Eviction letter - Clause help

James 007

I think if the template termination letter says to name the contractor, 'if any'. This means you put all the details of the contractor on the termination letter. If there is no contractor, it is considered that you are doing the work yourself, but it does not look for this information, its taken for granted when no contractor is named. If everything else is in order I would proceed with my eviction and let them take a case against you. I would be confident on arguing the above.

Otherwise the letter or template would state to name the contractor, if any, if not please name other or owner etc.

I wouldnt waste my time, let her take her case through the RTB and you fight it.

TheChizler

Wasn't there a thread here a few months ago where the tenant brought a dispute that the eviction letter was invalid but more than 28 days had elapsed so the RTB found in the landlord's favour? And pretty quickly too?

charleville

TheChizler wrote: »

Wasn't there a thread here a few months ago where the tenant brought a dispute that the eviction letter was invalid but more than 28 days had elapsed so the RTB found in the landlord's favour? And pretty quickly too?

Could you or Admin find and Link that thread to here ?

charleville

James 007 wrote: »

I think if the template termination letter says to name the contractor, 'if any'. This means you put all the details of the contractor on the termination letter. If there is no contractor, it is considered that you are doing the work yourself, but it does not look for this information, its taken for granted when no contractor is named. If everything else is in order I would proceed with my eviction and let them take a case against you. I would be confident on arguing the above.

Otherwise the letter or template would state to name the contractor, if any, if not please name other or owner etc.

I wouldnt waste my time, let her take her case through the RTB and you fight it.

I agree with you, but there’s a few people here who don’t.. I would just like to know legally if I’m ok.

ShowMeTheCash

charleville wrote: »

I take what you are saying... but what happens if I cannot access my property to carry out necessary renovation and upgrade works and let’s say for example that a ceiling falls in or the tenant gets hurt from something that should have been fixed or done and sues me ? Or a rad leaks and floods my house (yes I have insurance but that’s not the point) I could go on, but who will be responsible then when I was not allowed to access my own property to carry out upgrade and necessary works ?

It’s all well and good to bash the landlord because of the homeless situation currently but it can’t be all one sided either.

Peoples situations change over years for various reasons and I’m sure I speak for a lot of the decent landlords, but we’re not all greedy vultures maybe we need to do things out of necessity too, we are people with bills the exact same as the next person, it’s my house so why can’t I ? I’m responsible for it if it goes on fire or falls down, so I need to be responsible for doing any works I feel need to be done.

Back to the original post but what I’m hearing here is that I will have to give another letter of termination.. if you can be helpful now can someone pm me what exact details I should write on this letter so as it cannot be denied or found to be flawed in anyway.

Thank you for your advice and input it is all taken on board.

I understand your position but you are trying to conflate necessary works with "upgrade" i.e. adding more rooms to go back to what the OP said you want your cake and eat it.

ShowMeTheCash

James 007 wrote: »

I think if the template termination letter says to name the contractor, 'if any'. This means you put all the details of the contractor on the termination letter. If there is no contractor, it is considered that you are doing the work yourself, but it does not look for this information, its taken for granted when no contractor is named. If everything else is in order I would proceed with my eviction and let them take a case against you. I would be confident on arguing the above.

Otherwise the letter or template would state to name the contractor, if any, if not please name other or owner etc.

I wouldnt waste my time, let her take her case through the RTB and you fight it.

How long would that take?

By the sounds of it in this particular case the tenant wants to go but it is the council who are refusing to accept the eviction notice, ultimately the OP wants the fastest solution.

gozunda

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I understand your position but you are trying to conflate necessary works with "upgrade" i.e. adding more rooms to go back to what the OP said you want your cake and eat it.

May I ask you what's the OPs situation to you? He is legally allowed to improve his property and to improve it / upgrade as he sees fit as long as he observes the law.. He is clearly attempting to resolve an impasse with as much goodwill as possible.

All I see in that comment is sour grapes and begrudgery tbh.

charleville

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I understand your position but you are trying to conflate necessary works with "upgrade" i.e. adding more rooms to go back to what the OP said you want your cake and eat it.

If you can take the words ‘cake’ and ‘eat’ out of your vocabulary for a moment and actually give me some proper advice like others here that would be much more appreciated.

yes if I put an extra room on it while upgrading it will also add value to my asset (something I worked hard for), and let’s not forget it’s costing me money to do this work, why would I not want my house to be the best and high standard rental property on the market and also if I’m in a position to do this then why would I not, and in the mean time keeping it up to a good standard for many more years to come, you seem to have a problem with this part and why ? should I just let it rot away and then you can give out to me for being a slum landlord and not a greedy vulture (I can’t win right), it’s easy for you to sit there and type about how I’m wrong for this and that but your comments seem biased to the tenants so I will guess you are not a landlord, I’m not being unfair or unreasonable with what I’m doing.

As I said people’s situations change over the years and sometimes we need to do things out of necessity (without telling you my personal business).

4ensic15

TheChizler wrote: »

Wasn't there a thread here a few months ago where the tenant brought a dispute that the eviction letter was invalid but more than 28 days had elapsed so the RTB found in the landlord's favour? And pretty quickly too?

That is not the point. If the landlord brings a dispute for overholding, the tenant can say that the notice was invalid in the first place and the landlord's case gets thrown out. That happens constantly. A landlord can only enforce a valid notice. The failure of the tenant to challenge it within 28 days does not make an invalid notice valid.

4ensic15

James 007 wrote: »

I think if the template termination letter says to name the contractor, 'if any'. This means you put all the details of the contractor on the termination letter. If there is no contractor, it is considered that you are doing the work yourself, but it does not look for this information, its taken for granted when no contractor is named. If everything else is in order I would proceed with my eviction and let them take a case against you. I would be confident on arguing the above.

Otherwise the letter or template would state to name the contractor, if any, if not please name other or owner etc.

I wouldnt waste my time, let her take her case through the RTB and you fight it.

That is what you think. can you link any decision of the RTB on the point? What about the fact that the dates of the intended works are not given?
The RTB are pro-tenant and any slip will mean the tenant wins.

TheChizler

charleville wrote: »

Could you or Admin find and Link that thread to here ?

I'll have a look but I'm generally terrible at finding old threads...

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

The o/p is not doing things in the correct manor. He has brought all this on himself. He leased to a council funded tenant. He made a mess of his notice of termination. He can't have his cake and eat it.

Stop guessing. You don't have anything like enough information to make that judgment.

"if any" is fairly unambiguous and is obviously included for a reason.

TheChizler

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is not the point. If the landlord brings a dispute for overholding, the tenant can say that the notice was invalid in the first place and the landlord's case gets thrown out. That happens constantly. A landlord can only enforce a valid notice. The failure of the tenant to challenge it within 28 days does not make an invalid notice valid.

Maybe it's a rent increase I'm thinking of so.

I wouldn't have thought it made it valid but assumed it couldn't be used against the landlord after this point.

What's the point in the law saying that a notice can only be challenged within 28 days of receipt if it can be used in an overholding dispute after this?

The Student

charleville wrote: »

If you can take the words ‘cake’ and ‘eat’ out of your vocabulary for a moment and actually give me some proper advice like others here that would be much more appreciated.

yes if I put an extra room on it while upgrading it will also add value to my asset (something I worked hard for), and let’s not forget it’s costing me money to do this work, why would I not want my house to be the best and high standard rental property on the market and also if I’m in a position to do this then why would I not, and in the mean time keeping it up to a good standard for many more years to come, you seem to have a problem with this part and why ? should I just let it rot away and then you can give out to me for being a slum landlord and not a greedy vulture (I can’t win right), it’s easy for you to sit there and type about how I’m wrong for this and that but your comments seem biased to the tenants so I will guess you are not a landlord, I’m not being unfair or unreasonable with what I’m doing.

As I said people’s situations change over the years and sometimes we need to do things out of necessity (without telling you my personal business).

No matter what you say this op believes you have some moral obligation to the tenant. At the end of the day this is a business trans plain and simple. If you have followed the law then its the tenants responsibility to find alternative accommodation

Graham

Mod Note:
ShowMeTheCash if you want to debate the merits or otherwise around the provision of social housing, start a thread.

Don't derail this one any further.

Subtle

Not trying to take from OPs query, but can I ask OP out of pure curiosity how you found the tenant prior to all this.

I just can't believe that a tenant can turn around a week before being expected to move out and throw this in your face. It's really fcuked up if a landlord is expected to give 3 months notice but the tenant can then pull them up on a possible technicality at the last minute. Surely, there should be a time limit on objections bring made by a tenant etc like within two weeks of original notification?!!

The_Conductor

Subtle wrote: »

Not trying to take from OPs query, but can I ask OP out of pure curiosity how you found the tenant prior to all this.

I just can't believe that a tenant can turn around a week before being expected to move out and throw this in your face. It's really fcuked up if a landlord is expected to give 3 months notice but the tenant can then pull them up on a possible technicality at the last minute. Surely, there should be a time limit on objections bring made by a tenant etc like within two weeks of original notification?!!

This is the regulatory environment landlords operate in- and why so many are exiting the sector. The number of large scale landlords and REITs- are increasing- as smaller landlords jump ship. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it- and all that..........

charleville

Subtle wrote: »

Not trying to take from OPs query, but can I ask OP out of pure curiosity how you found the tenant prior to all this.

I just can't believe that a tenant can turn around a week before being expected to move out and throw this in your face. It's really fcuked up if a landlord is expected to give 3 months notice but the tenant can then pull them up on a possible technicality at the last minute. Surely, there should be a time limit on objections bring made by a tenant etc like within two weeks of original notification?!!

I know... it’s shocking isn’t it, tenant has been good in general and I think in this case I am having the argument more with the focus ireland/council as they are the ones that are advising her (so she says but I believe her), if she doesn’t fight to keep an extra 3 months in the house, and therefore not become technically homeless, then she will lose all right to future help as she now (based on the technicality in my eviction notice) will be refusing an extra 3 months accommodation.

Pure
F*****g
madness!!!

Graham

Incredibly frustrating OP.

It's about time one of these 3rd parties (advising tenants to overhold) is joined to a court case with a tenant and held to account.

charleville

Graham wrote: »

Incredibly frustrating OP.

It's about time one of these 3rd parties (advising tenants to overhold) is joined to a court case with a tenant and held to account.

Yes... 100% agree!!

Sure they’ve nothing to lose by giving out this advice!
They might think twice if they were tied to a court case as you say and found to be in the wrong, all it should make for is fair assessment of each situation not a blanket assumption that all landlords are vultures and all tenants are in the right.

Michael D Not Higgins

4ensic15 wrote: »

The o/p didn't say that in his notice.He said nothing about a contractor.

Exactly, since there's no contractor he didn't specify one. That's fine in my opinion. It doesn't mention duration of works which could be an issue.

The_Conductor

charleville wrote: »

Yes... 100% agree!!

Sure they’ve nothing to lose by giving out this advice!
They might think twice if they were tied to a court case as you say and found to be in the wrong, all it should make for is fair assessment of each situation not a blanket assumption that all landlords are vultures and all tenants are in the right.

The tenant is being held over a barrel by the local authority- who in turn are holding the landlord to ransom.

Its entirely normal for the local authority, Threshold, Focus Ireland- and others- not to give a hoot about the landlord and any financial or other imposition they may be imposing on them- it is a new low though to threaten the tenant with a withdrawal of access to publicly funded resources- unless they illegally overhold in the property.........

The system is rotten to the core- who'd want to be either a tenant or a landlord when they have these circumstances imposed on them.

James 007

The_Conductor wrote: »

The tenant is being held over a barrel by the local authority- who in turn are holding the landlord to ransom.

Its entirely normal for the local authority, Threshold, Focus Ireland- and others- not to give a hoot about the landlord and any financial or other imposition they may be imposing on them- it is a new low though to threaten the tenant with a withdrawal of access to publicly funded resources- unless they illegally overhold in the property.........

The system is rotten to the core- who'd want to be either a tenant or a landlord when they have these circumstances imposed on them.

Based on all that I would be happy to blatantly advertise on daft for tenants working professionals need only apply, no HAP or social welfare tenants.

The_Conductor

James 007 wrote: »

Based on all that I would be happy to blatantly advertise on daft for tenants working professionals need only apply, no HAP or social welfare tenants.

Cognisant, of course, of the fact, that you legally cannot discriminate against them..........

TanyGray

The Student wrote: »

No matter what you say this op believes you have some moral obligation to the tenant. At the end of the day this is a business trans plain and simple. If you have followed the law then its the tenants responsibility to find alternative accommodation

These days it's not a business transaction at all. You rent a property you bought and you effectively hand it over and have no rights to it at all without jumping through so many hoops you would probably just drown yourself first.
It's a farce. Stay well clear is my advice.

Browney7

The_Conductor wrote: »

The tenant is being held over a barrel by the local authority- who in turn are holding the landlord to ransom.

Its entirely normal for the local authority, Threshold, Focus Ireland- and others- not to give a hoot about the landlord and any financial or other imposition they may be imposing on them- it is a new low though to threaten the tenant with a withdrawal of access to publicly funded resources- unless they illegally overhold in the property.........

The system is rotten to the core- who'd want to be either a tenant or a landlord when they have these circumstances imposed on them.

Think holding to ransom is a bit strong - the coumcil believe the notice to be invalid. Can you 100% hand on heart say the notice is valid based on the information provided? The arbiter in this case is the RTB tribunal or an appeal to the high court on a point of law.

I sincerely doubt the council would make the tenant sleep on the street instead of a 'homeless' hotel on the basis she left the property voluntarily. You can be sure threshold and the council are telling the tenant "you'll have three months more regardless of the outcome" and kicking the preverbial down the road - in this case the law and the system is an ass.

Browney7

TanyGray wrote: »

These days it's not a business transaction at all. You rent a property you bought and you effectively hand it over and have no rights to it at all without jumping through so many hoops you would probably just drown yourself first.
It's a farce. Stay well clear is my advice.

When it comes to delinquent and troublesome tenants yes.

It's only right there are a few "hoops" - only terminating for sale, family member or renovation - when the tenant is fulfilling their obligations in order to prevent people having upheaval in their lives on the whim of the landlord's desires.

The_Conductor

Browney7 wrote: »

You can be sure threshold and the council are telling the tenant "you'll have three months more regardless of the outcome" and kicking the preverbial down the road - in this case the law and the system is an ass.

The law and system is an ass- and its predicated on there being no consequences for the tenant to ignore their legal obligations under the Act- however, the landlord is fair game.

Aka- the system is designed to be fair (to a certain extent)- however, the manner in which its implemented- is anything but.

Its well and good having a system of safeguards in place for tenants and landlords- however, if there are only consequences for one party in practice- the law- regardless of what is in it- is wholly inconsequential from the perspective of a landlord- as heads they loose and tails the tenant wins.

The_Conductor

Browney7 wrote: »

When it comes to delinquent and troublesome tenants yes.

It's only right there are a few "hoops" - only terminating for sale, family member or renovation - when the tenant is fulfilling their obligations in order to prevent people having upheaval in their lives on the whim of the landlord's desires.

There are landlords in emergency accommodation in Dublin and Galway tonight- as they are incapable of extricating their sole properties from tenants.

A fair system to stop people's lives being tossed around the place on the whim of a landlord- is well and good- however, there is zero cognisance of the fact that the landlords have lives too- and the antics of some tenants- destroys the lives of their landlords.

There has to be a system of balance and checks- for both tenants and landlords. At the moment- the system is wholly setup in favour of tenants- and the law- regardless of what it says- is ineffectual- to the point that the Séamus Woulfe is on record stating that there are constitutional question marks over property ownership rights- however, its not been challenged.

Browney7

The_Conductor wrote: »

There are landlords in emergency accommodation in Dublin and Galway tonight- as they are incapable of extricating their sole properties from tenants.

A fair system to stop people's lives being tossed around the place on the whim of a landlord- is well and good- however, there is zero cognisance of the fact that the landlords have lives too- and the antics of some tenants- destroys the lives of their landlords.

There has to be a system of balance and checks- for both tenants and landlords. At the moment- the system is wholly setup in favour of tenants- and the law- regardless of what it says- is ineffectual- to the point that the Séamus Woulfe is on record stating that there are constitutional question marks over property ownership rights- however, its not been challenged.

I'm not disputing any of that.

I just have issues with the multitude of hysterical posts on this forum that every tenant will kill the first born of every landlord and will never pay you a penny (a small % of tenancies you'll surely agree) and use this to justify why tenants should have no rights at all...