# Landlord backing out of sale after eviction



## Sc0usnak (24 May 2017)

Our landlady evicted us recently because she said she wanted to sell the property.
The property has been on the market for the past few weeks but today I see it online for rent and it no longer appears to be for sale. It looks like she pretended to be selling the property just to get us out and re-let it at a higher rent. Have I any comeback in this or is it too late?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (24 May 2017)

Are you sure that you're not jumping to conclusions? I've heard of landlords turfing people out and pretending to put the relevant property on the market but this property was actually advertised for sale.


----------



## Sarenco (24 May 2017)

Unless you can actually prove (your suspicions don't count) that your former landlord did not intend to enter into a binding contract to sell the property for full consideration within 3 months of terminating the tenancy, then I think you would be wasting your time making a complaint to the RTB.

There is no law against advertising the property to let. 

This is a textbook landlord reaction to rent control legislation.  You might want to drop Minister Coveney a note to describe your experiences.


----------



## David_Dublin (25 May 2017)

Is the landlord not obliged to offer the property back to them?

If this doesn't happen, I presume recent measures mean that the rent the landlord can charge cannot be raised beyond 4% of what it was?


----------



## Sarenco (25 May 2017)

David_Dublin said:


> Is the landlord not obliged to offer the property back to them?


No, not in those circumstances.


David_Dublin said:


> If this doesn't happen, I presume recent measures mean that the rent the landlord can charge cannot be raised beyond 4% of what it was?


If the property is in a RPZ, then the RPZ formula is applicable to the determination of the rent (or at least that's what the law says).


----------



## odyssey06 (25 May 2017)

Make an offer to buy the property and see what the agent who had been dealing with it says.

Seems like it is up to the former tenant to keep landlords honest under this legislation so if you are feeling up to it and have the time then start preparing your complaint.
From your perspective it seems entirely reasonable to surmise that the landlord has a case to answer.


----------



## David_Dublin (25 May 2017)

A bit off topic, but can a landlord increase the rent when in 


Sarenco said:


> No, not in those circumstances.
> 
> If the property is in a RPZ, then the RPZ formula is applicable to the determination of the rent (or at least that's what the law says).



Sorry, a little off topic, but if in the RPZ, could a landlord raise the rent above the 4% if the tenant is agreeable? For example, the landlord has just acquired the property, the property is not achieving anything near market value. The fact that the rent is 50% below market value is not in dispute.


----------



## Sarenco (25 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> Seems like it is up to the former tenant to keep landlords honest under this legislation so if you are feeling up to it and have the time then start preparing your complaint.


When terminating under this ground, a landlord is required to swear a statutory declaration that he or she intends to enter into a binding contract to sell the property within 3 months of terminating the tenancy.

However, there is nothing in the legislation that precludes a landlord from subsequently changing his or her mind after the tenancy agreement is terminated.


----------



## Sarenco (25 May 2017)

David_Dublin said:


> Sorry, a little off topic, but if in the RPZ, could a landlord raise the rent above the 4% if the tenant is agreeable? For example, the landlord has just acquired the property, the property is not achieving anything near market value. The fact that the rent is 50% below market value is not in dispute.



An agreement to pay a rent above that allowed by statute in a RPZ would not be binding.  In other words, the agreement could not be enforced by the landlord.

That's the legal position.  The reality "on the ground" where there is a severe shortage of rental properties is likely to be radically different - market forces will always exert themselves.


----------



## odyssey06 (25 May 2017)

Whats the offence of making a false statutory declaration? It seems like a helluva lot of landlords are perjuring (or its equivalent) themselves.

OP did the landlord provide you with evidence of a statutory declaration?
Is the current advertised rent higher than your previous rpz rent would have been?
Have you considered enquiring re renting the property again?

You should keep an eye on this one if you can to keep this landlord honest.

Also if you are of a mind to contact newspaper etc... coveney is in the news... show them what a piece of joke legislation he is responsible for.


----------



## Sarenco (25 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> Whats the offence of making a false statutory declaration? It seems like a helluva lot of landlords are perjuring (or its equivalent) themselves.



Knowingly making a false declaration is certainly an offence.  From memory, the maximum penalty is three months imprisonment.

However, what "seems" to you to be the case is not proof of anything.  Proving (or disproving) anybody's intention at a point in time is notoriously difficult. 

How do you know what was in the mind of the OP's landlord when she swore the declaration?

Rent controls are dumb - they are counter-productive to the objectives they are trying to achieve. 

Landlords straining at the spirit of the law to secure a market rent for their property?  Textbook reaction - it has happened in every city and jurisdiction where rent controls have ever been introduced.

Who suffers?  Tenants - particularly low income tenants.

Trying to chase bad policy with bad law simply doesn't work.


----------



## odyssey06 (25 May 2017)

Its possible to both think the rpz legislation is bad legislation, and to think that someone who evades their responsibility under that legislation by committing another offence should be pursued to the full extent of the law. 

In this case, i dont think any fair minded observer would think it unreasonable for the op to make a complaint on the basis of a false declaration.


----------



## Sarenco (25 May 2017)

The RPZ legislation didn't make any amendments to the legislation relating to the grounds upon which residential tenancies can be terminated (save for the "Tyrrelstown amendment" which is not relevant here).

The RPZ legislation doesn't create "responsibilities" - it simply limits what rent may be charged on certain tenancies within a RPZ.

There is no doubt that the OP can make a complaint to the RTB.  I simply think that that would be a waste of time and energy.

There is nothing to suggest that the landlord did not intend to enter into a contract to sell the property within three months of the termination of the tenancy.  The fact that the property was apparently advertised for sale would of itself indicate that that was indeed her intention.

Again, nothing in the legislation to suggest that she can't subsequently change her mind.


----------



## odyssey06 (25 May 2017)

The fact that the property was withdrawn from sale before the three months were up, put back for rent - possibly at higher rent than is permitted - well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Maybe the complaint wont stick... but maybe just bringing some of these dodgy landlords into the complaints process will be no picnic for them either.


----------



## Sarenco (25 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> The fact that the property was withdrawn from sale before the three months were up, put back for rent - possibly at higher rent than is permitted - well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...



Yes, it looks like the OP's landlord changed her mind and decided not to sell the property.

That's perfectly legal and doesn't in any way invalidate the notice of termination.



odyssey06 said:


> maybe just bringing some of these dodgy landlords into the complaints process will be no picnic for them either.



I really don't understand why you insist on using such emotive language.  Frankly, it's childish.

There was absolutely nothing in the OP's post to suggest that her landlord was "dodgy".  People are perfectly entitled to pursue their economic interests within the confines of the law.  Nothing to suggest that the OP's landlord didn't do just that.


----------



## odyssey06 (25 May 2017)

The confines of the law also include the op having reasonable grounds for complaint about the landlord here.
Fine if you think the op is wasting their but come off it...
Sudden surge in these landlords making statutory declarations... to believe them all you would have to be like the defence attornies who never met a guilty client.

I have never heard a child complain about dodgy landlords... this is the language adult human beings react with when people are evicted. We are not robots.


----------



## Sarenco (25 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> I have never heard a child complain about dodgy landlords...



Well, there's a first time for everything I guess....

Look, property owners are entitled to terminate tenancies provided they do so in accordance with the applicable legislation.  There is nothing to suggest that the landlord in this case did not comply with all relevant legal requirements or that there is anything "dodgy" about the OP's former landlord.

I do, however, agree with you on one point:-

Rent controls by their very nature set landlords and their sitting tenants at loggerheads.  Landlords perceive that their economic interests are under threat and they react accordingly.  As you say, people are not robots.

Again, I don't think the OP has any legitimate grounds for making a complaint to the RTB.  If I thought otherwise, I would say so.  I've no personal interest in this matter one way or another - I'm simply giving my honest opinion on the basis of what we've been told.

I'm afraid that "come off it" isn't really a cogent argument.


----------



## SqueezedMiddle (26 May 2017)

I have a friend who decided to ask the tenant to leave so he could sell.  The rent was stuck at 40% below market rent and the property had no chance of paying it's way like that.
When they did leave he asked a local est agent to put it on their books and sell it without advertising, due to nosey neighbours etc.  EAs have ways of doing this.

After three months despite a few offers it did not sell.  Now he has reluctantly put it on the market for rent at market rate and is renovating it to get market rate.

He is leaving it with he estate agent on the books for sale but to sell as a tenanted property.  If he gets the price he thinks its worth he will sell.  If not, at least he is getting market rate.

He told me that since the start.of the process he has had over a hundred texts from the former tenants telling him he has done some thing illegal and they are reporting him to the RTB.  He awaits a call from the RTB to waste his time.


----------



## landlord (26 May 2017)

It is possible the owners intention is still to sell. By putting the property back on the letting market and obtaining "market rent"  he/she has increased the value of this property. If the property is then put back on the market to sell next year for example, it will be more attractive to investors due higher yield. 
This  post is not really relevant regarding the merits of whether the tenant should make a claim or not, but might provide some insight into the owners thought process.


----------



## Twoflutes (30 May 2017)

The landlord should be reported to the RTB. Clearly blatant attempt to get around the rules. Its clear enough that the property market is very strong so making a case that the property couldnt sell would fall on deaf ears

If the property is back on the rental market , the landlord has an obligation to offer it back to you as a tenant, once they have your contact details. 

I see a lot of landlords on here are perfectly willing to bend the rules they dont like? Sure we could all do that i suppose. its no wonder the country ends up in a mess. So many people couldnt even walk in a straight line


----------



## Sarenco (30 May 2017)

Twoflutes said:


> If the property is back on the rental market , the landlord has an obligation to offer it back to you as a tenant, once they have your contact details.



Is that a moral or a legal obligation?  If it's the latter could you point us to the relevant statutory provision?

Bear in mind that the landlord has not terminated the tenancy on the "own use" or "substantial refurbishment" ground.

I do agree that the RPZ legislation has made a complete mess of the rental market.


----------



## Sarenco (25 Aug 2017)

Interesting RTB case report in the context of this issue -

The complainant in this case had proof that the tenants in the flat above her had been evicted as the building was to be sold, but the landlord had rented their apartment out to new tenants. She thought this was evidence that he didn’t intend to sell.

The landlord said the buyers didn’t want long-term tenants in place. He argued that he did plan to sell, and that he would only have to give the new tenants 28 days’ notice, whereas he would have had to give longer-term tenants more notice.

The adjudication report from the RTB, issued on 30 March, accepted the landlord’s explanation. It says: “*The Applicant has failed to prove that the Respondent lacks a good faith intention to sell the property.”*

“The basic principle is that the burden of proof would lie with the person asserting that the thing that was supposed to be done, on foot of the notice, was not actually done,” says a spokesperson for the RTB.

It is up to the applicant who is challenging the eviction notice to demonstrate that the notice isn’t valid. To do that they have to show that the landlord isn’t selling, he says.

https://www.dublininquirer.com/2017/08/09/landlords-use-evictions-to-skirt-cap-on-rent-rises-tenants-say/


----------

