Homeowner can't move back into her home because of eviction ban

Harvard said:
The whiff of entitlement is something else
Click to expand...
It's a scandal alright, imagine being so entitled that she thinks she can just live in her own home!

Of course the only outcome of stories like this one is further reduction of properties entering the rental market. Those who are genuinely interested in the plight of renters should not be celebrating this as any kind of victory.
 
Harvard said:
Have a listen to the CB interview
Click to expand...
I heard that interview as it happens.

She followed the RTB guidance in relation to the initial notice of termination but accepts that the requisite notice period was changed so that the notice was invalid and she had to start again (at least that's the fact pattern as I understood it). No issue with that.

The law subsequently changed yet again and the effectiveness of the revised notice has now been deferred to 31 March. Understandably, she's not happy abut this but her real concern is that the 31 March date could be pushed out and that's why she's engaged with the media.

She was at pains to stress that she has no issue with her tenants.

I didn't pick up any sense of entitlement. Quite the opposite, in fact.
 
From this interview it seems that there was a flaw in the Termination Notice that was picked up by a Housing charity. She did say that the tenant was ok with the notice so wonder how the charity got involved. She seemed to have somewhere lined up to live in when she came home in August - she briefly alluded to that but said this changed. Not clear when she had originally intended to take up residence in the apartment

 
This is what concerned me, none of the initial announcements said home owners are guaranteed to get their place back if needed, or that the Ukrainians wouldn't gain some kind of rights to stay. Looking into it they want minimum 6 months let, which could trap a homeowner into part 4 or similar 'tenancy' issues down the line.
 
Sarenco said:
She followed the RTB guidance in relation to the initial notice of termination but accepts that the requisite notice period was changed so that the notice was invalid and she had to start again (at least that's the fact pattern as I understood it).
Click to expand...
The subsequent Virgin Media interview seems to suggest she had made some error in the notice of termination and that this was spotted by a charity quite soon before it was due to come into effect.

She had double bad luck as by then the winter evictions ban had come into place.

She says "you'd want to have a degree in law" to be a landlord today and she is not wrong.
 

In other words, her tenant(s) - knowing that she would shortly be returning to Ireland and would require her property to live in - scurried off to a so-called Housing "Charity" in order to see whether he (or she) could screw the poor woman - and succeeded. A sick country and an even sicker charity.
 
The tenant is just exercising their rights. With nowhere to go I'd do the same.

The problem is the system itself, as the landlord has stressed in every media interview I've seen.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
The tenant is just exercising their rights. With nowhere to go I'd do the same.

The problem is the system itself, as the landlord has stressed in every media interview I've seen.
Click to expand...
Yep, the rights and wrongs of it goes out the window when you are facing being homeless.
 
The passive aggression is strong with this one...
 
I suspect what happened here is that she was caught by the Regulation of Providers of Building Works and Misc. Provisions Act, 2022. This was a Bill going through the Oireachtas in June/July dealing with the regulation of building works (hence the title). Very quietly new sections were added extending the notice periods for evictions (from one month to three with tenancies of less than 6 months duration) and requiring the notices to be sent to the RTB on the same day as issued.

As I said these amendments can in very quietly (Seanad amendment as far as I can make out) and very quickly. If she drafted her documentation on a Monday and sent them off on the Friday, she could have been caught by the change ie. they were correct on Monday, the above Act became law (signed by President) on Wednesday, so she had issued in an invalid notice on Friday. It wasn't even flagged to those involved. Threshold knew about it. The RTB were a little in the dark.

The law in this area is becoming a trap for those who do not have top drawer professional advice at this point. Solicitors only picked this up from the Threshold website and were scurrying around trying to trace the relevant legislation. Very easy for a lay person who follows the rules to get caught. Very unfair that people who do not understand what happened or do not understand the complexities condemn her for issuing an invalid notice. I don't doubt that some legal professionals missed it also and issued invalid notices.

As you say she was then caught by the eviction ban.

Overall she is correct. If you need the house back in a year or two, do not rent it out under any circumstances. It is just too risky for the amount of money involved. That is becoming standard legal advice at this point.
 
DannyBoyD said:
Or rent for 6 months only.
Click to expand...
You could still get caught out on that as post July 2022 you now have to issue a formal notice (previously a letter you drafted yourself would suffice), give three months' notice (it used to be one) and send a copy of the formal notice to the RTB on the same day as it is issued (previously no requirement to do this). Lots of scope for mistakes here and for further changes to the legislation.
 
Sarenco said:
Plus it doesn’t eliminate the very real risk that a tenant simply overholds.

Renting out a home that you expect to live in within a few years is just not worth the risk IMO.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Renting out if you were going abroad was something that everybody did for donkey's years - without a thought really. It made a bit of money for the homeowner and the place wasn't vacant, was heated etc.

If you have any sense, it is the last thing you would do now.
 

What do you mean "caught out"?
You read the rules and follow them
Yes tenant could overhold, but that can happen in any tenancy. Ultimately they have to leave.

You make it clear from the outset that lease is for 6 months only, give the notice at 3 months & get a new tenant in for the next six months.

It's a load of wotsit for everyone involved, but thats the nonsensical position government legislation has put us in.

It took a decade for our esteemed leaders to finally do something about the consequences of the Fair Deal scheme which meant leaving empty houses rotting for years.

No doubt it will take them as long to figure this one out as well.
 
My point is that you could still make a mistake in the notice, the statutory declaration, calculating the notice period or filing and serving these. My view at this stage is that these are being made as complex as possible to catch landlords out and delay evictions. Why, for example, does a landlord have to send the documentation to the RTB on the same day as it is issued? Why does the RTB need it that precise day?

Also, the law can change rather suddenly (as I suspect happened with the landlord here).

Doing as you say, while as you correctly say it is a load of wotsit for all involved, certainly minimises the chances for the landlord of something going wrong especially if the landlord takes great care. Your are certainly correct there. That said, it is not entirely foolproof IMO. The landlord could still make a mistake with all the requirements. The law could suddenly change and that change might not be well flagged (as happened with the recent changes in July).

Just shows though how stupid and unworkable the whole area has become.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register