Landlord wants to change rent payment from monthly to weekly

Again, what what Court were you referring to?

What does the 2004 Act state in relation to frequency of rent payments?

Go back and read through it again slowly. Your first step is to locate where I said that the 2004 Act stated anything related to frequency of payments. I didn't.

Payment is covered by the tenancy agreement which was monthly. The tenancy agreement continues due to the 2004 Act. So it is still monthly.

I can't really help you any more than that. You're going to have to explain where your mental block is

Your task for today. I will send you a special gold star if/when you can achieve it. Go back through the posts on this thread and find the post where I stated the 2004 Act referred to frequency of payments.

Thanks.

If I was served an eviction notice effective at the end of the eviction ban now, I would simply stop paying rent and move abroad just before the eviction ban ends.

But I understand that this is not an option for you if you are actually Irish, I am a foreigner so.

Duh. Are we establishing whether one party can unilaterally change a contract or not? Do you understand what that means? Seeing as how you think (I don't know how but you appear to believe it anyway) that one party can do so, then that party can switch to pay in arrears if they want.

Or, to play the game the others try to play - "Why don't you point us to the section you are claiming exists in the 2004 Act which makes it mandatory to par in advance? You see you can't do it. nah nah nah nah nah"

I mean can you seriously understand the point being made that one party to an agreement cannot just unilaterally change it? I think most 5 year olds would be able to grasp that as an idea.

I never made ANY reference to a law about frequency of payment. I have only responded to posters that have magicked that up in their head to repeatedly tell them I never did that. Please point me to the post where I said there was such a law. There are only 80 posts on the thread

I made it clear that the Part IV is relevant in that the tenancy automatically continues. That was in response to a poster who appeared to think that once the date on the agreement was passed that the relationship became like that of a guest to a hotel.

Please tell me what you find wrong with the below:

1) There was a previous explicit tenancy agreement. The tenant paid monthly

2) The end date on that agreement passed but the tenant stayed on

3) Under the 2004 Act, the tenancy continues irrespective of the "end date" on it. So paying monthly continues. The 2004 Act is relevant insofar that it makes the tenancy continue.

4) One party cannot unilaterally change an agreement. This has nothing to do with the 2004 Act.

Please tell me what your confusion is. Please tell me what is vague about the above. Please tell me what is the bit that you don't understand or where your confusion is coming from.

Small "c" not capital "C". It is an expression.

I think it's section 78(1). f or g for that scenario. You have to go to the RTB and then the Tribunal first. If they don't implement the law then you can take a judicial review to a Court of Law (big "C"),

That's nothing to do with payment frequency

Well you explain why the landlord cannot change the frequency, given that the explicitly provided end date of that previous agreement has expired, without referring to Part IV

I stated they can take them to court. Again, small "c".

Power is delegated to the RTB and a tenant must go through them, then the Tribunal, before potentially going to a regular Court of Law. Will it make it that far - unlikely as it would be a clear cut case.

What is your issue? Are you trying to nit-pick on what you see as some pedantic "technicality" (even though you are mistaken). Is it some sort of petty "points scoring" thing or are you actually not aware that a landlord who lies about the reason for terminating a tenancy can actually end up losing a lot of money over it in a claim from that previous tenant!