Termination notice to Substantially Refurbish

Pkiernan

Mrloverlover wrote: »

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

Yes. Caused by lack of supply of homes.
Not by landlords. In case you don't understand the concept, landlords are providing places for people to live in.
Do you think that landlords want their properties to be vacant?

exaisle

liam7831 wrote: »

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

Effectively, the tenant is paying lower than the market rent. It's understandable that the landlord would want to get the market rent, or close to it and it seems clear to me that that's what the LL is trying to accomplish.

I'd be inclined to offer slightly lower than the rent the other apartments are paying on the basis that the tenant ends up slightly under the market rent (ie getting a small discount) and the Landlord gets close to the market rent, but saves him/herself the cost of refurbishment, a couple of months of no rent, and a possible RTB dispute.

__..__

exaisle wrote: »

Effectively, the tenant is paying lower than the market rent. It's understandable that the landlord would want to get the market rent, or close to it and it seems clear to me that that's what the LL is trying to accomplish.

I'd be inclined to offer slightly lower than the rent the other apartments are paying on the basis that the tenant ends up slightly under the market rent (ie getting a small discount) and the Landlord gets close to the market rent, but saves him/herself the cost of refurbishment, a couple of months of no rent, and a possible RTB dispute.

Landlord cant risk that.
Tenant can agree and then go to the RTB for a few bob afterwards.
So the landlord has to remove the tenant and refurb.
Law of unintended consequences and all that.

davo10

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).

This is where you lose your argument and the claim becomes vexatious. It's not up to you to decide if the refurb is necessary, nor is it up to the RTB. If an owner wants to improve their property, then there is no law against it.

Lumen

davo10 wrote: »

It's not up to you to decide if the refurb is necessary, nor is it up to the RTB. If an owner wants to improve their property, then there is no law against it.

I agree. However, there is a "law against" breaking the RPZ cap with a refurbishment that does not constitute a "substantial change in nature of the accomodation", and that is a matter for the RTB as I understand it.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

I agree. However, there is a "law against" breaking the RPZ cap with a refurbishment that does not constitute a "substantial change in nature of the accomodation", and that is a matter for the RTB as I understand it.

There are two separate events here. One is the tenancy being ended and the other is raising the rent.

The rules for ending the tenancy are "substantial refurbishment" the list given by the op easily meets this criteria. Whether the LL can also raise the rent is irrelevant to the op as regardless of the rent being raised or not after the refurbishment his tenancy can be ended.

BoatMad

The rules for ending the tenancy are "substantial refurbishment" the list given by the op easily meets this criteria.

Thats not up to you to decide

Lumen

Eleanor Old-fashioned Catamaran wrote: »

There are two separate events here. One is the tenancy being ended and the other is raising the rent.

The rules for ending the tenancy are "substantial refurbishment" the list given by the op easily meets this criteria. Whether the LL can also raise the rent is irrelevant to the op as regardless of the rent being raised or not after the refurbishment his tenancy can be ended.

Also correct. However, the landlord must offer the property to the tenant when it becomes available for re-letting, and that new tenancy will need to comply with the RPZ limits unless the refurbishment is a "substantial change in nature of the accommodation".

From the RTB guidance:

Landlord intends to substantially refurbish or renovate the dwelling
A landlord is entitled to terminate a Part 4 tenancy where the landlord intends to substantially refurbish or renovate the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling in a way which requires the dwelling to be vacated for that purpose (and, where planning permission is required for the carrying out of that refurbishment or renovation, that permission has been obtained) and the notice of termination (the ‘‘notice’’) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—
(a) specifying the nature of the intended works,
and
(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—
(i) the dwelling becomes available for re-letting,
and
(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table.

Those paragraphs are:

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
...
6. The landlord intends to change the use of the dwelling

davo10

Lumen wrote: »

Also correct. However, the landlord must offer the property to the tenant when it becomes available for re-letting, and that new tenancy will need to comply with the RPZ limits unless the refurbishment is a "substantial change in nature of the accommodation".

From the RTB guidance:



Those paragraphs are:

In your opinion Lumen, what could constitute substantial refurbishment of an apartment? I really can't see what more could be done to refurb it. The list just about includes every possible thing that could be done to this type of property.

Making a claim is vexatious, a waste of time, the op will lose because there are any further refurbishmemts could be done, he's going to be out on his hole with no reference and little hope of finding another let, I'd love to see people such as yourself charged if the dispute fails.

BoatMad

he's going to be out on his hole with no reference and little hope of finding another let, I'd love to see people such as yourself charged if the dispute fails.

He will have to be offered first go when it relets , so hardly " out on his hole "

making people that take claims , "pay" if they fail , is akin to reserving the legal system for the wealthy , a feature that it possessed for much of its recent history. its not a "good " thing.

Lumen

davo10 wrote: »

In your opinion Lumen, what could constitute substantial refurbishment of an apartment? I really can't see what more could be done to refurb it. The list just about includes every possible thing that could be done to this type of property.

Well, if I was running the show I guess I'd interpret "substantial change in nature" of an apartment as changing the number of bedrooms or bathrooms. Although you'd then have arguments over what constitutes a bedroom, particularly in unfurnished apartments with no fitted wardrobes or ensuites.

I understand that it is then unlikely that a landlord would do any significant refurbishment, and the quality of the stock would gradually diminish, but that's a known effect of rent controls and so comes with the territory. They're supposed to be a short term emergency measure.

BoatMad

I understand that it is then unlikely that a landlord would do any significant refurbishment, and the quality of the stock would gradually diminish, but that's a known effect of rent controls and so comes with the territory. They're supposed to be a short term emergency measure.

I see no connection with a landlords desire to refurbiush and the need to evict a tenant, Tenants need security of tenure, end of story. We are dealing with peoples homes, thats the difference. Its a landlords house, its the tenants home

FishOnABike

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't be so sure, the tests for terminating the tenancy and increasing any subsequent rent above that allowed by the RPZ cap are different.

While "substantial rennovation" allows the LL to terminate the tenancy it may not be enough to constitute a "substantial change in nature of the accomodation provided under the tenanacy" especially if, as the OP indicated, the appliences, fittings and decor are only two years old or so.

Periodically refurbishing the property could be seen as the LL merely maintaing the property to the standard it was originally let in. Artificially doing this when not needed and when it does not result in "substantial change in nature of the accomodation provided under the tenanacy" could well be seen as nothing other than a cynical attempt to circumvent the law.

The LL in this example could well be skating on thin ice and be risking losing several months rent, the cost of rennovations, the cost of reletting and still not be able to increase the rent and if the property is offfered back to the current tennent at an increased rent, the posibility of an adverse ruling from the RTB.

davo10

Lumen wrote: »

Well, if I was running the show I guess I'd interpret "substantial change in nature" of an apartment as changing the number of bedrooms or bathrooms. Although you'd then have arguments over what constitutes a bedroom, particularly in unfurnished apartments with no fitted wardrobes or ensuites.

I understand that it is then unlikely that a landlord would do any significant refurbishment, and the quality of the stock would gradually diminish, but that's a known effect of rent controls and so comes with the territory. They're supposed to be a short term emergency measure.

Ok, so, given the fact that the Act applies to apartments, how does an apartment owner add an extra bedroom? Surely you are not foolish enough to suggest a stud wall to devide a large bedroom into two satisfied the Act? Or do you think the owner should "build out" three stories up?

Bases on your reply, apartments would be excluded from the Act.

My question again to you, what would constitute substantial refurbishment to an apartment that isn't included in the ops list?

Mrs Shuttleworth

FishOnABike wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure, the tests for terminating the tenancy and increasing any subsequent rent above that allowed by the RPZ cap are different.

While "substantial rennovation" allows the LL to terminate the tenancy it may not be enough to constitute a "substantial change in nature of the accomodation provided under the tenanacy" especially if, as the OP indicated, the appliences, fittings and decor are only two years old or so.

Periodically refurbishing the property could be seen as the LL merely maintaing the property to the standard it was originally let in. Artificially doing this when not needed and when it does not result in "substantial change in nature of the accomodation provided under the tenanacy" could well be seen as nothing other than a cynical attempt to circumvent the law.

The LL in this example could well be skating on thin ice and be risking losing several months rent, the cost of rennovations, the cost of reletting and still not be able to increase the rent and if the property is offfered back to the current tennent at an increased rent, the posibility of an adverse ruling from the RTB.

But if the landlord refurbishes then he is refurbishing to bring the property up to par with other comparable units in the immediate vicinity letting for higher rent, not the historical standard of the apartment. Ergo not only should he be entitled it makes commercial sense that he be permitted to secure the market rent.

I hear what you say about this particular case - however if Minister Murphy insists on pushing this narrative with no leeway for landlords flagging behind in what they charge, he risks a lot of rental units in the RPZ zones turning into something you'd see on Homes Under the Hammer.

Mrs Shuttleworth

davo10 wrote: »

Ok, so, given the fact that the Act applies to apartments, how does an apartment owner add an extra bedroom? Surely you are not foolish enough to suggest a stud wall to devide a large bedroom into two satisfied the Act? Or do you think the owner should "build out" three stories up?

Bases on your reply, apartments would be excluded from the Act.

My question again to you, what would constitute substantial refurbishment to an apartment that isn't included in the ops list?

Planning permission and consent of management company would be required for any such works internally in an apartment. Neither would be forthcoming. Such works proposed by the poster would breach fire safety.

A cat would see that Murphy's definition of substantial refurbishments discriminates against apartment owners and is unworkable. Complete car crash stuff, you couldn't make it up.

The_Chap

I think some people need to look up the meaning of the word refurbish if they believe that proposed list of work does not fall under that description!

Lumen

davo10 wrote: »

Bases on your reply, apartments would be excluded from the Act.

I don't know why you're so concerned with finding a way for an apartment to comply as some sort of test of the legislation, as if proving that there is none means that the legislation is either faulty or more broad than the wording suggests.

But anyway, I'll give you an example. A multi-storey Georgian building currently divided into single-storey apartments is redeveloped into a single family home and re-let. That's a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation.

mrslancaster

Lumen wrote: »

I don't know why you're so concerned with finding a way for an apartment to comply as some sort of test of the legislation, as if proving that there is none means that the legislation is either faulty or more broad than the wording suggests.

But anyway, I'll give you an example. A multi-storey Georgian building currently divided into single-storey apartments is redeveloped into a single family home and re-let. That's a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation.

that sounds like tenants in three, four or more units would vacate and only one move in after the work was finished. how would that help to increase the housing supply? and would that scenario need planning permission

davindub

mrslancaster wrote: »

that sounds like tenants in three, four or more units would vacate and only one move in after the work was finished. how would that help to increase the housing supply? and would that scenario need planning permission

I don't think the exception was meant to provide for additional stock, just that at the time, bedsits were caught by new restrictions and the RPZ exception seems to be specific to these types of situations, so substantial change in nature resulting in increase in MV suited changing the configuration of the house to suit new regulations.

You would need planning permission as a change of use was occurring if changing back from multi to single dwelling. The only reason any of these existing was they were divided before 1963, so I don't think there would be any objections from the council.

But planning permission is not a condition of the RPZ exemption.

According to RTB staff, the onus is on landlords to self certify if the exemption has been met, that's a nice way of saying be very careful not to end up in front of the RTB, they will not be taking ignorance or personal interpretation into account if they find that you haven't met the exemption.

Unfortunately, a lot of landlords have either not gotten proper legal advice or proceeded regardless of advice received and charged a higher rent, I think there are enforcement measures coming in December, so we are likely to see some cases clarifying substantial change of nature, whether short term lets = exemption for holiday homes, whether corporate lets are excluded.

__..__

My oh my this discussion is a train wreck.
Imagine if the landlord and tenant could agree a rent and works desired to a property, between two adults that would suit both of them. Problem solved.

rangav

Great News - Landlord agreed to cancel the termination, as RTB released clear guidelines for landlords that closed the loopholes. So problem solved.

I filed the case with RTB, the hearing was tomorrow. So no need for that now.

Hopefully evictions will reduce from now.

Thanks everyone, boards and Rtb.

Rtb guidelines for reference
https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Comms%20and%20Research/RTB_Guidelines_for_good_practice_on_the_substantial_change_exemption_in_Rent_Pressure_Zones.pdf

The_Conductor

Good to hear that you're happy with the outcome.

As I honestly believe keeping the thread open is going to reawaken a train wreck of a debate- I'm going to close.

Thankyou everyone.