Homeless homeowner

In her interview with Claire Byrne she said she did the notice herself and that now she has got legal assistance with the new notice so I think that's as good as admitting she made an error.

The following is only guesswork on my part. She issued the notice in July. Notice periods also changed in July. Did the notice have the wrong notice period on it?

Also the amount of time a tenant could dispute the notice with the RTB was extended to 90 days. In the Claire Byrne interview she said the RTB only told her after 4 months that the notice was invalid. Did tenant wait till day 89 to dispute the notice?

Clock resets on the notice period when the correct notice is issued so I'm starting to think that the eviction ban is a bit of a red herring here. Eviction ban or not she'd still currently be temporarily homeless. I think the only reason she's bringing up the eviction ban is because she's worried it may be extended.

I would think it's rather to confuse and try to get some kind of pity by having something else to blame which actually has nothing to do with her problem. You see plenty of it on the thread here - people moaning about the ban when it is probably the case that even if there was no ban, she wouldn't be able to get them out earlier due to her original invalid notice. The earliest she would have been able to get them out would be 180 days after serving the valid notice.

If she says she didn't realise it until they told her 4 months later, then she'd probably have been looking at next March or April anyway even if the moratorium did not exist

Yes actually, you are correct. Which refutes the point even more. She could have been back in the gaff in Sept had she done it correctly in June

I was responding to a post that said that if she had issued her notice in June, she would have been still caught by the moratorium. I was pointing out that that assertion was false.

A charity does not get to decide legality. That is only her own condescension at wanting to deligitimise the "charity" as being somehow responsible. If she thinks the notice was valid, she could defend any challenge the tenants make to it. Ya know, the tenants that are "on board" with the eviction. She also said that.

However, as someone else pointed out earlier, she also felt the need to have a solicitor help her draft the subsequent notice. Why would you do that if the original one was valid?

She appears to want to gain sympathy because of the moratorium when it doesn't appear to be the cause of anything at all. She possibly felt it would be more of a hard done by story if she could blame the moratorium rather than saying "ah, well it was my own fault because I didn't keep up to date on things and I made a balls of it".

I don't find her story credible at all. Too many holes.

I fail to see why any proper landlord who does things right would be standing up for someone who is suffering the consequences of doing something wrong.

Ah, I’m sorry, I’m going by the Times article and that video Seth posted, which are light on actual details. She said a charity told the tenant it was invalid, I took that to be Threshold.

TBF, Threshold are not known for giving impartial advice to tenants, I doubt it would surprise anyone if Threshold told a tenant to overhold or contest a termination on less then solid ground.

She would not be the first LL to seek legal advice, even after a valid eviction has been served.

That's irrelevant in this case. What was in question was the legal validity of the notice. They have no power to decide that

That's not their role though. It could never be their role. If it was, it would mean doing an assessment, and coming to a determination, on every notice that comes in. And what happens in the case that they think it is ok on first glance, but later on the tenant appeals and provides additional information that means it is invalid......you'd have the RTB as liable because it was somehow their responsibility to validate it for the landlord.

If the landlord doesn't know how to draft one, they can get legal advice. Same as any business. The RTB cannot be responsibly for substituting themselves for that legal advice.

It is only the tenant that can raise the dispute. The tenant might not bother, or might not want to raise a dispute even if the notice is invalid. They might just leave anyway. If there was an onus on the RTB to inform the landlord, there would be an equal onus to inform the tenant that it is invalid

The RTB would basically be having to do a full determination of validity for each and every one that comes in. Which is something which they do do when there is a challenge. But that is only a subset of what comes in

Possibly in case there is a dispute later where the landlord claims to have sent a different letter than the tenant receives.

e.g. the landlord says they sent the letter with the correct 180 days notice period whereas the tenant says they sent it with a 120 days notice period etc etc.

As to your other point, why would the RTB allow the tenant to raise another dispute over the notice if they have already determined it was valid? The issue is res judicata

Would you be concerned about the hefty fine that would most likely ensue?

TBH if I was in her situation I would not be if it was a house. But I imagine that it is an apartment so it is not applicable.

Not really relevant to this thread since there are no reports of tenant misbehaviour or lack of rent being paid.

The head of the RTB admitted before a dail committee that both tenants and LL find the present legislation virtually unworkable.

The RTB will hand feed a tenant through the process. If you are a LL and want to issue a termination notice they will give you absolutely no help.

It BS about not being able. Like I said it has got to the stage where very competent people have to get professional advice for day to day paperwork when dealing with the RTB. And then you have the problem contacting them. Is it standard for a regulatory body to be uncontactable by phone, to have stopped there online support and the only contact method is by email whereby you will not receive a reply for at least 3-4 weeks as a LL.

RTB provide free training to landlords

The obvious thing there being that the have-a-go-landlords (as someone else called them earlier on thread) likely won't bother availing of it. Whereas those are the ones with no experience and likely to get the most benefit out of it