Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Eviction letter - Clause help

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Browney7 wrote: »
    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...

    I hear you- however, there has to be a balance.
    At present- there is no balance- all the rights reside with the tenant- wholly irrespective of what the law states- the landlord has no effectual rights.


  • Options
    #63
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    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.

    One judge did, about two years ago. The law was changed after that to stop that happening again.


  • Options
    #64
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    One judge did, about two years ago. The law was changed after that to stop that happening again.

    Do you have a source, I'd be interested in taking a look at the details of that case.


  • Options
    #65
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Graham wrote: »
    Do you have a source, I'd be interested in taking a look at the details of that case.

    It happened in Dublin District Court 8 about 2 years ago. At that time it was an offence not to comply with a determination order. A landlord charged a tenant with failing to comply. the tenant said she was told to do it by a certain organisation. The judge demanded they come in and explain why they were inciting a crime.

    A few months later it ceased to be a crime. Go figure.


  • Options
    #66
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Browney7 wrote: »
    ...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...

    You're implying that the private rental market should be run not as a business, but as public social service. The market disagrees. It's voting with its wallet hence the supply of private rentals is at its lowest level and shrinking.

    If supply of housing increases, rents will fall. If it's an unattractive market now it's not going to be any more attractive then.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Browney7
    Registered Users Posts: 3,100 ✭✭✭Browney7


    beauf wrote: »
    You're implying that the private rental market should be run not as a business, but as public social service. The market disagrees. It's voting with its wallet hence the supply of private rentals is at its lowest level and shrinking.

    If supply of housing increases, rents will fall. If it's an unattractive market now it's not going to be any more attractive then.

    Really? Where?

    I'm advocating the letting business isn't ran in a manner akin to a bed and breakfast business.


  • Options
    #68
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Regardless if you realize it or not, the net effect is not a business, its a public service.

    The obvious result that if people don't want to be in the business they should get out.
    Except they can't. Which kinda suggests its not a viable model.
    Those that can get out have, which is why there is a shortage of rental accommodation.
    That there is a housing shortage overall makes it worse.


  • Options
    #69
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Browney7 wrote: »
    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 would lay strong odds that if you pushed to find a name in the council for the decision they might back down. As they won't want to be responsible.


  • Options
    #70
    charleville
    Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭charleville


    beauf wrote: »
    I would lay strong odds that if you pushed to find a name in the council for the decision they might back down. As they won't want to be responsible.

    Do you think if I could get the name of the person who was advising her this information that they may have second thoughts ?
    I would doubt that, and I would doubt they would give a name too..?


  • Options
    #71
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Sometimes it works.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    charleville
    Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭charleville


    beauf wrote: »
    Sometimes it works.

    Well 100% I will try that... thanks


  • Options
    #73
    GGTrek
    Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    OP I just added an attachment for your and other people's benefit. It is a termination notice sample that can be served without prejudice to other termination notices that have already been served or will be served. In addition the missing statement material facts are detailed. Should you have to take such a notice to an RTB dispute always claim that Section 64A of the RTA 2004-2016 should be applied since it would be very easy for an adjudicator with socialist tendencies to find slips and omissions which are not material in a notice for intended works. As I said in the PM, if you need to open a dispute, have a detailed plan of costs/time/materials/labour ready and also signed by a professional third party that should ideally be present at the hearing. The dispute should not focus on the formality of the notice (very likely with your current notice), but on the facts which will make your tenant case and Flac representatives effort much much harder (they are not construction experts, you and your third party are the professionals). Best of luck


  • Options
    #74
    charleville
    Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭charleville


    GGTrek wrote: »
    OP I just added an attachment for your and other people's benefit. It is a termination notice sample that can be served without prejudice to other termination notices that have already been served or will be served. In addition the missing statement material facts are detailed. Should you have to take such a notice to an RTB dispute always claim that Section 64A of the RTA 2004-2016 should be applied since it would be very easy for an adjudicator with socialist tendencies to find slips and omissions which are not material in a notice for intended works. As I said in the PM, if you need to open a dispute, have a detailed plan of costs/time/materials/labour ready and also signed by a professional third party that should ideally be present at the hearing. The dispute should not focus on the formality of the notice (very likely with your current notice), but on the facts which will make your tenant case and Flac representatives effort much much harder (they are not construction experts, you and your third party are the professionals). Best of luck


    This is the kind of help and advice that people come to these forums for... your help and input is much appreciated, and hopefully more landlords in the same boat will find this thread and think the same.

    Thank you


  • Options
    #75
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    charleville wrote: »
    Hi,

    I gave my tenant 4 months notice last December (note - I only had to give 3 legally) as to help them with a bit more time to find something.
    We intend on renovating the house and adding in an extra room/extension and doing up the whole house (it hasn’t been touched in years).

    She is due to move out next weekend and has been to a homeless advice clinic somewhere, they have supposedly found a clause in my eviction letter that I did not state “the name of the contractor, if any, employed to carry out the intended works”

    Thing is I am a Builder myself so why would I hire another contractor, or name myself for doing the works on my own house ? Are they chancing their arm here to keep in the house for another 3 months while I draught up another eviction notice and wait another 3 months, or am I well within my rights to plough ahead next week with the eviction and works if that’s all they could find.
    I’ve done everything through the books and in proper order.

    The words “if any” I would have thought would favour my argument now if they’re trying to be smart about it.

    Any advice please.

    Thank you

    Thos services are the reason landlords are taking properties off long term let. Is this a government funded service ? my tax money should not be going to pay for screwing landlords like this.


  • Options
    #76
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    Thos services are the reason landlords are taking properties off long term let. Is this a government funded service ? my tax money should not be going to pay for screwing landlords like this.

    The agency advising the tenant is Focus Ireland.
    They have an operating budget of just over 20 million per annum- of which over 18m is from a bewildering array of public funds- alongside 60m in 2016 in capital loans for social housing units- which are amortised in full over a 20 and 30 year period (depending on when they were incurred)- and are fully funded by public funds. In 2016 the total expenditure (incl. capital expenditure) of the organisation was over 80m of which over 78m was from public funds.

    Link to their 2016 audited accounts here

    Government policy is to use landlords as scapegoats, period.


  • Options
    #77
    charleville
    Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭charleville


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    The agency advising the tenant is Focus Ireland.
    They have an operating budget of just over 20 million per annum- of which over 18m is from a bewildering array of public funds- alongside 60m in 2016 in capital loans for social housing units- which are amortised in full over a 20 and 30 year period (depending on when they were incurred)- and are fully funded by public funds. In 2016 the total expenditure (incl. capital expenditure) of the organisation was over 80m of which over 78m was from public funds.

    Link to their 2016 audited accounts here

    Government policy is to use landlords as scapegoats, period.

    So basically I’m paying hard earned tax, to the government, who uses this money to give to an organisation who will advise somebody who pays no tax, how to get the most out of their tax paying landlord, who in turn is paying for all of this, on the double!

    Mind.... blown!!!!


  • Options
    #78
    rossmores
    Registered Users Posts: 118 ✭✭rossmores


    I opted for part 4s terminations on legal advice even thought my reason was to renovate, had to retract 1 and reissue a new, this long notice is a farce how can a builder be scheduled with the current tenant law where it could end up with an overhold have one coming up soon 5 months already and no sign of movement yet.
    I am staying in the business for now none of my refurbed units come under the remit of the RTB or its regs


  • Options
    #79
    TanyGray
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 52 ✭✭TanyGray


    rossmores wrote: »
    I opted for part 4s terminations on legal advice even thought my reason was to renovate, had to retract 1 and reissue a new, this long notice is a farce how can a builder be scheduled with the current tenant law where it could end up with an overhold have one coming up soon 5 months already and no sign of movement yet.
    I am staying in the business for now none of my refurbed units come under the remit of the RTB or its regs

    How did you get out from under the rtb with your properties?
    Short term lets? Or are you going back to long term lets after refurb?


  • Options
    #80
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,339 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    The o/p didn't say that in his notice.He said nothing about a contractor.

    There is no contractor employed. How can he the name of a person who doesn't exist?
    The "if any" part is hugely in his favour here.


  • Options
    #81
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    GGTrek wrote: »
    OP I just added an attachment for your and other people's benefit. It is a termination notice sample that can be served without prejudice to other termination notices that have already been served or will be served. In addition the missing statement material facts are detailed. Should you have to take such a notice to an RTB dispute always claim that Section 64A of the RTA 2004-2016 should be applied since it would be very easy for an adjudicator with socialist tendencies to find slips and omissions which are not material in a notice for intended works. As I said in the PM, if you need to open a dispute, have a detailed plan of costs/time/materials/labour ready and also signed by a professional third party that should ideally be present at the hearing. The dispute should not focus on the formality of the notice (very likely with your current notice), but on the facts which will make your tenant case and Flac representatives effort much much harder (they are not construction experts, you and your third party are the professionals). Best of luck

    I am not sure that the notice attached reflects the new guidelines. It is just a total replacement of plumbing. there is no mention of anything which enhances the dwelling.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    rossmores
    Registered Users Posts: 118 ✭✭rossmores


    TanyGray wrote: »
    rossmores wrote: »
    I opted for part 4s terminations on legal advice even thought my reason was to renovate, had to retract 1 and reissue a new, this long notice is a farce how can a builder be scheduled with the current tenant law where it could end up with an overhold have one coming up soon 5 months already and no sign of movement yet.
    I am staying in the business for now none of my refurbed units come under the remit of the RTB or its regs

    How did you get out from under the rtb with your properties?
    Short term lets?  Or are you going back to long term lets after refurb?
    i have rented 3 units on provisional 6 month terms to 2 companies directly all who have foreign employees on contracts i have to provide cleaning but its being very successful such is the demand i source through social media
    Staff staying in the accommodation are in effect licensees


  • Options
    #83
    GGTrek
    Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    GGTrek wrote: »
    OP I just added an attachment for your and other people's benefit. It is a termination notice sample that can be served without prejudice to other termination notices that have already been served or will be served. In addition the missing statement material facts are detailed. Should you have to take such a notice to an RTB dispute always claim that Section 64A of the RTA 2004-2016 should be applied since it would be very easy for an adjudicator with socialist tendencies to find slips and omissions which are not material in a notice for intended works. As I said in the PM, if you need to open a dispute, have a detailed plan of costs/time/materials/labour ready and also signed by a professional third party that should ideally be present at the hearing. The dispute should not focus on the formality of the notice (very likely with your current notice), but on the facts which will make your tenant case and Flac representatives effort much much harder (they are not construction experts, you and your third party are the professionals). Best of luck

    I am not sure that the notice attached reflects the new guidelines. It is just a total replacement of plumbing. there is no mention of anything which enhances the dwelling.

    Whatever is wirhin brackets in red in the SAMPLE notice has to be filled in. The OP will have to fill it in with his works.

    BTW this sample notice has got nothing to do with increasing rent after the works which would require the enhancements you are talking about. For a termination notice it is enough that for the duration of the works the dwelling becomes NOT habitable and I guarantee you that replacing all plumbing will make the dwelling not habitable for a period. The OP building work is actually much bigger than just replacing plumbing and was described in the notice he posted.


  • Options
    #84
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Graham wrote: »
    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.


    Thread is pretty much derailed the OP has been given the advice on what to do but from about page 2 it has now turned into a thread whereby "landlords" want to feel justified in their actions, shocked at how laws protect the tenants and now shocked at where their taxes go......

    Solution tax landlords as much as they can, being a landlord should not be a business the model does not work.


  • Options
    #85
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I think LL agree with you and thus are leaving and taking their property with them.

    https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/house-prices-soar-in-commuter-belt-but-flatline-in-the-capital-36743742.html
    Meanwhile, strict lending controls introduced by the Central Bank are being cited as the reason for a near flatline in prices of three-bed semis in Dublin since the beginning of the year.

    Aside from north Co Dublin, where affordable homes are still available in some numbers, Dublin prices have remained almost unchanged as potential buyers fell foul of lending controls.

    If you consider that lending controls are credited with stabilizing prices. We can infer that the lack of lending controls caused the problem in the first place.
    Originally banks had their own controls, and when they removed these, the regulator and the central bank should have stepped in.
    It was that credit bubble and boom that fueled this crisis, also equally the Govt policy of out sourcing social housing.
    Before that Private LL for Private Rentals was working. Rents were low, and you could move around. Only as supply dried up and rents rose did it become a problem.

    Punitive measures against Landlords, effect tenants far more than Landlords. People seem to forget that most crucial part of the puzzle.


  • Options
    #86
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,524 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Mellor wrote: »
    4ensic15 wrote: »
    The o/p didn't say that in his notice.He said nothing about a contractor.

    There is no contractor employed. How can he the name of a person who doesn't exist?
    The "if any" part is hugely in his favour here.
    Actually one could be pedantic and say he did nsme himself as the contractor.

    He said. “the landlord intends to renovate”


  • Options
    #87
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    charleville wrote: »
    ...I gave my tenant 4 months notice last December (note - I only had to give 3 legally) as to help them with a bit more time to find something.
    We intend on renovating the house and adding in an extra room/extension and doing up the whole house (it hasn’t been touched in years)....

    For balance, have you considered the option of not touching it for another few years more and perhaps even running it as a not for profit hobby or even loss making service.

    You might run this idea past the bank and revenue to see if they feel its a something they would like to contribute to also.


  • Options
    #88
    TanyGray
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 52 ✭✭TanyGray


    beauf wrote: »
    For balance, have you considered the option of not touching it for another few years more and perhaps even running it as a not for profit hobby or even loss making service.

    You might run this idea past the bank and revenue to see if they feel its a something they would like to contribute to also.


    Our government are perfectly ok with that strategy anyway.


  • Options
    #89
    charleville
    Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭charleville


    If it’s a case where I have to issue a new termination notice (still unsure of this yet)... Is it also possible to increase the rent to what I’m legally entitled to at the same time ? Or can I only do one or another at any one time ? Either notice of termination or notice of rent increase.

    If my tenant wants to take me for a ride which they seem to be doing, then I just want what I am entitled to now at this stage, fed up of the whole system to be honest, nothings right and nothings fair... simple as that


  • Options
    #90
    charleville
    Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭charleville


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Thread is pretty much derailed the OP has been given the advice on what to do but from about page 2 it has now turned into a thread whereby "landlords" want to feel justified in their actions, shocked at how laws protect the tenants and now shocked at where their taxes go......

    Solution tax landlords as much as they can, being a landlord should not be a business the model does not work.

    Are you on here just looking to provoke people... or is 50% tax not enough for most landlords ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Solution tax landlords as much as they can, being a landlord should not be a business the model does not work.

    The problem is the government decided to abdicate its responsibility to house its citizens to the private sector- who, by definition, work under a business model. The government doesn't have to work under a business model (but even they budget and adhere to extremely strict rules and guidelines).

    The government is only too happy to get out of the business of housing people- however, they are under obligations, and have devised a regulatory regime to protect the tenants- and thus fulfill their obligations- which is mute to the fact that they have outsourced housing- which infers its either being run on a for-profit basis- or supply is going to dry up. Quelle suprise- supply has dried up- and small scale landlords are getting out. The larger landlords including the REITs don't particularly care- as they're structured not to pay tax anyway- its only when tenancies are being refreshed that they're getting a dose of their own medicine- and this is also why it was necessary (after a few high profile cases) to bring in definitions regarding works etc.

    By rights- the government should hold its hands up, admit its experiment to outsource housing to the private sector is a failure, bring all the housing associations etc back in house- and massively ramp up the provision of social housing units- which should be available to anyone- not just those on social welfare.

    The system is broken- the imperative though- is to point a finger at a scapegoat- rather than proactively try to fix it.


Advertisement