Leeside Apartments tenants face eviction after RTB landmark ruling on refurbishment

GGTrek

This is interesting news:
https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Leeside-Apartments-tenants-face-eviction-after-landmark-ruling-fc97dbaa-5561-4822-aa8d-541ca0ca83e6-ds
Tenants got carried away from usual hard left politicians advice (and probably a few public funded NGOs). Big investment funds have the legal muscle to actually take it all the way. Would this have happened without RPZ? Probably not, probably there is also an error in the article: "they have been given 28 days to reply", more likely 28 days to vacate is more likely. Big funds are the future, so says the govvie. Using language like "exploiting a loophole" will just not cut it, it would be interesting to know how much below market rent these tenants were paying and for how long and the ownership history. In a few months it will all be very public since it is very likely to be an RTB Tribunal determination. I believe there will be for sure some political "debate" in the Dail about this.

Samuel T. Cogley

I believe the 28 days is the time they have to appeal. Open to correction.

GGTrek

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I believe the 28 days is the time they have to appeal. Open to correction.

No it is 10 days to appeal to RTB Tribunal. My original assumption was wrong, it was just the adjudication decision and they can still go to Tribunal.
And yes Mick Barry will take it to the Dail (different article), asking to make up legislation for specific cases, how wonderfully amateurish!
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/authority-rules-landlord-can-evict-tenants-over-3-2m-renovation-1.3540736

GGTrek

The residents have actually done everything possible to make the landlord desist:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/leeside-apartments-renovation-row-tenants-call-on-hsa-to-probe-renovations-469930.html
But with a "professional" landlord the tactics (some of them really counterproductive, but again if you just listen to harld left advice, this is what happens) they were employing will not stick. Landlord probably prepared plenty of "professional" reports and witnesses (after all they have the money to pay for this), vast majority of apartments of the block are vacant, the building really needs renovations and the tenants lost the case.

awec

GGTrek wrote: »

This is interesting news:
https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Leeside-Apartments-tenants-face-eviction-after-landmark-ruling-fc97dbaa-5561-4822-aa8d-541ca0ca83e6-ds
Tenants got carried away from usual hard left politicians advice (and probably a few public funded NGOs). Big investment funds have the legal muscle to actually take it all the way. Would this have happened without RPZ? Probably not, probably there is also an error in the article: "they have been given 28 days to reply", more likely 28 days to vacate is more likely. Big funds are the future, so says the govvie. Using language like "exploiting a loophole" will just not cut it, it would be interesting to know how much below market rent these tenants were paying and for how long and the ownership history. In a few months it will all be very public since it is very likely to be an RTB Tribunal determination. I believe there will be for sure some political "debate" in the Dail about this.

Would what have happened? Eviction? Probably not.


More likely rents would have been hiked and they'd have had to leave anyway, so I don't think you can really pin this one on RPZ.

syndrome777

given that the building I currently rent in was bought from receiver, I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled the same thing.

If they do, do they still need to give us the appropriate notice time (depending how long we were renting here) ??

Chris_5339762

Wonder if there are any owners in that block and what, if any, power they have or what power the new owners have over them?

jimmycrackcorm

Evicting due to refurbishment is not a loophole. If it were not possible then rental properties would be doomed to be left to become dilapidated.

As always the issue is supply.

Fol20

You would feel sorry for the tenants but at the end of day. The vulture fund own the property and should have the right to renovate freely without a loose around their neck. I do think it’s a pre tense to up rents but it’s a business. As people have mentioned several times before being a landlord is a business. Not a socially/moral responsibility.

Samuel T. Cogley

This makes me really fecking angry. When are people finally going to realise that private short term leases are not a sustainable way to house people, especially families. There needs to be proper long term leases and proper provision of social housing. Anything else is just window dressing.

These large funds are doing exactly what they should, maximising their profit. Private LL's are not charities.

utmbuilder

Still a lot of time before sheriff's arrive though

Gives tenants time to get new homes in order

Fol20

I would actually prefer long term leases like in other countries. Less tenant turn over means less hassle for the landlord. Less downtime where ll isn’t receiving money and less hassle to fill a house with crap stuff

Varik

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

This makes me really fecking angry. When are people finally going to realise that private short term leases are not a sustainable way to house people, especially families. There needs to be proper long term leases and proper provision of social housing. Anything else is just window dressing.

These large funds are doing exactly what they should, maximising their profit. Private LL's are not charities.

Small time landlords can't be expected to do anything long term, anything could happen during a long term lease that could necessitate selling or needing the property.

As REITs become the norm, you'll likely get it.

the_syco

utmbuilder wrote: »

Still a lot of time before sheriff's arrive though

Gives tenants time to get new homes in order

If they didn't follow the left, I doubt they'd be still there.
Because they're following the left, I'd say they'll be there when the sheriff arrives.

4ensic15

utmbuilder wrote: »

Still a lot of time before sheriff's arrive though

Gives tenants time to get new homes in order

First there is the appeal, which will take months, then there is the appeal to the High Court, the the hearing in the District Court and the appeal to the Circuit Court and possible Judicial Reviews. The sheriff can't come until all that has happened.

Samuel T. Cogley

Varik wrote: »

Small time landlords can't be expected to do anything long term, anything could happen during a long term lease that could necessitate selling or needing the property.

As REITs become the norm, you'll likely get it.

Accidental LL's maybe. But many of us would welcome a long term leaseholder.

Varik

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Accidental LL's maybe. But many of us would welcome a long term leaseholder.

Wasn't talking in absolutes, a small or accidental LL could do so and everything works out.

But imagine any number of medical fees, legal fees, a inheritance tax bill to pay or any of numerous issue that could prevent a person upholding their part as LL.

Child living abroad has a 100k medical bill, or you yourself or a parent needing long term care.

GGTrek

4ensic15 wrote: »

utmbuilder wrote: »

Still a lot of time before sheriff's arrive though

Gives tenants time to get new homes in order

First there is the appeal, which will take months, then there is the appeal to the High Court, the the hearing in the District Court and the appeal to the Circuit Court and possible Judicial Reviews. The sheriff can't come until all that has happened.

Most of the tenants are working. A lost high court challenge will bankrupt them. Just a few of them are social welfare unemployed that will probably try (the working ones will be the first to be evicted! Ireland has really got a great justice system!). I posted a recent high court judgement on Saturday where the judge was highly critical of the RTA appeal system to high court: "only for paupers and millionaires".

Claw Hammer

GGTrek wrote: »

Most of the tenants are working. A lost high court challenge will bankrupt them. Just a few of them are social welfare unemployed that will probably try (the working ones will be the first to be evicted! Ireland has really got a great justice system!). I posted a recent high court judgement on Saturday where the judge was highly critical of the RTA appeal system to high court: "only for paupers and millionaires".

There will all appeal and one case will run as a test case involving one of the paupers. They can get years out of it.

GGTrek

Claw Hammer wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

Most of the tenants are working. A lost high court challenge will bankrupt them. Just a few of them are social welfare unemployed that will probably try (the working ones will be the first to be evicted! Ireland has really got a great justice system!). I posted a recent high court judgement on Saturday where the judge was highly critical of the RTA appeal system to high court: "only for paupers and millionaires".

There will all appeal and one case will run as a test case involving one of the paupers. They can get years out of it.

Yes, but in the mean time the working tenants will be long gone.

Claw Hammer

GGTrek wrote: »

Yes, but in the mean time the working tenants will be long gone.

They can queue up behind the paupers. In all likelihood, it won't suit the owners to have vacant units while others are occupied.

Samuel T. Cogley

Varik wrote: »

Wasn't talking in absolutes, a small or accidental LL could do so and everything works out.

But imagine any number of medical fees, legal fees, a inheritance tax bill to pay or any of numerous issue that could prevent a person upholding their part as LL.

Child living abroad has a 100k medical bill, or you yourself or a parent needing long term care.

They would be prevented from doing so. There are plenty of one off LL's in Germany with long term leases. There is nothing to stop a property being sold subject to lease either, an issue that really should have already been addressed.

Fol20

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They would be prevented from doing so. There are plenty of one off LL's in Germany with long term leases. There is nothing to stop a property being sold subject to lease either, an issue that really should have already been addressed.

I would still be of the opinion that out of all the scapegoats for removing tenants. This one should still be allowable. If you sell with tenants in situ, your limiting your ability to sell and only investors would buy it(or less completion and bidding means you won’t make as much on sale price). Take a look at the value of student purpose build accommodation, there’s a reason why the prices don’t go up as much as standard residential as no standard home owners buy them.

One way to get around this is if tenants were able to be forced out quicker. Then maybe pass a law where they can remain in the property subject to new owner wanting to move in themself. That way you avoid some people abusing the system to kick someone out and then to relent it straight away and then landlords can still achieve maximum sale(even then it may not be most ideal as depending on condition of the place. Sometimes it’s better to have it vacant so it’s not messy and you can give it a new tint of paint)

Claw Hammer

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They would be prevented from doing so. There are plenty of one off LL's in Germany with long term leases. There is nothing to stop a property being sold subject to lease either, an issue that really should have already been addressed.

Selling with tenants in situ is that it can only be sold to an intending landlord. Even an intending landlord may not get finance without vacant possession. This cuts market value. The reason for insisting on vacant possession is precisely because it is so difficult to remove tenants. In a functioning rental market tenants should be able to secure equivalent alternative accommodation at a similar standard and price in a similar location within a reasonable time. The consequence of attempting to create security of tenure for tenants has in fact made the position all the more precarious. The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 has been amended so much within its 14 year currency that it has drifted away from its original base to create the new regime which is stifling the rental market, creating a two tier system which is only benefiting the large-scale landlords and (temporarily) some tenants who are able to avail of below market rents.

handlemaster

The use of Vulture fund is always used to be emotive. It was a sale of a property to an investor, who worked with the law. There is no issue here with the landlord. They have complied with the Law. For the landlord there seems to be an never en ding chorus of calls for action once tenants complain.

4ensic15

Were the tenants legally represented?

Scienceless

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Selling with tenants in situ is that it can only be sold to an intending landlord. Even an intending landlord may not get finance without vacant possession. This cuts market value. The reason for insisting on vacant possession is precisely because it is so difficult to remove tenants. In a functioning rental market tenants should be able to secure equivalent alternative accommodation at a similar standard and price in a similar location within a reasonable time. The consequence of attempting to create security of tenure for tenants has in fact made the position all the more precarious. The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 has been amended so much within its 14 year currency that it has drifted away from its original base to create the new regime which is stifling the rental market, creating a two tier system which is only benefiting the large-scale landlords and (temporarily) some tenants who are able to avail of below market rents.

When you say temporarily avail of below market rents what do you mean?
Is the below market rent issue going to be addressed somehow?
Thanks.

Del2005

Scienceless wrote: »

When you say temporarily avail of below market rents what do you mean?
Is the below market rent issue going to be addressed somehow?
Thanks.

The RPZ legislation will expire or a REIT will challenge it. It's not going to be around for many more years, no other business has its ability to make a profit capped.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

GGTrek

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Evicting due to refurbishment is not a loophole. If it were not possible then rental properties would be doomed to be left to become dilapidated.

As always the issue is supply.

Could not agree more, if the law did not allow eviction due to renovation you would have a situation like in the old rent control buildings in NY, absolutely no serious maintenance or renovation works for ages, landlords actually wait for a situation where the building is in such bad state that the local authority declares the building unsafe for living and all tenants are expelled with 7-30 days notice (fire brigade and police going to expel by force). After this the owners completely demolish the block and tenants loose any rights to go back.

To win the adjudication the fund must have shown professional reports that the renewal was necessary and the professionals that prepared the report probably carried more weight than the "report" of the tenants that said: "yes, repairs and renovations are needed, but no need of evictions". In my opinion such reports on how to perform building works prepared for tenants are usually very biased and unrealistic. A surveyor whose services I used a few times told me several times that any type of work that makes the propert not fit for habitation (for example a complete rewiring, taking the windows off, new piping for water) will require the property to be vacant and I had the same experience in one adjudication a few years ago (the RTB in such cases will usually allocate the case to a surveyor as adjudicator).

Now the motivation of the fund is probably to up the rents to market rent or close to market, but how is any landlord going to recoup the cost of the renovation by leaving rents at crisis levels? Most of the current tenants entered the building during crisis years and if the fund bought the block from Nama or other receivers, probably the crisis level rents are still in place, just covering maintenance and not much more. You would have to see the details of the case to fully understand the situation. In a few months this will be possible, since after appeal a Tribunal report will be published.

GGTrek

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I believe the 28 days is the time they have to appeal. Open to correction.

My original answer was not 100% complete. The time to appeal actually changes depending on adjudication, agreement and/or mediation: https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution-old/what-is-an-appeal-to-a-tribunal/how-to-make-an-appeal/
They are all 10 days, but for adjudication they are considered working days, for agreements and mediation they are considered calendar days (so around 4 calendar days shorter than adjudication).