# Termination notice query



## clairebear (10 May 2017)

We're currently renting in a RPZ at about 70% of the market rate.
It's a great deal but we've been there for 5+ years and always looked after the place.
Landlord tried to increase rent to 90% market rate but we refused based on the new rules.
He's now sent us a notice of termination (including a stat. dec. signed by a solicitor) saying he wants to move in. I spoke to him and he said he plans to live there for 6 months to renovate and then re-let it at the market rate. I am raging. Can he do this? Can we do anything to stop him? It's so unfair. Now we are going to have to find another home and pay through the nose for it. I'm tempted to ignore the termination order and drag it out with the RTB as long as possible. Any advice would be very welcome especially from anyone who has gone through a similar experience.


----------



## odyssey06 (10 May 2017)

Take pictures of the property prior to these 'renovations'.
The landlord I think has to offer you the option of moving back into the property after the renovations - but at the 'market' rate.
If the renovations were a sham, take it to the RTB as justification for continuing to pay 70%.

Also, you have been there for 5 years, the landlord has to give you 20 weeks (140 days) notice.
If the notice is for a date earlier that than, it is invalid.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

I'd be very dubious that he will in fact be living in this property for 6 months during which there will be renovation work going on, but not sure how you can establish that... If he has not declared this property as his PPR  the Revenue Commissioners on his LPT, then if you suspect he is invalidly declaring this as his PPR report him to the Revenue for fraud.


----------



## clairebear (10 May 2017)

Thanks for the advice odyssey06. I'll certainly do all that. Do I actually have to move out based on the notice or can I appeal just before my eviction date and remain on in the property while it's being dealt with?


----------



## odyssey06 (10 May 2017)

clairebear said:


> Thanks for the advice odyssey06. I'll certainly do all that. Do I actually have to move out based on the notice or can I appeal just before my eviction date and remain on in the property while it's being dealt with?



If the notice is invalid you have 28 days to refer to the RTB. If the notice you've received is for less than 20 weeks, possibly by referring it it might make the landlord rethink this strategy if they realise it's 5 months!

Leaving it to the last minute with the appeals process I think you would be in an uncertain situation which could go either way - I don't have experience of that side of the process.

A notice of termination must:

Be in writing
Be signed by the landlord (or an authorised agent)
Specify the date of termination of the tenancy
State that you have the whole 24 hours of the termination date to vacate the property
Specify the date of the notice itself
State the reason for termination, if a tenancy has lasted more than 6 months or is a fixed-term tenancy
State that any issue as to the validity of the notice or the right of the landlord to serve it must be referred to the RTB within 28 days from the receipt of the notice.


----------



## Sarenco (10 May 2017)

Hi clairebear

It sounds as though you have a very clever landlord.

Whether or not your landlord intends to substantially refurbish the property is actually a bit of a red herring in this case - at least from your perspective.

The landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy where he requires the dwelling for his own/a family member's use.  He/the family member doesn't have to actually sleep there.

Now your landlord does have to give proper notice of termination and you should definitely double-check that you have been given the appropriate notice period.

As odessey06 has pointed out, you have 28 days to dispute the validity of the notice.   However, you will need to have grounds to stand up your complaint to the RTB and there is a €15 fee for an online application for adjudication to consider.

You also have a right of first refusal to re-let the property if it becomes available for letting within 6 months of the expiry of notice of notice of termination or the resolution of any dispute referred to the RTB.

Your landlord will still be subject to the RPZ controls on the rent charged on any subsequent letting of the property (assuming he re-lets the property within 2 years and does not substantially refurbish the property) but that's not of any benefit to you.  I suppose you could threaten to notify any subsequent tenants of the rent that you were paying but I suspect your landlord would simply shrug his shoulders and tell you to knock yourself out.

It really is a shame that Minister Coveney's new rent control rules are causing such disputes - these rules really are a complete disaster for all concerned.


----------



## LS400 (10 May 2017)

I will be one of the few here who has sympathy for the LL.  You have had 30% rent discount for many years, don't abuse it.

I'm sure had he been only driven by rent return, he would have increased it a long time ago, and would not be in the boat he's in now.

I also recon he has been forced like so many into this situation.

Unless you both come to a reasonable compromise, someone could loose big time here, and it could be you.


----------



## clairebear (10 May 2017)

Thanks Sarenco. I have checked and the notice is indeed valid. He's actually given me an extra week to vacate but I'll probably have to go before then, depending on when I can find another suitable place. I'm so annoyed at this stage, I want to do everything I can to stop him profiting from our eviction. 
If after the 6 month period, he rents it to someone else at market rate can I report him to the RTB for breaching the RPZ rules? Or would that already be flagged by the RTB when he registers the new tenancy? Will they do anything if the new tenant doesn't dispute it (which they probably won't if its market rate)? Can I ask the RTB to check he has in fact renovated to justify the increase? I'll only have 'before' photos and won't know what the 'after' looks like unless they contact him for proof.


----------



## Sarenco (10 May 2017)

LS400 said:


> I will be one of the few here who has sympathy for the LL.



Actually I suspect most readers/posters will have sympathy for both parties in this scenario.

I think it's a shame that our Government doesn't appear to think that we can be trusted to make bargains with each other in an adult fashion.


----------



## Sarenco (10 May 2017)

clairebear said:


> Will they do anything if the new tenant doesn't dispute it (which they probably won't if its market rate)?



Nope. 

The role of the RTB is to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants by mediation or adjudication.  They're not the police and after 6 months your right of first refusal falls away.

Besides, how could you know what rent your landlord is charging the new tenants or whether or not he has substantially refurbished the property?

I appreciate that you feel very annoyed but, if I was in your shoes, I would appeal to your landlord's better nature and try to strike a deal. 

Bear in mind that your landlord will be giving up six months' rent to pursue this strategy - nobody is an outright winner in this scenario.


----------



## clairebear (10 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Besides, how could you know what rent your landlord is charging the new tenants or whether or not he has substantially refurbished the property?


If he advertises the property on daft (which is how he got us), I could see what rent he is going to charge the new tenants. I could then contact the new tenants to see if the property was refurbished.

Why don't the RTB check new tenancies against old ones to check if the RPZ rules are being adhered to? If not routinely, they should certainly do so if they are alerted to a potential breach. 

Is it worth my while seeking paid professional legal advice on this? It seems like the landlord holds all the power in this case.


----------



## odyssey06 (10 May 2017)

When was your last rent review? If you have been on 70 percent of market rate for years, then the RPZ rules could allow for 8 to 10 percent increase. Theres a calculator on the RTB site based on last rent review date.

You could reply to your landlord if he would consider 80 percent of market rate and postpone renovations.

Its a horrible piece of legislation which encourages these shenanigans and at the same time requires no positive policing by the RTB of the new rents or extent of refurbishments.
To get your HRI grant you have to be inspected. But not to establish that your renovations necessitated eviction!


----------



## Sarenco (10 May 2017)

clairebear said:


> If he advertises the property on daft (which is how he got us), I could see what rent he is going to charge the new tenants. I could then contact the new tenants to see if the property was refurbished.


You could.  But what's in it for you? 

Also, bear in mind that there is no law against advertising a property for rent at whatever rate a landlord fancies.  


clairebear said:


> Is it worth my while seeking paid professional legal advice on this?


Well that's obviously your prerogative but from what you've told us I think you would be wasting your time and money.


clairebear said:


> It seems like the landlord holds all the power in this case.


I think you will find that landlords firmly believe that the opposite is that case.

Again, your landlord is giving up six months' rent here.  My advice is to swallow hard and do a deal.


----------



## odyssey06 (10 May 2017)

LS400 said:


> I will be one of the few here who has sympathy for the LL.  You have had 30% rent discount for many years, don't abuse it.
> 
> I'm sure had he been only driven by rent return, he would have increased it a long time ago, and would not be in the boat he's in now.
> 
> ...



Whats the legal basis for compromise?

How will the RTB treat a case where the tenant accepts an increase that breaches RPZ limits... then there is a later dispute about rent?
Is the tenancy still valid???


----------



## Sarenco (10 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> How will the RTB treat a case where the tenant accepts an increase that breaches RPZ limits... then there is a later dispute about rent?



In that scenario, the RTB would obviously find for the tenant.

In which case, the landlord would presumably re-activate his current strategy of foregoing six months's rent in order to charge market rates.

Everybody loses.


----------



## clairebear (10 May 2017)

I still can't see how, after 6 months living there (and maybe renovating but realistically, probably not) he can register a new tenancy on 30% higher rent with the RTB and that doesn't raise an immediate red flag with them.
How can he get away with that? Especially if I alert the RTB to my suspicions.
Is the RTB a joke or what??? The whole thing makes me want to emigrate!


----------



## Learner2015 (10 May 2017)

Clairebear for years you have been getting a great deal and you still can by accepting a new amount that is still lower than the market rate - you should be thanking your landlord for the years of reduced rate living they have provided to you.

It is rental madness out there and your common sense is being blinded but nonsensesical new rules that are ruining the rental market. Apologise, accept the new rental amount or you will find yourself competing with the thousands of other unfortunate people trying to secure overpriced accommodation right now.


----------



## Thirsty (11 May 2017)

> I'm so annoyed at this stage, I want to do everything I can to stop him profiting from our eviction.


 and there in a nutshell you have the reason so many landlords are getting out of the business.

My advice would be as Learner2015 - you're on your high horse that you've been badly treated (you haven't).

You need somewhere to live, so either find a new home or do a deal with your Landlord.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 May 2017)

Learner2015 said:


> Clairebear for years you have been getting a great deal and you still can by accepting a new amount that is still lower than the market rate - you should be thanking your landlord for the years of reduced rate living they have provided to you.
> 
> It is rental madness out there and your common sense is being blinded but nonsensesical new rules that are ruining the rental market. Apologise, accept the new rental amount or you will find yourself competing with the thousands of other unfortunate people trying to secure overpriced accommodation right now.



Compromise is one thing but Apologise? For what... following the law. Should she doff her cap too and ask which way to vote in next election? There are some high horses here alright!


----------



## Learner2015 (11 May 2017)

Odyssey an apology wouldn't be needed if clairbear was reasonable in the first place - maybe it still isn't but if I was their landlord I'd be happy to see the back of them at this stage so I'd suspect they will want one...

Lets be honest just because something is the law it doesn't mean it is reasonable...hopefully their landlord isn't as irrational as the OP and they will sort things out in a way that everyone wins and yes that will probably mean a compromise.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 May 2017)

Learner2015 said:


> Odyssey an apology wouldn't be needed if clairbear was reasonable in the first place - maybe it still isn't but if I was their landlord I'd be happy to see the back of them at this stage so I'd suspect they will want one...



I'd be happy to see the back of all landlords who think they deserve an apology for a tenant exercising their statutory rights. That's not the actions of a person attempting to run something on a proper business basis. Conducting a business transaction in a reasonable manner does not require cringing apologies.

I hope if the landlord's renovations weren't genuine and this was all just a sham attempt to get the sitting tenants out you'd be the first to expect them to apologise to the tenant???

If it's an unreasonable law, the person to apologise are the politicians and civil servants who introduced it. Not the citizens living under it.


----------



## Learner2015 (11 May 2017)

Odyssey06 because of the new rules the landlord has no choice but to renovate. The landlord hasn't being getting money for years above market rate, the tenant has been saving money for years paying below market rent and when faced with an increase that is still below market rate they throw all their toys out of the pram.

I am a landlord and for many years up until last year was also a tenant who was also paying below market rate by about 25 % for the last two years. I knew an increase was coming and wouldn't have begrudged my landlord if they had of asked. As it happened I moved out before I was asked to pay more.

Maybe an apology is too much to expect, but it would go along way to thawing the relationship as I suspect the landlord is at least equally as annoyed as the OP is / was. People apologise everyday in the business world, it doesn't have to be cring worthy, just given when needed.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 May 2017)

Learner2015 said:


> Odyssey06 because of the new rules the landlord has no choice but to renovate. The landlord hasn't being getting money for years above market rate, the tenant has been saving money for years paying below market rent and when faced with an increase that is still below market rate they throw all their toys out of the pram...
> Maybe an apology is too much to expect, but it would go along way to thawing the relationship as I suspect the landlord is at least equally as annoyed as the OP is / was. People apologise everyday in the business world, it doesn't have to be cring worthy, just given when needed.



I'm not disagreeing with the general thrust of this approach, but I don't think language like "throw all their toys out of the pram" does anything to engender reasonableness... In contrast, using reasonable language phrases like "thawing the relationship" makes all the difference.

I still think an apology is a bridge too far... If I went into a restaurant that for years had been running an early bird discount but stopped now that trade had picked up, I don't think an apology would be necessary before enquiring about a neighbourhood deal or loyalty club etc


----------



## Learner2015 (11 May 2017)

Odyssey06, the whole pram thing was just to illustrate that I do think the OP is being a bit childish about the whole thing but point taken.

Either way I do hope the OP sorts out the situation in a way that everyone is comfortable with.


----------



## Kerry Gooner (11 May 2017)

Going forward:

Option 1  Live in current property @ 90% market rate 

Option 2  Find new accommodation @ full market rent.

If still able you may negotiate a reduction with current landlord rather than then having to forgo 6 months rent to "renovate".
As you have been there so long I assume that you are happy both with the property and the location.

If moving you will have considerable inconvenience and expense.
You may not find it so easy to locate a suitable property in present market.

Pursuing a dispute may offer little tangible benefit.


Best of luck in your predicament.


----------



## clairebear (11 May 2017)

Thank you all for your input. I just noticed that he has given me 150 days notice as we've been renting here just shy of 6 years.
However, next month we will have been here 6 years so does that mean he should have given us 168 days notice by any chance? 
Therefore is the notice invalid?

Also to add insult to injury, he's going ahead with the 4% increase due next month (first increase in 2 years) so we'll be paying extra for the remainder of our time here.


----------



## Palerider (11 May 2017)

You have good advice from Kerry Gooner Clairebear, what do you think about it ?


----------



## clairebear (11 May 2017)

Palerider said:


> You have good advice from Kerry Gooner Clairebear, what do you think about it ?



I broached it with him but he said there's nothing to stop us raising a dispute further down the line and he doesn't want to risk that.
The relationship is a bit frosty to say the least which is a pity as up until now we had an excellent relationship.
Is there any way I can assuage his concerns that I will appeal in the future apart from giving him my word, which isn't enough for him.

Also, is he allowed to review the rent during the notice of termination?


----------



## odyssey06 (11 May 2017)

clairebear said:


> Also, is he allowed to review the rent during the notice of termination?



It would seem a strange loophole if it is the case...


----------



## Thirsty (11 May 2017)

> but he said there's nothing to stop us raising a dispute further down the line and he doesn't want to risk that.


I'd be thinking exactly the same thing.



> The relationship is a bit frosty to say the least which is a pity as up until now we had an excellent relationship.


Lesson learned I trust.



> Is there any way I can assuage his concerns that I will appeal in the future apart from giving him my word, which isn't enough for him.


Nope.

And yes the 4% increase can be applied from now; being under notice of termination doesn't stop the permitted increase.


----------



## Sarenco (11 May 2017)

clairebear said:


> Thank you all for your input. I just noticed that he has given me 150 days notice as we've been renting here just shy of 6 years.
> However, next month we will have been here 6 years so does that mean he should have given us 168 days notice by any chance?


No. 

The requisite notice period for a tenancy that is 5 years or longer but less than 6 years is 20 weeks (140 days).  The first day of a period of notice is the day after service.


clairebear said:


> Also, is he allowed to review the rent during the notice of termination?


Yes - subject to the other provisions in the legislation regarding the frequency of rent reviews.


----------



## Palerider (11 May 2017)

Speak with him, lean into the very good history between you and that you simply got frightened and reacted poorly. When you thought it through you realise it was an over the top reaction and that he has been nothing but very fair to you over the years.  Ask if he would reconsider given the good relationship you previously enjoyed, good tenants are valued by owners who just want a quiet tenant. I get his reluctance but this is not insurmountable,  if you want to stay there you will find a way to work this out.


----------



## clairebear (13 May 2017)

He's sticking to his guns and wants us out. I've had a look around and can't afford anything else in the area. I've read some posts in this forum about tenants ignoring termination orders - some even stopped paying rent and stayed on in the property for up to 4 years! I'm not saying I won't pay the rent but if I genuinely have no where else to go and don't move out on the notice date what realistically can happen. This isn't what I want but I have no choice now.


----------



## Thirsty (13 May 2017)

> what realistically can happen


Your landlord will get an eviction order; if they have sense (and it sounds like they do), they will have everything lined up ready to go in case you try to pull a stunt as you've just described.  You need to find somewhere to live, don't waste your time and energy.


----------



## Sarenco (13 May 2017)

@clairebear 

Why not try the RTB's mediation service?

https://www.rtb.ie/telephone-mediation-process

No guarantee of a successful outcome but what have you got to lose?


----------



## Palerider (13 May 2017)

Move on and move out but take your lesson from this experience, believe it or not landlords had a rough time just a few years ago with reduced rents and low single digit yields if any. They will want to recover lost income, nothing wrong with that, they now have their pick of quality tenants.

Creating a fuss will get you nowhere.


----------



## Bronte (14 May 2017)

There is no way he's going to move in for six months.

- No rent for six months
- Moving house
- Changing his own principal private residence
- Paying for major renovations

He's going to do a very quick freshen up and let it again immediately.

OP should

A) challenge the notice of termination (not long enough)
B) inform the PRTB that the landlord intends to move in to evict her
C) state he's not dong major renovations

I know the law re rents is crazy but that has nothing to do with the advice the op is getting. OP should know I'm a landlord.


----------



## Thirsty (14 May 2017)

On points 1 and 2, we've already established that claim won't succeed. It doesn't have to be owner who moves in it can be family member.

Re point 3, how does tenant know this? Landlord can (and its what I would do) provide estimates/drawings etc showing what the planned renovations are.

Time & energy would be better spent finding some where to live.


----------



## Sarenco (14 May 2017)

With respect Bronte, you obviously haven't been following the thread very carefully.


Bronte said:


> OP should
> 
> A) challenge the notice of termination (not long enough)
> B) inform the PRTB that the landlord intends to move in to evict her
> C) state he's not dong major renovations


A) As Thirsty says, we have already established that the notice period is sufficiently long;

B) We have been told that the landlord has sworn a Statutory Declaration to the effect that he requires the property for his own/a family member's use.  That is a valid ground for terminating a tenancy and there is no obligation for the landlord/his family member to treat the property as his/her PPR as suggested; and

C)  Even if true, this is not relevant to the validity or otherwise of the notice of termination.  The landlord is not terminating the tenancy on the "substantial renovations" ground.


----------



## Bronte (15 May 2017)

In the circumstances outlined by the OP I think they should test the notice period to show the landlord they mean business. 

There is no way the owner is moving in.  It's a nonsense. 

And I very much doubt there are major renovations either.


----------



## Sarenco (15 May 2017)

Bronte said:


> In the circumstances outlined by the OP I think they should test the notice period to show the landlord they mean business.


Complete waste of time and energy.


Bronte said:


> There is no way the owner is moving in.  It's a nonsense.


Not relevant to the validity of the termination notice. 

Again, the landlord doesn't have to move into the property - he has already sworn a Statutory Declaration to the effect that he or a family member requires the property for his/her own use.  That is a sufficient ground for terminating the tenancy.


Bronte said:


> And I very much doubt there are major renovations either.


Again, completely irrelevant to the validity of the notice of termination.


----------



## odyssey06 (15 May 2017)

So if any landlord wants to evict any tenant, all they have to Swear a Statutory that they need it or a family member needs it ... and it's unchallengeable???
Even if it's only for one single weekend say?

It just seems a little too easy, no?


----------



## Sarenco (15 May 2017)

Well, it's an offence to make a false Statutory Declaration.

Again, the landlord does not have to prove that he or his family member intends to sleep in the property.

Also, bear in mind that a sitting tenant has a right of first refusal if the property becomes available for letting within six months of the termination of the tenancy or the resolution of any dispute in this regard by the RTB.


----------



## odyssey06 (15 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Well, it's an offence to make a false Statutory Declaration.
> Again, the landlord does not have to prove that he or his family member intends to sleep in the property.
> Also, bear in mind that a sitting tenant has a right of first refusal if the property becomes available for letting within six months of the termination of the tenancy or the resolution of any dispute in this regard by the RTB.



But it's virtually impossible to prove that the statement is false, as the definition of 'use' of the property could mean almost anything?

If someone needs the place as their PPR for a period of longer than X, fair enough i.e. something defineable and verifiable ... but I really think that 'use' should be removed as valid grounds for eviction.
It's a total nonsense reason as a justification.


----------



## Sarenco (15 May 2017)

I don't make the rules!  I'm just reflecting what the legislation actually says.

If a property owner wants vacant ownership of his property to store his golf clubs (or whatever), well, that's his prerogative.  It is his property.


----------



## odyssey06 (15 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> I don't make the rules!  I'm just reflecting what the legislation actually says.



Yes I was slamming the rules not you! 
You were repeating nonsense but I'm assuming you're not the source of said nonsense 



> If a property owner wants vacant ownership of his property to store his golf clubs (or whatever), well, that's his prerogative.  It is his property.



I would disagree. It's someone else's home now. By agreeing to take on a tenant he should be aware that certain contractual obligations now apply to future use of said property. If the property is taken off the market it should be for a minimum amount of time, for a verifiable reason. And if someone isn't willing to be a landlord on that basis then they've no business, ahem, being in that business.


----------



## Sarenco (15 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> By agreeing to take on a tenant he should be aware that certain contractual obligations now apply to future use of said property.


Yes, but there's no suggestion that the landlord in this case has not met his contractual or statutory obligations.


odyssey06 said:


> If the property is taken off the market it should be for a minimum amount of time, for a verifiable reason.


Well, a tenancy can only be terminated on certain statutory grounds and if the property becomes available for letting again within 6 months the current tenants have a first right of refusal.

You can't force a property owner to let out his property.  You can, however, strongly incentivise a property owner not to leave a property vacant through our tax code.


----------



## odyssey06 (15 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Yes, but there's no suggestion that the landlord in this case has not met his contractual or statutory obligations.



His current statutory obligations are a joke though. He can put someone out of their home because he wants somewhere to store his glof clubs, for example.


----------



## Sarenco (15 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> His current statutory obligations are a joke though.



I disagree but you are obviously free to lobby your TDs to suggest amendments to the current laws.  

Bear in mind, however, that property rights are enshrined in our constitution.


----------



## Thirsty (15 May 2017)

> can put someone out of their home


It's starting to sound like Bull McCabe here.  

The landlord *owns* the property and is entitled to use it, let it, dispose of it, leave it empty or whatever they wish to do.


----------



## SirMille (15 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> I would disagree. It's someone else's home now. By agreeing to take on a tenant he should be aware that certain contractual obligations now apply to future use of said property. If the property is taken off the market it should be for a minimum amount of time, for a verifiable reason. And if someone isn't willing to be a landlord on that basis then they've no business, ahem, being in that business.



It is the landlords property, it is not the tenants property.

Terms like "home" tend to be emotive, and the law doesn't trade in emotions.

By doing what he has done, the landlord has met all contractual obligations.


----------



## odyssey06 (15 May 2017)

Thirsty said:


> It's starting to sound like Bull McCabe here.
> The landlord *owns* the property and is entitled to use it, let it, dispose of it, leave it empty or whatever they wish to do.



Of course they are not entitled to do whatever they wish to do with it. There are numerous restrictions on what someone can do with their property. Everything from planning permission to statutory periods of notice for tenants.

Anyhow, I'm out of this thread, it's gone so far from its original point I don't think it is any longer helpful to its OP.


----------



## SirMille (15 May 2017)

When Thirsty said that, it was obviously meant within the context of the law.


----------

