will be down two months rent, the cost of the refurbishment and reletting and will not be able to cover those costs as they will still be limited in the when and by how much they can raise the rent by the RTA and RPZ rules.

If the increase to 1260 is recent it will have to be relet at the same rate and future increases will still be subject to the RPZ cap. The LL would appear to be going to a lot of trouble for nothing.

Exactly, whilst it's probable the LL terminating the tenancy is valid, once renovations are complete he will have to offer it back to the OP (op stays in an Airbnb for a month) and then it could be argued that the new rent set by the LL is in contravention of the RTA - ie the definitions of "substantial" could be different.

OP in a way has two bites of the cherry to stay where they are at the current rent

Browney7

syntheticjunk wrote: »

That's exactly that I've done. When LL told us that he's going to sell the apartment - offered full market price starting next month. Problem solved.

And just before you leave you could raise a dispute about accepting gan illegal increase under duress if you were so inclined... LL's are walking on dodgy ground doing this as many LL's on this forum have alluded to in the past

LuckyLloyd

syntheticjunk wrote: »

That's exactly that I've done. When LL told us that he's going to sell the apartment - offered full market price starting next month. Problem solved.

Still illegal as per current legislation - you now can take a RTB case against your LL and use your correspondence as reference.

LuckyLloyd

davo10 wrote: »

As a matter of interest, how many apartments have you seen that were capable of extension, increasing number of bedrooms, need new windows/doors etc? If the Act was not meant to apply to apartments, surely it would hav said so, maybe it does? Assuming the Act does apply to apartments, how much refurbishmemt can be done? Again, I'd say the list above is about the maximum which can be done so it's hard to argue that it isn't substantial relative to the type of property.

That last line in your post is everything that is wrong with the RTB, it allows for vexatious claims. The claimant should be made pay the landlords/panel costs of the proceedings if they are unsuccessful.

This is not a vexatious claim imo. The questions you highlight above can be reasonably debated relative to the current guidance available. Maybe the coming definition of substantial renovation will put this particular scenario in a different light, but at present it is a worthy case.

And, as it stands, the claimant is not required to pay costs in the case of an unsuccessful proceeding so they would absolutely be advised to pursue the matter.

FishOnABike

syntheticjunk wrote: »

That's exactly that I've done. When LL told us that he's going to sell the apartment - offered full market price starting next month. Problem solved.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Still illegal as per current legislation - you now can take a RTB case against your LL and use your correspondence as reference.

If you're referring to full market rent rate any LL risking this approach is potentially setting themselves for a slamdunk in a RTB dispute. If you offered to buy the apartment then everyone's happy.

Browney7

Browney7 wrote: »

And just before you leave you could raise a dispute about accepting gan illegal increase under duress if you were so inclined...

I would wish karma to deliver physical harm on anyone who would be low enough to do that.

FishOnABike

Eleanor Old-fashioned Catamaran wrote: »

I would wish karma to deliver physical harm on anyone who would be low enough to do that.

A LL should not be foolish enough to put themselves in that position in the first place. I wouldn't put myself in a position where I was dependent on the good will of others not to report me for breaking the law.

Browney7

Eleanor Old-fashioned Catamaran wrote: »

I would wish karma to deliver physical harm on anyone who would be low enough to do that.

Lower than a LL looking to break the law and threaten to remove someone from their house unless they pay an amount that's against the law? Or is acting in bad faith a one way street?

Browney7

Browney7 wrote: »

Lower than a LL looking to break the law and threaten to remove someone from their house unless they pay an amount that's against the law? Or is acting in bad faith a one way street?

A law that's most likely unconstitutional if challenged? I doubt many LL people lose sleep over breaking it, if they could do it without getting caught which is the issue.

Its insane that a business can not sell their product to the highest bidder, that's all a LL is trying to do. Imagine someone getting in trouble with the law because they sold their car at auction above a certain price.

davo10

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This is not a vexatious claim imo. The questions you highlight above can be reasonably debated relative to the current guidance available. Maybe the coming definition of substantial renovation will put this particular scenario in a different light, but at present it is a worthy case.

And, as it stands, the claimant is not required to pay costs in the case of an unsuccessful proceeding so they would absolutely be advised to pursue the matter.

This is why Airbnb is so appealing to property owners. Why take the risk?

Lumen

davo10 wrote: »

This is why Airbnb is so appealing to property owners. Why take the risk?

Because disputes only occur in a small minority of cases, and the rest of the time you get maximum occupancy with little effort.

davo10

Lumen wrote: »

Because disputes only occur in a small minority of cases, and the rest of the time you get maximum occupancy with little effort.

Because rents are capped, terminations are difficult, evictions are nigh on impossible and it's too easy for tenants to bring frivolous claims to the RTB, therefore dragging out the process. Much easier to have short lets where fees are paid in advance and no tenancy exists.

Little effort getting people in, a lot of effort getting them out.

davo10

davo10 wrote: »

Because rents are capped, terminations are difficult, evictions are nigh on impossible and it's too easy for tenants to bring frivolous claims to the RTB, therefore dragging out the process. Much easier to have short lets where fees are paid in advance and no tenancy exists.

Little effort getting people in, a lot of effort getting them out.

Potentially considerably less rent from a long term let stuck on below market rate!

rangav

Thanks everyone for your valuable suggestions

I have decided to file a dispute with RTB and see how it goes.

Thanks.

Michael D Not Higgins

rangav wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your valuable suggestions

I have decided to file a dispute with RTB and see how it goes.

Thanks.

Do let us know how it goes, this is still a grey area for the RTB's interpretation. So it would be good to get a steer.

jimmycrackcorm

rangav wrote:

I have decided to file a dispute with RTB and see how it goes.

I wouldn't be optimistic in your shoes. The landlord is spending a lot of money doing a lot of work on the property regardless of whether you or anyone thinks it is needed. It is being substantially refurbished simply because so much is being changed.
There is nothing to suggest that refurbishment requires years of wear and tear.

All that will happen is you'll be out for five or more weeks, offered the place at market rent and if you stay kicked out in two years time after part 4 with no landlord reference.

davo10

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I wouldn't be optimistic in your shoes. The landlord is spending a lot of money doing a lot of work on the property regardless of whether you or anyone thinks it is needed. It is being substantially refurbished simply because so much is being changed.
There is nothing to suggest that refurbishment requires years of wear and tear.

All that will happen is you'll be out for five or more weeks, offered the place at market rent and if you stay kicked out in two years time after part 4 with no landlord reference.

It's the lack of reference which will be the killer for future lets. No reference means trouble at previous tenancy.

Pkiernan

If a tenant fails to win his case in this type of scenario ten it's a pity that the landlord can't be awarded damages for the costs of delays.

Pkiernan

Pkiernan wrote: »

If a tenant fails to win his case in this type of scenario ten it's a pity that the landlord can't be awarded damages for the costs of delays.

100%

There needs to be consequences for losing so that tenants think twice about taking a case just to "test the water" or "for the sake of it to see what happens" etc etc. Even a number of people posting here encourage tenants to take cases to the RTB many which would be nothing more than vexation and this all needs to be discouraged as it wastes the RTB's time and the LL time along with costing them money.

Lumen

Eleanor Old-fashioned Catamaran wrote: »

100%

There needs to be consequences for losing so that tenants think twice about taking a case just to "test the water" or "for the sake of it to see what happens" etc etc. Even a number of people posting here encourage tenants to take cases to the RTB many which would be nothing more than vexation and this all needs to be discouraged as it wastes the RTB's time and the LL time along with costing them money.

This isn't a vexatious case though. It arises from a landlord carrying out an unnecessary refurb in order to terminate a tenancy and avoid the RPZ caps (or at least that's one side of the story).

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

This isn't a vexatious case though. It arises from a landlord carrying out an unnecessary refurb in order to terminate a tenancy and avoid the RPZ caps (or at least that's one side of the story).

It shouldn't matter if it's necessary or not it's the LL's property and his right to refurbish if he wishes. There is no way the RTB should be doing anything but finding in favour of the LL (once the work is subsequently done).

Sure you could argue most refurbs aren't necessary or you could argue a LL terminating a tenancy to build an extension isn't necessary etc etc. But necessity is not part of the rule.

Mrloverlover

Pkiernan wrote: »

If a tenant fails to win his case in this type of scenario ten it's a pity that the landlord can't be awarded damages for the costs of delays.

You do realise there is a homeless crisis in Ireland and not a landlords crisis

Mrloverlover

Mrloverlover wrote: »

You do realise there is a homeless crisis in Ireland and not a landlords crisis

LL's are operating a business, the homeless crisis is nothing to do with a LL nor should it be their job to solve it.

Mrloverlover

Eleanor Old-fashioned Catamaran wrote: »

LL's are operating a business, the homeless crisis is noting to do with a LL nor should it be their job to solve it.

But it is the RTBs job to try stop LLs exploiting tenants and prevent evictions if possible which can add to the problem.

Also just because it isn't their job to solve the problem doesn't mean they are not morally corrupt for taking advantage of the problem.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Eleanor Old-fashioned Catamaran wrote: »

100%

There needs to be consequences for losing so that tenants think twice about taking a case just to "test the water" or "for the sake of it to see what happens" etc etc. Even a number of people posting here encourage tenants to take cases to the RTB many which would be nothing more than vexation and this all needs to be discouraged as it wastes the RTB's time and the LL time along with costing them money.

I'm aghast at some of the posts on this site where posters say they are taking the landlord to the RTB. In some of these cases the tenant is the one who blatantly breached the lease.

We need some form of "motion for security of costs" system whereby the tenant deposits costs into an account held by the RTB, such costs to be awarded in full or part to the landlord if the claim fails.

If a landlord does not refurbish his property periodically then the inherent value of his property declines over time. It's a no brainer that he be permitted to upgrade a property periodically and then command a higher rent for it.

Extensions and changes in nature to the property as posited by the Minister are excessive requirements to be able to increase rent. Markedly improved decor, new bathroom and kitchen fittings and fixtures etc. all IMHO constitute substantial refurbishments particularly in the case of apartments to be able to bring the property back up to the standard to command the the market rate. There is nothing punitive or unusual about this.

I think if this was challenged in a proper Court instead of the Judge Rinder mock up that is the RTB that a landlord would win a test case on this point.