Landlord wants to remove both lawns

cameramonkey

kceire wrote: »

SUDS calculations for a development occurs at planning stage or before hand. At this stage, I don’t think there’s a planning law that can be enforced u less there’s a specific condition on the planning restricting the provision of hard standing surfaces in a rear garden.

Personally, I’m 20 years of dealing with planning applications, I haven’t come across one yet.

Is it not against planning to pave or tarmac your front garden? Some front gardens are massive and could add a huge amount of water to the drains system. I find it hard to believe that you could just do it without the council having their say.

Gumbo

cameramonkey wrote: »

Is it not against planning to pave or tarmac your front garden? Some front gardens are massive and could add a huge amount of water to the drains system. I find it hard to believe that you could just do it without the council having their say.

I’ve been involved in many enforcement cases where the complaint was for the creation of access etc

What was done inside the boundary line was ignored by the council.
But, DLR have a byelaw I believe that prohibits the conversion to hard standing greater than 50% but I believe you can get around it by using permeable paving, similar to the UK. You can completely pave your garden using permeable materials.

I am not aware of a single property that has had any form of enforcement for paving their front gardens.

An Ri rua

DubCount wrote: »

This thread is everything I hate about the current Irish Rental Market. This is what years of under-supply and over-regulation have done. For whatever reason, there is a falling out between the landlord and the tenant. It happens. In stead of being able to sit down, come to an agreement, or shake hands and agree to part ways, both parties are stuck with each other. The tenant cant leave because there is nowhere else to rent, and the Landlord cant force the tenant to leave due to a constantly growing set of regulations. Its like they are caught in a bad marriage without being allowed to divorce.

As we are where we are, I don't believe there is anything stopping the Landlord doing the works. He has given reasonable notice and it does not look like a major inconvenience. The tenant can try going to the RTB to claim it is an attempt at a constructive eviction and a failure of the Landlord to allow peaceful enjoyment of the property. Ultimately though, how have we gotten to a situation where laying a pavement and moving a car should require the intervention of the RTB, or even a thread looking for advice.

The legislation is now there to stop cowboys. How would anyone decent expect a long-term renter to up sticks and ship out within 10 weeks. And then begin construction works, the start of a slippery slope of refurbishment activities, to have the property READY for family members for early summer. That's a bit rich. And not in keeping with the law re due notice of termination. If it smells like a cowboy, it is. Why would you cooperate with one?

ted1

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot ......

An Ri rua

kceire wrote: »

I’ve been involved in many enforcement cases where the complaint was for the creation of access etc

What was done inside the boundary line was ignored by the council.
But, DLR have a byelaw I believe that prohibits the conversion to hard standing greater than 50% but I believe you can get around it by using permeable paving, similar to the UK. You can completely pave your garden using permeable materials.

I am not aware of a single property that has had any form of enforcement for paving their front gardens.

This is to be concrete or tar, lawn dug out by mini diggers and will take between 3-5 days. Very disruptive. Unnecessary and very far removed from peaceable enjoyment.

Del2005

An Ri rua wrote: »

It doesn't start. Why should he, immediately, for something he hasn't planned not is needed?

Anyone who cares about a classic will have it running or in storage, not running and parked on a driveway it's a junker.

You are fighting the wrong fight BTW. The incorrect notice period is what you should be worried about not what happens to the gardens

pwurple

It is your uncles home, until he vacates it. Why is he agreeing to leave early, are they paying him to break the term early?

Tell them to wait until he is gone, and it is back in their hands before they go digging the place up. And do not move the car unless it suits him. A classic car can get easily damaged on a roadside, no doubt that is why he has it parked in the driveway.

It's actually pretty outrageous. You don't rent something to someone and start meddling with it while they are still using it and have paid for that time.

No, not on at all.

Fccwontletmebe

Will do in future, apologies.

micar

An Ri rua wrote: »

This is to be concrete or tar, lawn dug out by mini diggers and will take between 3-5 days. Very disruptive. Unnecessary and very far removed from peaceable enjoyment.

Seriously.......get over yourself. 3-5 days is nothing

Your points you're making are absolutely ridiculous

Graham

Mod Note

Fccwontletmebe, we expect a reasonable standard of posting here in A & P.

That wasn't it.

Please read the forum charter before posting again.

Wesser

If he is going to be moving out anyway... then why is it bothering him what the garden is like for the last few weeks...

An Ri rua

Del2005 wrote: »

Anyone who cares about a classic will have it running or in storage, not running and parked on a driveway it's a junker.

You are fighting the wrong fight BTW. The incorrect notice period is what you should be worried about not what happens to the gardens

Correct, it's a 'future classic'!! It does not start either and can't.
He wants the lawns and the peace and quiet of the home until he leaves in 7 months time. He's not going anywhere before that.
But he rented the house for the lawns and garden. In my mind, a rental is supposed to be maintained in the same condition, as when first transferred, by both sides. Anything less is a con. If not consented to.

An Ri rua

Wesser wrote: »

If he is going to be moving out anyway... then why is it bothering him what the garden is like for the last few weeks...

He's not moving anywhere for at least 7 months from when he receives a valid notice of termination? Apologies if my posts didn't make that clear. What the LL wishes is not what will be happening.

An Ri rua

micar wrote: »

Seriously.......get over yourself. 3-5 days is nothing

Your points you're making are absolutely ridiculous

I wouldn't facilitate someone who trys to bulldoze someone out of their home in a third of the legal allowance. If you would, it's probably because it hasn't happened to you or yours yet.
Why would you pay full price rent for major disruption and cowboy eviction??

Ps your tone is very ignorant. Sort yourself out.

caff

Do you not need planning permission if replacing lawn with non permeable surface such as concrete or tar?

An Ri rua

Thanks for most of the posts and the spirit in which they were given.
I'm ringing Threshold in the morning for him to sé é if this breaches peaceable enjoyment. From what I've read, if no consent is given, it can't happen. I'm advising him to leave the car as is. They can't make him move it, until a valid notice of termination is served and then 196 days passes and they can't touch it.

An Ri rua

pwurple wrote: »

It is your uncles home, until he vacates it. Why is he agreeing to leave early, are they paying him to break the term early?

Tell them to wait until he is gone, and it is back in their hands before they go digging the place up. And do not move the car unless it suits him. A classic car can get easily damaged on a roadside, no doubt that is why he has it parked in the driveway.

It's actually pretty outrageous. You don't rent something to someone and start meddling with it while they are still using it and have paid for that time.

No, not on at all.

Thanks for the supportive view. Very common sense. What's paid for is his.

Apologies to all if I didn't make it clear. He's staying put, as is his earned right, for 196 days after being served with a valid notice of termination. He's 3 years into a 7 year part 4.

An Ri rua

An Ri rua wrote: »

Thanks for the supportive view. Very common sense. What's paid for is his.

Apologies to all if I didn't make it clear. He's staying put, as is his earned right, for 196 days after being served with a valid notice of termination. He's 3 years into a 7 year part 4.

There is no such thing as a 7 year part 4 and if he is 3 years into a part 4 then it’s only a 4 year one.

An Ri rua

headtheball14 wrote: »

They are necessary at least according to the landlord. Not sure what the issue is. Is your uncle using the garden much. Are they maintaining it themselves. Can't see a huge disruption in this work really

He's using the garden a lot. He's maintained everything for 6 years. The LL or a rep, has visited 4 times in 8 years I think. They've never spent a jot, in time or money or labour. He believes their story is a ruse and they want to refurbish it for multiple renters with cars. On his time. If it's only a few days disruption, then do it on their own wallet and time, when he is forced to be gone.

I would have thought that was a logical way about it all.

Akrasia

DubCount wrote: »

This thread is everything I hate about the current Irish Rental Market. This is what years of under-supply and over-regulation have done. For whatever reason, there is a falling out between the landlord and the tenant. It happens. In stead of being able to sit down, come to an agreement, or shake hands and agree to part ways, both parties are stuck with each other. The tenant cant leave because there is nowhere else to rent, and the Landlord cant force the tenant to leave due to a constantly growing set of regulations. Its like they are caught in a bad marriage without being allowed to divorce.

As we are where we are, I don't believe there is anything stopping the Landlord doing the works. He has given reasonable notice and it does not look like a major inconvenience. The tenant can try going to the RTB to claim it is an attempt at a constructive eviction and a failure of the Landlord to allow peaceful enjoyment of the property. Ultimately though, how have we gotten to a situation where laying a pavement and moving a car should require the intervention of the RTB, or even a thread looking for advice.

If a landlord wants an investment property that doesn’t involve consideration about the rights of other human beings then they should consider starting a stamp collection.

This is not just a ‘property’ it’s this persons home that they have maintained and lived in for 8 years.

But then ‘business is business’

An Ri rua

Elora Colossal Compass wrote: »

There is no such thing as a 7 year part 4 and if he is 3 years into a part 4 then it’s only a 4 year one.

Since when?? I think you speak too confidently. Otherwise known as BS.

There's no such thing as a 4 year part 4, you'll find...

Apologies, 6 year is what I meant. I believe he's entitled to that. Perhaps you are correct, as his original lease predates 2016.

You're well behind the curve on tenant law. A bit like his landlord pretends to be.

Google is your friend here...

Giblet

An Ri rua wrote: »

Since when?? I think you speak too confidently. Otherwise known as BS.

There's no such thing as a 4 year part 4, you'll find...

You're well behind the curve on tenant law. A bit like his landlord pretends to be.

Google is your friend here...

Well it depends, if it was over 3 years and 6 weeks ago since the start of the tenancy, they are indeed under a 4 years Part 4, as the 6 year was introduced December 24th 2016, and it is not retroactive.

Perhaps you should apologise

meijin

An Ri rua wrote: »

Google is your friend here...

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/beginning-a-tenancy/security-of-tenure

An Ri rua

Giblet wrote: »

Well it depends, if it was over 3 years and 6 weeks ago since the start of the tenancy, they are indeed under a 4 years Part 4, as the 6 year was introduced December 24th 2016, and it is not retroactive.

Perhaps you should apologise

Thanks and yes I realised that after I'd posted. Busy day.

Apologies again to Addilyn Freezing Bakery.

An Ri rua

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=207&t=1428013

Renovations mid tenancy. In this link, most seem to agree it's not on. Works for a future tenant, where informal notice of termination have been expressed, should be done when the property is back in the LL's possession, not while it's someone else's home and top dollar is being paid.

https://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2018/07/04/six-important-elements-tenancy-lease/
This is also very instructive re case law. It's very clear to me that my uncle does not have to consent to these works. 'Exclusive Occupation' and '.Quiet Enjoyment'.

That's open and shut in my view. The last thing you want, or should have to endure, if someone legally is turfing you out, is them spoiling the remaining 7 months (but they think 10 wks!) with an undesired change of use and no doubt further incursions in terms of painting, stoves, and what not.

Victor

Giblet wrote: »

Well it depends, if it was over 3 years and 6 weeks ago since the start of the tenancy, they are indeed under a 4 years Part 4, as the 6 year was introduced December 24th 2016, and it is not retroactive.

The uncle should be careful on this. When does the 4 years run out?

I wouldn't consent to that level of change unless something was offered in return.

The_Conductor

When does the Part IV run out?

Gumbo

An Ri rua wrote: »

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=207&t=1428013

Renovations mid tenancy. In this link, most seem to agree it's not on. Works for a future tenant, where informal notice of termination have been expressed, should be done when the property is back in the LL's possession, not while it's someone else's home and top dollar is being paid.

https://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2018/07/04/six-important-elements-tenancy-lease/
This is also very instructive re case law. It's very clear to me that my uncle does not have to consent to these works. 'Exclusive Occupation' and '.Quiet Enjoyment'.

That's open and shut in my view. The last thing you want, or should have to endure, if someone legally is turfing you out, is them spoiling the remaining 7 months (but they think 10 wks!) with an undesired change of use and no doubt further incursions in terms of painting, stoves, and what not.

Piston heads is a UK site.
Different laws, regulations and legislation.

VonBeanie

Akrasia wrote: »

If a landlord wants an investment property that doesn’t involve consideration about the rights of other human beings then they should consider starting a stamp collection.

This is not just a ‘property’ it’s this persons home that they have maintained and lived in for 8 years.

But then ‘business is business’

The days when the rental business was anything to do with consideration for another human being are well behind us. Everything is determined by regulation and formal notifications.

The best way to keep landlords straight is mobility. If the landlords acts like a cowboy, or is unreasonable, or wont fix things..... the threat of the tenant leaving is the only workable solution to keep them straight. Bringing out the Residential Tenancies (laying pavements) Act 2020 seems to be our preferred way forward.

VonBeanie

VonBeanie wrote: »

The best way to keep landlords straight is mobility. If the landlords acts like a cowboy, or is unreasonable, or wont fix things..... the threat of the tenant leaving is the only workable solution to keep them straight. Bringing out the Residential Tenancies (laying pavements) Act 2020 seems to be our preferred way forward.

If only you could get rid of people so easy LLs would be delighted. Want to leave? Off with you and in with the next person in the queue.