Landlord evicted us to use apartment for own use and now advertises it on Airbnb

Dav010

Cryptopagan wrote: »

If he is not occupying the place himself on an ongoing basis the notice is invalid.


As per the legislation:


Residential Tenancies Act 2004


So if the OP sees the whole property is available on Airbnb for extended periods, their former landlord couldn't be in occupation during those periods.

This is an interesting point. I couldn’t find anything that defines “use” as a full time full ccupation on an ongoing basis. The Tenamcies Act doesn’t seem to define it, and the RTB website refers only to “use”, “duration” would appear to refer to whether the LL/family need long term rather than just for a month.

Maybe you might link to why you are so sure the notice is invalid.

Cryptopagan

Dav010 wrote: »

This is an interesting point. I couldn’t find anything that defines “use” as a full time full ccupation on an ongoing basis. The Tenamcies Act doesn’t seem to define it, and the RTB website refers only to “use”, “duration” would appear to refer to whether the LL/family need long term rather than just for a month.

Maybe you might link to why you are so sure the notice is invalid.

I'm not sure. And even if the OP told us how often it's available on Airbnb I still couldn't be sure. They'd have to make a case to the RTB to find out. But if it is available for extended periods, you certainly couldn't dismiss the possibility the notice is invalid.

Sleeper12

Cryptopagan wrote:

So if the OP sees the whole property is available on Airbnb for extended periods, their former landlord couldn't be in occupation during those periods.

Under new Airbnb regulations the apartment can't be rented out for extended periods to Airbnb.

Unless he or a family member is living there he is very restricted in how long he rents it for Airbnb

Garibaldi?

If it's his home he's at liberty to make his own decisions about it(providing that he's tax compliant). He may find it necessary to be away a lot because of work or family commitments. AIR b and B could be a way of safeguarding and maintaining the place. I've heard people say that.

Cryptopagan

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Under new Airbnb regulations the apartment can't be rented out for extended periods to Airbnb.

Unless he or a family member is living there he is very restricted in how long he rents it for Airbnb

Those aren't in force yet, and won't be until June.

Banmroi

RTB Tribunal report 9th March 2018:


"The Tribunal finds that the Respondent Landlord did not have sufficient grounds to
terminate the tenancy by reference to the reasons provided in his notice to the Appellant
Tenant. The Respondent Landlord wished to terminate under s. 34 of the Act which
provides the basis within which a Part 4 tenancy can be terminated. It is common case
among both parties that the Respondent Landlord wished to terminate on the basis of
using the property for short term lets as well as for family use. This does not provide a
valid basis to terminate a tenancy"

Mortelaro

Banmroi wrote: »

RTB Tribunal report 9th March 2018:


"The Tribunal finds that the Respondent Landlord did not have sufficient grounds to
terminate the tenancy by reference to the reasons provided in his notice to the Appellant
Tenant. The Respondent Landlord wished to terminate under s. 34 of the Act which
provides the basis within which a Part 4 tenancy can be terminated. It is common case
among both parties that the Respondent Landlord wished to terminate on the basis of
using the property for short term lets as well as for family use. This does not provide a
valid basis to terminate a tenancy"

That's fine but completely different to a person needing a property for a frequency of returns home from the states
They could have sold their family home here for example
Notwithstanding, the whole thing could be challenged in court should the owner also be dis commoded by having to rent a separate property here
It's all a judgement issue

Garibaldi?

Banmroi wrote: »

RTB Tribunal report 9th March 2018:


"The Tribunal finds that the Respondent Landlord did not have sufficient grounds to
terminate the tenancy by reference to the reasons provided in his notice to the Appellant
Tenant. The Respondent Landlord wished to terminate under s. 34 of the Act which
provides the basis within which a Part 4 tenancy can be terminated. It is common case
among both parties that the Respondent Landlord wished to terminate on the basis of
using the property for short term lets as well as for family use. This does not provide a
valid basis to terminate a tenancy"

This person appears to have had family there rather than having taken up residency himself. I would imagine from the wording here that this individual had a documented address elsewhere. Otherwise it would read "for personal use" rather than "for family use". I think it depends significantly on one's address, address having strong implications.

Banmroi

If it's available for Air b&b then the family member has vacated.

Section 34 is not for short term lets

It's an attempt to exploit the legislation and would lose in Tribunal

Dav010

Cryptopagan wrote: »

I'm not sure. And even if the OP told us how often it's available on Airbnb I still couldn't be sure. They'd have to make a case to the RTB to find out. But if it is available for extended periods, you certainly couldn't dismiss the possibility the notice is invalid.

It’s difficult to prove a double negative.

If the RTB wanted to define “use” as full time occupation in the sense that it is a primary residence, then surely they would require it to be a primary residence for owner/family for a valid termination. But it doesn’t.

Garibaldi?

Banmroi wrote: »

If it's available for Air b&b then the family member has vacated.

Section 34 is not for short term lets

It's an attempt to exploit the legislation and would lose in Tribunal

Yes, this judgement makes sense if the tenancy was ended for a family member and then the property was used for AIR b and b. That sounds like sharp practice and a bit fishy. However, someone might need his house back for himself because his other house was no longer fit for purpose eg in bad repair, too large/too small/inconveniently located, a myriad of reasons. What was suitable a few years ago may not be now. There may be health/job/family issues.So he moves into the previously- let place. There should not be a restriction on him regarding his movements and who he has in his home during his absence.

Dav010

Banmroi wrote: »

If it's available for Air b&b then the family member has vacated.

Section 34 is not for short term lets

It's an attempt to exploit the legislation and would lose in Tribunal

Or, the family member, in this case the owner, has vacated while it is used for Airbnb. But that doesn’t come as a surprise seeing as he actually lives in the US and stated that the property is to be used by him when at home. Again, the RTB does not stipulate that the LL has to be there all the time, he just can’t offer it for tenancy rental while claiming to be “using” it. I have never come accross any legislation for instance, that prohibits a family member from having a licensee while they are using the property, maybe there is.

Dravokivich

Anthonylfc wrote: »

people like you make my blood boil

ffs move on

his place , he gave adequate notice , regardless what he uses it for is none of your concern , he gave you the appropriate notice

Of course it's of their concern. It was the OPs residence until the eviction and the reason for the eviction has been shown not to be the outcome. Are you suggesting the reasons for an eviction and ceasing of a rental agreement don't have to be truthful?

Wheres Me Jumper?

Dravokivich wrote: »

Of course it's of their concern. It was the OPs residence until the eviction and the reason for the eviction has been shown not to be the outcome. Are you suggesting the reasons for an eviction and ceasing of a rental agreement don't have to be truthful?

the OP said "stating that he wanted to use the apartment for himself and his wife for the periods of time when they returned home to Ireland"

as far as we can tell this is the case.
the fact that he also is listing it on AirBnB does not negate this fact.

by using AirBnB it gives him the flexibility he requires when he returns home. a longterm lease cannot by it's nature do so.

Graham

It would certainly be interesting to see what side an RTB determination came down on.

I guess the question they would have to answer is; does occasional use qualify as own occupation?

Askthe EA

Dravokivich wrote: »

and the reason for the eviction has been shown not to be the outcome.

No, it hasn't though.

Sleeper12

Graham wrote: »

It would certainly be interesting to see what side an RTB determination came down on.

I guess the question they would have to answer is; does occasional use qualify as own occupation?

I agree

I think this case is different as this isn't his 2nd home in Ireland. This will be his primary residence in Ireland. This will be his Irish base. The new Airbnb regulations restrict the lettings so much that I don't see it being a runner to claim that he changed his business from long term lettings to short term lettings. If he isn't an owner occupier then he cant rent airbnb without planning permission. If he is owner occupier he's limited to 90 days per year.

cruizer101

Its a strange one as to what defines occupy, does the owner have to actually be there or just have exclusive use i.e. not let out on AirBnB. And for how much of the year do they have to occupy the property.

Personally I would be on the landlords side in this case. The intent of the law is that if the owner wants their property back for their own personal use they can give notice, and in this case they do, they want it so they can use it when they are in Ireland occasionally, that is the main purpose. As well as that they are going to AirBnB it but the main reason for the eviction it would seem is because they want use of the property for themselves.

Tar.Aldarion

I imagine if it is not judged as his primary residence (which it is not, even if it is his "primary residence in Ireland") it would be judged in favour of the tenant (assuming the renovations were not enough to break the clause for that reason, plus they were not the reason given).

Anybody could be kicked out for anything otherwise if they said oh well I'd like to stay there the odd weekend. How long would such a person have to do that before renting it out again?

Wheres Me Jumper?

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I imagine if it is not judged as his primary residence (which it is not, even if it is his "primary residence in Ireland") it would be judged in favour of the tenant (assuming the renovations were not enough to break the clause for that reason, plus they were not the reason given).

Anybody could be kicked out for anything otherwise if they said oh well I'd like to stay there the odd weekend.

but the LL/owner needs to be able to demonstrate to any reasonable person, that it is his main irish residence.
if he can do that, then he ought to be free (within the law) to with it as he wishes. otherwise it's an infringement of his constitutional rights imo.

Sleeper12

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I imagine if it is not judged as his primary residence (which it is not) it would be judged in favour of the tenant (assuming the renovations were not enough to break the clause for that reason, plus they were not the reason given).

Anybody could be kicked out for anything otherwise if they said oh well I'd like to stay there the odd weekend.

But it will be his primary (& only) Irish residence.

1982

As the landlord is not ordinarily living in the state, was the poster paying 20% of the rent to revenue?

Dav010

1982 wrote: »

As the landlord is not ordinarily living in the state, was the poster paying 20% of the rent to revenue?

Is that relevant to the issue? Tax compliance is a matter between Revenue and the owner.

Tar.Aldarion

That would lead to there being absolutely no security of tenure for people renting from foreign investors, of which there is an increasing amount, bypassing part IV altogether with no comeback.


What about "primary Dublin residence" if somebody lived in say, Galway? Or what about Belfast?

Garibaldi?

Surely if you're living in America you can't end a tenancy in Ireland just so you can stay there the odd time! Different if you were moving home!

Dav010

Garibaldi? wrote: »

Surely if you're living in America you can't end a tenancy in Ireland just so you can stay there the odd time! Different if you were moving home!

Therein lies the issue, what constitutes “use”? There is no definition. If I came home from the States a couple of times a year and my kids came home a few more times, I wouldn’t want to pay for a hotel and I would consider that using my property. Somebody else might define use as it being the place I live all the times. It’s subjective but I would suspect it would be very difficult to legislate for without infringing on peoples rights.

tretorn

Garibaldi? wrote: »

Surely if you're living in America you can't end a tenancy in Ireland just so you can stay there the odd time! Different if you were moving home!

Why cant you do this, its your property so why not have it for your use when you travel back. The landlord could have children and grandchildren here and wants his house so he has somewhere to entertain his fsmily.

The tenant can leave the apartment whenever he likes and it doesnt matter how much this inconveniences the landlord.

If the RTB entertain claims like this more and more landlords will just sell up and then rents will go up even more.

cruizer101

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

That would lead to there being absolutely no security of tenure for people renting from foreign investors, of which there is an increasing amount, bypassing part IV altogether with no comeback.

But its not a case that they are ending it and re-letting, I would have issue with that.
How many foreign investors are going to want to take their property off the market.
And changing to AirBnB isn't an option for them either.
So this case is probably unique enough

dartboardio

Surely its his propertyand he can evict with notice as much or as little as he likes?

And also let out on whatever platforms he likes why should a past tenant get a say?

And this is hardly a new thing lots and lots of landlords have done this already. Switching from private long term letting to Air Bnb

I know its a hassle for a renter but sure thats tough luck since its their property and they can do as they please.

Steer55

Please also note alot of people let out room/rooms on Airbnb and also live in the place themselves. They won't be affected by the new rules coming into force in June.