Situation with the landlord

GGTrek

Deleted User wrote: »

So, to summarise.....the tenant has 28 days to contest the validity of the notice. But if that notice is invalid, then the 28 days starts again from scratch? i.e.....You only have to contest the validity of a notice if it is already valid?

And people wonder why there are issues around ending of tenancies.

It has been like this since 2004, the whole structure of the RTA is pro-tenant since the framers thought the tenant was the "weak" party to defend. Problem is that since 2004 the pendulum has swung too much in favour of tenants and it is seriously hurting supply. In addition 90% of politicians want to swing it even more against LL, since it is an easy vote catcher. Most people do not understand the real effects of screwing LLs too much: less LLs, less rental supply, higher rents (it is already happening!).
If the anti eviction bill becomes law, new supply will dry out almost immediately and old supply will almost disappear. It would be like it was in Ireland pre-1981, or UK pre-1988, BUT without the massive social housing available. Then the Irish at large will finally undestand what the politicians have caused.


Look at the RTB determinations in the last quarter of 2018 and first quarter of 2019: the vast majority of them are for overholding. It was never this bad, evictions are increasing massively because many small landlords (including myself) are quitting. Renters are screwed long term in Ireland unless a massive recession hits and demand for rentals is dampened. On the supply side there is no solution because the politicians have done too much damage, only the big funds are buying or building and at a much lower rate than the decrease in supply. If the anti-eviction bill is passed even the big investors will stop, since de facto it would be forcing private investors to provide social housing to every sitting tenant (regardless of their income!) with the added bonus of paying taxes on it (well the big funds will not pay a dime anyway).

I'm well aware of the power shift from landlord to tenant, and to be honest, it was too skewed in the opposite direction for far too long. So the current situation is better than the situation we had in the 80s and 90s with squalid bedsits etc.

But is it really the case here that the statutory time period for contesting the validity of a notice only applies if the notice is valid?

If a landlord gives you notice and you don't contest it within 28 days (so as far as he knows you'll be moving out at the end of the notice period), you can just turn around in 3 months time and say "surprise, motherfudger, that notice is invalid. Time to restart the clock"?

That surely is against the intention of the legislation? What's the point of the time limit to contest it at all then?

beauf

I think the intention is that you get the notice correct the first time, and the tenant gets to stay until you do. The mistake is at the LL expense not the tenants.

In the 80~90s if you disliked a place you could find a different place the next evening. No problem with supply. One of the reason for deposit retention if you break the lease by moving out early. Used to be very hard to keep a place rented.

Yeah, but the existence of the limit in the first place implies that it is the onus of the tenant to let the landlord know that they are contesting the validity of the notice?

It is my understanding that the tenant has 28 days to let the landlord know that they considered the notice invalid. Thus, the landlord could, from day 29 onwards, begin the process of finding new tenants or whatever, safe in the knowledge that the time period for contesting the notice period had expired and the tenant would vacate in x number of days or weeks or months.

The consensus here seems to be that, if you are given incorrect notice for any reason, the 28 day limit does not apply to You, which is farcical.

Say you've lived somewhere for 10 years so you should be given 7 months notice (224 days). The notice you are handed is invalid. It is open to you to keep your mouth shut, then say on day 223 "sorry chief, invalid for x reason", and the 224 day period starts again?

Again, it was my understanding that the tenant is obliged to let the landlord know that they are contesting the validity of the notice while there are still 196 days left in the 7 month period. After that, tough titty. Too late, shoulda said something, didn't, pack your bags and GTFO.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

In the 80~90s if you disliked a place you could find a different place the next evening. No problem with supply. One of the reason for deposit retention if you break the lease by moving out early. Used to be very hard to keep a place rented.

People were living in absolute squalor in certain parts of the city with zero minimum standards or repercussions for sh1tty landlord behaviour. There were a whole row of 4-storey-over-basement houses near me on the NCR, each one split into 6-10 bedsits and only one bathroom between them.

pwurple

Most of your post is irrelevant OP. Paint, kettles, carpet etc...

I know it is so very hard to uproot your life. Don’t make it personal about the landlord.

Find a place, and go.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

In the 80~90s if you disliked a place you could find a different place the next evening. No problem with supply. One of the reason for deposit retention if you break the lease by moving out early. Used to be very hard to keep a place rented.

People were living in absolute squalor in certain parts of the city with zero minimum standards or repercussions for sh1tty landlord behaviour. There were a whole row of 4-storey-over-basement houses near me on the NCR, each one split into 6-10 bedsits and only one bathroom between them.

What's in them now...

JJJackal

beauf wrote: »

What's in them now...

Was their a grant to restore these old multi flat Georgian houses to a single house?

beauf

beauf wrote: »

What's in them now...

Don't live there now, so I haven't been inside any of them in the better part of 20 years but I'd imagine most of them are let as one property or they've had extra showers/toilets installed.

beauf

You don't have to live in a bedsit, or some dive you could have picked a better place back then. There was a lot places available.

So basically 10 properties merged into one and rent probably 10 times what it was then. Often because it wasn't viable to create a load of bathrooms in a period property.

Obviously it correct to improve standards. But the removal of so much rental stock, without replacing it, was the start of the housing crisis, and the rise in rents.

They never filled the gap this created.

tretorn

The notice to quit was invalid from the Get Go if the Statutory Declaration didnt accompany it.

Because of this the RTB in my opinion should have told the landlord to issue a proper notice to quit even if the tenant lodged the complaint after the twenty eight days notice.

The Statutory declaration ties the landlord, he has to do what he has sworn in the declaration, ie sell the house if thats the reason. If he lets the house within six months of evicting the existing tenant then this tenant has the right to move back in. Im not sure though can landlord then increase rent. The landlord obviously didnt want the tenant to know their rights so they took the risk not to include the statutory notice. The other reason could be the landlord didnt bother even checking landlord duties on the RTB website and neither did the tenant bother checking out their rights either.

spaceHopper

Nonamigo wrote: »

Another update. LL just after calling me. Said she has taken legal advice from PRTB (do they give legal advises?) today and on wednsday she is coming over to meet me and to give me new notice with the declaration. She says I will have 28 days to dispute it and in the meantime she will have 28 days to dispute my first dispute. As I understand she is giving me the new notice but firmly believes that the first one was correct and after this wednsday I will be basically over holding and she is going to challenge me on that. Hopefully PRTB will get back to me before wednsday with ruling in my favor.

Have a good look at the RTB web site, there are sample termination notices, besides the statuary deceleration there is a paragraph which includes that you only have 28 days to open a dispute, if that wasn't in it then how are you to know you only have 28 days. Was that in it? If it wasn't then their entire notices wasn't valid. Also have they sold the apartment yet it sounds like they haven't.

.......

Deleted User wrote: »

People were living in absolute squalor in certain parts of the city with zero minimum standards or repercussions for sh1tty landlord behaviour. There were a whole row of 4-storey-over-basement houses near me on the NCR, each one split into 6-10 bedsits and only one bathroom between them.

But it suited some people. And the problem was that when these were removed from the market, nothing replaced them, so people on the lowest rung of the ladder either moved up a rung and rented something pricier, went on the council housing lists or became homeless.

Im not saying that low standards should be acceptable, but that the gap in the market for cheapo rentals was never filled with anything else and this displaced a lot of people who then had nowhere else to go.

.......

....... wrote: »

But it suited some people. And the problem was that when these were removed from the market, nothing replaced them, so people on the lowest rung of the ladder either moved up a rung and rented something pricier, went on the council housing lists or became homeless.

Im not saying that low standards should be acceptable, but that the gap in the market for cheapo rentals was never filled with anything else and this displaced a lot of people who then had nowhere else to go.

We're digressing here, and I get the feeling that we're agreeing on / arguing the same points. One point I would make, though, is just because it suited some people doesn't make it right or preferable to the current situation. There are groups of foreigners crammed into tiny apartments around the city at the moment because "it suits them"....i.e. they're unwilling or unable to afford better. Similarly, people 'didn't have to live in a bedsit'...unless of course that was all they could afford.


Anyway, everyday is a school day. I was unaware that you did not have to make a landlord aware of the fact that they had served you with an invalid notice, thereby rendering the 28 day period for contesting a notice obsolete.

tretorn

There is something coming in now regarding the notices to quit, its called the slip rule. If there is a minor error in the notice it can be disregarded.

Not enclosing a signed and witnessed statutory notice when evicting someone so you can sell the property isnt a minor issue though.

rightmove

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We're digressing here, and I get the feeling ....


Anyway, everyday is a school day. I was unaware that you did not have to make a landlord aware of the fact that they had served you with an invalid notice, thereby rendering the 28 day period for contesting a notice obsolete.

So why have the 28 day notice if they have recourse til the day they move out. It's BS

Exactly. It's a ridiculous interpretation and goes against the whole ethos and intent of the legislation.

FelaniaMump

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyway, everyday is a school day. I was unaware that you did not have to make a landlord aware of the fact that they had served you with an invalid notice, thereby rendering the 28 day period for contesting a notice obsolete.

The point is that if they didn't serve you the part of the notice that tells you you have 28 days to file a dispute, then obviously you can't hold them to the 28 days that they did not know about!

Then all a LL would have to do is serve anything they want and say "tough luck suckers, you missed your chance!" and how fair would that be?

rightmove

FelaniaMump wrote: »

The point is that if they didn't serve you the part of the notice that tells you you have 28 days to file a dispute, then obviously you can't hold them to the 28 days that they did not know about!

Then all a LL would have to do is serve anything they want and say "tough luck suckers, you missed your chance!" and how fair would that be?

It fairer than the opposite which is the case now. The notices tell them they have 28 days to appeal

Subutai

tretorn wrote: »

There is something coming in now regarding the notices to quit, its called the slip rule. If there is a minor error in the notice it can be disregarded.

Not enclosing a signed and witnessed statutory notice when evicting someone so you can sell the property isnt a minor issue though.

The slip rule allows for one error to be handwaved away, provided it isn't prejudicial to the substance of the notice - not having any reference to how to go about appealing to the RTB would be a matter of substance.

The slip rule will never extend to the Statutory Declaration, which is a form governed by a different Act. A minor error in the statutory declaration (e.g. Signing it in the wrong place) will render it invalid, and therefore render the notice invalid.

FelaniaMump

rightmove wrote: »

It fairer than the opposite which is the case now. The notices tell them they have 28 days to appeal

The notice which they did not get? You're saying that a LL can not give them the document telling them they have 28 days to dispute, and then tell them that they can't dispute as they have missed the 28 days they did not know about.

That is not fairer than anything. That is insane.

Subutai

rightmove wrote: »

It fairer than the opposite which is the case now. The notices tell them they have 28 days to appeal

The point being made is in the circumstance where the part telling them of their right to appeal was left out of the notice.

Claw Hammer

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, but the existence of the limit in the first place implies that it is the onus of the tenant to let the landlord know that they are contesting the validity of the notice?

It is my understanding that the tenant has 28 days to let the landlord know that they considered the notice invalid. Thus, the landlord could, from day 29 onwards, begin the process of finding new tenants or whatever, safe in the knowledge that the time period for contesting the notice period had expired and the tenant would vacate in x number of days or weeks or months.

The consensus here seems to be that, if you are given incorrect notice for any reason, the 28 day limit does not apply to You, which is farcical.

Say you've lived somewhere for 10 years so you should be given 7 months notice (224 days). The notice you are handed is invalid. It is open to you to keep your mouth shut, then say on day 223 "sorry chief, invalid for x reason", and the 224 day period starts again?

Again, it was my understanding that the tenant is obliged to let the landlord know that they are contesting the validity of the notice while there are still 196 days left in the 7 month period. After that, tough titty. Too late, shoulda said something, didn't, pack your bags and GTFO.

No. what happens is that on day 225 the landlord begins proceedings for over-holding. He gets an arbitration date and the tenant then submits that it wasn't a valid notice in the first place so i didn't have to leave. If the notice is invalid then the landlord has to start again.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

No. what happens is that on day 225 the landlord begins proceedings for over-holding. He gets an arbitration date and the tenant then submits that it wasn't a valid notice in the first place so i didn't have to leave. If the notice is invalid then the landlord has to start again.

Thanks for that. My question then is......the submission that it wasn't a valid notice is now outside the 28 day period for doing so, which was day 28 (correct?). How is that allowed / acceptable?

FelaniaMump

FelaniaMump wrote: »

The point is that if they didn't serve you the part of the notice that tells you you have 28 days to file a dispute, then obviously you can't hold them to the 28 days that they did not know about!

That's reasonable. But what if the notice is invalid for any of the other myriad of ways that exist?

Claw Hammer

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for that. My question then is......the submission that it wasn't a valid notice is now outside the 28 day period for doing so, which was day 28 (correct?). How is that allowed / acceptable?

The theory is that the expiry of the 28 day notice period doesn't turn an invalid notice into a valid one. A landlord complaining of over-holding must do so on foot of a valid notice. With notice period of up to 32 weeks plus the time before the notice is ruled invalid, a bad termination notice will involve a lengthy delay before the landlord even gets a determination order. The landlord may be back at the start after 50 weeks and then serving another 32 week notice with another few months to a have the notice declare valid and then an appeal taking another few months. 2 years could pass before the tenant runs out of road at the RTB, then there are the courts.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The theory is that the expiry of the 28 day notice period doesn't turn an invalid notice into a valid one. A landlord complaining of over-holding must do so on foot of a valid notice.

I presume you mean "dispute" period in the first sentence there that's bolded?

This brings me back around to me first point....the provision of a 28 day period in which a tenant can dispute the validity of the notice is meaningless if that period only applies to valid notices in the heel of the hunt.

Here is the exact text from the RTB's own sample letters:

Any issue as to the validity of this notice or the right of the landlord to serve it, must be referred to the Residential Tenancies Board under Part 6 of the Residential Tenancies Acts 2004 to 2016 within 28 days from the date of receipt of it."

How can the tenant open a dispute on day 225, so?

Claw Hammer

Deleted User wrote: »

I presume you mean "dispute" period in the first sentence there that's bolded?

This brings me back around to me first point....the provision of a 28 day period in which a tenant can dispute the validity of the notice is meaningless if that period only applies to valid notices in the heel of the hunt.

Here is the exact text from the RTB's own sample letters:



How can the tenant open a dispute on day 225, so?

The tenant doesn't open a dispute. the landlord does for over holding. The tenant's answer is that as the notice wasn't valid in the first place, he was not obliged to leave.

In the bolded part it should read "28 day period" not "28 day notice period."

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The tenant doesn't open a dispute. the landlord does for over holding. The tenant's answer is that as the notice wasn't valid in the first place, he was not obliged to leave.

Okay, cheers for the responses, I realise the difference between who opens the dispute.....but my reading of the situation is that it is now past the point where they can use that as a valid excuse. It is now too late to say "I don't consider that valid" as the time for saying that was within the first 28 days. There is an onus on the tenant to show their hand in a timely manner, hence the existence of the 28 day window in the first place.


They should have notified the RTB that they'd received notice which they consider invalid, but seeing as they didn't, the landlord is entitled to act as if the tenant has accepted the notice as valid.


Again, this is my interpretation of the intent of the legislation. If this is not how things are playing out in reality, I'd love to know when and how the 28 day dispute time window applies.

Ray Palmer

It pretty simple if the notice doesn't let the tenant knows how long they have to appeal based on the letter from the landlord they aren't held to the 28 day rule.
If the notice was invalid but included the details of appeal then they are held to the 28 day rule.