New Government rules for LLs when selling their property etc.

Claw Hammer

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why should this scare people off becoming landlords? I assume no-one here would issue a notice stating intention to sell as a loophole to get tenants out and bypass RPZ rules...right?

A landlord can only market the property whe a teat vacates. It can take time to get an offer. It can take further time to get an acceptable offer. After that a contract has to issue. If the buyer realises the landlord has to sign the contract, they can hold things up until the last minute when the landlord will have to sign whatever the buyer wants or pull out of the sale and offer the property back to the old tenant. In receiver sales it ca be a very lengthy period between removing the tenant and being in a position to sign the contract for sale. Receivers will now throw tenants out automatically when they take over. More misery for tenants.

voluntary

pc7 wrote: »

Focus Ireland on Morning Ireland want it brought it that there is a moratorium on landlords being able to sell, their proposal is that they can only sell if the tenant is left in place. Sweet suffering Jebus I can't think of any other market with so much interference and meddling.

Which would basically mean you could sell to investors only. No bank would give a residential mortgage where a tenant comes with the house.

A dream legislation for BTL investors, as these properties would likely go to the market with a solid discount.

voluntary

And what if landlord simply doesn't want to rent out any more? Is the legislation basically saying that if you enter this business, there's no end to it enforced by huge penalties?
If a landlord wants a 1 year break, going on holidays or just for a peace of mind or whatever. Would he be not allowed to stop renting unless he sells within 9 months?

tretorn

voluntary wrote: »

And what if landlord simply doesn't want to rent out any more? Is the legislation basically saying that if you enter this business, there's no end to it enforced by huge penalties?
If a landlord wants a 1 year break, going on holidays or just for a peace of mind or whatever. Would he be not allowed to stop renting unless he sells within 9 months?

Yes, thats basically it.

Does anyone know the details of tenancy law in other European countries. The Government are presumably looking to other countries for inspiration and tenants rights may be stronger where historically people do rent for their lifetime.

The_Conductor

Any proposed changes in taking back property for personal use?
E.g. many landlords bought property in the expectation that they'd retire into it or use it for when their children are going to college etc.
Keep in mind that over 87% of landlords own three or fewer properties- and 61% own only one property other than their PPR (and 28% of landlords only own a single property (and are renting the property that they currently live in)- which they are letting- not living in (because of work or other commitments).

Its a complex ecosystem- with many reasons that different things are happening.

sk8board

tretorn wrote: »

I have never heard such nonsense, who would buy a house with sitting tenants in place unless they got the property for half nothing.

(full time LL here)

This is a key concern I’d have - im not an accidental LL, it’s an investment market to me.
I’ve been doing it for almost 15 years (happily too), and in 2012 the gov decided it was the private LLs role to resolve the public housing requirements. It was a fair decision at the time - no public money available and 22,000 properties on Daft. I have no problem with it and indeed signed the HAP contracts for yet another tenant (excellent) earlier this week

However, 120k of the 170k registered LLs are accidental with one property rented - the investment risks are now such that it makes no sense to hold that asset, nor ‘risk’ renting it.

With property prices plateauing, and rules tightening on their ability to sell, accidental LLs have a perfect opportunity to sell - and as the RTB report showed last month, selling they certainly are.

For years, I mindlessly track the Daft rental total most weeks on their app - usually it drops in dec and pops in Jan. this year it has stayed down, consistently staying around 2,850/2950 now.

Let me be very clear - all these rules help me, as a full time (professional?) LL. they protect good tenants and drive out accidental LL, all while making the market even smaller.
The RPZ rules locked in my rent at high yields too.

I keep saying it - allow LLs with multiple properties to form companies, professionalise, expand (B2L mortgage rates are just under 5%) and in return for all these pro-tenant protections.

tretorn

I just cant understand why the local authorities just cant build houses.

They are handing millions over to landlords in HAP payments and this is an inefficent use of money. Is it because many TDs are landlords, this has been said but is it true.

And not to mention how much public money is wastefully going to prop up the numerous housing charities involved and yet nothing to show at the end of the day.

And something has to be done about those big consortiums buying up entire housing developments, who is behind this money and where are the rental receipts going.They are preventing young working couples getting a foot in the property market and effectively forcing these people to pay half their income in rent in some cases with no tax relief given.

There is so much rotten stuff at the core of the housing situation and the powerful have a vested interest in keeping housing supply low.

1huge1

Does anyone know if this has actually been enacted? The article on the Irish Times reads like it's in effect straight away but the article in the Journal keeps referring to it as a proposal.

tretorn

I was wondering that too.

I read it in the Times and understood it to be enacted.

Spanish Eyes

1huge1 wrote: »

Does anyone know if this has actually been enacted? The article on the Irish Times reads like it's in effect straight away but the article in the Journal keeps referring to it as a proposal.

That was a question I posed in the OP.

I'm guessing that it is a proposed amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act, but like others I'm not sure that is has been passed yet. I'm sure it would have been in the news during its passage through the Dail and Seanad.

Or maybe it slipped in under the radar. :eek:

Fol20

sk8board wrote: »

(full time LL here)

This is a key concern I’d have - im not an accidental LL, it’s an investment market to me.
I’ve been doing it for almost 15 years (happily too), and in 2012 the gov decided it was the private LLs role to resolve the public housing requirements. It was a fair decision at the time - no public money available and 22,000 properties on Daft. I have no problem with it and indeed signed the HAP contracts for yet another tenant (excellent) earlier this week

However, 120k of the 170k registered LLs are accidental with one property rented - the investment risks are now such that it makes no sense to hold that asset, nor ‘risk’ renting it.

With property prices plateauing, and rules tightening on their ability to sell, accidental LLs have a perfect opportunity to sell - and as the RTB report showed last month, selling they certainly are.

For years, I mindlessly track the Daft rental total most weeks on their app - usually it drops in dec and pops in Jan. this year it has stayed down, consistently staying around 2,850/2950 now.

Let me be very clear - all these rules help me, as a full time (professional?) LL. they protect good tenants and drive out accidental LL, all while making the market even smaller.
The RPZ rules locked in my rent at high yields too.

I keep saying it - allow LLs with multiple properties to form companies, professionalise, expand (B2L mortgage rates are just under 5%) and in return for all these pro-tenant protections.

They do allow ll form companies. I had looked into a few years ago however from a taxation point of view, it didnt make sense when your trying to take the money back out into your own company. The corp surcharge of an extra 20pc didnt help either. There is a good post on askaboutmoney comparing the two optons. Its only good if you want to keep investing the money into the company and not spend any of it on yourself.

sk8board

Fol20 wrote: »

They do allow ll form companies. I had looked into a few years ago however from a taxation point of view, it didnt make sense when your trying to take the money back out into your own company. The corp surcharge of an extra 20pc didnt help either. There is a good post on askaboutmoney comparing the two optons. Its only good if you want to keep investing the money into the company and not spend any of it on yourself.

Exactly - it makes no sense currently as the system isn’t designed for it.
Rental income is taxed at paye rates from the days decades ago when there were far fewer LLs, everyone was effectively an accidental LL, and it was never deemed to be another more than additional income.
An afterthought.
No other investment vertical has its income or proceeds treated as such. Not that long ago the CGT rate was 20% an is currently 33% - meanwhile accidental LLs who have a paye salary over €34k are paying income tax through the nose on their rent - all of the risks and very few of the gains.

There is no logical reason to stay invested in such a market - unless you need your house back for family reasons at some stage - in which case they need to sell it.

IAmTheReign

voluntary wrote: »

Let's say tenants rents for 800, which is well under the market rates. The landlord kicks him out, he finds a new place, for 1800 this time. 9 months later, he gets an offer of going back to the old place for 800 pm. He would be stupid not to take it.


What happens to landlord who genuinely tries to sell his house, but doesn't complete in 9 months?

This here highlights the total stupidity of the proposal. It shafts both the ex-landlord looking to sell and the new one by encouraging the tenant to break his lease and go back to the previous property.

The Student

voluntary wrote: »

And what if landlord simply doesn't want to rent out any more? Is the legislation basically saying that if you enter this business, there's no end to it enforced by huge penalties?
If a landlord wants a 1 year break, going on holidays or just for a peace of mind or whatever. Would he be not allowed to stop renting unless he sells within 9 months?

No I don't think so. I think what is meant is that if you want to re rent the property within the period the last tenant gets first refusal. Even if they don't take it the next tenant enjoys the rent price of the previous tenant.

If you don't rent out anymore there is no impact on you. It would be unconstitutional to stop you leaving your property vacant. You will be levied with the vacant property tax but the State cant stop you from owning the property.

The only way the State can force you to sell is by a compulsory purchase order.

GGTrek

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I thought the current rule was actually 6 months for sale.

The current rule is very different: the landlord intends, within three months of the termination date, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.

Once you put it out for sale (you have three months to start the sale process from the termination date), you have as much time as you wish to sell it.

gizmo555

The_Conductor wrote: »

E.g. many landlords bought property in the expectation that they'd retire into it or use it for when their children are going to college etc.

That's exactly what I did. When my son was 18 months old we bought an apartment as an investment, but also with a long term plan that he'd use it when going to college.

Now he's 18 years of age and, God willing, will be at university and living in the apartment next September. It was rented out until July of last year, when our last tenant moved out, because they had bought a property of their own.

I could have rented it out for another year, but with all the hassle, the high tax rates on the rental income and, most importantly, the risk now that once someone moves in it may be impossible to get them back out, I couldn't be bothered.

So, yet another residential property coming off the rental market because of the unintended but entirely predictable consequences of the legislation.

Claw Hammer

voluntary wrote: »

And what if landlord simply doesn't want to rent out any more? Is the legislation basically saying that if you enter this business, there's no end to it enforced by huge penalties?
If a landlord wants a 1 year break, going on holidays or just for a peace of mind or whatever. Would he be not allowed to stop renting unless he sells within 9 months?

The landlord can decide to stop letting, but it must be on the end of a part 4. That has been the case since the RTA came into effect.

GGTrek

Maya22 wrote: »

Is this enacted immediately or is it planned for a few months down the line? Gave my tenants notice months ago for a substantial refurb (serious renovations, gutting the place, walls and all). Should we still go ahead? As far as I’m aware, we meet all the criteria but the goalposts keep being moved

If you have already delivered the notice to the tenants, then you are not affected. New laws cannot apply retrospectively.


With respect to when it is going to be enacted: Brexit has slowed down things (the govvie has got a real emergency with Brexit instead of keeping their time busy tinkering with the rental market to gain media exposure and indirectly votes), so nothing will happen before Easter. I suggest you to look at the Dáil calendar:
https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/parliamentaryBusiness/other/2018-09-20_provisional-dail-calendar-of-sittings_en.pdf
Things will only start to move in the second week of May. If they push it fast enough (the bill is at Committee Stage + Report stage + Senad + President) then this legislation change will be approved before the long Summer recess starts on the 12th of July. Otherwise only in September.


People should not confuse announcement from a minister with actual changes in the law. I agree that the reporting from the sold out Irish Times is abysmal as usual.

GGTrek

The Student wrote: »

No I don't think so. I think what is meant is that if you want to re rent the property within the period the last tenant gets first refusal. Even if they don't take it the next tenant enjoys the rent price of the previous tenant.

If you don't rent out anymore there is no impact on you. It would be unconstitutional to stop you leaving your property vacant. You will be levied with the vacant property tax but the State cant stop you from owning the property.

The only way the State can force you to sell is by a compulsory purchase order.

Your interpretation is very likely to be correct, it is probably just smokes and mirrors as usual.


As long as the former landlord does not rent again the property, he/she will still have as much time as he/she wishes to sell or to keep the property vacant. Any other interpretation would be construed as an unjust attack on property rights and in violation of art 43 2°:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article43


"2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property."


combined with art 40 3 2°:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article40
"2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen."


It just depends if some socialist superior court judge decides that the "common good" clause of art 43 2 2° trumps property rights. In the current paternalistic/pumped up "housing crisis" mode, nothing would surprise me anymore. Crisis/wars excuses are always used by politicians to screw up vast parts of society: that is why I believe that government power has to be strictly limited, but instead the vast majority of society believes that more government and regulations are good for them (and the sold out media makes a wonderful propaganda at it).



Very easy to avoid the vacant property tax. They tried it in a few socialists/paternalistic latin jurisdictions and it just does not work for individuals, you just ask a family member or a friend to take a utility bill there and declare he/she lives there and the all powerful bureaucrats in bed with the govvie politicians are screwed.

GGTrek

1huge1 wrote: »

Does anyone know if this has actually been enacted? The article on the Irish Times reads like it's in effect straight away but the article in the Journal keeps referring to it as a proposal.

Please read my post in this same thread:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109855305&postcount=8


Just an announcement/proposal, but it will probably become law this year since it has the support of the government (FG and probably FF otherwise they would not have made the announcement).

Muahahaha

The_Conductor wrote: »

All this does- is remove further small landlords and houses from the system- in favour of large REITs and apartments (esp. in the Dublin area).
If this is the intention- it will succeed- if not- well, people on the sidelines cheering haven't done their homework properly.
.

I think it is the intention to remove small landlords from the system. We're always hearing on this forum from small landlords who are saying they are getting out. But what isn't spoken about is how the REITs are now doubling down on their rental investments in huge numbers, with practically zero tax to be paid they are absolutely coining it in Dublin and they're now scaling up even further- eg in Citywest 220 properties are soon to come on stream- not a single one is for sale, they are all rental only from a REIT. Kennedy Wilson just announced a further €500m investment in buy to let property, their CEO is very bullish about the profits to be made. They are already committed to 1,200 apartments in Cherrywood, again all buy to let. IRES REIT now has over 2,500 rental properties in the capital and are also expanding.

So while small landlords might be leaving the sector these REITs are moving in big time. At stage it is obviously government policy, they just wont say so.

GGTrek

Finally, what the articles are showing are just that the government is announcing amendments to the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2018 which has already at Committee stage in the Oireachtas.

This bill has been discussed at length in this forum in January, there are lots of other (mostly bad) changes for landlords, I suggest to read the long threads about all the changes that affect also notice periods, registrations, ...:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057876284&page=7
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=109216453#post109216453

Woshy

pc7 wrote: »

Focus Ireland on Morning Ireland want it brought it that there is a moratorium on landlords being able to sell, their proposal is that they can only sell if the tenant is left in place. Sweet suffering Jebus I can't think of any other market with so much interference and meddling.

That is complete madness.

We have given our tenants notice a few weeks ago as we need to sell the place. We are selling because we simply cannot afford to keep it. Between tax, maintenance costs (over 7K in 18 months, we've been unlucky) and other costs we are losing a good bit of money so somebody else can live in our house. We are basically subsidising a stranger's accommodation costs.

If we were in a position where we could only sell the house with tenants in place I can't imagine how detrimental it would be to us.

I just want to get the house sold now and get it off our hands and hopefully before any rules that may cause issues come in.

GGTrek

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think it is the intention to remove small landlords from the system. We're always hearing on this forum from small landlords who are saying they are getting out. But what isn't spoken about is how the REITs are now doubling down on their rental investments in huge numbers, with practically zero tax to be paid they are absolutely coining it in Dublin and they're now scaling up even further- eg in Citywest 220 properties are soon to come on stream- not a single one is for sale, they are all rental only from a REIT. Kennedy Wilson just announced a further €500m investment in buy to let property, their CEO is very bullish about the profits to be made. They are already committed to 1,200 apartments in Cherrywood, again all buy to let. IRES REIT now has over 2,500 rental properties in the capital and are also expanding.

So while small landlords might be leaving the sector these REITs are moving in big time. At stage it is obviously government policy, they just wont say so.

You really nailed it. Irish govvie in bed with multinationals as usual and screwing the small guys.

GGTrek

Woshy wrote: »

That is complete madness.

We have given our tenants notice a few weeks ago as we need to sell the place. We are selling because we simply cannot afford to keep it. Between tax, maintenance costs (over 7K in 18 months, we've been unlucky) and other costs we are losing a good bit of money so somebody else can live in our house. We are basically subsidising a stranger's accommodation costs.

If we were in a position where we could only sell the house with tenants in place I can't imagine how detrimental it would be to us.

I just want to get the house sold now and get it off our hands and hopefully before any rules that may cause issues come in.

Focus Ireland can wish whatever socialist dream they have, but it will not happen. A similar law proposed by the usual SF was sunk yesterday at the Oireachtas (there was a thread yesterday on this matter). The only danger is the anti-eviction bill (practically a total ban on eviction proposed and approved by the socialists at the Oireachtas with FF abstaining) which is still at Committee stage, but I believe that it will not be presented again until after an election.

The Student

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think it is the intention to remove small landlords from the system. We're always hearing on this forum from small landlords who are saying they are getting out. But what isn't spoken about is how the REITs are now doubling down on their rental investments in huge numbers, with practically zero tax to be paid they are absolutely coining it in Dublin and they're now scaling up even further- eg in Citywest 220 properties are soon to come on stream- not a single one is for sale, they are all rental only from a REIT. Kennedy Wilson just announced a further €500m investment in buy to let property, their CEO is very bullish about the profits to be made. They are already committed to 1,200 apartments in Cherrywood, again all buy to let. IRES REIT now has over 2,500 rental properties in the capital and are also expanding.

So while small landlords might be leaving the sector these REITs are moving in big time. At stage it is obviously government policy, they just wont say so.

I have to agree with you that it does appear to be Govt policy. What I don't think people realize is once you rent from institutional investors you are just a number. if you cant make your rent then you will be evicted.

Once the institutional investors get a big enough foot hold in the property sector watch them dictate the rules to the Govt.

I really feel sorry for anybody who will end up renting long term!

GGTrek

The_Conductor wrote: »

Any proposed changes in taking back property for personal use?
E.g. many landlords bought property in the expectation that they'd retire into it or use it for when their children are going to college etc.
Keep in mind that over 87% of landlords own three or fewer properties- and 61% own only one property other than their PPR (and 28% of landlords only own a single property (and are renting the property that they currently live in)- which they are letting- not living in (because of work or other commitments).

Its a complex ecosystem- with many reasons that different things are happening.

Well of course there is bad news on this front as well:D! The proposal is: "a landlord who ends a tenancy to allow a family member use the property is obliged to offer the home back to the old tenant to rent if it becomes vacant within a year. This is a change from the current position where the property has to be offered back to the former tenant if it becomes vacant within six months." Still better than the anti eviction bill that wants the landlord to pay 6 months of rent to the tenant to recover the property for its own use ! (you just cannot make it up what socialists at the Oireachtas come out with)


Of course constitutional guarantees on property are often disregarded in all these proposals (like the extension of the RPZ that will further strengthen the unjust attack on property rights by making the control of rent prices "LESS" temporary, it started in Dec 15 effectively, so that would make it 6 years total).


The only solution for small landlords is to either:
(a) sell now

(b) or create a consortium to fund legal expenses for a constitutional judicial review of all the amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act that were passed since December 2015


As it was said here in the forum the members of the IPOA are not willing to fork the money for the legal expenses of such judicial review and the IPOA is not even campaigning for funding to a wider landlord audience.

davindub

GGTrek wrote: »

The current rule is very different: the landlord intends, within three months of the termination date, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.

Once you put it out for sale (you have three months to start the sale process from the termination date), you have as much time as you wish to sell it.

That paragraph says you would only be permitted to terminate if you intend to close the sale within the 3 months.

The following is quite long (extract from HC judgement) but completely disagrees with your claim that you must only start the sale process within 3 months of the termination date.

"The reason must therefore be one of the six justifying reasons identified in the Table to s.34. In construing s.34, it cannot be ignored that the time frame of three months within which it is intended to sell is quite short, and in that context a landlord may terminate a tenancy on the grounds of an intended sale only if he has taken some preliminary steps to place a property on the market, as it would not always or perhaps usually be possible for an owner to predict that he or she would make an binding contract for sale within three months of placing the premises on the market. A landlord may not seek to recover possession of premises the subject matter of a Part 4 tenancy merely on account of a general intention on his part to sell the premises, and the intention must be to sell within three months and not merely, for example, to place the property on the market to test the market or to place the property on the market and wait a period of time until the appropriate price is achieved. The intention must be one to enter into a binding contract within three months of the termination of the tenancy, and that intention must exist before a notice of termination can validity be served. That in many cases will involve the requirement that the landlord has identified a potential purchaser, or commenced negotiations towards an eventual sale. Because of the short time frame of three months, it does not seem to me that the Oireachtas intended permitting termination of a Part 4 tenancy merely in anticipation of the commencement of the sale or advertising process. I would not go so far as to say that the intention was that a notice of termination could be served only in the context of an identified sale, but the legislation in my view envisages more that a mere intention to sell, and requires a landlord to have as a matter of fact, and to state, that he intends to bind himself to a sale within three months of termination. "

Muahahaha

GGTrek wrote: »

You really nailed it. Irish govvie in bed with multinationals as usual and screwing the small guys.

Yeah these REITs are really making hay here while the individual landlord gets screwed with taxes. I remember back in 2013 one of the first large scale sales from NAMA to a REIT was when Kennedy Wilson bought the entire Gasworks development right behind Google in Dublin 4. I forget the total price but remember working it out that they had paid €115,000 per 2 bedroom apartment. Earlier this week I heard these apartments are now renting for €3,500-€4,000 per month. Kennedy Wilsons initial investment has long since been recouped and now they are absolutely creaming it on those 200 apartments alone. They have a further 2,000 odd units around the city too so this is really a boom for them now so its not surprising to see they are spending another half a billion acquiring more units.

And they can do it all with paying little or no tax. I mean I'm all for capitalism but that is just taking the complete p1ss while individual landlords are hit for 50% and USC on top.

GGTrek

davindub wrote: »

That paragraph says you would only be permitted to terminate if you intend to close the sale within the 3 months.

The following is quite long (extract from HC judgement) but completely disagrees with your claim that you must only start the sale process within 3 months of the termination date.

"The reason must therefore be one of the six justifying reasons identified in the Table to s.34. In construing s.34, it cannot be ignored that the time frame of three months within which it is intended to sell is quite short, and in that context a landlord may terminate a tenancy on the grounds of an intended sale only if he has taken some preliminary steps to place a property on the market, as it would not always or perhaps usually be possible for an owner to predict that he or she would make an binding contract for sale within three months of placing the premises on the market. A landlord may not seek to recover possession of premises the subject matter of a Part 4 tenancy merely on account of a general intention on his part to sell the premises, and the intention must be to sell within three months and not merely, for example, to place the property on the market to test the market or to place the property on the market and wait a period of time until the appropriate price is achieved. The intention must be one to enter into a binding contract within three months of the termination of the tenancy, and that intention must exist before a notice of termination can validity be served. That in many cases will involve the requirement that the landlord has identified a potential purchaser, or commenced negotiations towards an eventual sale. Because of the short time frame of three months, it does not seem to me that the Oireachtas intended permitting termination of a Part 4 tenancy merely in anticipation of the commencement of the sale or advertising process. I would not go so far as to say that the intention was that a notice of termination could be served only in the context of an identified sale, but the legislation in my view envisages more that a mere intention to sell, and requires a landlord to have as a matter of fact, and to state, that he intends to bind himself to a sale within three months of termination. "

I know the Hennessy case (BTW, you should really learn to link what your quoting, you have the bad habit of rarely linking what you are quoting, so I just posted the link to the case below):
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/03AD319C75E2F3C580257F9A002F232B
It was a pre RTA 2015 judgment and the RTA 2015 introduced the statutory declaration in way I quoted in my previous post and re-defined the content of the termination notice for sale. The appeal in the Hennessy case was allowed just because the termination notice lacked the following content: "The appellant argues that the notice of termination was defective in that it failed to expressly state that the landlord required vacant possession because he intended to enter into a contract for sale within three months of the date of termination." The property was actually sold in 2014, so the appeal was allowed on a mere formality!



With current rules if the landlord shows intent by providing evidence of effort to sell (advertising, estate agent, potential bids), the notice is valid, but with current rules if he/she is not capable of selling within the three months then the termination notice does not become automatically invalid: intention of selling within three months is NOT equal to the actual time it takes to sell a property, sale might fall true, there might be disagreements. I put in bold above what the judge would have liked to say, but could not.



The new proposed rule instead would actually like to set a maximum time to sell, regardless of market conditions, problems related to conveyancing, ... As usual you are silent on the merits of such proposal.