Landlord wants to remove both lawns

VonBeanie

Elora Colossal Compass wrote: »

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.

Some of us are old enough to remember when there was not a long queue of tenants waiting to take up every vacant rental. Back in the day, a LL had to provide a good service to keep a good tenant, and a good tenant leaving was a kick to the LL. There was no need to troop to the court at every dispute, because there was an incentive to work things out.

KaneToad

I think the reasonable course of action is to begin the works after the tenant vacates. It seems like the LL wants the disruptive work done so the house is ready for the family member to move in. Why should the tenant be disrupted (however slight some may view the disruption) and the LL and the family member be unaffected?

An Ri rua

kceire wrote: »

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

Not necessarily. UK Case law stands.

An Ri rua

The_Conductor wrote: »

When does the Part IV run out?

Another year to go. And another year before a rent review also. Outside RPZ. Went up 20% a year ago. We now think, this morning, that this is the usual wheeze by a LL to move a long-term renter along.

The_Conductor

An Ri rua wrote: »

Not necessarily. UK Case law stands.

Not exactly. It requires a repackaging of the UK Case law- such as the manner in which the neighbour principle (Donoghue V Stevenson) was restated as Kirby V Burke V Holloway in the Irish High Court- as an entirely Irish case, however, based on the same principle.

You cannot simply state that UK case law stands in Ireland- it doesn't.

The_Conductor

An Ri rua wrote: »

Another year to go. And another year before a rent review also. Outside RPZ. Went up 20% a year ago. We now think, this morning, that this is the usual wheeze by a LL to move a long-term renter along.

I thought you said earlier in the thread that the landlord had a family member that wishes to use the property- which was why the work is being done?

If the tenancy is being ended, other than for the 6 months at the end of the Part IV, a valid reason to end the tenancy has to be given (and not just the required period of notice).

MacDanger

KaneToad wrote: »

I think the reasonable course of action is to begin the works after the tenant vacates. It seems like the LL wants the disruptive work done so the house is ready for the family member to move in. Why should the tenant be disrupted (however slight some may view the disruption) and the LL and the family member be unaffected?

Agreed. LL doesn't want to disrupt his new tenant but is more than happy to disrupt the tenant he's kicking out

An Ri rua

The_Conductor wrote: »

I thought you said earlier in the thread that the landlord had a family member that wishes to use the property- which was why the work is being done?

If the tenancy is being ended, other than for the 6 months at the end of the Part IV, a valid reason to end the tenancy has to be given (and not just the required period of notice).

I did say that. That's just what he's told my uncle. We don't believe it. He's aware he can't move the rent or the tenant for another year. Unless he introduces a family member into the equation.
No valid notice received. Just a phonecall.

Ps agreed re case law. I didn't mean it 100% stands. I meant holds water and has bearing. Clearly many times it doesn't also.

mlem123

Well if he's had no notice in writing to end the tenancy or for the garden refurbishments, you uncle doesn't have to move anywhere. RTB would be a good stop too

C3PO

I’m a bit surprised at the negativity towards the OP here. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to expect the Landlord to wait until he has vacant possession of the property before beginning what would be fairly disruptive works. Particularly as these works will have no benefit for the current tenant and will in fact significantly reduce his amenity. I certainly wouldn’t be having it, and I don’t think I’m an unreasonable person!

Gumbo

C3PO wrote: »

I’m a bit surprised at the negativity towards the OP here. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to expect the Landlord to wait until he has vacant possession of the property before beginning what would be fairly disruptive works. Particularly as these works will have no benefit for the current tenant and will in fact significantly reduce his amenity. I certainly wouldn’t be having it, and I don’t think I’m an unreasonable person!

I think the OP is chopping and changing their story which may add to the frustration.
They didn't post all of the info at the start, and then added some key bits later.

As a LL, if my current tenant had given notice, and I was moving a family member in as per the OP, then id wait for the current tenancy to end. There's no reason to do it earlier.

micar

kceire wrote: »

I think the OP is chopping and changing their story which may add to the frustration.
They didn't post all of the info at the start, and then added some key bits later.

Exactly......OP is looking for advice but not giving a full clear accurate picture of what's happening

Victor

An Ri rua wrote: »

Not necessarily. UK Case law stands.

Persuasive, not binding, assuming the law and the facts are the same.

mrslancaster

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.....

Just reading this & would appreciate a bit of info. Do you mean if the original part4 tenancy started before 24 Dec 2016 then any further part4 extensions are also in the 4 year cycle? Does the 6 year cycle only apply to a tenancy that first started after dec16.

mrslancaster

agree that the landlord should wait until the house is vacant to start the garden work.

Fol20

If you take out the fact the ll has given notice. Does the tenant have the right to block work such as what is proposed here. All of the work is external to the house so wouldn’t have a major bearing on their life. Concreting and levelling a back yard is very quick as clean an take two or 3 days to complete if it’s a standard 3 bed with a front and back yard.

C3PO

kceire wrote: »

As a LL, if my current tenant had given notice, and I was moving a family member in as per the OP, then id wait for the current tenancy to end. There's no reason to do it earlier.

But in this case, unless I’m reading it wrong, it’s the landlord who has given notice to the tenant rather than the other way around so even more reason for the landlord to let the tenant enjoy his remaining time without hassle?

TheBully

Does your uncle always trim his bushes?

The_Conductor

mrslancaster wrote: »

Just reading this & would appreciate a bit of info. Do you mean if the original part4 tenancy started before 24 Dec 2016 then any further part4 extensions are also in the 4 year cycle? Does the 6 year cycle only apply to a tenancy that first started after dec16.

The tenancy that commenced prior to 24th December 2016- is on a 4 year Part IV cycle- until the elapse of that cycle- at which point its subsequent Part IV cycle becomes a 6 year cycle.

Aka- if your 4 year cycle ended at some point after the 24th Dec 2016- you're now, currently. on your first 6 year cycle.

hots

Genuine question, when you rent a property are you not renting the facilities that you get on day 1 for the tenancy? It's fair to think someone would rent a place because it had a nice garden, surely it can't be ok to come in and tarmac it a while later?

An Ri rua

hots wrote: »

Genuine question, when you rent a property are you not renting the facilities that you get on day 1 for the tenancy? It's fair to think someone would rent a place because it had a nice garden, surely it can't be ok to come in and tarmac it a while later?

That's exactly how we interpret it. My uncle loves lawns and gardens. So he took on the property, took on the upkeep and cut boundary hedges once or twice a year, half a day at a time. The landlord is completely out of order.

An Ri rua

The_Conductor wrote: »

The tenancy that commenced prior to 24th December 2016- is on a 4 year Part IV cycle- until the elapse of that cycle- at which point its subsequent Part IV cycle becomes a 6 year cycle.

Aka- if your 4 year cycle ended at some point after the 24th Dec 2016- you're now, currently. on your first 6 year cycle.

Are you sure? That would be great! I read the retrospective aspect to mean that anyone starting a follow-on part 4 after that date was stuck on 4 year cycles.

An Ri rua

Fol20 wrote: »

If you take out the fact the ll has given notice. Does the tenant have the right to block work such as what is proposed here. All of the work is external to the house so wouldn’t have a major bearing on their life. Concreting and levelling a back yard is very quick as clean an take two or 3 days to complete if it’s a standard 3 bed with a front and back yard.

My uncle has a lot of his property to the side of the house. Fuels etc. Plus a car that won't start. Why should he be stressed in moving these immediately, for someone else's selfish benefit?

Plus, he rented a house with lawns and shrubs. It was advertised on that basis. He saved the online ad. He wanted lawns.

Put it the other way. What if any of your landlords or family's or friends' landlords decided that their next tenant, or family member, would love a lawn, so they take up and remove 2 parking bays and lay a lawn that needs maintenance? How would you read that? It's not what the current tenant signed up for of wants?! End of surely.

An Ri rua

micar wrote: »

Exactly......OP is looking for advice but not giving a full clear accurate picture of what's happening

That's untrue. What's been chopped and changed exactly? Perhaps you mean that you made assumptions and further info (facts) now cancels that out.

It's not a business case I'm submitting. It was a very clear request for info or directions to links. You stand guilty of not following the OP. That is all.

emeldc

An Ri rua wrote: »

My uncle has a lot of his property to the side of the house. Fuels etc. Plus a car that won't start. Why should he be stressed in moving these immediately, for someone else's selfish benefit?

Describe 'a lot of his property' and what condition is the 'classic' car in. To me it sounds like the side of the house and garden are turning in to a bit of a dumping ground.

The_Conductor

hots wrote: »

Genuine question, when you rent a property are you not renting the facilities that you get on day 1 for the tenancy? It's fair to think someone would rent a place because it had a nice garden, surely it can't be ok to come in and tarmac it a while later?

Its a bit of a funny one actually.

A landlord is wholly responsible for both the upkeep and appearance of the exterior of a property, including the grounds and garden- and if the upkeep or appearance is not to a satisfactory standard, they are legally answerable to the local authority and subject to fines. So- if someone complains about a garden, or a bad paint job- or whatever, even if the tenant has been maintaining the upkeep- or if it is specified in the lease that the tenant will look after them as required- the landlord is still considered to be fully responsible.

It doesn't matter what the tenant has habitually done, or what is in the lease- once its the exterior of the building or its grounds- the landlord is ultimately responsible.

In this instance- if a neighbour complained about car parts, fuel, tools or other bits and pieces to the local authority- it is the responsibility of the landlord to make good the situation and they can be fined if it is not corrected.

An Ri rua

emeldc wrote: »

Describe 'a lot of his property' and what condition is the 'classic' car in. To me it sounds like the side of the house and garden are turning in to a bit of a dumping ground.

That's ridiculous and out of order. Huge assumptions. Are you not entitled to have a car just out of NCT parked up?? Are you not allowed have 2 or 3 pallets of hardwood delivered and tarped? Are you not allowed have a coal bunker and a pvc bicycle shelter?

I would ask you to withdraw your unwarranted aspersions.

aloooof

An Ri rua wrote: »

That's ridiculous and out of order. Huge assumptions. Are you not entitled to have a car just out of NCT parked up?? Are you not allowed have 2 or 3 pallets of hardwood delivered and tarped? Are you not allowed have a coal bunker and a pvc bicycle shelter?

I would ask you to withdraw your unwarranted aspersions.

It's just out of the NCT but it won't start?

Deebles McBeebles

Awful lot of LL's populate this forum. Your uncle is dead right and is entitled to object.

An Ri rua

aloooof wrote: »

It's just out of the NCT but it won't start?

Merely. Not just. Engine issues.

Are you the NCT police??