Termination notice query

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Sarenco said:
I don't make the rules! I'm just reflecting what the legislation actually says.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sarenco said:
Yes, but there's no suggestion that the landlord in this case has not met his contractual or statutory obligations.
Click to expand...

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.
 
odyssey06 said:
His current statutory obligations are a joke though.
Click to expand...

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.
 
can put someone out of their home
Click to expand...
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.
 

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
When Thirsty said that, it was obviously meant within the context of the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register