Departing tenant seeking rent refund as last rent review done by text!

Dr Strangelove said:
There are none. This is a deliberate policy.

It’s based on the faulty assumption assumption that all tenants are stupid and all landlords are either stupid or malevolent.

I think we both agree on the madness of the policy choice here but the law is clear.
Click to expand...
With all respect, if it were me, I'd rather get that from a solicitor. Common law may well impose limitations on an individual pursuing a grievance after a specified number of years.

I refuse to believe that a case to this effect could be successfully mounted say 40 years after the rent increase took place.
 
This thread has been most helpful. Thank you all.
Would anyone mind giving me their opinion on the following taken from citizens information:

Time limits for referring disputes to the RTB​

Certain types of dispute should be referred to the RTB within a set timeframe. You must refer:
  • Disputes about rent to the RTB within 28 days of the tenancy ending
  • Disputes about notices of termination to the RTB within 90 days of receiving the notice, as long as you have kept your tenant's obligations. If you have broken these obligations the notice period is 28 days.
  • Disputes about rent increases to the RTB either:
    • Before the rent increase is due to take effect (you must get at least 90 days’ notice of a rent increase)
    • Within 28 days of receiving formal notice of the new rent (whichever is later)
Could this be interpreted that the dispute lodged to the RTB is invalid? I know the correct format was not used (text message) but this would make alot of sense - if the tenant has any issue around the notice of rent increase, they have 90 days to dispute. Whether the notice be invalid, too much of an increase, not enough time etc. etc.
 
Ailinf said:
Within 28 days of receiving formal notice of the new rent (whichever is later)
Click to expand...
The issue here is that no formal notice was given.

T McGibney said:
With all respect, if it were me, I'd rather get that from a solicitor. Common law may well impose limitations on an individual pursuing a grievance after a specified number of years.
Click to expand...
This may well be right. But balanced with the clear intent of the law as drafted to give an unlimited period to tenants to challenge.

OP may want to weigh up cost of legal advice against potential reward.
 
T McGibney said:
IANAL but if this happened to me, I'd be seeking legal advice on
  • whether the 2½ year delay in raising the objection invalidates a rent increase that the tenant de-facto agreed to 2½ years ago?
  • what are the relevant limits for a further objection in relation to any previous rent increase? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?
Click to expand...
1. It doesn’t.
2. There are no time bars to raising further objections under the Act over and beyond the limits set out in the Act itself.

The common law is irrelevant here - these are statutory rights.

The Act itself sets out the time limits for making various claims.
 
Last edited:
Sarenco said:
.
2. There are no time bars to raising further objections under the Act.
Click to expand...
So a 50 year old grievance in relation to a rent increase could be successfully pursued sometime in the 2070s?

I'll happily eat my hat if this is actually the case.
 
Dr Strangelove said:
The issue here is that no formal notice was given.


This may well be right. But balanced with the clear intent of the law as drafted to give an unlimited period to tenants to challenge.
Click to expand...
No law can override or dispense altogether with a citizen's rights to fairness, proportionality and due process in the conduct of matters governed under that law.
Dr Strangelove said:
OP may want to weigh up cost of legal advice against potential reward.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

They'd buy a lot of legal advice for a small fraction of the €3,500 at issue here.
 
T McGibney said:
So a 50 year old grievance in relation to a rent increase could be successfully pursued sometime in the 2070s?

I'll happily eat my hat if this is actually the case.
Click to expand...
Yes, assuming none of the time limits set out in the Act are applicable.
 
T McGibney said:
Which is it?
Click to expand...
What do you mean “which is it”?

Again, the Act itself sets out certain time limits for bringing certain disputes to the RTB.

The common law is irrelevant. The Statute of Limitations is irrelevant.

The view from Tommy’s bar stool on “fairness” or “proportionality” is irrelevant.

I appreciate you are not a lawyer but surely that’s not too complicated?
 
Sarenco said:
.
The view from Tommy’s bar stool on “fairness” or “proportionality” is irrelevant.

I appreciate you are not a lawyer but surely that’s not too complicated?
Click to expand...
There is no need for you to get personal here. I won't be responding in kind.

Your claim that the common law is irrelevant to how laws are applied and legislation is interpreted in this country couldn't be further from the truth.
 
T McGibney said:
Your claim that the common law is irrelevant to how laws are applied and legislation is interpreted in this country couldn't be further from the truth.
Click to expand...
You are just embarrassing yourself at this stage.

A first year law student would know that the common law has absolutely nothing to do with the application or interpretation of statutes.

Seriously?! Why keep digging a hole when you clearly haven’t a clue what you are talking about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo
Sarenco said:
You are just embarrassing yourself at this stage.

A first year law student would know that the common law has absolutely nothing to do with the application or interpretation of statutes.

Seriously?! Why keep digging a hole when you clearly haven’t a clue what you are talking about?
Click to expand...
Okay, you keep telling people that they will for the rest of their lives remain exposed to historical claims in relation to rent increases and heaven knows other minor bureaucratic formalities they have ever mishandled in the course of a regulated business transaction.

I'm sure they'll believe you.
 
Ailinf said:
Could this be interpreted that the dispute lodged to the RTB is invalid? I know the correct format was not used (text message) but this would make alot of sense - if the tenant has any issue around the notice of rent increase, they have 90 days to dispute. Whether the notice be invalid, too much of an increase, not enough time etc. etc.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid not.

You haven’t issued a valid notice of the rent review or validly increased the rent so the 90/28 day period has yet to start running.

It also appears that the dispute is being raised within 28 days of the termination of the tenancy so that ground wouldn’t appear to be of any assistance to you.

Have you viewed the property? Are there any grounds for making a counter-claim for damage to the property, over and above normal wear and tear?
 
Sarenco said:
Have you viewed the property? Are there any grounds for making a counter-claim for damage to the property, over and above normal wear and tear?
Click to expand...
I would use this as part of the negotiation. It appears to me that your tenant is leaving anyway and is trying to get something before he goes. There must be some damage you can use as leverage. I'd certainly wait as long as I could before reaching any settlement. They may give up.
 
T McGibney said:
  • whether the 2½ year delay in raising the objection invalidates a rent increase that the tenant de-facto agreed to 2½ years ago?
Click to expand...
Paying the higher rent would be accepting the increase under duress. The alternative would be homelessness.
 
Fortune said:
Paying the higher rent would be accepting the increase under duress. The alternative would be homelessness.
Click to expand...
How? If they were ever even implicitly threatened with eviction, that would have been highly illegal of itself.

The alternatives would have been:
- to complain to the RTB. and/or
- to refuse to accept the purported increase.
 
I would certainly not give in here, no matter what the law says.

The RTB starts with a mediation process and they might see the injustice of it and persuade the tenant to not pursue it.

I very much doubt that when it goes to adjudication that you will get a heavy fine.

I don't think I would pay for legal advice. They will just charge you for telling you what you have already learned here.

Brendan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top