Did landlord/Agent break the law?

mallynthemiddle

I have a 12 month contract in the house i am renting. I was only in the house a month when i was served with an eviction notice to vacate the premises in 28 days due to the landlord wanting to sell the house. When i got my contract checked out there was no claus in it, therefore the eviction was invalid.
Surely the landlord/Agent would of known this but still proceeded with the eviction & try to put me out. Is this breaking the law? Have i got a case against them?

lollsangel

mallynthemiddle wrote: »

I have a 12 month contract in the house i am renting. I was only in the house a month when i was served with an eviction notice to vacate the premises in 28 days due to the landlord wanting to sell the house. When i got my contract checked out there was no claus in it, therefore the eviction was invalid.
Surely the landlord/Agent would of known this but still proceeded with the eviction & try to put me out. Is this breaking the law? Have i got a case against them?

AFAIK you can be put out anytime in the first 6 months for no reason. You have to be given notice though.

mallynthemiddle

Not when i have a 12 month contract with no claus. Thats what i was told by thresshold anyway.

TheChizler

lollsangel wrote: »

AFAIK you can be put out anytime in the first 6 months for no reason. You have to be given notice though.

Not when there's a 12 month lease.

April 73

As far as I understand it, a Part IV tenancy kicks in after 6 months. Under this a landlord has a right to ask a tenant to vacate with correct notice if he plans to sell the house.
As you had a 12 month lease without a break clause for the landlord selling the property & you were only there one month, I think you do have a case. Part IV tenancy hadn't kicked in at that point.

Did you move out? Did the landlord sell? Or are you still there?

mallynthemiddle

Yes i am still here in the house. It is now 6 months later. Rweason i bring this up now is that i was 2 weeks late with the rent and he has now served me with another eviction notice. I have brought my rent upto date but he still wants me out. So basically im looking for something for him to back down, as i am going to lose my deposit plus myselff and my 2 young kids will be homeless. There is no reasoning with him.

April 73

It looks looks like he would prefer if you were gone, so you should be careful not to give him any reason, such as late rent that may provide him with a cause for eviction.

I'm not sure how you could use the earlier attempt to get you out to help you now. Obviously there was an agreement for you to stay & he backed down. If you are now there for longer than six months you have a Part IV tenancy.

If rent is late then you have technically breached the conditions of your lease. The LL is entitled to issue a letter seeking the unpaid rent to be paid within 14 days. If it is not paid the LL can move to end the tenancy with the correct notice. He must do everything by the RTA rules though.

How long was the rent outstanding for & how long have you been up to date again? Did he ever issue you with a letter giving 14 days notice to pay the arrears?

mallynthemiddle

No they did not take the correct procedure & did not serve me with 14 day WARNING notice although did write to me and asked me to come in & bring my rent up to date immediately. Yes you are correct, she is doing everything in her power to put me out. THis is because i also had the council involved due to the condition of the house. All rents were brought up to date within 14 days of recieving the letter.
I have wrote to her on two occasions requesting the amounts & dates the amounts were owed but she has ignored these request. My rent was due Friday yesterday i didnt pay this due to her not sending me out the amounts & dates as i wanted to contest the eviction. Maybe i should have paid the rent yesterday, have i grounds for holding it back due to her not replying to my requests? All based on the previous illegal eviction.

runawaybishop

mallynthemiddle wrote: »

No they did not take the correct procedure & did not serve me with 14 day WARNING notice although did write to me and asked me to come in & bring my rent up to date immediately. Yes you are correct, she is doing everything in her power to put me out. THis is because i also had the council involved due to the condition of the house. All rents were brought up to date within 14 days of recieving the letter.
I have wrote to her on two occasions requesting the amounts & dates the amounts were owed but she has ignored these request. My rent was due Friday yesterday i didnt pay this due to her not sending me out the amounts & dates as i wanted to contest the eviction. Maybe i should have paid the rent yesterday, have i grounds for holding it back due to her not replying to my requests? All based on the previous illegal eviction.

Never withhold rent. Are you looking for somewhere else to live?

otwb1

There was no previous illegal eviction. She wanted you to leave, you pointed out that you had a 12 month lease and she backed down?

You were then two weeks late with the rent and they pulled you up on it. You paid the outstanding rent.

There is no issue here. I'm not sure what you actually want? (You need to pay the rent due yesterday as well. if you actually have an issue then lodge a complaint with the prtb, but you are obliged to keep paying your tent while the dispute is ongoing)

Arbiter of Good Taste

mallynthemiddle wrote: »

No they did not take the correct procedure & did not serve me with 14 day WARNING notice although did write to me and asked me to come in & bring my rent up to date immediately. Yes you are correct, she is doing everything in her power to put me out. THis is because i also had the council involved due to the condition of the house. All rents were brought up to date within 14 days of recieving the letter.
I have wrote to her on two occasions requesting the amounts & dates the amounts were owed but she has ignored these request. My rent was due Friday yesterday i didnt pay this due to her not sending me out the amounts & dates as i wanted to contest the eviction. Maybe i should have paid the rent yesterday, have i grounds for holding it back due to her not replying to my requests? All based on the previous illegal eviction.

You have no right to withhold rent.

Please point out where there has been an "illegal eviction". You are still in the property, are you not?

April 73

Pay your rent. You've no right to withhold it & you're not doing yourself any favours by looking for reasons not to pay it.

TheChizler

Keep yourself squeaky clean and pay your regular rent immediately. Sort out anything owed that youre unsure about after that.

Boater123

What did the council do?

beauf

This story makes little sense. A LL giving notice a month into a lease. A tenant who wants to make a case for illegal eviction. If you have been there for 6 months how can you not know when when your rent is due and by what date. Saying amounts & dates suggested this has happened more than once. Perhaps that just a typo.

Otherwise thus far it would seem nothing has actually happened. The LL has given invalid notice originally. Now you've been late with rent, but paid it within the 14 days notice. That sounds like there is no rent due, no outstanding notices, and no outstanding issue.

The only issue is at the end of the year the LL might still intend to sell the house.

REXER

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

You have no right to withhold rent.

Please point out where there has been an "illegal eviction". You are still in the property, are you not?

Did you somehow manage to miss that there was an attempt at an illegal eviction?

beauf

REXER wrote: »

Did you somehow manage to miss that there was an attempt at an illegal eviction?

Not sure what point you're making.

Michael D Not Higgins

REXER wrote: »

Did you somehow manage to miss that there was an attempt at an illegal eviction?

There has been no illegal eviction. An invalid notice doesn't constitute an illegal eviction. If they followed through regardless then it would have been an illegal eviction and OP would have grounds to take a case with the PRTB, but they're not going to entertain cases of invalid notices which were not subsequently enforced.

REXER

Just making the point that several blinkered people have posted on here that there was no issue. :rolleyes: Not true, as there was an attempt at an illegal eviction!

I do agree however that the OP sould pay the rent on time and keep their nose clean!

Arbiter of Good Taste

REXER wrote: »

Did you somehow manage to miss that there was an attempt at an illegal eviction?

So what. An "attempt" at something, does not make it happen. The OP was not evicted so has absolutely no grounds for action unless the rental laws extend to cover hurt feelings now :rolleyes:

beauf

REXER wrote: »

Just making the point that several blinkered people have posted on here that there was no issue. :rolleyes: Not true, as there was an attempt at an illegal eviction!

I do agree however that the OP sould pay the rent on time and keep their nose clean!

There was an invalid notice given. Which was withdrawn.
Rent was in arrears but paid up.

So what issues are there that blinkered people can't see.

Sleepy

Am I right in guessing that the landlord tried to end the lease early because when you "had the council involved due to the condition of the house" he/she decided you were more trouble than you're worth as a tenant? Since then, you've been late with your rent and are now illegally withholding your rent.

TBH, based on what you've given us OP I'd be inclined to see your landlord's point here, in less than 6 months you've set the council on them and have now been late with rent twice. That's not the kind of tenant most landlords have an interest in renting to.

REXER

REXER wrote: »

Just making the point that several blinkered people have posted on here that there was no issue. :rolleyes: Not true, as there was an attempt at an illegal eviction!

I do agree however that the OP sould pay the rent on time and keep their nose clean!

Nearly never bulled a cow.

There was no illegal eviction and therefore no case to answer.

beauf

REXER wrote: »

It was a sneeky devious underhanded attempt to intimidate the OP!

All in all it has helped the OP because fore warned is fore armed! :rolleyes:

The OP now knows what to expect going forward.

You said previous posters were blinkered. They know about the notice and have commented on it. How are they blinkered?

Also the invalid notice was in the first month. The OP is in there > 6 months now. Why do you think an invalid notice is relevant now?

The tenant was in arrears in rent. Which was then paid up. Do you think that is still valid similarly?

Still don't get what point you are making.

Marcusm

Stella Hundreds Cornmeal wrote: »

Nearly never bulled a cow.

There was no illegal eviction and therefore no case to answer.

The serving of the notice when ignored by the tenant would likely lead to a PRTB case for eviction. The High Court held yesterday that an intention to sell or commence advertising the property for sale was not enough. While it did not require that there be an identified purchaser, there had to have been some progress towards a sale contract. The final orders are yet to be determined but it is quite possible that repeatedly issuing termination notices in this manner could amount to harassment. The ground for terminating the lease is intending to enter into a contract for sale within three months, not simply putting it up for sale. It will be interesting to see exactly where this ends up and what further guidance will emanate from the court.

Arbiter of Good Taste

REXER wrote: »

It was a sneeky devious underhanded attempt to intimidate the OP!

All in all it has helped the OP because fore warned is fore armed! :rolleyes:

The OP now knows what to expect going forward.

Come on, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

The only illegal activity I see in the whole scenario is the OP's withholding of rent.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Marcusm wrote: »

The serving of the notice when ignored by the tenant would likely lead to a PRTB case for eviction. The High Court held yesterday that an intention to sell or commence advertising the property for sale was not enough. While it did not require that there be an identified purchaser, there had to have been some progress towards a sale contract. The final orders are yet to be determined but it is quite possible that repeatedly issuing termination notices in this manner could amount to harassment. The ground for terminating the lease is intending to enter into a contract for sale within three months, not simply putting it up for sale. It will be interesting to see exactly where this ends up and what further guidance will emanate from the court.

I can't see this working in practice though. Say a landlord puts a house up for sale but is prevented by an unreasonable tenant from viewing to prospective buyers? Yet they can't get the tenant out as there is no progress towards a sale. It seems that on this basis a d1ck of a tenant that knows the law can prevent reasonable eviction. I can see landlords just automatically turning over tenants every four years per Part IV to prevent any inherent right accruing.

The_Conductor

Marcusm wrote: »

The serving of the notice when ignored by the tenant would likely lead to a PRTB case for eviction. The High Court held yesterday that an intention to sell or commence advertising the property for sale was not enough. While it did not require that there be an identified purchaser, there had to have been some progress towards a sale contract. The final orders are yet to be determined but it is quite possible that repeatedly issuing termination notices in this manner could amount to harassment. The ground for terminating the lease is intending to enter into a contract for sale within three months, not simply putting it up for sale. It will be interesting to see exactly where this ends up and what further guidance will emanate from the court.

This was in reference to a case where a landlord made a spurious attempt to end a tenancy- on the basis that he was selling the property- but subsequently didn't make any effort to sell the property (and indeed- after a period relet the property).........

If the landlord is serious about selling the property- puts it on the market, makes a reasonable attempt to facilitate viewings and encourage prospective purchasers- then they are in the clear (even if it subsequently doesn't sell)- its when 'hey I'm selling the property- get out' is used as a get-out clause by a landlord- who doesn't genuinely intend to sell the property- that cases like this arise.........

The OP's landlord is within their rights to advise that they are not extending the tenancy beyond the 1 year contract- with appropriate notice (as per the RTA)- on the basis that they are selling the property- and they then have to make a reasonable attempt to do so (whether they succeed or not- is immaterial).

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

This was in reference to a case where a landlord made a spurious attempt to end a tenancy- on the basis that he was selling the property- but subsequently didn't make any effort to sell the property (and indeed- after a period relet the property).........

If the landlord is serious about selling the property- puts it on the market, makes a reasonable attempt to facilitate viewings and encourage prospective purchasers- then they are in the clear (even if it subsequently doesn't sell)- its when 'hey I'm selling the property- get out' is used as a get-out clause by a landlord- who doesn't genuinely intend to sell the property- that cases like this arise.........

The OP's landlord is within their rights to advise that they are not extending the tenancy beyond the 1 year contract- with appropriate notice (as per the RTA)- on the basis that they are selling the property- and they then have to make a reasonable attempt to do so (whether they succeed or not- is immaterial).

Eh, you may be looking at a different report; the notice in question was rendered in June 2014 for termination in October 2014 and the completion of the sale was December 2014. There had been previous notices which were not followed up. While the decision is largely procedural in that the receiver/landlord did not include the termination grounds, the important point I am trying to highlight is what has been reported as obiter, is that the termination must involve a situation where work has been done to make a completion in 3 months possible rather than as a prelude to marketing. This may not have been relevant to the facts at hand but is important in that it points to a judicial view on the available grounds.

I agree that this would give a licence to over holding tenants to frustrate a sale. That is inappropriate but if the judge's opinion is upheld then it is up to the legislature not the courts to amend the law to make it workable.

EDIT: The original PRTB decision is as below. The sale proceeded while he was over holding. I wonder whether he is stil there today. http://www.prtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports/tr0115-000997-dr1014-14949-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Butters1979

Why do people keep saying there is no outstanding rent.

mallynthemiddle wrote: »

I have wrote to her on two occasions requesting the amounts & dates the amounts were owed but she has ignored these request. My rent was due Friday yesterday i didnt pay this due to her not sending me out the amounts & dates as i wanted to contest the eviction. Maybe i should have paid the rent yesterday, have i grounds for holding it back due to her not replying to my requests? All based on the previous illegal eviction.

Basically the OP is illegally withholding rent because the agent has not told them the specific details of the last time he withheld rent. OP, surely you should know this anyway.
The notice of eviction to sell was incorrect, and although the agent and LL should have known that (and maybe they did and tried to pull a fast one) the tenant rightly challenged it and it never went ahead. There is nothing that can be used 'against' the LL.

OP seems to be fully aware of the LL's obligations (and rightly so) but completely ignorant of his own. I feel we are getting a very bias version of the whole story here.

beauf

Butters1979 wrote: »

Why do people keep saying there is no outstanding rent. ....

This

mallynthemiddle wrote: »

Y...I have brought my rent up to date...

Butters1979

beauf wrote: »

This

That's a quote from earlier. What I quoted was after that where the OP admits withholding rent. Intentionally.
Op's rent was due on Friday the 1st, he admitted he hasn't paid it and has not updated us since if he has or not. Last we know, OP's is in arrears.
Are you reading this thread selectively or something?

beauf

It was all posted the same time about 10 mins apart.

They said they were paid up. The post after that is referring (IMO) to withholding rent before they paid all rent outstanding, within the 14 days notice.

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong.

beauf

Posted all this previously.

beauf wrote: »

This story makes little sense. A LL giving notice a month into a lease. A tenant who wants to make a case for illegal eviction. If you have been there for 6 months how can you not know when when your rent is due and by what date. Saying amounts & dates suggested this has happened more than once. Perhaps that just a typo.

Otherwise thus far it would seem nothing has actually happened. The LL has given invalid notice originally. Now you've been late with rent, but paid it within the 14 days notice. That sounds like there is no rent due, no outstanding notices, and no outstanding issue.

The only issue is at the end of the year the LL might still intend to sell the house.

I suspect its not the only time rent with withheld, but I could be mistaken.

Butters1979

beauf wrote: »

It was all posted the same time about 10 mins apart.

They said they were paid up. The post after that is referring (IMO) to withholding rent before they paid all rent outstanding, within the 14 days notice.

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong.

And maybe I am interpreting it wrong. It just all seems suspicious to me. The whole point about the OP looking to 'have something' on the LL yet admitting to being in arrears sounds more like a problem tenant than a problem LL.

The_Conductor

Its not clear- and was not clarified by the OP........

Slightly off topic but sort of related.

If a tenant is continually being late with rent but paying it inside the 14 days notice of rent arrears is there any mechanism for eviction or does a LL just have to tolerate a tenant being all over the place with the day they are paying the rent.

Michael D Not Higgins

Stella Hundreds Cornmeal wrote: »

Slightly off topic but sort of related.

If a tenant is continually being late with rent but paying it inside the 14 days notice of rent arrears is there any mechanism for eviction or does a LL just have to tolerate a tenant being all over the place with the day they are paying the rent.

There's no cumulative method of being late with rent adding up to a more serious breach, unless it's not paid within the 14 days notice.

beauf

Compounded at the end of a tenancy if they are both late and use deposit as rent.