Landlord selling after so long. What to do?

newbie2013

Its not my own landlord but a friend of mines. This girl has lived in this house for 12 years, decorated and fixed a few problems herself and laid wooden floors,carpets and lino in ensuite. Built a new fence and looked after the outside cutting grass and painted etc..

The landlord has just been on the phone to her and said that she "might" have to leave at end of jan because someone is really interested in buying the house. He said there was an offer in but he doesnt know if its 100% yet but if it is, she'll have to leave come jan.

Shes a single mum with 3 kids and one on the way and is in a bit of destress over it. She knew this day would have came but wasnt expecting it just after xmass and was expecting to be giving alot more time to get another house she likes.

Her boyfriend at the moment has his own house and he was actully thinking of buying her house when his own sold but thats all been thrown up in the air now that theres an offer in. They could off moved into his house if it where near them but seeing as its to far from kids schools/town etc.. , thats a no-no.

Her head has been in a spin all day trying to find a house but cant see any that suits her. Shes also been wondering, what if this sale doesnt go through, should she still live there because this time will come up again and cause more destress with having to rush to find a home for her and her kids.

HAs anyone any advice that i can give to her. Not really looking to cause the landlord any problems but just something that can ease her mind so she knows where she stands.

accensi0n

The landlord has to give 112 days notice:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html#lc0aea

newbie2013

accensi0n wrote: »

The landlord has to give 112 days notice:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html#lc0aea

Whooooo, 16 weeks! The landlord aint gong to be happy about that lol. Shes the type that wouldnt like to cause this bother for the landlord. Wonder if itll be a problem for the new buyers and they pull out because of it. She would hate this to happen and there be a fall out between them.

The_Conductor

If the landlord is voluntarily selling the property (which depends entirely on where it is)- it would probably be in their best interests to simply give the requisite notice, and if the property is vacant for a period, so be it. Aka- if one buyer pulls out, another will come along. Of course it depends entirely on where the property is- some areas are impossible to sell, other areas you'd have your hand bitten off if someone suspected you might sell.

Greenmachine

Your friend sound like she has done a lot to the property to make it better suit her needs. Not sure if that is of any benefit to her. Like others have said the landlord has a statutory notice period to serve on your friend.

Vojera

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, him telling her she "might" have to leave at the end of January doesn't count as notice. It has to be in writing. And if it comes January and he hasn't given her anything in writing then he can't backdate the notice to now, it has to be from when he sends the letter.

djimi

newbie2013 wrote: »

Whooooo, 16 weeks! The landlord aint gong to be happy about that lol. Shes the type that wouldnt like to cause this bother for the landlord. Wonder if itll be a problem for the new buyers and they pull out because of it. She would hate this to happen and there be a fall out between them.

She can agree to a shorter notice period if she wants to, but honestly Im not sure why she would want to. She has three kids to think about; she needs to man up and do whats best for her and for her family. She is entitled to nearly four months notice, which, when notice is served properly (a quick phone call does not count, the 112 days does not start until she has received written notification), would see her nearly through to the summer holidays.

Tell her to go off and carefully read up on her legal rights as a tenant. The landlord obviously doesnt know the laws, so its up to her to protect herself and her family, and to ensure that if this does happen that the landlord is acting in a fully legal manner. If the landlord thinks that he can end a 12 year tenancy in a matter of weeks with a casual phone call then god knows what else he might try.

The_Conductor

Vojera wrote: »

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, him telling her she "might" have to leave at the end of January doesn't count as notice. It has to be in writing. And if it comes January and he hasn't given her anything in writing then he can't backdate the notice to now, it has to be from when he sends the letter.

It has to be official notice- it doesn't necessarily have to be in writing though- e-mail or txt have been accepted by the PRTB in lieu of 'written notice'. 'Maybe' is not official notice, however- it has to be definitive notice, one way or the other.

Littlelulu13

Could the buyer possibly be buying it to rent and she just change landlords?

He obviously doesn't give a monkeys about her so why should she give any about him. I'd be saying 16 weeks thank you very much.

The_Conductor

Littlelulu13 wrote: »

Could the buyer possibly be buying it to rent and she just change landlords?

He obviously doesn't give a monkeys about her so why should she give any about him. I'd be saying 16 weeks thank you very much.

Why should he 'give a monkeys about her' its a business transaction- why do people have this disconnect- once you get emotionally involved in a business transaction- thats it, you're finished.

The landlord needs to serve proper notice- if it is his intention to sell. Period.

djimi

The_Conductor wrote: »

Why should he 'give a monkeys about her' its a business transaction- why do people have this disconnect- once you get emotionally involved in a business transaction- thats it, you're finished.

The landlord needs to serve proper notice- if it is his intention to sell. Period.

Its got nothing to do with being emotionally involved; this guy clearly doesn't even care enough to read up on the most basic of tenancy laws and tenant rights. I'd be doing him no favours unless his attitude greatly improved.

BenEadir

This is an opportunity for her. If she is serious about living with her boyfriend and he is prepared to make the commitment they could go to the landlord and "purchase" an option (pay him €1 and get a receipt confirming you purchased an option) to buy the house at any time over the next 6 months for the same price he has been offered by the other party. The boyfriend then has 6 months to get his house sold and together put the finance in place to buy her house at the agreed price.

If your friend and her boyfriend aren't able to raise the finance or don't want to make the commitment then it's only fair that she facilitate the landlord in selling the house. It sounds like he is being decent and has been decent to her over the last 12 years and visa versa.

Ben

Duckjob

Don't worry. I'm sure the "NO to repossessions / Sanctity of the family home" brigade will be all over th.... Oh, wait.

djimi

BenThere wrote: »

If your friend and her boyfriend aren't able to raise the finance or don't want to make the commitment then it's only fair that she facilitate the landlord in selling the house. It sounds like he is being decent and has been decent to her over the last 12 years and visa versa.

Cant say I agree really. Just because someone may not be in a position to buy the property does not mean that they should have their legal rights trampled upon. Phoning a tenant a week before Christmas saying that they might need to be out of a house by the end of January that they are legally entitled to occupy until the middle of March at least is not exactly the definition of being decent.

By all means facilitate the sale if it suits (just bear in mind that a tenant is in no way legally obliged to facilitate any part of the sale, ie there is no obligation to allow viewings etc), but only if its a case of give and take from both parties, not just the landlord making demands where they have no legal right to do so.

irish_goat

Sounds suspicious that anyone would want to put an offer in for a house they haven't viewed, unless the landlord has taken the prospective buyer round while the tenant has been out.

Gatling

What if its a case of the landlord is looseing the house,

Littlelulu13

The_Conductor wrote: »

Why should he 'give a monkeys about her' its a business transaction- why do people have this disconnect- once you get emotionally involved in a business transaction- thats it, you're finished.

The landlord needs to serve proper notice- if it is his intention to sell. Period.

He doesn't give a monkeys because she has been a loyal tenant for 12 years and maintained the place herself. He springs the possibility of moving out in a month just before Christmas knowing that she has 3 kids. Yes it is a business transaction but he is also a human and should really show a bit more respect to her rather than giving maybes and short notice. What a horrible situation to put somebody in before Christmas.

BenEadir

djimi wrote: »

Cant say I agree really. Just because someone may not be in a position to buy the property does not mean that they should have their legal rights trampled upon.

......not just the landlord making demands where they have no legal right to do so.

Why the emotive language? Life is about give and take. You get far more with a little sugar than you do with a little vinegar. If she wants the protection of her full notice entitlement and doesn't want to facilitate viewings that's her right and she should assert that right if she wants to but she can't then expect the landlord to do anything for her over and above what he has to e.g. he might be prepared to overlook the fact that her lease might require her to return the property to the condition it was in when she took possession but if she decides to be awkward maybe he will decide to reciprocate and demand that she spend money she clearly can't afford to fulfil her lease obligations to the letter of the law or he may retain her deposit to pay for restoration of changes she made / dilapidations over and above normal wear and tear and make her sue him for them if he's in the wrong.

Who's the winner then?

Ben

BenEadir

Littlelulu13 wrote: »

He springs the possibility of moving out in a month just before Christmas knowing that she has 3 kids.

I stand to be corrected but I doubt the fact the landlord had the property up for sale came as a surprise to the tenant. If she knew it was on the market she will have been anticipating a call from him or notice issued by him. It will hardly have been "sprung" on her. the fact someone made an offer in early December isn't the landlords fault is it?

I'm not saying he has the right to kick her out on short notice, absolutely not but at least he had the decency to call her. He could have just dropped a formal termination notice in the door.

Ben

drumswan

BenThere wrote: »

He could have just dropped a formal termination notice in the door.

Ben

Uh, that would be preferable...

The_Conductor

drumswan wrote: »

Uh, that would be preferable...

How?

Giving proper notice- if that is indeed what was intended, is what should have happened.

Perhaps it was intended as- I may be giving you notice at the end of January (in which case they would have the 112 days from the date of the notice.

There are too many unknowns here.

drumswan

Written formal notice is preferable to a vague maybe with an illegal notice period.

BenEadir

drumswan wrote: »

Written formal notice is preferable to a vague maybe with an illegal notice period.

Who said he gave an illegal notice period? He hasn't give her notice at all yet. My reading of the situation is that a) he probably doesn't know he has to give a full 112 days written notice and b) he was just being responsible by giving her some advance notice that she may be receiving formal notice if an acceptable offer is made for the property.

Ben

Emme

The woman in question should contact Threshold and the PRTB to find out her rights. As somebody else said, the LL has to give 112 days notice and in writing. Selling a house is a viable reason to ask a tenant to leave but a phone call giving her less than 3 weeks notice isn't viable notice.

I think the best course of action would be for her to contact Threshold as this is potentially an illegal eviction
<www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/illegal-eviction/>

These are guidelines to how a landlord should end a tenancy:
<www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/termination-of-a-tenancy-by-a-landlord/>

If the LL doesn't give proper notice and insists that she leave by January Threshold may advise her to refer the dispute to the PRTB:
<www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/referring-a-dispute-to-the-private-residential-ten/>

Here is some information from the Citizens Information Bureau about tenancies. Note the Part 4 tenancies section at the bottom of the page.
<www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html>

The landlord is taking advantage of this woman's obliging nature. He probably knows that her boyfriend has a house and may be assuming she will meekly move in with him. No way should she do this. She has helped the landlord over the years. However this may not be taken into account in a dispute so she is within her rights to refer the dispute to the PRTB if he does not give her proper written notice and the official notice period of 112 days.

Lemming

BenThere wrote: »

Who said he gave an illegal notice period? He hasn't give her notice at all yet.

newbie2013 wrote: »

The landlord has just been on the phone to her and said that she "might" have to leave at end of jan because someone is really interested in buying the house. He said there was an offer in but he doesnt know if its 100% yet but if it is, she'll have to leave come jan.

Whilst not a notice period "served"; the landlord has most clearly intimated the timeframe in which the notice period would be expected carried out. And it is, formal notice issued or not, clearly illegal in its intended duration.

BenThere wrote: »

My reading of the situation is that a) he probably doesn't know he has to give a full 112 days written notice and b) he was just being responsible by giving her some advance notice that she may be receiving formal notice if an acceptable offer is made for the property.

A responsible landlord would not jerk tenants about.

gaius c

irish_goat wrote: »

Sounds suspicious that anyone would want to put an offer in for a house they haven't viewed, unless the landlord has taken the prospective buyer round while the tenant has been out.

That was my first thought too.

gaius c

BenThere wrote: »

Who said he gave an illegal notice period? He hasn't give her notice at all yet. My reading of the situation is that a) he probably doesn't know he has to give a full 112 days written notice and b) he was just being responsible by giving her some advance notice that she may be receiving formal notice if an acceptable offer is made for the property.

Ben

He said she might have to leave "at the end of Jan", not "issue notice of termination", i.e. he's the typical clueless buffoon the Irish rental market is stuffed with.

BenEadir

Emme wrote: »

The landlord is taking advantage of this woman's obliging nature.

She has helped the landlord over the years.

How exactly is he taking advantage of her? He hasn't asked her to move out yet. Calm down boyo :rolleyes:

How EXACTLY has she "helped" the Landlord over the years? Did I miss a posting detailing this? If by "helping" you mean she paid her rent on time each month then that's not helping, thats paying for something as agreed. By the same logic you could say the Landlord has "helped" the tenant over the years by fulfilling his obligations.

People in here who are advocating that the woman refer the matter to authorities etc should qualify what they are saying and realise that if she follows bad advice and the landlord ends up losing the sale of the property getting 112 days written notice will likely be the least of her worries as the landlord will look to enforce every single right he has under the lease e.g. he can require the tenant to take up the wooden flooring she put down and restore the original flooring, same with the fence she installed, same with the paint she applied to the exterior of the house if it isn't the same colour that was already there.

It's always easy for armchair experts to send other people into battles when they themselves have no exposure to the risks involved.

BTW - before people jump to more incorrect conclusions or accuse me of riding roughshod over the tenants rights let me clarify two things:-

1. I fully agree that the landlord has to give 112 days written notice to the lady. If he wants her to leave before then he is entitled to request that but she is entitled to decline the request or to come to some financial or other arrangement with him for early departure e.g. free last months rent or written release from having to re-instate the house to it's original condition etc etc

2. I was a tenant for many years myself and know what it's like to be issued with notice to leave. I wasn't a parent with kids then so I can only imagine it's more stressful then when it happened to me but the marital or parental status of the tenant isn't the landlords responsibility is it?

Ben

BenEadir

gaius c wrote: »

he's the typical clueless buffoon the Irish rental market is stuffed with.

That's a bit strong Gaius. The tenant moved in 12 years ago with a rental agreement stating either party could give the other a months notice. That might have suited her needs then (she possibly didn't have any kids 12 years ago) so the landlord is still thinking the months notice applies hence he may be planning to issue 30 days formal notice on Dec 31st and just wanted to give her a bit of extra 'warning' that it was coming. When he finds out he has to give 112 days I'm sure he'll abide by that requirement and possibly seek to agree a shorter exit based on terms that are mutually agreeable between him and the tenant.

BTW, if having an investment property which is being paid off by a willing tenant for 12 years is the definition of being a buffoon I'll happily wear the badge

Ben

djimi

BenThere wrote: »

People in here who are advocating that the woman refer the matter to authorities etc should qualify what they are saying and realise that if she follows bad advice and the landlord ends up losing the sale of the property getting 112 days written notice will likely be the least of her worries as the landlord will look to enforce every single right he has under the lease e.g. he can require the tenant to take up the wooden flooring she put down and restore the original flooring, same with the fence she installed, same with the paint she applied to the exterior of the house if it isn't the same colour that was already there.

It's always easy for armchair experts to send other people into battles when they themselves have no exposure to the risks involved.

Youre working off the assumption that the tenant was not given permission to make of any of the changes; with a tenancy that has lasted 12 years Id say its very doubtful indeed that any such issues would arise, but if we are to go down the road of making that assumption then yes, perhaps you could be right. I would, however, love to be a fly on the wall of the PRTB hearing where a landlord tries to argue for the property to be returned to the state that it was in 12 years ago!

Nobody is advising anything too militant here. All people are urging the OP to do is to stand up for their rights. You can play nice all you like, but the bottom line is that its very much not okay to ring a tenant up (especially one who has been there for 4+ years) and tell them that you might want them out in a months time. Its best to nip that particular problem in the bud from the start, and firmly (but nicely) inform the landlord that you are aware of your rights, and that you are entitled to 112 days written notice. From there you can negotiate to your hearts content, but its best to be firm from the start and leave no doubt that you are aware of your legal rights.

gaius c

BenThere wrote: »

That's a bit strong Gaius. The tenant moved in 12 years ago with a rental agreement stating either party could give the other a months notice. That might have suited her needs then (she possibly didn't have any kids 12 years ago) so the landlord is still thinking the months notice applies hence he may be planning to issue 30 days formal notice on Dec 31st and just wanted to give her a bit of extra 'warning' that it was coming. When he finds out he has to give 112 days I'm sure he'll abide by that requirement and possibly seek to agree a shorter exit based on terms that are mutually agreeable between him and the tenant.

BTW, if having an investment property which is being paid off by a willing tenant for 12 years is the definition of being a buffoon I'll happily wear the badge

Ben

It doesn't matter what the rental agreement says. Part 4 rights are in addition to those.

How EXACTLY has she "helped" the Landlord over the years? Did I miss a posting detailing this? If by "helping" you mean she paid her rent on time each month then that's not helping, thats paying for something as agreed. By the same logic you could say the Landlord has "helped" the tenant over the years by fulfilling his obligations.

As you say, she paid off his investment property over 12 years.
In return, I'd expect a passing notion of the laws regarding tenants' rights.

She fulfilled her obligations over the period. He hasn't a breeze on what his obligations are.
He's a buffoon.

Ray Palmer

Way to over blow the whole thing. Simply ring the LL tell him that he is legally obliged to give more notice and should do so officially in writing. He may simply be unaware. If he reacts badly then contact the PRTB. That is IF because he may just say fine or at least work on a better agreement for both parties.
You also have to consider the OP is giving us third hand information. He may have said" I might be giving you notice in January ". It is not unusual for people to get misinformation very easily. I had a tenant contact the PRTB because I was illegally evicting them. My crime was telling her the lease was up and they didn't need to renew. As we know she was covered by Part 4 so no point in a lease.

Emme

BenThere wrote: »

How EXACTLY has she "helped" the Landlord over the years? Did I miss a posting detailing this? If by "helping" you mean she paid her rent on time each month then that's not helping, thats paying for something as agreed. By the same logic you could say the Landlord has "helped" the tenant over the years by fulfilling his obligations.

See the first post in the thread:

"This girl has lived in this house for 12 years, decorated and fixed a few problems herself and laid wooden floors,carpets and lino in ensuite. Built a new fence and looked after the outside cutting grass and painted etc.."

He's a lucky landlord and he knew it. There was a thread on here a while back about a nightmare tenant who made huge demands when she moved into a rental property.

Most tenants would not do what this girl has done, they would expect the landlord to do all this instead of saving him money. Indeed, most landlords wouldn't bother. I'm sure most tenants are familiar with the standard of Irish rental properties over the years. There have been some changes in the law recently to bring rental properties up to a better standard and not before time. Even so you'll still find all sorts of horrors on daft.ie.

Maybe the landlord kept the rent low for this girl but she has been a good tenant. If she didn't lift a finger in the place she is still entitled to 112 days notice. From what I can gather the landlord didn't even give her a month's warning in his phone call.

runawaybishop

Emme wrote: »

See the first post in the thread:

"This girl has lived in this house for 12 years, decorated and fixed a few problems herself and laid wooden floors,carpets and lino in ensuite. Built a new fence and looked after the outside cutting grass and painted etc.."

He's a lucky landlord and he knew it. There was a thread on here a while back about a nightmare tenant who made huge demands when she moved into a rental property.

Most tenants would not do what this girl has done, they would expect the landlord to do all this instead of saving him money. Indeed, most landlords wouldn't bother. I'm sure most tenants are familiar with the standard of Irish rental properties over the years. There have been some changes in the law recently to bring rental properties up to a better standard and not before time. Even so you'll still find all sorts of horrors on daft.ie.

Maybe the landlord kept the rent low for this girl but she has been a good tenant. If she didn't lift a finger in the place she is still entitled to 112 days notice. From what I can gather the landlord didn't even give her a month's warning in his phone call.

She should inform the landlord that he needs to give her the correct notice and look for a new house. All the waffle aside the house is being sold and she'll need to find somewhere to live.

quietsailor

Is this a tenancy under the RTA act - it was signed in 2001 before the act came into law.

If the RTA doesn't apply then the original notice terms apply - that could be one month

djimi

quietsailor wrote: »

Is this a tenancy under the RTA act - it was signed in 2001 before the act came into law.

If the RTA doesn't apply then the original notice terms apply - that could be one month

This occured to me alright, but surely a tenant would not lose out on legal protection just because they signed a lease prior to the RTA coming into effect?

newbie2013

The_Conductor wrote: »

If the landlord is voluntarily selling the property (which depends entirely on where it is)- it would probably be in their best interests to simply give the requisite notice, and if the property is vacant for a period, so be it. Aka- if one buyer pulls out, another will come along. Of course it depends entirely on where the property is- some areas are impossible to sell, other areas you'd have your hand bitten off if someone suspected you might sell.

He owns 2 house, this one and he built another. This one he bought 14 years ago in the boom and has been rented out fully in this time as this friend moved in the week the other tennets moved out

BenThere wrote: »

This is an opportunity for her. If she is serious about living with her boyfriend and he is prepared to make the commitment they could go to the landlord and "purchase" an option (pay him €1 and get a receipt confirming you purchased an option) to buy the house at any time over the next 6 months for the same price he has been offered by the other party. The boyfriend then has 6 months to get his house sold and together put the finance in place to buy her house at the agreed price.

If your friend and her boyfriend aren't able to raise the finance or don't want to make the commitment then it's only fair that she facilitate the landlord in selling the house. It sounds like he is being decent and has been decent to her over the last 12 years and visa versa.

Ben

Her boyfriends house has been on the market quite a while and doesnt expect to sell anytime soon.

irish_goat wrote: »

Sounds suspicious that anyone would want to put an offer in for a house they haven't viewed, unless the landlord has taken the prospective buyer round while the tenant has been out.

There was a few viewings but they where months ago and hadnt heard anything else from them untill this phone call

newbie2013

Emme wrote: »

See the first post in the thread:

"This girl has lived in this house for 12 years, decorated and fixed a few problems herself and laid wooden floors,carpets and lino in ensuite. Built a new fence and looked after the outside cutting grass and painted etc.."

He's a lucky landlord and he knew it. There was a thread on here a while back about a nightmare tenant who made huge demands when she moved into a rental property.

Most tenants would not do what this girl has done, they would expect the landlord to do all this instead of saving him money. Indeed, most landlords wouldn't bother. I'm sure most tenants are familiar with the standard of Irish rental properties over the years. There have been some changes in the law recently to bring rental properties up to a better standard and not before time. Even so you'll still find all sorts of horrors on daft.ie.

Maybe the landlord kept the rent low for this girl but she has been a good tenant. If she didn't lift a finger in the place she is still entitled to 112 days notice. From what I can gather the landlord didn't even give her a month's warning in his phone call.

The landlord knows he has a great tennant and agreed to allow her to do this work. The carpets in the house started to become old and stuffy so she replaced them herself. The house used to have just magonila paint in every room as you seen in rented properties but she has made this home look nice. She prob added value to it IMO

quietsailor wrote: »

Is this a tenancy under the RTA act - it was signed in 2001 before the act came into law.

If the RTA doesn't apply then the original notice terms apply - that could be one month

She only signed 1 agreement at the start of the lease but there was never any question of renewing it.

newbie2013

Gatling wrote: »

What if its a case of the landlord is looseing the house,

No, cant see it. He has been in employment(engineer if i remember correctly) and is now working in the UK, has alot of equity tied up in this house so cant see him losing it.

The_Conductor wrote: »

How?

Giving proper notice- if that is indeed what was intended, is what should have happened.

Perhaps it was intended as- I may be giving you notice at the end of January (in which case they would have the 112 days from the date of the notice.

There are too many unknowns here.

You see, shes still clueless if it was a notice. She got a phone call saying that "maybe" have to leave at end of jan. I was saying to her, what if she does go find another house, gets everything ready to move then this landlord says to her, no , dont want you to leave now. Think she needs to ring to clarify everything with him.

xper

quietsailor wrote: »

Is this a tenancy under the RTA act - it was signed in 2001 before the act came into law.

If the RTA doesn't apply then the original notice terms apply - that could be one month

The RTA 2004 applies retrospectively. Section 3 states this.


OT:
Really, the OP got all the information she needed in the second post of this thread. The bulk of the rest of the posts has been gross speculation, posturing and argument for the sake of it, mostly from regular contributors. Can we ever cut this cr@p out of this forum?

quietsailor

xper wrote: »

The RTA 2004 applies retrospectively. Section 3 states this.

I actually didn't think this would be legal - retrospectively applying a law :eek: what's to stop them retrospectively applying a higher tax rate if there is precedent

djimi

quietsailor wrote: »

I actually didn't think this would be legal - retrospectively applying a law :eek: what's to stop them retrospectively applying a higher tax rate if there is precedent

Its not really the same thing though, is it? Why should a tenant lose out on the legal protection offered by the RTA just because they happen to be in a tenancy since before 2004?

quietsailor

djimi wrote: »

Its not really the same thing though, is it? Why should a tenant lose out on the legal protection offered by the RTA just because they happen to be in a tenancy since before 2004?

But you have the situation of (vague memory here) of pre-1968 houses not being considered under the RTA or housing regulation act. In this case the tenant is losing protection.

Ireland - we can do nothing simple :mad:

fash

From the facts, no notice had been given.
She is entitled to 112 days notice in writing.
The written notice must include the specific sentences stated in the RTA to be valid.

She can play this any way she wants. Any time he comes to move her out, she can ask for written notice. If that written notice is incorrectly drafted, then the time after that he comes around to move her out, she can tell him.

At this point she now has 4 months or more. Make no early agreements, don't tell the landlord about the notice requirements until you have to (until he requires her to move) play it by the book.

quietsailor

In the original post the op stated their friend was there 12 years - if the cycle for tenancies is 4 years then is this tenancy at the start of the new cycle - the landlord can evict easily within the first 6 months
Or
Is it in year 3 of the cycle as the first year had a fixed term lease?

djimi

quietsailor wrote: »

In the original post the op stated their friend was there 12 years - if the cycle for tenancies is 4 years then is this tenancy at the start of the new cycle - the landlord can evict easily within the first 6 months
Or
Is it in year 3 of the cycle as the first year had a fixed term lease?

The issue at hand is to do with the notice period; even in the first 6 months of a 4 year cycle the tenant is entitled to 112 days notice (not the very first 6 months of the tenancy obviously!).

Calina

BenThere wrote: »

My reading of the situation is that a) he probably doesn't know he has to give a full 112 days written notice
Ben

Ben, all due respect, this is no defence. It is his job to know what his legal obligations are. Would you accept a bus driver not knowing how traffic lights are to be interpreted?

Calina

quietsailor wrote: »

In the original post the op stated their friend was there 12 years - if the cycle for tenancies is 4 years then is this tenancy at the start of the new cycle - the landlord can evict easily within the first 6 months
Or
Is it in year 3 of the cycle as the first year had a fixed term lease?

No he can't. The six months kicks in at the beginning of the tenancy at the outset of the 12 years; it does not kick in every 4 years after that.

newbie2013

fash wrote: »

From the facts, no notice had been given.
She is entitled to 112 days notice in writing.
The written notice must include the specific sentences stated in the RTA to be valid.

She can play this any way she wants. Any time he comes to move her out, she can ask for written notice. If that written notice is incorrectly drafted, then the time after that he comes around to move her out, she can tell him.

At this point she now has 4 months or more. Make no early agreements, don't tell the landlord about the notice requirements until you have to (until he requires her to move) play it by the book.

Yes i understand this but she is the type that hates conflict. She is getting christmas over her and going to phone him early jan and have a proper chat with him.

Grandpa Hassan

Calina wrote: »

No he can't. The six months kicks in at the beginning of the tenancy at the outset of the 12 years; it does not kick in every 4 years after that.

It doesn't in terms of notice period. But it does in terms of the LL not having to have a reason to end the tenancy

djimi

Calina wrote: »

No he can't. The six months kicks in at the beginning of the tenancy at the outset of the 12 years; it does not kick in every 4 years after that.

Actually it does. Part 4 tenancy works in 4 year cycles; the first 6 months of each 4 year cycle (so year 1, year 5, year 9 etc) are when the landlord can terminate the tenancy for any reason with the appropriate notice (28 days at the start of the tenancy, and 112 from year 5 onwards).