Rogue landlord eviction notice

zotapex

hello all
i recently posted a thread on my rights as a tenant concerning personal insurance and received a lot of good advice. things have deteriorated to an all time low between myself and landlord. before i explain my situation, i will just say i'm well aware of
citizens advice
prtb (which he is currently not registered with and know that doesn't affect my rights as a tenant)
and will be contacting them both in the morning but would like some advice on the right questions to be asking
ok i am currently renting a "3" bedroom apartment by myself but have the other bedrooms for my children who i have on the weekends or some weekdays.
i have been in the premises for over 3 years but less than 4 years, according to threshold my notice should be 84 days.
i had an insurance man have a look at premises and he told me there was no way that the apartment could be legal and to get it checked out which i did and the fire department came and looked at it and found that the building in which there are three units was refused planning permission and should never have been rented. the fire department has apparently told the LL that changes have to be made and he has given me a letter stating that since my intervention with the local council meant that he had to make changes he was giving me 28 days to find another place. i.e terminating my lease. the other apartments in building are exactly the same but no termination notice for them. i need to contact the fire department to find out what changes need to made. to find out if he knowingly put me and my childrens lives in danger because i'm guessing he was told why planning was refused. the problem seems to stem from the 3rd floor "bedroom" and no fire escape, stairwell to narrow and completely pine wood walls. the fire officer told me that the first and second floors were ok to occupy, which is all i need until things are fixed. the loft conversion is also to small to be classed as a bedroom in rented accommodation but its on the lease as a bedroom, as a tenant am i supposed to know the proper dimensions before moving in. or even if the place is legal to be rented at all. basically, i can't afford to move even if i have to. should i show the letter to the corporation? its not my fault that he broke nearly every rule in the book and i'm being forced to become homeless and i certainly haven't enough money to put my possessions in storage and find a bedsit. haven't got the bond.
any advice would be greatly appreciated before i approach the authorities
thanks in advance

Santa Cruz

The landlord has been instructed to make changes. If the building is unsafe he is perfectly in his rights to have you move out as soon as possible. His insurance company would demand same. You left it a long time to find out whether or not the tenancy was registered with PRTB. You are not in a position to tell the landlord how he goes about the renovation. If the apartment needs a lot of refurbishment then it will be like a building site and there will be no insurance cover for tenants.

djimi

If you are on a part 4 tenancy then one of the termination clauses allows for the landlord to seek termination should the property require rennovation. Im afraid the only issue that you have here is the notice period; you are entitled to 84 days notice.

Its also worth bearing in mind that once the tenancy rolls into the 5th year and the start of the next 4 year cycle you can be asked to leave for any reason with 112 days notice, so if he really wants you gone he only need to bide his time for a short while more. Its up to you whether or not you want to wait it out, but you are really only delaying the inevitable, so if it were me Id start looking for someone else to live now, and negotiate a notice period that allows you time to find somewhere else but doesnt tie you to the property for months to come.

zotapex

basically what i'm saying is, the first two floors are safe, i haven't the money to move under such short notice, the neighbours flats are exactly the same and the urgency to move the tenants or make repairs to them doesn't exist in his mind. i intend to move but need time to get money together. he has a difficulty with me because i raised questions. the corporation and fire department have known about this for months and deemed it was safe to reside here if i didn't sleep in 3rd floor. a question i would like to know is what are his responsibilities to tenants as far as knowingly housing people and children in an unsafe building and charging for the benefit, surely that can't be legal.

Pawwed Rig

djimi wrote: »

If you are on a part 4 tenancy then one of the termination clauses allows for the landlord to seek termination should the property require rennovation. Im afraid the only issue that you have here is the notice period; you are entitled to 84 days notice.
.

This is correct in general but in the event that the property is deemed a fire hazard and therefore uninhabitable I fear that the LL may be correct to ask the tenant to leave pretty much immeadiately. I would think the onus is on the LL to provide alternative accommodation but have no source to back that up. One of the legal guys might provide clarity.
PRTB, Threshold, Fire office and CIC should be able to provide the relevant details to the OP in this case.

Grandpa Hassan

Agree with the other posters. Any complaint you make to PTRB will only serve to punish the LL for his historic actions (no registration etc). It will not help you stay in the property. The LL can serve notice based on the fact that he needs to renovate (a LL is within his rights to serve the appropriate notice if he wants to renovate at any time). The only question is the notice period...your best case is that you manage to stay there for another 2 months beyond the 28 day notice period that you have been served. You are better off looking for somewhere else immediately, and speaking to your LL to try to arrange a more flexible leaving date

djimi

Im not really sure how the situation with the other two properties is going to help you tbh. The landlord has been made aware of issue in your property that need to be sorted and he has (by the sounds of it) taken steps to get them sorted. Whatever his motivation, that is the bottom line it seems. Whether he does the same with the other properties is a seperate matter and not really your concern.

I understand your annoyance, but the fact of the matter is that the law allows for the landlord to terminate the tenancy if renovations are required, and by the sound of it that is exactly what he is doing. If you are not on a fixed term lease then you do not have the security that it offers; a part 4 tenancy affords you many rights but it is not a guarantee of security in the property.

zotapex

just one more thing, the three flats are identical, i have been in them all, how can only 1 of them be uninhabitable because of fire danger and require the tenant to move immediately but not the others. they are in the same building, same city, same county, same country. no different laws apply here.

djimi

zotapex wrote: »

just one more thing, the three flats are identical, i have been in them all, how can only 1 of them be uninhabitable because of fire danger and require the tenant to move immediately but not the others. they are in the same building, same city, same county, same country. no different laws apply here.

You need to ask this question to the fire department or whoever it was that carried out the inspection.

djimi

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This is correct in general but in the event that the property is deemed a fire hazard and therefore uninhabitable I fear that the LL may be correct to ask the tenant to leave pretty much immeadiately. I would think the onus is on the LL to provide alternative accommodation but have no source to back that up. One of the legal guys might provide clarity.
PRTB, Threshold, Fire office and CIC should be able to provide the relevant details to the OP in this case.

True. Im sort of working off the assumption that the work needs to be done to bring the place up to code but that it is not an immediate safety concern (if such a thing is possible). If the place has been deemed to be an actual safety hazard then shorter notice would be appropriate, but then again if the place is an actual safety hazard I dont know of anyone in their right mind who would want to fight to remain in such a property (especially when children are involved)!

Grandpa Hassan

djimi wrote: »

I understand your annoyance, but the fact of the matter is that the law allows for the landlord to terminate the tenancy if renovations are required, and by the sound of it that is exactly what he is doing. If you are not on a fixed term lease then you do not have the security that it offers; a part 4 tenancy affords you many rights but it is not a guarantee of security in the property.

And also worth noting that the LL is allowed to terminate the tenancy if he simply wants to make renovations for cosmetic reasons, rather than only in the event that they are actually required for safety reasons.

Thus what he intends to do with the other properties is not really relevant

mitosis

So, basically you just want the other tenants out also? Maybe yours was the only one inspected.

You made a complaint (correctly), got the LL in trouble (his own fault), and now you are unhappy with the consequences?

If the place is unsafe, as you have said, why do you not want to get out immediately? Or were you reporting him to punish him? And now it has backfired?

zotapex

please read op
the apartment is unsafe on the third floor in case of fire, it is not going to self combust. the fire department has said its safe just don't sleep on the third floor. i have said i cannot afford to move straight away because i don't have the money. i am not asking for anyone else to get kicked out. i'm making the point the LL is using double standards, i will go to the authorities tomorrow, i was asking for advice on what questions to ask them. i originally inquired to council because someone suggested it may pose a hazard in case of fire. i didn't "report" anyone.

djimi

zotapex wrote: »

please read op
the apartment is unsafe on the third floor in case of fire, it is not going to self combust. the fire department has said its safe just don't sleep on the third floor. i have said i cannot afford to move straight away because i don't have the money. i am not asking for anyone else to get kicked out. i'm making the point the LL is using double standards, i will go to the authorities tomorrow, i was asking for advice on what questions to ask them. i originally inquired to council because someone suggested it may pose a hazard in case of fire. i didn't "report" anyone.

As I have said, the bottom line is that, regardless of his motivation, the law allows for the landlord to terminate the tenancy if renovations are required, and it sounds like that is what they are doing.

You can appeal the termination notice if you feel that it is not valid (doesnt properly give the reason, doesnt allow enough notice etc) but thats about as much of a case as you are going to have, and that is only really going to delay the matter (this might be sufficient for you).

Grandpa Hassan

zotapex wrote: »

please read op
the apartment is unsafe on the third floor in case of fire, it is not going to self combust. the fire department has said its safe just don't sleep on the third floor. i have said i cannot afford to move straight away because i don't have the money. i am not asking for anyone else to get kicked out. i'm making the point the LL is using double standards, i will go to the authorities tomorrow, i was asking for advice on what questions to ask them. i originally inquired to council because someone suggested it may pose a hazard in case of fire. i didn't "report" anyone.

But if the LL has decided that he wants to renovate your flat, there is nothing you can do to stay, other than ensure that he gives you the correct amount of notice. What he does with the other flats is not relevant. He is entitled to renovate any of his properties at any time he wants

I know that his behaviour has been poor, but, generally speaking, as much as there are rules to protect a tenant (through part 4 tenancy), there has to be a mechanism whereby LLs can get their property back for renovation (or indeed their own use).

Marcusm

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

But if the LL has decided that he wants to renovate your flat, there is nothing you can do to stay, other than ensure that he gives you the correct amount of notice. What he does with the other flats is not relevant. He is entitled to renovate any of his properties at any time he wants

I know that his behaviour has been poor, but, generally speaking, as much as there are rules to protect a tenant (through part 4 tenancy), there has to be a mechanism whereby LLs can get their property back for renovation (or indeed their own use).

The entitlement to terminate to renovate is not absolute, it is qualified to the extent that the renovation requires the property to be empty. Putting up a fire escape should not require the property be empty. In any event, OP, as DJMI has pointed out, the landlord will shortly get a 6 month window in which he can, with 112 days notice, terminate without giving a reason. I'd start looking now if I were you.

The relevant ground for termination for renovation is:
5. The landlord intends to substantially refurbish or renovate the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling in a way which requires the dwelling to be vacated for that purpose (and, where planning permission is required for the carrying out of that refurbishment or renovation, that permission has been obtained) and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—

(a) specifying the nature of the intended works, and

(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) the dwelling becomes available for reletting, and

(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table.

Grandpa Hassan

Marcusm wrote: »

The entitlement to terminate to renovate is not absolute, it is qualified to the extent that the renovation requires the property to be empty. .

But it isn't hard for a LL to do enough work that they can justify the property being empty....add in an entire internal paint job or some other redecoration and the PTRB would not find against the LL.

I needed to do so recently with my property (I moved to London and am a reluctant LL). I did an entire internal redecoration....purely cosmetic, but required me to give notice to tenants in part 4

foggy_lad

zotapex wrote: »

the fire department came and looked at it and found that the building in which there are three units was refused planning permission and should never have been rented.

You should report this to the local council.

Grandpa Hassan

foggy_lad wrote: »

You should report this to the local council.

I think the OP is intending to to this. Their question was whether he can avoid the inevitable eviction. And the general consensus is that he might succeed is delaying it by a couple of months, but he should start looking for somewhere else to live. Reporting the property gets the LL in trouble but won't help him stay for any longer than the mandatory notice periods

Marcusm

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

But it isn't hard for a LL to do enough work that they can justify the property being empty....add in an entire internal paint job or some other redecoration and the PTRB would not find against the LL.

I needed to do so recently with my property (I moved to London and am a reluctant LL). I did an entire internal redecoration....purely cosmetic, but required me to give notice to tenants in part 4

I can see why you felt to expedient to have the house vacant but I doubt that coud be seen as "required" which in the context would be construed as necessary. Redecorations, new floors, new bathrooms, new kitchens and even new heating systems are undertaken with the occupants in place daily.

Grandpa Hassan

Marcusm wrote: »

I can see why you felt to expedient to have the house vacant but I doubt that coud be seen as "required" which in the context would be construed as necessary. Redecorations, new floors, new bathrooms, new kitchens and even new heating systems are undertaken with the occupants in place daily.

Not sure I agree with that. Such work may on occasion be carried out with occupants in place, but I think that is down to the LL not wanting to lose good tenants and incur re-letting costs, and therefore coming to an agreement with them about the nature, scope and timing if the work. If a LL wanted to carry out redecorating works and wanted an empty house to do so (in my case I wanted to stay there myself as I was doing it), the PTRB would not find against them.

(as long as they actually do the work of course, rather than just say they are going to, in order to evict tenants, and not following through)

Victor

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

And also worth noting that the LL is allowed to terminate the tenancy if he simply wants to make renovations for cosmetic reasons, rather than only in the event that they are actually required for safety reasons.

"Cosmetic reasons" is decoration, not renovation.

Marcusm

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Not sure I agree with that. Such work may on occasion be carried out with occupants in place, but I think that is down to the LL not wanting to lose good tenants and incur re-letting costs, and therefore coming to an agreement with them about the nature, scope and timing if the work. If a LL wanted to carry out redecorating works and wanted an empty house to do so (in my case I wanted to stay there myself as I was doing it), the PTRB would not find against them.

(as long as they actually do the work of course, rather than just say they are going to, in order to evict tenants, and not following through)

For the work you describe, with tenants willing to remain in situ, I would be shocked if any tribunal or court was willing to give you an eviction order. It neither amounts to renovation or refurbishment or vacant possession is not "required". I have no issue if your tenants left willingly and no doubt your new tenants benefit from the refreshed paintwork etc but it's not sufficient to end their tenure, IMO.

The_Conductor

zotapex wrote: »

i have been in the premises for over 3 years but less than 4 years, according to threshold my notice should be 84 days.
i had an insurance man have a look at premises and he told me there was no way that the apartment could be legal and to get it checked out which i did and the fire department came and looked at it and found that the building in which there are three units was refused planning permission and should never have been rented. the fire department has apparently told the LL that changes have to be made and he has given me a letter stating that since my intervention with the local council meant that he had to make changes he was giving me 28 days to find another place. i.e terminating my lease.

Once the Fire Department became involved- they will have issued an enforcement notice to the Landlord. The 84 days notice does not apply- in general, you would be asked to leave immediately, but at a stretch a month's notice might be given. You have 28 days- that is as good as it is going to get- you need to start searching for accommodation immediately. Aside from any action the landlord takes or does not take- you can now be evicted and forced to leave by the council. Sure- this would be onerous on you- but you're only following in the footsteps of several thousand tenants forced to vacate unsafe dwellings in the last year alone (for example- look at the very high profile forced evacuation of the Priory Hall dwellings- and this is only one high profile case- its estimated that we may have several thousand developments around the country in a similar or worse state).

Start looking for new accommodation- you are going to have to leave, one way or the other.

Grandpa Hassan

Marcusm wrote: »

For the work you describe, with tenants willing to remain in situ, I would be shocked if any tribunal or court was willing to give you an eviction order. It neither amounts to renovation or refurbishment or vacant possession is not "required". I have no issue if your tenants left willingly and no doubt your new tenants benefit from the refreshed paintwork etc but it's not sufficient to end their tenure, IMO.

'Refurbishment' is the reason outlined in the part 4 rules. I agree that it has to more than a paint job. But a comprehensive paint job, new carpets, new bathroom counts as refurbishment and I would be astounded if the PTRB overturned an eviction notice in that scenario

Cosmetic work, if extensive enough, would count as 'refurbishment'

In my case I also wanted to live there myself while I was doing it, which is another valid reason to give a termination notice. if you are an overseas LL you have no choice but to move in yourself while doing the work. The PTRB are reasonable, and I am 100% sure that they would not have found against me if the tenants had complained

Santa Cruz

If I was the landlord I would want you out as well. You are coming across as a right know all whinger who wants everything his own way. It's the landlords property and if he decides its better to have the property empty when it is been renovated then that's his right. When you have your own property you will see his point.

MouseTail

Santa Cruz wrote: »

If I was the landlord I would want you out as well. You are coming across as a right know all whinger who wants everything his own way. It's the landlords property and if he decides its better to have the property empty when it is been renovated then that's his right. When you have your own property you will see his point.

In fact the LL may not renovate, those works may be costly, so he may leave it vacant. In any case the OP must vacate within 28 days. I'm surprised it's as much as 28 days tbh, I thought it would be shorter.

zotapex

thanks for a lot of good advice, i do intend to leave but need my full notice period ie. 84 days to actually have enough money to do so. its a tricky one a lot of people say its his responsibility to find temporary accommodation until its fixed and i do know someone who has been in that situation and the LL did rehouse until premises was fit for purpose. i really don't know. was away for a week and arrived home after hours friday night with everything closed and a termination notice, so i turned to boards for info to start asking questions on monday morning. as far as revenge goes that was being mentioned i'd say LL is the one terminating because i made an enquiry and exposed his wrong doing. i've done nothing wrong
there are a few things i'd like to know and will find out from council and will meet with a councilor. they are

Fact No. 01
My landlord was refused planning permission and went ahead anyway without informing council
Question: Is this legal?

Fact No. 02
He advertised property for lease and took in tenants
Question: is this legal?

if he only has to install a fire escape it won't interfere with me at all but i will find out the reason off the fire department tomorrow. i will contact prtb and i have a solicitor who will answer questions and advise me on the legal stuff on a pay later basis.
anyway thanks for all the responses, it amazes me that a person could and this is pure speculation because i don't know the reason for planning refusal.
knowingly lease a dwelling illegally and put peoples lives in danger (a possibility) renting a place without it ever being approved (fact) and to make it worse rent it as 3 bedrooms when in fact it is 2 bedrooms with a loft conversion (fact) and have no responsibilities (seems so). crazy if it is true. yes i will be moving when i get the deposit and money saved because i can't see him giving me back my deposit, because i've inconvenienced him so much

ABajaninCork

If the landlord refuses to give back your deposit, then chase for it through the PRTB.

MouseTail

I can't see you getting 84 days notice. The LL has been served a very serious notice with severe penalties if he refuses to comply. Get in touch with threshold, I really don't think you need a solicitor, particularly if you are struggling to get a deposit together.

Grolschevik

Anyone else find it unusual for an insurance agent to come out to view the place for what would only be contents cover? And who called out the fire safety guy?

I'm not usually cynical on things like this, but it really looks to me like the OP was looking for leverage against the landlord for some reason, called the authorities, and now it's backfired.

foggy_lad

zotapex wrote: »

the fire department has apparently told the LL that changes have to be made and he has given me a letter stating that since my intervention with the local council meant that he had to make changes he was giving me 28 days to find another place. i.e terminating my lease.

If the landlord told you this then I would doubt if he has received any official notice from the Fire Brigade but is using this as a reason to get you out as he sees you as a troublemaker.

Contact the Fire Brigade and find out what if any notices have been served.

The_Conductor

OP- can you clarify- you invited someone in to check out the building yourself- on the back of some comments from an insurance salesman- and now that the landlord has been served with an enforcement notice (quite rightly it would seem), you're put out, because you don't in fact want to leave, and you're not happy with the notice you've been given. Is this the situation in a nutshell?

I'd have to agree with the post (2 above) where its suggested you went and reported the building to get some sort of hold over the landlord- and the whole thing has backfired over you...........

Can you clarify- what actually happened.

zotapex

the insurance guy was someone i know from the pub, all of this arose because i didn't have any personal insurance and we were talking about it because another friend was actually burned out he just came down to check my place out as its 100 yards from pub, give me a guesstimate. he just happened to know more than me about rules and regs. another friend was a fire officer in army and we all drink in same pub of course we talk about things that are happening in our lives. he had a look and said get onto the fire department straight away this isn't right. so i rang the fire department to have a look and actually said to them, i don't want to get anyone into trouble but i wanted to know if i was safe. they had a look and apparently i wasn't safe if i was sleeping in the illegal third floor. then the fire department went away to look at the planning submission and found there wasn't any. sorry if i have some crazy attitude that if i pay my rent then i expect the LL to live up to his responsibilities and get what i am actually paying for, i don't find that unusual, who wouldn't. what are safety laws and planning laws for? he knew he had responsibilities as LL the same as i do as a tenant. the solicitor is a friend who would take it on if it and put the bill on the long finger. he would wait till i was sorted with deposit. its all convoluted. it seems that if i'm damned if i do, damned if i don't.

zotapex

just one more thing, i had know idea whatsoever, that the landlord didn't have planning permission. my friend the ex army guy said when he looked, that the loft was a conversion not a bedroom. thats all. he said it wasn't safe to be a bedroom. and apparently it isn't hows that my fault. i'll find out tomorrow

The_Conductor

The fact that its a simple loft conversion, rather than a formal bedroom- is not your fault. You did invite a friend in, who suggested you talk to another friend, who suggested you get the Fire Department involved- who served the landlord with notice, who in turn has given you 28 days notice.......... Sound right?

The 84 days notice- does not apply once the landlord has been served with notice by the Fire Department. You're doing good to get 28 days notice.

It sounds like the principle issue is the manner in which the loft conversion is being sold as a 'bedroom' for the purpose of letting the property. Pine cladding- pah, aside from the fact that its naff as hell, there is no major issue with it- it was a very popular way of decorating (admittedly back in the late 70s ).

The landlord should get the top unit vacated as quickly as possible and remedy any issues in the notice served on him by the Fire Department. The notice- and it does indeed sound like he has legitimately been served with notice, will have a deadline associated with it- and will involve an inspection of the property immediately after the elapse of the notice.

It doesn't sound (from what you've said here) as though there is anything major at fault here- other than the lack of planning permission for the development- and the manner in which the loft conversion is being sold as an additional bedroom. Vacating the property- may satisfy the notice- I'm only speculating- but once its vacant- it would be up to the landlord to apply for planning permission (or retention) however given the current rules on units like this- it would be doubtful it would meet current regulations.

It sounds like a cascade of events- arising from you having a chat with friends in the pub...........

The 84 days notice is void, by reason of the notice served on the landlord by the Fire Department. Good luck trying to argue otherwise.

zotapex

yes conductor, thats pretty much what happened. a chain of events. like inviting a friend around who's an electrician and noticing the whole place is wired wrong, which you didn't notice because you are a musician. the fire department will tell me tomorrow what the problem is it has to be a fire prob because the planning guys haven't seen the place, it was the fire guys who contacted them because they obviously spotted something that was obvious to them but they didn't say what it was to me. they just said they'd get back to me which they did and told there was no planning, thats all i know atm. i will move i don't need this just a bit of time, they can tell me how urgent it is to vacate but they have already stated i can stay in flat just don't sleep in the loft. which is not a problem, so i think the LL is looking for revenge for asking questions.

The_Conductor

Do post back and let us know what the issue was. It could well be something reasonably easy to remedy (the planning permission aside- which could well be nigh impossible to ever satisfy). If they have stated that its only the attic conversion thats at issue- it may well be the lack of a fire-escape thats at fault (or the width of passageways, the absence of suitable windows etc etc)

Given that they have stated that its only the loft conversion that they are finding fault with- I wouldn't be overly concerned to be honest- however the landlord will still have to remedy whatever is in the notice he has been served with- whatever that might be.

Do post back tomorrow and let us know what the issue is.

zotapex

will do conductor, i started this thread to get an idea where i stand, it seemed to turn into a LL versus tenant thread.

foggy_lad

Can the LL legally register the premises with the PRTB and let it without having planning permission for the building?

The_Conductor

foggy_lad wrote: »

Can the LL legally register the premises with the PRTB and let it without having planning permission for the building?

The PRTB have precisely zero interest in checking out planning permission and chasing safety certs etc. Whether the registration on the PRTB website would be legal or not- would depend on the legislation and how its worded- however it is illegal to let the property, without registering it with the PRTB. Yes- its counter intuitive- and shows a lack of joined up thinking- but unfortunately, as with so many things- thats the way it is, and we can like it or lump it.

zotapex

hello good people
the outcome of all this is that if anyone is renting out a premises without planning permission or contemplating doing it don't, it will come back and bite you big time.