Landlord 'intends' to sell house; valid reason for termination?

FamousBelgian

I'm writing this on behalf of a relative who is busy and finding Irish rental law and practice a bit of a minefield.

The tenant has been renting a house in a good part of Dublin for several years now without any problem. They have maintained the property to a high standard and relations with the landlord have been good.

Suddenly, the landlord says they 'need' to sell the property. Nothing happened for two months until notice to quit was served and an estate agent gave the place a 5 minute look over. The notice was technically invalid and was thus referred to the PRTB. The PRTB gave the landlord a month to produce evidence of the need/intent to sell and thereafter a valid notice period. The month has expired and the landlord still hasn't produced anything about an intended sale, forced or otherwise.

It's now six months since the first mention of a need/intention to sell from the landlord but in the absence of any evidence does the notice to terminate still have any validity?

I guess it's all about intention. A landlord can easily declare an intention to sell, throw out the tenant, and immediately rent the property (which the tenant may have actually improved) for a higher rent. Obviously this would be entirely contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Questions are:
- how does a landlord satisfy, in good faith, the condition of intending to sell?
- how can a tenant protect themselves against a dishonest intention?

(I mean, I fully intend to become very rich in 20 years but they weren't having any of it at the bank when I asked for a huge mortgage...)

djimi

The Residential Tenanct Act states the following:

3. The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/sec0034.html#sec34

So basically the landlord must be intent on selling the property within 3 months of the termination of the tenancy. I guess this means that for 3 months after the termination they cannot re-let the property if it does not end up sold.

space_man

the LL is quit within his rights to ask you to vacate.

on yer bike .....

djimi

space_man wrote: »

the LL is quit within his rights to ask you to vacate.

on yer bike .....

The PRTB wernt convinced that the landlord had valid reason to teminate the tenancy; what makes you so sure that the landlord has a case?

space_man

djimi wrote: »

The PRTB wernt convinced that the landlord had valid reason to teminate the tenancy; what makes you so sure that the landlord has a case?

because if he fully intends to sell the property he is quite within his rights to ask them to leave.

djimi

space_man wrote: »

because if he fully intends to sell the property he is quite within his rights to ask them to leave.

If being the operative word. The PRTB asked him to produce evidence of his need/intention to sell which he couldnt/wouldnt do, so it sounds as if they were not satisfied that the notice given was valid. No valid notice period means no requirement to vacate property.

FamousBelgian

djimi wrote: »

The Residential Tenanct Act states the following:



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/sec0034.html#sec34

So basically the landlord must be intent on selling the property within 3 months of the termination of the tenancy. I guess this means that for 3 months after the termination they cannot re-let the property if it does not end up sold.

Thanks for the response. I had read something about a three month period but I didn't know it was the period after the tenant had moved out. Clearly this can be meaningless because the landlord can claim to have suddenly changed his mind due to the market or other vague circumstances and then re-let the place.
If the tenant has suffered the cost and trouble of moving they are hardly going to pursue the landlord and seek to move right back in as if nothing had happened.

I'm surprised to see that renting in Ireland is so precarious. I know the system in Holland and if you rent a place legally in good faith then you stay as long as you like because it's your home, period.

Angpange

As a landlady myself, I think the landlord could have rights. However if he/she is going to rent it out again well then that is unjust.
I have a great tenant and keep my rent at a standstill and am delighted to have her there, however, if I have to sell I have to sell. The other case sceanario is that he/she could put a relative in there and the rights of the tenant is different then, Shame not a good situation and since there has been no problem up to now I guess the landlord must be desperate.

space_man

djimi wrote: »

If being the operative word. The PRTB asked him to produce evidence of his need/intention to sell which he couldnt/wouldnt do, so it sounds as if they were not satisfied that the notice given was valid. No valid notice period means no requirement to vacate property.

well as a LL i have invoked this tenancy clause on occasions, referring the tenants to their tenancy agreement.
in every case they left the property as requested.

FamousBelgian

djimi wrote: »

If being the operative word. The PRTB asked him to produce evidence of his need/intention to sell which he couldnt/wouldnt do, so it sounds as if they were not satisfied that the notice given was valid. No valid notice period means no requirement to vacate property.

I don't know the details but the whole thing sounds a bit odd to me. Maybe that's just because that's the standard practice here: landlord can ask you to leave on a whim and you can just as easily refuse to leave. Then you end up in an ill-defined situation with PRTB, courts, etc. which can be very stressful and uncertain.

I don't know what was wrong with the notice but the landlord was clearly asked to show evidence of intention or need. For the landlord it should be easy enough but for the tenant they have the burden of proving a negative i.e. that the landlord is not going to re-let the house at some point between four and seven months in the future but instead will endeavour to sell the property.

I suppose it comes down to who is likely to get the benefit of a very great doubt.

djimi

space_man wrote: »

well as a LL i have invoked this tenancy clause on occasions, referring the tenants to their tenancy agreement.
in every case they left the property as requested.

Im not saying that there is anything wrong with using this clause as a means to terminate a tenancy. What I am saying is that in this particular case the PRTB have reviewed the case and the notice and have decided that they are not satisfied that the landlord is entirely justified in issuing notice of termination. The PRTB have seen more evidence than we have seen or will see, so if they have deemed that the notice was invalid then there must have been a good reason for it.

If you are using these clauses as a means to evict a tenant when you do not have just cause to do so then you could find yourself in a spot of bother. If a tenant cops onto what you are doing and takes a case against you with the PRTB, and you cannot prove that you actually did intend to sell the property, then they may well find you to have issued an illegal eviction, which could mean a fincancial judgement going the way of your former tenant. Whether or not it would actually come to that I dont know, but I do know that as a tenant if I found out that my landlord was looking to screw me in this manner I would have no hesitation in screwing them right back and taking a case against them as far as I could.

FamousBelgian

Angpange wrote: »

As a landlady myself, I think the landlord could have rights. However if he/she is going to rent it out again well then that is unjust.
I have a great tenant and keep my rent at a standstill and am delighted to have her there, however, if I have to sell I have to sell. The other case sceanario is that he/she could put a relative in there and the rights of the tenant is different then, Shame not a good situation and since there has been no problem up to now I guess the landlord must be desperate.

That's the thing. The landlord's intentions are unclear and I believe there was/is no indication of desparation. Certainly it's unjust if the landlord can out you out on the street on a whim. If I could just find the Irish legal definition of 'whim'...

space_man

djimi wrote: »

Im not saying that there is anything wrong with using this clause as a means to terminate a tenancy. What I am saying is that in this particular case the PRTB have reviewed the case and the notice and have decided that they are not satisfied that the landlord is entirely justified in issuing notice of termination. The PRTB have seen more evidence than we have seen or will see, so if they have deemed that the notice was invalid then there must have been a good reason for it.

If you are using these clauses as a means to evict a tenant when you do not have just cause to do so then you could find yourself in a spot of bother. If a tenant cops onto what you are doing and takes a case against you with the PRTB, and you cannot prove that you actually did intend to sell the property, then they may well find you to have issued an illegal eviction, which could mean a fincancial judgement going the way of your former tenant. Whether or not it would actually come to that I dont know, but I do know that as a tenant if I found out that my landlord was looking to screw me in this manner I would have no hesitation in screwing them right back and taking a case against them as far as I could.

anther good clause is that you 'are refurbishing the property'. again i've invoked this without any problems.

FamousBelgian

space_man wrote: »

well as a LL i have invoked this tenancy clause on occasions, referring the tenants to their tenancy agreement.
in every case they left the property as requested.

Well where I'm sitting you'd have a harder job being a landlord. You're free to sell your property but it doesn't change a whit for the tenant; they just make sure to pay the rent into the new owner's account. Human nature being what it is landlords will still try these tricks on tenants and the clueless ones sometimes believe them. But if you are a landlord then you're in business and you accept the risks of a tenant living forever in your property with an annual rent increase tied to the price index.

RustyNut

space_man wrote: »

well as a LL i have invoked this tenancy clause on occasions, referring the tenants to their tenancy agreement.
in every case they left the property as requested.

Did you then go on to sell the properties ?

space_man

RustyNut wrote: »

Did you then go on to sell the properties ?

What do you think?;)

FamousBelgian

djimi wrote: »

... if I found out that my landlord was looking to screw me in this manner I would have no hesitation in screwing them right back and taking a case against them as far as I could.

Of course you're within your rights to fight like with like. Trouble is, it's very time-consuming and uncertain which is why I'm spending the time on boards instead of the tenant. I was hoping to hear a few anecdotes in terms of the accepted practice on things like intent but it seems like most people accept this. What do you do if you are working long hours with a lot of travel, for instance, in one of the multinationals that Ireland says it needs to create jobs and drive exports and you don't earn enough to ask Messrs Sherry and Fitzgerald to just find you another place, any place?

FamousBelgian

space_man wrote: »

What do you think?;)

Can I take that as your take on landlord 'intent/need'?

space_man

FamousBelgian wrote: »

Can I take that as your take on landlord 'intent/need'?

you can take it whatever way you want.

another excellent clause to invoke is that you (the LL) or an immediate member of you family intend to move into the property.

again this is a perfectly valid reason to ask a tenant to vacate the property.

RustyNut

space_man wrote: »

you can take it whatever way you want.

another excellent clause to invoke is that you (the LL) or an immediate member of you family intend to move into the property.

again this is a perfectly valid reason to ask a tenant to vacate the property.

So really the tennant in the op should fight back as hard as they can and use ptrb etc to try to keep their home as landlords are all over (ab)using the rules to get tennants to move on.

FamousBelgian

space_man wrote: »

you can take it whatever way you want.

another excellent clause to invoke is that you (the LL) or an immediate member of you family intend to move into the property.

again this is a perfectly valid reason to ask a tenant to vacate the property.

I think I would take it the same way as @djimi would take it: to a fight.

djimi

space_man wrote: »

anther good clause is that you 'are refurbishing the property'. again i've invoked this without any problems.

space_man wrote: »

you can take it whatever way you want.

another excellent clause to invoke is that you (the LL) or an immediate member of you family intend to move into the property.

again this is a perfectly valid reason to ask a tenant to vacate the property.

At any time has a tenant questioned your motives, or have they just moved out and that was the last that you heard from them?

space_man

djimi wrote: »

At any time has a tenant questioned your motives, or have they just moved out and that was the last that you heard from them?

on a few occasions tenants said they didn't mind staying while the property was being refurbished/sold, but i insisted that it would not be appropriate.

LLs might feel it prudent to create & retain a paper trail of all invoices, bills, receipts etc.

djimi

For the refurbishment clause you would need to have some evidence of fairly major work done to the property; its not enough to move a tenant out just to give the place a lick of paint.

space_man

djimi wrote: »

For the refurbishment clause you would need to have some evidence of fairly major work done to the property; its not enough to move a tenant out just to give the place a lick of paint.

a lot of LLs would do most of this work themselves. i've refurbished quite a few properties in my day, and only ever needed to employ the services of a plumber and electrician.

djimi

space_man wrote: »

a lot of LLs would do most of this work themselves. i've refurbished quite a few properties in my day, and only ever needed to employ the services of a plumber and electrician.

Its still in your interest to keep some kind of evidence of the work that you have carried out. Even if its just pictorial.

space_man

djimi wrote: »

Its still in your interest to keep some kind of evidence of the work that you have carried out. Even if its just pictorial.

absolutely.
as with most things in business, if it's not in writing it never happened.

Anynama141

space_man wrote: »

you can take it whatever way you want.

another excellent clause to invoke is that you (the LL) or an immediate member of you family intend to move into the property.

again this is a perfectly valid reason to ask a tenant to vacate the property.

It's only legal if it's true. I'd be sure to check up on this if a LL pulled it on me, and I'd have my hand out for a big payout if it proved to be BS.

space_man

Anynama141 wrote: »

It's only legal if it's true. I'd be sure to check up on this if a LL pulled it on me, and I'd have my hand out for a big payout if it proved to be BS.

the best of luck with that.:rolleyes:

Anynama141

space_man wrote: »

the best of luck with that.:rolleyes:

You only have to show that the person who moved in is not the relative cited, or that the property hasn't been sold. Not a whole lot of luck required, I would have thought. The Property Price Register will show whether a place has been sold. A knock on the door after a few months will show who is living there.

space_man

Anynama141 wrote: »

You only have to show that the person who moved in is not the relative cited, or that the property hasn't been sold. Not a whole lot of luck required, I would have thought. The Property Price Register will show whether a place has been sold. A knock on the door after a few months will show who is living there.

a LL could have totally legitimate reasons for not selling. all he has to do is prove his intention at that time was was to sell.

likewise his relative could have had totally legitimate reasons for moving out after a period of time.

Anynama141

space_man wrote: »

a LL could have totally legitimate reasons for not selling. all he has to do is prove his intention at that time was was to sell.

likewise his relative could have had totally legitimate reasons for moving out after a period of time.

Looks like a lot of proof required. Who is the burden of proof on? You must think the PTRB are total saps.

On the other hand, it's reassuring to see that lousy tenants are still matched by lousy landlords.

space_man

Anynama141 wrote: »

Looks like a lot of proof required. Who is the burden of proof on? You must think the PTRB are total saps.

On the other hand, it's reassuring to see that lousy tenants are still matched by lousy landlords.

the PRTB is nothing more than a tax-sapping quango, which from time to time makes noises intended no doubt to justify its' existence.
it is indeed about as much use as a pair of tits on a bull.

Anynama141

space_man wrote: »

the PRTB is nothing more than a tax-sapping quango, which from time to time makes noises intended no doubt to justify its' existence.
it is indeed about as much use as a pair of tits on a bull.

Which does not mean to say that they can't award hefty damages to someone illegally evicted by someone like you who has no respect for tenants or the law.

space_man

Anynama141 wrote: »

Which does not mean to say that they can't award hefty damages to someone illegally evicted by someone like you who has no respect for tenants or the law.

how do you know i ever illegally evicted anyone?
can you prove that?

do think carefully before you answer.
just because you think you're 'hiding' behind a makey-up name does not mean you cannot libel somebody online. (ask the MODS if you're not convinced).

Anynama141

space_man wrote: »

how do you know i ever illegally evicted anyone?
can you prove that?

do think carefully before you answer.

Can you prove that I said you evicted any tenants illegally? Think carefully before you answer.

space_man

Anynama141 wrote: »

Can you prove that I said you evicted any tenants illegally? Think carefully before you answer.

you dont mind if i run it past my solicitor then?

space_man

Anynama141 wrote: »

Which does not mean to say that they can't award hefty damages to someone illegally evicted by someone like you who has no respect for tenants or the law.

i think he'll be keen to review this part in particular.

djimi

Id love to see the reaction in the court when "Space_Man from Boards.ie" is called to make their case!

Anynama141

space_man wrote: »

i think he'll be keen to review this part in particular.

space_man wrote: »

you dont mind if i run it past my solicitor then?

Knock yourself out my good man, it's your money. Hopefully he'll know enough about the law to tell you that the tort of libel has been gone since 2009. It's defamation you'll be wanting.

FamousBelgian

space_man wrote: »

you can take it whatever way you want.

another excellent clause to invoke is that you (the LL) or an immediate member of you family intend to move into the property.

again this is a perfectly valid reason to ask a tenant to vacate the property.

Anynama141 wrote: »

Well I called out the guy as he suggested he used illegal tactics to get tenants out of properties. The rest of my posts have been trying to get him to clarify whether he did or he didn't - it appears that he now claims that he didn't.

I think I'm finished with him now.

Ladies! Please!!

I think this exchange illustrates my point: a landlord *can* throw a tenant out on a whim. Simply state an intention to sell/refurbish/house a relative in the property and once the tenant is gone you're free to have a change of intention and do whatever you want.
It's all down to the good grace of the landlord and the tenant have to prove bad faith. In this case it will be down to the PRTB; would it make sense for the tenant to engage a solicitor to handle the appeal process?

Anynama141

FamousBelgian wrote: »

Ladies! Please!!

I think that spat is over...

It seems to me that it's hard to develop a system that is perfect, but what we have is not nearly as good as it could be. Two points need to be addressed:

1. Scumbag tenants who move from property to property, ripping off landlords, damaging the properties, alienating neighbours and so forth. A small landlord could be driven into bankruptcy by such a tenant refusing to pay and yet sitting in a property for months and years waiting for the PTRB to hear a case.

A register of lousy tenants is needed that landlords can refer to.

2. Security of tenure for tenants. Improvements have been made in this field, but we won't be able to develop a proper rental culture until loopholes are closed.

If we dealt with both 1. and 2., we would have a higher quality of tenant, landlord and property in the market, to the benefit of all.

RustyNut

FamousBelgian wrote: »

Ladies! Please!!

I think this exchange illustrates my point: a landlord *can* throw a tenant out on a whim. Simply state an intention to sell/refurbish/house a relative in the property and once the tenant is gone you're free to have a change of intention and do whatever you want.
It's all down to the good grace of the landlord and the tenant have to prove bad faith. In this case it will be down to the PRTB; would it make sense for the tenant to engage a solicitor to handle the appeal process?

I would leav it with the prtb for the time being. If the landlord is in the right then that's tough after so long in the property. A landlord can "ask" you to leave at any time but actually throwing you out is a different matter. If anyone is to blow money on legal action let it be the landlord spending on an eviction.

BostonB

FamousBelgian wrote: »

.... The PRTB gave the landlord a month to produce evidence of the need/intent to sell and thereafter a valid notice period. ...
Questions are:
- how does a landlord satisfy, in good faith, the condition of intending to sell?
- how can a tenant protect themselves against a dishonest intention?..

Proving need is easy enough.

How do you prove intent? I'm puzzled by that one too.

Zaph

space_man wrote: »

it illustrates nothing of the sort.
again you are making the same mistake your friend made, and accusing me of doing something i did not, which i will again point out is LIBEL and is actionable.
i would ask you to please think carefully before you start making such false and damaging accusations.

Just a reminder that threatening legal action, either against boards or other posters, is a site-bannable offence.

The_Conductor

Zaph wrote: »

Just a reminder that threatening legal action, either against boards or other posters, is a site-bannable offence.

We have a forum policy of banning anyone- without warning, who threatens legal action. Space_man is now banned from the Accommodation and Property Forum. If Space_man wants his access reinstated- he/she will have to make a case through the appropriate channels.

Regards

SMcCarrick