Landlord selling after so long. What to do?

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).

djimi

newbie2013 wrote: »

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.

People who hate conflict tend to be the same people who spend their entire lives getting walked all over. She is free to agree to shorter notice if she wishes (ie if she has somewhere else lined up and it suits her), but she really needs to ensure that she does not allow herself to get bullied into moving before she has to.