Landlord falsely claiming intent to sell

Clampdown

My landlord wants to increase our rent by 100 euro per month, we have a part 4 tenancy of 3+ years and refused the rent increase as the house is the same rent currently as a similar house next door. In fact the house next door was recently refurbished. But the landlord claims he could get an extra 100 euro per month for it because he saw other houses in the area for that price (I don't know what properties he was comparing to, they could be more modern, more bedrooms etc. He probably just looked at some on daft but the houses on our street are small ex-council houses)

A few weeks later he had our estate agent ring me and say he was at the house and asked was I there. I told him no as I was in town and that if he needed to come to the house he should have given us 24 hours notice so we could arrange to be there. The estate agent has never been any good to deal with, repairs take weeks or even months to be done and he is always rude. We are not in arrears, have paid on time always and the landlord inspected the house in September and said it looked great.

On the phone the estate agent said the landlord is now intending to sell the house and was there to serve us notice to leave. I am almost positive he is lying and has no intention to sell.

I know there was recently legislation brought in to stop landlords doing this. Does anyone know when this will take effect? I don't want to leave this house as it is right near both me and my partners work and we like the house. I am thinking he is trying to do this now as maybe the legislation doesn't come in till January (though we don't have to be out till after that due to our length of tenancy.

I don't think I should be forced to leave or to pay above market value. What can I do? At the moment I plan on just digging my heels in, paying the rent as normal and refusing to leave and let him try to evict me if he wants as I know he is not telling the truth and we have made this place our home. If we find another similar place, great, we'll move, but we shouldn't be forced to under false pretenses.

gordongekko

You can contact the prtb. You have loads of rights but I'm never sure why people want to bring grief and hassle into their life. If it was me I'd either pay the extra safe in the knowledge that their can't be another increase for 2yrs, negotiate with the landlord a smaller increase that leaves both parties someway happy or move.

In reality how do you thing digging your heels in is going to end?.

mckar

I'm pretty sure they need to provide proof that they are selling. If you contact the PRTB they will help you with what you wish to do.

davo10

Op, just because next door has the same rent as you does not mean the house 3 doors down isn't higher. The new legislation has not been signed into law so the land lord is within his rights to give you notice of a rent increase. No doubt the estate agent will be able to provide evidence of similar properties renting for more. You can bring a case to the prtb but will will be required to pay the increased rate from the date you were notified if you lose so keep that extra money aside in case. The fact that he has served notice of intent to sell means he will be governed by existing laws, not what is enacted in the future.

If you dig your heals in and don't pay, you will be in arrears when the notice of increase elapses and eviction proceedings will no doubt follow. There is no doubt that the botched lead up by the Government announcing new legislation has contributed to higher rents but right now your LL has done nothing wrong and if there are houses in the area renting at the higher rate, you are out of luck.

Clampdown

gordongekko wrote: »

You can contact the prtb. You have loads of rights but I'm never sure why people want to bring grief and hassle into their life. If it was me I'd either pay the extra safe in the knowledge that their can't be another increase for 2yrs, negotiate with the landlord a smaller increase that leaves both parties someway happy or move.

In reality how do you thing digging your heels in is going to end?.

So I should just let the landlord lie, increase my rent above what my next door neighbor pays for the exact same size, but more modern house, and above the rent we agreed when moving in just because the landlord likely read a few articles in the Indo about rents going up and saw some other houses in town listed for 100 euro more on daft and got greedy?
When I've been an absolutely top notch tenant for 3 years including making small repairs myself to save him hassle?

Screw that. When talking to the estate agent I said we would actually be interested in buying the house if it was for sale. He then said, 'Uh well, um, okay but the house won't be up for sale unless it is vacant because it won't be suitable for viewings.' I told him we would be happy to accommodate viewings but he was saying that 'the landlord wants to have the house vacant for viewings.' The house is an old granny-type house and not in an area where people are snapping up houses. The few houses around for sale have had for sale signs up for ages (I'm in the Northwest where the 'recovery' has yet to be seen). However, it is hard to find nice houses to rent, so many of the I have lived in on this town are riddled with mold. And the current location is perfect for our needs.

I get what you are saying but to answer your question, by digging our heels in, we get more time to find a house that is simarly suitable, or perhaps this lying chancer realizes it's more hassle than it's worth to obtain a court eviction and gives up. We haven't done anything wrong and I still intend to lodge the rent as normal. It won't be that much hassle for me really to drag it out, and I don't feel like a jerk for doing it under the circumstances. Good tenants should not be forced out under false pretenses.

quadrifoglio verde

Just to let you know, market rate isn't what your neighbour next door pays, it's what the landlord would get for the house on the open market.

If you think you can get the same size house in the same area in a reasonably similar condition as the current one for the same rent, then that's grand, refuse the rent increase and give notice to leave.

If not, and the similar property is 100 quid more a month, then that is the market rate.
He can't increase it past that.

You can dispute the rent increase to the prtb, but if They find in favour of the landlord, you'll have to back pay the difference.

If he is selling, which he is legally entitled to do, he has to give you the proper notice and has to make a genuine effort to do so.
While the new legislation hasn't been signed into law yet, it is still illegal for the landlord to evict you using the excuse of sale and move new tenants in a few weeks later. In which case you'd find you'd be entitled to a nice settlement for an illegal eviction.

Clampdown

davo10 wrote: »

Op, just because next door has the same rent as you does not mean the house 3 doors down isn't higher. The new legislation has not been signed into law so the land lord is within his rights to give you notice of a rent increase. No doubt the estate agent will be able to provide evidence of similar properties renting for more. You can bring a case to the prtb but will will be required to pay the increased rate from the date you were notified if you lose so keep that extra money aside in case. The fact that he has served notice of intent to sell means he will be governed by existing laws, not what is enacted in the future.

If you dig your heals in and don't pay, you will be in arrears when the notice of increase elapses and eviction proceedings will no doubt follow. There is no doubt that the botched lead up by the Government announcing new legislation has contributed to higher rents but right now your LL has done nothing wrong and if there are houses in the area renting at the higher rate, you are out of luck.

I actually know of another house also on the same street that was listed at the same price, we saw it on daft about a year ago when friends of ours were looking for a new place. I would actually be willing to split the difference and pay 50 more per month but the landlord just decided to refuse this and lie about selling the house. We have not been notified in writing of a rent increase, he said it over the phone.

If the legislation referred to here http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/landlords-may-have-to-sign-declaration-of-plans-to-sell-up-1.2423321
comes into effect in January would he not be bound by it? He doesn't intend to sell it until after that, legally he can't as we can't be booted out for a few months under Part 4.

davo10

It doesn't matter what your next door neighbour is paying, it's a different property with a different LL. the current legislation is not restricted to what your neighbour is paying, it is the area and is based on what the current rental rate is, and no doubt that has increased. The rules as of today are clear, as long as your rent has not increased within the last 12 months, the landlord is entitled to increase it to current market rate and if there are houses in the area which rent for a higher rate, he is entitled to increase the rent to that rate.

I am not sure whether there has been changes to this aspect of Part 4 entitlement, but after 4 years you can be asked to leave anyway with sufficient notice.

Good tenants are those that pay the market rate, bad tenants ate those who refuse too. If you live in an area where rental properties are at a premium, a reference will be essential as most LL's require them now. In a lot of places, no reference, no rental. You might feel putapon but the LL is entitled to be paid what the market will bare and if right now you are paying below that, then you cannot complain that you are being wronged. Renting property is a business, not a charity.

An awful lot has changed since that other property was listed a year ago.

gordongekko

You sound like a lovely and reasonable tenant. I've no idea why they would even contemplate increasing the rent

Arbiter of Good Taste

So you haven't had a rent increase in over three years and you expect it to stay the same forever? How do you know the neighbours' landlord has not increased the rent for a number of years? If so, then it probably isn't market.

Nevertheless, your current part IV ends at four years and the landlord can evict you with proper notice and with no excuse

Clampdown

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Just to let you know, market rate isn't what your neighbour next door pays, it's what the landlord would get for the house on the open market.

If you think you can get the same size house in the same area in a reasonably similar condition as the current one for the same rent, then that's grand, refuse the rent increase and give notice to leave.

If not, and the similar property is 100 quid more a month, then that is the market rate.
He can't increase it past that.

You can dispute the rent increase to the prtb, but if They find in favour of the landlord, you'll have to back pay the difference.

If he is selling, which he is legally entitled to do, he has to give you the proper notice and has to make a genuine effort to do so.
While the new legislation hasn't been signed into law yet, it is still illegal for the landlord to evict you using the excuse of sale and move new tenants in a few weeks later. In which case you'd find you'd be entitled to a nice settlement for an illegal eviction.

The situation in the last bit is almost definitely what is occurring. I'd be happy enough to save a hundred euro per month on the chance that I would lose. He would have to prove that he is both selling the house and that the house is worth a hundred euro more. I like my odds there.

Obviously it would be best to just find another similar place. But if I can't, I'm not going anywhere. I'm tired of moving and tired of letting landlords screw me, I've rented in 5 other places in this town and they have all been terrible in different ways, one rented a house that he just 'refurbished', when we couldn't figure out why the house was freezing and moldy even with the heat on, I climbed into the attic and there wasn't a lick of insulation. I know there are plenty of bad tenants as well but I'm not one and I am not going to let another cowboy screw me for the umpteenth time. I've had enough. I know some will disagree with me fighting it but I feel like it's the right thing to do in this case, if I cannot find a suitable place in time. Especially considering they are doing this right before the holidays. Probably because they think the legislation is coming in and are trying to avoid it. But if what you are saying is true, he is already not allowed to 'pretend' to be selling the house.

What really annoys me is we actually maintained the house and garden beautifully, fixed and painted stuff (with permission), because he wasn't bothered to and took ages to fix anything and now that we have the place nice and cozy and he does this. In fact, he was happy enough with the rent until he carried out an inspection and was impressed with how well it looked.

davo10

It is very easy for the EA to provide proof of similar properties renting for more if they are. You are basing your opinion on your next door neighbour, he has a much wider data base. Not many will like your odds, parcularly if you haven't had a rent increase in 3 years. Have you read a newspaper recently?

April 73

Would you not just try & negotiate with the LL? There's a possibility the situation could be salvaged if you don't both go to Def-Con 5.
You've made the place home & he could do without the hassle of finding new tenants. Have you paid any increase in three years? Is there no compromise to be reached?

cerastes

Clampdown wrote: »

I actually know of another house also on the same street that was listed at the same price, we saw it on daft about a year ago when friends of ours were looking for a new place. I would actually be willing to split the difference and pay 50 more per month but the landlord just decided to refuse this and lie about selling the house. We have not been notified in writing of a rent increase, he said it over the phone.

If the legislation referred to here http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/landlords-may-have-to-sign-declaration-of-plans-to-sell-up-1.2423321
comes into effect in January would he not be bound by it? He doesn't intend to sell it until after that, legally he can't as we can't be booted out for a few months under Part 4.

Clampdown wrote: »

The situation in the last bit is almost definitely what is occurring. I'd be happy enough to save a hundred euro per month on the chance that I would lose. He would have to prove that he is both selling the house and that the house is worth a hundred euro more. I like my odds there.

Obviously it would be best to just find another similar place. But if I can't, I'm not going anywhere. I'm tired of moving and tired of letting landlords screw me, I've rented in 5 other places in this town and they have all been terrible in different ways, one rented a house that he just 'refurbished', when we couldn't figure out why the house was freezing and moldy even with the heat on, I climbed into the attic and there wasn't a lick of insulation. I know there are plenty of bad tenants as well but I'm not one and I am not going to let another cowboy screw me for the umpteenth time. I've had enough. I know some will disagree with me fighting it but I feel like it's the right thing to do in this case, if I cannot find a suitable place in time. Especially considering they are doing this right before the holidays. Probably because they think the legislation is coming in and are trying to avoid it. But if what you are saying is true, he is already not allowed to 'pretend' to be selling the house.

What really annoys me is we actually maintained the house and garden beautifully, fixed and painted stuff (with permission), because he wasn't bothered to and took ages to fix anything and now that we have the place nice and cozy and he does this. In fact, he was happy enough with the rent until he carried out an inspection and was impressed with how well it looked.

You dont have any right to decline an increase, you do have a right to contest it, but you cant simply say "Im not paying that and thats the end of that"
You say you are tired of moving but have been at this place for 3 years, which is almost the max to which you are entitled, what has occured before (how many times you moved or how little insulation was in the attic) has nothing to do with your current landlord, neither is what some house you are aware of being rented for a year ago! is in anyway relevant unless the house you are living in if you dont move you will very likely have no option but to move next year as no landlord will be forced to house you after your 4 years are up, s/he will simply give you notice and then you will have to move. Your landlord is entitled to ask for market rate, if thats what it is, then they would be wise to keep their own record of this, even if you contest this and win, you will very likely be out in a year, whereas if you negotiate now or even accept, then you wont have any increase for two years, assuming your landlord keeps you on.
The thing is, if you simply decline to pay the increase now, you will put yourself in the worst situation where you will be served with an eviction notice and that will proceed from there if you dont handle that correctly either. Simply digging your heels in doesnt seem like the best option.
I know what I'd do if you simply declined to pay an increase, especially where there had been none for years.
If you havent heard whats occuring over the last 12 months regarding rent, thats not your landlords fault, although Im wondering if this house is on the side of a mountain.

FortySeven

Your predicament is a shame OP, personally I would fight him to the last just for being a dick. It sounds to be exactly as you have stated, he just wants to increase the rent to guarantee it for the next two years. Then he has lied. I cannot think for the life of me why a landlord would prefer to lose money trying to sell an empty house when he has a paying tenant willing to accommodate viewings.

Don't ask for your rights here, there are a lot of folks who are landlords, contact the ptsb and be sure of it. Good luck, I hope you fight, even if you lose,the fight against these scummy practices has to start somewhere.

salamanca22

Regarding the market rate of your dwelling, this is not dependant on your next door neighbours rent or their situation. It is dependant on the market. If the landlord can get 100 euro extra per month from a new tenant then that is the market rate. A sample size of just your neighbour is not enough to sway the adjudicators to your favor. You will likely lose this battle and be forced to pay back rent. Especially if you have not had an increase in 3 years then you are almost certainly paying less than market rent unless you were paying over it in the first place.

As for the notice of termination, since you are on part 4 tenancy with no lease in place to enhance your rights you must follow the notice to terminate. If you overhold you will be breaking the law and will be subject to fines and court judgements against you. You must leave when the notice has told you to leave.

If the landlord has no intent to sell then you can bring a case to the prtb for an illegal eviction. Until the new legislation is put in place the onus will be on you to prove this. The landlord does not have to sell in the end if he does not want to, he just has to make an effort to do so and if I recall correctly (I am not a lawyer, get real legal advice if you want to be sure of anything said here on boards) the landlord decides to put the house back into the rental market then he has to give you first refusal on whether or not you want to live there. He can not refuse you if you decide you want to live there again.

Also, at the 4 year mark, you lose all part 4 rights for a period of 6 months. This allows your landlord to end the tenancy with proper notice (112 days IIRC) with no reason whatsoever. So, it might just be a waiting game for your landlord anyway.


So, in the end of the day since notice has or will be furnished to you, you must leave. From there you can decide what to do if the landlord has not been honest.

davo10

FortySeven wrote: »

Your predicament is a shame OP, personally I would fight him to the last just for being a dick. It sounds to be exactly as you have stated, he just wants to increase the rent to guarantee it for the next two years. Then he has lied. I cannot think for the life of me why a landlord would prefer to lose money trying to sell an empty house when he has a paying tenant willing to accommodate viewings.

Don't ask for your rights here, there are a lot of folks who are landlords, contact the ptsb and be sure of it. Good luck, I hope you fight, even if you lose,the fight against these scummy practices has to start somewhere.

Freeman stuff with no understanding of how the rental market works. An empty house sells a lot more easily than an occupied house. The market sets the rate, not the occupier so a LL who has invested in a property has a right to ask market rate, the op is a tenent, a customer who must pay the going rate for a commodity, what you posted is ill informed.

quadrifoglio verde

FortySeven wrote: »

Your predicament is a shame OP, personally I would fight him to the last just for being a dick. It sounds to be exactly as you have stated, he just wants to increase the rent to guarantee it for the next two years. Then he has lied. I cannot think for the life of me why a landlord would prefer to lose money trying to sell an empty house when he has a paying tenant willing to accommodate viewings.

Don't ask for your rights here, there are a lot of folks who are landlords, contact the ptsb and be sure of it. Good luck, I hope you fight, even if you lose,the fight against these scummy practices has to start somewhere.

Mortgages are very hard to get if there is tenants already living there.

What if the landlord is just fed up of being a landlord.
Is he not entitled to give notice to the tenant (which he is legally allowed do) and sell the house?

Is the landlord not allowed increase the rent after 3 years to the market rate?
The op mentioned he hasn't increased it for 3 years and the market rate is 100 quid above his current rent.

FortySeven

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Mortgages are very hard to get if there is tenants already living there.

What if the landlord is just fed up of being a landlord.
Is he not entitled to give notice to the tenant (which he is legally allowed do) and sell the house?

Is the landlord not allowed increase the rent after 3 years to the market rate?
The op mentioned he hasn't increased it for 3 years and the market rate is 100 quid above his current rent.

I replied to the tenant. The landlords issues are the landlords issues. Plenty houses are sold with tenants residing in fact i recently bought one myself with tenants residing. You know this. Yes the landlord is entitled but anyone with a modicum of common sense can see he is trying one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Market rate is a doozy, landlords have a market cornered with a lack of new units and are gouging every last cent they can, it is a viscous circle of one raising and everyone else using that to justify raising. Tenants have little or no option but to pay. It got so bad the government had to step in.

The OP does not have to take my advice, I advised him to seek clarification of the position through the ptrb, this is good advice, just pay up is not. I also gave my personal opinion. Being accused of being a freeman is insulting and unnecessary. My points are as valid as anyones.

cerastes

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

So you haven't had a rent increase in over three years and you expect it to stay the same forever? How do you know the neighbours' landlord has not increased the rent for a number of years? If so, then it probably isn't market.

Nevertheless, your current part IV ends at four years and the landlord can evict you with proper notice and with no excuse

Technically, I wouldnt consider the part 4 rights ending at 4 years and a notice to terminate the agreement as being given an eviction.
My view is that, its just that all thats allowed from the tenants rights end of things, to me it means the landlord can give notice to the tenant to quit as the tenancy is deemed complete/over.
The landlord can decide to not re let to the same people again and if they do re let to them, they can still give them notice to leave within the first 6 months of the following lease.
By the end of the tenancy the landlord must give the appropriate notice (112days?) which I believe can be given 111 days before the end of the tenancy (4years) so that the day after 4 years has elapsed the tenant must leave.

davo10

FortySeven wrote: »

. Yes the landlord is entitled but anyone with a modicum of common sense can see he is trying one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Market rate is a doozy.

The oldest "trick" in the book is to achieve what a commodity is worth, since time began a commodity is worth what someone (not necessarily the op) will pay for it, ie the market rate.

The "doozy" is not subjective, it is objective, the evidence will be provided by the market, in other words what someone else would be willing to pay based on current rentals in the area.

FortySeven

davo10 wrote: »

The oldest "trick" in the book is to achieve what a commodity is worth, since time began a commodity is worth what someone (not necessarily the op) will pay for it, ie the market rate.

The "doozy" is not subjective, it is objective, the evidence will be provided by the market, in other words what someone else would be willing to pay based on current rentals in the area.

I do not disagree, however within that market are differing rates, the tenant has the right to try to keep it to that other market, the one where the price is not higher, landlord can chance his arm with the highest if he likes.

People have the right to try and fight an unfair market. Whatever people say. This market is clearly broken and it is coming to, nay, long past time that tenants fought for reasonable rent comparable to wages.

I'm aware that doesn't fit into your rules, regs and wants and desires but life rarely suffers injustice through regulation for long. As you have just seen by the government moving the goalposts.

Eugene Norman

davo10 wrote: »

Freeman stuff with no understanding of how the rental market works. An empty house sells a lot more easily than an occupied house. The market sets the rate, not the occupier so a LL who has invested in a property has a right to ask market rate, the op is a tenent, a customer who must pay the going rate for a commodity, what you posted is ill informed.

I'd believe in this free market claptrap if there was a free market for housing which there isn't.

davo10

FortySeven wrote: »

I do not disagree, however within that market are differing rates, the tenant has the right to try to keep it to that other market, the one where the price is not higher, landlord can chance his arm with the highest if he likes.

People have the right to try and fight an unfair market. Whatever people say. This market is clearly broken and it is coming to, nay, long past time that tenants fought for reasonable rent comparable to wages.

I'm aware that doesn't fit into your rules, regs and wants and desires but life rarely suffers injustice through regulation for long. As you have just seen by the government moving the goalposts.

I'm not arguing that the market is "broken", that is something we should all take up (both LL's and tenants) when the candidates come knocking on our door in a couple of months time. But the rate a LL can set is based on the highest level that the current market has set, not the average. If a LL can show that the current maximum asking price is "€X" in the area then s(he) has a right to raise rent to that rate. Like it or not, that is the reality. Rental rates have been depressed over the last few years, now that there is not enough rental properties and mortgages are harder to come by, rents are rising, that is the nature of the beast, what is rare is is demand.

davo10

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I'd believe in this free market claptrap if there was a free market for housing which there isn't.

Why do you believe there isn't a free market? There is a certain amount of housing and a certain amount of tenants, right now there are more tenents than houses so rents are rising, if there was a surplus of housing then rents would fall, what could make a market more free? Equilibrium will never be attained, it never has been because no market is static. This is supply and demand in its purist form.

davo10

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You miss of course the massive state intervention in propping up housing via Nama and state owned banks not calling on the arrears from deliberately delinquent landlords. Free market?

So you want all those loans to be sold to venture capitalists who will push up rents even further or sold off cheaply to owner occupiers which remove even more properties from the rental market?

Eugene Norman

davo10 wrote: »

So you want all those loans to be sold to venture capitalists who will push up rents even further?

Why would the "venture capitalists" be any worse than the present exactly? I thought we were hitting "market rates" based on pure "supply and demand." Why would venture capitalists be able to push rents higher than what you claim is a free market which by definition is achieving market rates ( furthermore why, in a free market wouldn't we want the most competive capitalists to own property rather than the amateurs who now own?)

But yes I would like to see all landlords in arrears have their property seized. It's the free market way.

p.s I am sure you mean vulture.

Clampdown

cerastes wrote: »

Technically, I wouldnt consider the part 4 rights ending at 4 years and a notice to terminate the agreement as being given an eviction.
My view is that, its just that all thats allowed from the tenants rights end of things, to me it means the landlord can give notice to the tenant to quit as the tenancy is deemed complete/over.
The landlord can decide to not re let to the same people again and if they do re let to them, they can still give them notice to leave within the first 6 months of the following lease.
By the end of the tenancy the landlord must give the appropriate notice (112days?) which I believe can be given 111 days before the end of the tenancy (4years) so that the day after 4 years has elapsed the tenant must leave.

Part 4 reasons for termination are set out in section 32 or 34, I assume they are there for a reason, and that the landlord can't just go 'Sorry tenancy is over'. He has to give one of the reasons and it has to be genuine. He's not doing that.

Forget about the rent increase for now. I'm not going to be convinced that I am paying below market rate when 2 houses on the same street at the same size are the same rent. Yes I read the news but I don't live in Dublin and rents in my area have not risen much at all, I could get a house at similar rent but I prefer this location and this house and should not be forced out under false pretenses. The problem isn't getting another house at the same rent. I could have taken the similar one down the road last year at the same rent and would have if I had known I was going to be thrown out of this one, and I wouldn't have bothered painting the kitchen, etc.

Should a landlord be able to force long term tenants out for whatever reason they want by lying about selling up? No, and that's why the laws were brought in. Landlords are using this loophole so often they had to make legislation to combat it.

Someone said 'good tenants pay the market rate'. I am a good tenant paying the market rate! The house was paid off by the landlord's parents who lived here for decades and then left it to the landlord, he doesn't even have a mortgage on it. It's just pure greed.

salamanca22

I have no idea what all this market talk has to do with helping the OP right now.

Simple fact is notice was / is being furnished. OP has to leave and can then proceed to make a complaint to the PRTB if it turns out the landlord has been dishonest. If the OP refuses to leave then it is them that will be breaking the law.

The rent increase has nothing to do with the current situation. The issue is the notice to terminate, which is legal until proven otherwise.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Clampdown wrote: »

Part 4 reasons for termination are set out in section 32 or 34, I assume they are there for a reason, and that the landlord can't just go 'Sorry tenancy is over'. He has to give one of the reasons and it has to be genuine. He's not doing that.

Forget about the rent increase for now. I'm not going to be convinced that I am paying below market rate when 2 houses on the same street at the same size are the same rent. Yes I read the news but I don't live in Dublin and rents in my area have not risen much at all, I could get a house at similar rent but I prefer this location and this house and should not be forced out under false pretenses. The problem isn't getting another house at the same rent. I could have taken the similar one down the road last year at the same rent and would have if I had known I was going to be thrown out of this one, and I wouldn't have bothered painting the kitchen, etc.

Should a landlord be able to force long term tenants out for whatever reason they want by lying about selling up? No, and that's why the laws were brought in. Landlords are using this loophole so often they had to make legislation to combat it.

Someone said 'good tenants pay the market rate'. I am a good tenant paying the market rate! The house was paid off by the landlord's parents who lived here for decades and then left it to the landlord, he doesn't even have a mortgage on it. It's just pure greed.

Would you get over yourself with "pure greed" crap. It's absolutely none of your business how your landlord finances his property. If you receive an inheritance are you going to donate it all to charity? I doubt it.

Mezcita

Clampdown wrote: »

Part 4 reasons for termination are set out in section 32 or 34, I assume they are there for a reason, and that the landlord can't just go 'Sorry tenancy is over'. He has to give one of the reasons and it has to be genuine. He's not doing that.

Forget about the rent increase for now. I'm not going to be convinced that I am paying below market rate when 2 houses on the same street at the same size are the same rent. Yes I read the news but I don't live in Dublin and rents in my area have not risen much at all, I could get a house at similar rent but I prefer this location and this house and should not be forced out under false pretenses. The problem isn't getting another house at the same rent. I could have taken the similar one down the road last year at the same rent and would have if I had known I was going to be thrown out of this one, and I wouldn't have bothered painting the kitchen, etc.

Should a landlord be able to force long term tenants out for whatever reason they want by lying about selling up? No, and that's why the laws were brought in. Landlords are using this loophole so often they had to make legislation to combat it.

Someone said 'good tenants pay the market rate'. I am a good tenant paying the market rate! The house was paid off by the landlord's parents who lived here for decades and then left it to the landlord, he doesn't even have a mortgage on it. It's just pure greed.

How do you know that the landlord does not actually want to sell the property?

FortySeven

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Would you get over yourself with "pure greed" crap. It's absolutely none of your business how your landlord finances his property. If you receive an inheritance are you going to donate it all to charity? I doubt it.

Sorry, if what op states is true then my own moral compass would define this as greed. You can't have it both ways. 'Greed is good' is the capitalist mantra after all.

davo10

Clampdown wrote: »

Part 4 reasons for termination are set out in section 32 or 34, I assume they are there for a reason, and that the landlord can't just go 'Sorry tenancy is over'. He has to give one of the reasons and it has to be genuine. He's not doing that.

Forget about the rent increase for now. I'm not going to be convinced that I am paying below market rate when 2 houses on the same street at the same size are the same rent. Yes I read the news but I don't live in Dublin and rents in my area have not risen much at all, I could get a house at similar rent but I prefer this location and this house and should not be forced out under false pretenses. The problem isn't getting another house at the same rent. I could have taken the similar one down the road last year at the same rent and would have if I had known I was going to be thrown out of this one, and I wouldn't have bothered painting the kitchen, etc.

Should a landlord be able to force long term tenants out for whatever reason they want by lying about selling up? No, and that's why the laws were brought in. Landlords are using this loophole so often they had to make legislation to combat it.

Someone said 'good tenants pay the market rate'. I am a good tenant paying the market rate! The house was paid off by the landlord's parents who lived here for decades and then left it to the landlord, he doesn't even have a mortgage on it. It's just pure greed.

From citizens advice website:

Further Part 4 tenancy
After 4 years of your tenancy have passed, your Part 4 tenancy ends and a new tenancy begins. You now have a further Part 4 tenancy. During the first 6 months of your further Part 4 tenancy, your landlord may end it at any time without having to give a reason – though you must get 112 days’ notice (16 weeks). After 6 months you again acquire security of tenure and you are now 6 months into a further 4-year cycle.

athtrasna

Mod Note Enough folks. On topic replies only please. Grammar and economics lessons belong elsewhere.

Thanks

cerastes

davo10 wrote: »

From citizens advice website:

Further Part 4 tenancy
After 4 years of your tenancy have passed, your Part 4 tenancy ends and a new tenancy begins. You now have a further Part 4 tenancy. During the first 6 months of your further Part 4 tenancy, your landlord may end it at any time without having to give a reason – though you must get 112 days’ notice (16 weeks). After 6 months you again acquire security of tenure and you are now 6 months into a further 4-year cycle.

If what you are writing is what you mean, it seems you think a tenant can stay after 4 years, ie for the 112 days notice, but the notice can be given 111days prior to the end of the 4 years tenancy, so the tenant would have completed their 112days notice the day after the original tenancy expire, therefore they would have stayed 4 years and are allowed 24 hours to vacate.

You seem to think the 112 days notice only starts after the 4 years has expired, it doesnt.
Your scenario is just if the landlord decides to relet to the same people, they have the same rights as when they first rented, ie they may be asked to move out inside the first 6 months with the required notice without any explanation (28days I believe).

To add to that, the only explanation required at the 4 years is that the landlord has decided not to relet to the same tenant as the tenancy duration legally required has expired.

Clampdown

Clampdown wrote: »

Part 4 reasons for termination are set out in section 32 or 34, I assume they are there for a reason, and that the landlord can't just go 'Sorry tenancy is over'. He has to give one of the reasons and it has to be genuine. He's not doing that.

As others have said, after 4 years in the property the LL can ask you to leave for whatever reason he feels like. He can just say "sorry tenancy is over" if he wishes and you have to leave (once you have been served the required notice correctly).

If you just refuse to pay the increased rent the LL can issue notice of arrears after the first month you don't pay the increased rent and this can lead on to you being evicted if you continue to fall behind in your rent by not paying the increase. You can go to the PRTB but there is no guarentee whatsoever that they will find in your favour.

Sarn

cerastes wrote: »

You seem to think the 112 days notice only starts after the 4 years has expired, it doesnt.
Your scenario is just if the landlord decides to relet to the same people, they have the same rights as when they first rented, ie they may be asked to move out inside the first 6 months with the required notice without any explanation (28days I believe.

The notice period does not reset after 4 years. As to when the 112 days notice can be served based on the end of a Part IV tenancy and the beginning of the next I don't know as it depends on how it is interpreted. It could be argued that notice, without a reason, could only be begun at the start of the new 6 month period. Equally, serving notice so that it coincides with the ending of the 4 year period and beginning of the next period could work. It is something that the PRTB would need to clarify.

Clampdown

Clampdown wrote: »

I would actually be willing to split the difference and pay 50 more per month but the landlord just decided to refuse this

Landlords who in the past were quite happy to negotiate reasonably are digging their heels in, because of the new legislation. Whatever rent is set now will be fixed for two years, and possibly longer depending on the outcome of the next election.

Therefore, from their perspective its worth experiencing a void, which they would normally want to avoid, to set a higher rent for the long term.

Arbiter of Good Taste

FortySeven wrote: »

Sorry, if what op states is true then my own moral compass would define this as greed. You can't have it both ways. 'Greed is good' is the capitalist mantra after all.

If you are referring to the OP's greed of wanting his rent to stay the same for time immemorial, then I would agree with you.

Clampdown

Moshe Young Khakis wrote: »

As others have said, after 4 years in the property the LL can ask you to leave for whatever reason he feels like. He can just say "sorry tenancy is over" if he wishes and you have to leave (once you have been served the required notice correctly).

If you just refuse to pay the increased rent the LL can issue notice of arrears after the first month you don't pay the increased rent and this can lead on to you being evicted if you continue to fall behind in your rent by not paying the increase. You can go to the PRTB but there is no guarentee whatsoever that they will find in your favour.

I'm not 4 years here yet so he must give one of the stated reasons in the Tenancies Act. Which is why he is pretending to be selling up. I have not been given any written notice of an increase. I am currently under no obligation to pay the higher amount. He can only raise it to market value. Which, and I've said before I AM paying market value.

What you are saying is that he could just decide one day that my rent goes up by any amount he plucks out of the air on a whim. Could be 5k more and if I don't start paying that amount I am now in arrears to him by 5k per month and can be evicted on those grounds. That's not accurate at all. He can only raise it to market rates.

Sure, there's no guarantee they will find in my favor as regards rates. But if more than one nearly identical property on the same street is the same rent as mine currently, what grounds would they have for saying I should be paying more? I am friendly enough with the neighbor next door that when I talked to him about it he offered to let me make a copy of his current lease as proof of what he is paying for his nearly identical 2 BR house (if anything, his is nicer, having been recently refurbished). So I'm not even worried about that part of it which I keep getting challenged on.

What I really was trying to clarify is this: Regardless of the reason he really wants me out, he cannot by law, force me to vacate by falsely claimng he is selling unless he is actually selling up. If he isn't being genuine about that, he will get hit with fines right? Even if he serves me with the written notice before January (when the laws come in), because the sale would have to happen after January, right? That's all I really wanted to know. If he's not selling and uses this excuse to force a tenant out he's the one breaking the rules, isn't that right? Not the tenant who doesn't immediately fork over whatever number he decides to conjure up and has a solid case that his rent is market rate already.

I have to admit some of the replies made me a bit annoyed, it's obvious some of you are landlords who, like my current one, really look down on those of us who rent. Sorry that I peed off some of you who, in some cases, seem to think tenants merely exist to provide an ever increasing income for landlords, and expect to be able to cause financial hardships on tenants whenever the mood strikes you or you read a headline about rents going way up in Dublin and think it applies to every property, even if it's a tiny, outdated, damp, former council house built eons ago in a small town in the Northwest. God forbid a lowly tenant should resist an extortionate rent increase or an illegal eviction.

I've a hunch that the reason these new regulations aimed at stopping tenants being forced out of their homes by lying landlords HAD to be brought in, is because so many of them are at this carry on all the time. If this underhanded tactic wasn't causing unfair hardship, wasn't contributing to the housing crisis and wasn't rampant amongst the landlords in this country these laws wouldn't have been brought in, would they? And now that these rules are being set, tenants have every right to hold landlords to them, just as tenants are required to pay rent on time and keep the place in good condition and clean, etc. Sounds like some of you want renting to be a one way street that only runs in the landlord's favor.

I know the property busines is not a charity but still, we are talking about people's homes, not luxury items. If you're unhappy with tenants having rights than invest in something else where you aren't part of a system that affects people's ability to afford a basic necessity, because that industry is regulated for a very good reason - we all need shelter, and many of us can't afford to buy and may never be able to. I know it isn't free but people who are forced into renting should not have to live in perpetual fear of arbitrary rent increases or sudden evictions that are based on a lie and a loophole.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts all. I've decided that I shouldn't let this worry me any more until well after the holidays as I want to actually try to enjoy them and I have until March at the minimum before the notice period is up (I still have not received written notice to vacate either). If I am forced to leave I will at the least, make sure he follows the new regulations requiring a legal declaration to sell that are being brought in according to the Irish Times article I linked earlier:

"Landlords who attempt to evict tenants by claiming that they are selling properties will face fines of up to €3,000, it if subsequently emerges that they did not sell, under proposals going to the Cabinet today.
A legal declaration will have to be signed by landlords if they issue notice to tenants saying they want to get the property back for sale, Minister Alan Kelly and Minister Michael Noonan will tell colleagues.
The move is aimed at curbing the practice where landlords tell tenants their property is being sold while subsequently recruiting new residents at a higher rent.
Currently, the Private Residential Tenancies Act allows tenants to be evicted if a landlord intends to sell the property or needs it for themselves or their family.
The Minister for the Environment is also proposing a requirement for landlords to inform tenants of their legal rights and how to contest a rent increase."

See you in 112 days or so and I'll let you know how my attempt to fight the power, stick it to the man, etc. works out. Who knows maybe Santy will bring me a nicer newer place and get me off the landlord's naughty list.

salamanca22

I refer you to my earlier post which answers your questions: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97884587&postcount=16

In short, as they have decided to furnish notice the previous rent increase attempt/ negotiations do not matter anymore. You must vacate the premises at the end of the notice or you will be overholding, which is against the law.

After that happens you can then investigate and bring a case against the landlord if he has been dishonest. If it does turn out he has been dishonest he can be fined and damages can be awarded to you for illegal eviction. Some awards have been in the 20k range. So you do have options if he does act dishonestly.

Remember though, the landlord does not have to sell in the end and can go back to the renting game if they wish but (as far as I know, really you need to see a solicitor) must give you the option to take the tenancy up again in front of other prospective tenants.

Honestly I do not think the landlord is being dishonest. It would be much simpler to say that the landlord requires the house for himself where you would not be able to investigate as easily if they really wanted to be dishonest.

It is much easier to sell a house without sitting tenants.

seamus

If you're convinced he has no intention of selling, then call his bluff.

Offer to buy the house. If he jumps at the opportunity to sell to a sitting tenant, like anyone would, then you know he's genuine and you can give your notice and move out.

If he blusters or delays or tells you that he wants to put it on the market first then you can be pretty sure he's lying and you can dig your heels in.

gordongekko

Unless he has a letter from the bank confirming funds he's wasting his time.

Op you have no idea what the landlords personal circumstances are. He may be under pressure from the bank to pay off arrears or sell the house and since this rent increase isn't going down well he may just have decided it's not worth his while keeping the house.

Digging in serves no purpose but to bring stress onto your life. If you are in fact paying the going rate you'll have no problem picking up a similar priced property in the area.

Gumbo

And the exact opposite is also needed. An online rating site that you can check the tenants rating. The PRTB should be able to set this up as you have to give them PPS numbers of the tenant.

Tenants can also be "little fiefdoms"

I'd love to see a poll in here to see if we have many landlords V tenants.
I've a feeling there be more tenants in here than landlords.

The market is totally one sided alright but in favour of tenants not LLs. Tenants have all the rights and as can be seen again and again get away with leaving LLs seriously out of pocket (most recently with that person who destroyed an apartment with his own excrement and paid over a pathetic sum 800 euro out of 15k).

FortySeven

c montgomery wrote: »

And one for tenants????

Most landlords require references surely, and deposits, and advance payment.

Seems fairly well covered.

delahuntv

As an outsider who owns a home and does not have a second property all I see here is the OP making an assumption backed up by evidence whatsoever and convincing himself that he is 100% right.

Then the more he goes on, the more convinced he is of his assumptions and the angrier he gets

Maybe the op should look at it from a different angle.

Look at the figures.

Lets assume a rent of €700/month
€8400 a year,
Circa €840 for agent
Property tax
Upkeep
Buildings insurance
Other costs.
Tax

Maybe a net 5,000 - 5500 a year.


If the property had a market value of over €120,000 then the ll would probably be better off selling.


So to the OP, maybe check all facts and figures before making scurrilous allegations.

Using a figure of €100 rent per about €16-€18,000 of house valuation see if your rent is above or below a reasonable return.

Gumbo

FortySeven wrote: »

Most landlords require references surely, and deposits, and advance payment.

Seems fairly well covered.

References are fabricated.
Deposits are fully refundable and come nowhere near the cost of repairs should you get a bad tenant.
Rent payment in advance every month means nothing when a tenant can sit in your property for 2 years without paying even after the Mickey Mouse court that the PRTB initiate.

Both parties bed more protection and enforcement.
I know guys paying €1400 a month in rent and a bank won't give them a mortgage, that's wrong.

Some sort of system needs to be set up where the deposit goes to a third part account with reference and only gets released when both parties agree.
Tenants need better support so that they can get mortgage approval of the want using proof of rent paid as evidence.

BUT

Landlords also need better protection to evict genuine unruly tenants quickly, and I mean within a month or so.

kceire

kceire wrote: »

References are fabricated.
Deposits are fully refundable and come nowhere near the cost of repairs should you get a bad tenant.
Rent payment in advance every month means nothing when a tenant can sit in your property for 2 years without paying even after the Mickey Mouse court that the PRTB initiate.

Both parties bed more protection and enforcement.
I know guys paying €1400 a month in rent and a bank won't give them a mortgage, that's wrong.

Some sort of system needs to be set up where the deposit goes to a third part account with reference and only gets released when both parties agree.
Tenants need better support so that they can get mortgage approval of the want using proof of rent paid as evidence.

BUT

Landlords also need better protection to evict genuine unruly tenants quickly, and I mean within a month or so.

So many problems in Ireland track back to our disfunctional Courts/Justice system.

The only one of the Troika reforms that has still not been implemented....

iguana

Mezcita wrote: »

How do you know that the landlord does not actually want to sell the property?

Because of this >>>

seamus wrote: »

If you're convinced he has no intention of selling, then call his bluff.

Offer to buy the house. If he jumps at the opportunity to sell to a sitting tenant, like anyone would, then you know he's genuine and you can give your notice and move out.

If he blusters or delays or tells you that he wants to put it on the market first then you can be pretty sure he's lying and you can dig your heels in.

The Op has already done that and the EA wouldn't entertain the idea which in fairness seems very, very fishy.

davo10 wrote: »

Not many will like your odds, parcularly if you haven't had a rent increase in 3 years. Have you read a newspaper recently?

Have you read much of the same newspapers? Or the relevant parts of the thread? There are at least 3 markets in this country right now, all operating very differently. There is the Dublin market where demand seems to vastly outstrip supply at present, the market in the other cities where demand is high and the rest of the country in which many micro-markets exist and in numerous areas it's still a renters market. The OP states they are in the latter, so perhaps tailor your responses to his/her situation rather than that which exists in your area.

iguana

delahuntv wrote: »

Maybe the op should look at it from a different angle.

Look at the figures.

Lets assume a rent of €700/month
€8400 a year,
Circa €840 for agent
Property tax
Upkeep
Buildings insurance
Other costs.
Tax

Maybe a net 5,000 - 5500 a year.


If the property had a market value of over €120,000 then the ll would probably be better off selling.

And where did you get those figures? Your imagination or do you have a basis for them? Seeing as how the OP stated their location as the north west and their home as ex-council, I took a look at the market in Sligo town. There houses that look ex-council are asking for rental prices of €550-600pm and sales asking prices of €55-65K. So quite a difference from the results of your figures. And if the LL really was intending on selling, why would they not entertain the OP when they said they would be interested in buying? Surely any landlord who wanted to sell their let property would first and foremost negotiate with the sitting tenant? It would make the whole sale so much easier if they could reach a price they were both happy with.