Landlord has re-let property after terminating tenancy with intent to sell

AeoNGriM

Hi all,

Looking for some advice with this issue, if I could pick your brains!

Long story short, 1 year fixed term lease started in Aug 2014. Remained on under Part 4 tenancy after this. Landlord served invalid notice of rent increase in Dec 2015. We attempted to negotiate in good faith for a slightly lower increase, landlord refused. We then refused increase as our rent was fixed from 24 months from start of tenancy under new regulations introduced recently, after getting advice from Threshold.

End of January landlord served us valid notice of termination with intent to sell within 3 months. We obliged and vacated last month. Last week, less than 3 weeks after vacating, the apartment is up on daft for a 1/3 increase in our original rent. Asked a friend to book a viewing to confirm it was the same apartment, which they did and were able to confirm it was definitely our old address.

I've taken screenshots of the Daft ad, have witness statements from my friend who viewed the apartment, have emails between myself and the landlord and have both the notice of rent increase and the termination letter so am well covered in terms of proving my case.

We obviously want to file a dispute with the PRTB, however we're unsure if this constitutes an illegal eviction or not?

On the PRTB website when filing a dispute, there are a number of options to choose from when defining the nature of the complaint. One of these is Unlawful Termination of Tenancy (Illegal Eviction) however it seems to only apply to the use of force or intimidation to deny the tenant access to the property.

My question really is does this apply to our situation? Would this also mean the the notice of termination is also invalid, given that the landlord obviously had no intention of selling?

Any advice is most welcome, thanks!

bigpink

Mighy have changed his mind on selling

Michael D Not Higgins

You almost certainly have a case. I'd file it under invalid notice of termination if that's a heading.

JimmyMW

bigpink wrote: »

Mighy have changed his mind on selling

Changing his mind is not a valid excuse, he must offer the property back to the evicted tenant at the original rent. Yes OP you have a case, are you in a new property now?

Caliden

Similar thread a few weeks back OP.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057575493

Open a case with the PRTB with all your evidence.

Michael D Not Higgins

JimmyMW wrote: »

Changing his mind is not a valid excuse, he must offer the property back to the evicted tenant at the original rent. Yes OP you have a case, are you in a new property now?

That's incorrect, that only applies if it's available for re-letting within 6 months after termination on the grounds of use by the landlord or family member, renovation or change of use.

However, the PRTB are likely to see the notice as invalid and rule in OP's favour.

cnocbui

bigpink wrote: »

Mighy have changed his mind on selling

Yeah, I have heard that seeing pigs fly past one's window will lead to all manner of strange thoughts.

DaraDali

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057580370

Here is a amazing thread on the same issue from last month, check it out

JimmyMW

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That's incorrect, that only applies if it's available for re-letting within 6 months after termination on the grounds of use by the landlord or family member, renovation or change of use.

However, the PRTB are likely to see the notice as invalid and rule in OP's favour.

Its available for rent within 3 weeks, sorry am I missing something here, I was under the impression that if a landlord evicted a tenant due to selling the property and if that did not happen for whatever reason ie no sale or change of mind that it would have to be offered back to the tenant prior to it being offered to the open market for rent?

magicmushroom

I'd ring the PRTB and ask them how best to file the complaint.

AeoNGriM

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You almost certainly have a case. I'd file it under invalid notice of termination if that's a heading.

That is an option on the site, however there is a 28 day time limit to appeal a notice of termination and that has expired. We would technically be appealing the grounds for the notification rather than the notification itself but it's definitely an option, thanks for your input!

We were thinking of filing for Breach of Landlord Obligations (for denying us use of the property by unlawfully terminating the tenancy and for intentionally serving a notice of termination without actually intending to sell), Invalid Notice of Termination of Tenancy (for intentionally serving a notice of termination without actually intending to sell) and for Unlawful Termination of Tenancy (Illegal Eviction) for terminating the tenancy by intentionally serving a notice of termination without actually intending to sell, just to increase the rent.

Our case is that the landlord had no intention to sell which makes all of their actions an offence under the Residential Tenancies Act, and that given the evidence we will be presenting the landlord will find it impossible to prove they did intend to sell.

JimmyMW wrote: »

Changing his mind is not a valid excuse, he must offer the property back to the evicted tenant at the original rent. Yes OP you have a case, are you in a new property now?

Yes we have moved to a different property, and I believe the apartment has been re-let as the ad is no longer up on Daft. We were never offered the property back either!

Michael D Not Higgins

JimmyMW wrote: »

Its available for rent within 3 weeks, sorry am I missing something here, I was under the impression that if a landlord evicted a tenant due to selling the property and if that did not happen for whatever reason ie no sale or change of mind that it would have to be offered back to the tenant prior to it being offered to the open market for rent?

No that only applies for certain reasons of termination that I listed. The implication in the law is that if you intend to sell then you're not going to be renting it out again so there's no obligation to offer to the original tenant.

The dispute would centre around the fact that the notice was invalid because there was no intention to sell.

AeoNGriM

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

No that only applies for certain reasons of termination that I listed. The implication in the law is that if you intend to sell then you're not going to be renting it out again so there's no obligation to offer to the original tenant.

The dispute would centre around the fact that the notice was invalid because there was no intention to sell.

Indeed, and that the termination of the tenancy was unlawful because of this.

Caliden wrote: »

Similar thread a few weeks back OP.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057575493

Open a case with the PRTB with all your evidence.

Thanks! Some good info in there, looks like someone in the thread had a previous case that was identical and the PRTB ruled it an illegal eviction. That makes things a little clearer in term of how we should proceed.

DaraDali wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057580370

Here is a amazing thread on the same issue from last month, check it out

Another great read, thanks!

garhjw

OP, is there any evidence the landlord even put the property on the market for sale? (Doubtful there is given that only a couple of weeks elapsed) This would help cover al bases in your case.

theteal

This issue seems to becoming more common - there have been a couple of similar threads iirc. I suspect my cousin is in a similar position but they're not aware of the potential issue yet i.e. 7-8 months into lease, now landlord wants to sell so they're out at the end of the month

Anyway OP, I can't offer anything by way of support other than best wishes

Is it definitely the same LL that's letting it? i.e. It wasn't sold and is being re-let by the new owner.

I know it's very very unlikely but you didn't mention that your friend met your LL just that it was the same address for sure.

AeoNGriM

garhjw wrote: »

OP, is there any evidence the landlord even put the property on the market for sale? (Doubtful there is given that only a couple of weeks elapsed) This would help cover al bases in your case.

Since receiving the notification of termination, I've searched the interwebs high and low and didn't find any listing for the property, and it definitely was not listed on Daft.

Considering we initially rented the property from an advert on Daft, and it's been re-let there you'ld think the landlord would have advertised it for sale on there too but nope, nada.

I am also 100% positive that the property hasn't been sold privately. It's definitely the same landlord.

AeoNGriM

theteal wrote: »

This issue seems to becoming more common - there have been a couple of similar threads iirc. I suspect my cousin is in a similar position but they're not aware of the potential issue yet i.e. 7-8 months into lease, now landlord wants to sell so they're out at the end of the month

Anyway OP, I can't offer anything by way of support other than best wishes

Thanks for the support and the positive thoughts! I hope your cousin is able to resolve their problem also!

JimmyMW

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

No that only applies for certain reasons of termination that I listed. The implication in the law is that if you intend to sell then you're not going to be renting it out again so there's no obligation to offer to the original tenant.

The dispute would centre around the fact that the notice was invalid because there was no intention to sell.

Oh ok, I misunderstood the legislation. In that situation so could a landlord not put the property up for sale for an extortionately high price on donedeal for €3 for the notice period and a few weeks after that and then just re-let it claiming that he could not sell it at the price he wanted. Would he be after circumnavigating the legislation this way? Even if he put it up at market price on DD or daft and managed it himself and claimed he failed to sell how could he be disproved?

Michael D Not Higgins

JimmyMW wrote: »

Oh ok, I misunderstood the legislation. In that situation so could a landlord not put the property up for sale for an extortionately high price on donedeal for €3 for the notice period and a few weeks after that and then just re-let it claiming that he could not sell it at the price he wanted. Would he be after circumnavigating the legislation this way? Even if he put it up at market price on DD or daft and managed it himself and claimed he failed to sell how could he be disproved?

Each case would be taken on its own merits. It's likely that most landlords who try to circumvent the law like this are unlikely to go to too much effort to cover their trails. Losing three months rent is likely to be worse than losing the difference to market rent until the next review.

Hollister11

Why was his rent increase invalid ? Was it invalid because you decided that you didn't want to pay higher rent ?

Michael D Not Higgins

Hollister11 wrote: »

Why was his rent increase invalid ? Was it invalid because you decided that you didn't want to pay higher rent ?

The new legislation means it has to be at least 24 months from the start of a tenancy to perform a rent review.

JimmyMW

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Each case would be taken on its own merits. It's likely that most landlords who try to circumvent the law like this are unlikely to go to too much effort to cover their trails. Losing three months rent is likely to be worse than losing the difference to market rent until the next review.

Yes but its possible and still be within the law. No one would suggest 3 months but if you had to give a tenant 6 weeks notice and advertise for that 6 weeks along with a further 2 weeks and you would have a plausible case there then. If its possible to do this there are serious holes in the legislation.

Michael D Not Higgins

JimmyMW wrote: »

Yes but its possible and still be within the law. No one would suggest 3 months but if you had to give a tenant 6 weeks notice and advertise for that 6 weeks along with a further 2 weeks and you would have a plausible case there then. If its possible to do this there are serious holes in the legislation.

The RTA states intention to transfer interest so I'm sure it wouldn't be looked favourably just to advertise it for a limited time.

housetypeb

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The new legislation means it has to be at least 24 months from the start of a tenancy to perform a rent review.

True, but the OP said that landlord gave notice of a rent increase in December.
He might have given the notice before December 4th,which is when the new legislation came into affect.

Michael D Not Higgins

housetypeb wrote: »

True, but the OP said that landlord gave notice of a rent increase in December.
He might have given the notice before December 4th,which is when the new legislation came into affect.

The OP seems to have a working knowledge of the legislation so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that it came after the enactment of the amendment.

quadrifoglio verde

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The new legislation means it has to be at least 24 months from the start of a tenancy to perform a rent review.

Does this not apply to leases started in 2015
OPs started in 2014

Michael D Not Higgins

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Does this not apply to leases started in 2015
OPs started in 2014

Yes it does, I've read the legislation. It applies to all leases that started less than 24 months before the enactment date and leases that have had a rent review in the 12 months before the enactment date.

anothernight

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Yes it does, I've read the legislation. It applies to all leases that started less than 24 months before the enactment date and leases that have had a rent review in the 12 months before the enactment date.

Doesn't that mean that the 24 month period kicked in before the 90 day notice rule? What a weird way to enact legislation.

PRTB wrote:

The new [notice] period applies to any notice to increase rent served on or after the 4 December 2015. Any notice served prior to this date will be subject to the previous 28 day period.

http://www.prtb.ie/search-results/news/article/2015/12/04/new-amendments-to-the-legislation-on-rent-increases-and-notices-of-termination-effective-from-4th-december-2015

Michael D Not Higgins

anothernight wrote: »

Doesn't that mean that the 24 month period kicked in before the 90 day notice rule? What a weird way to enact legislation.



http://www.prtb.ie/search-results/news/article/2015/12/04/new-amendments-to-the-legislation-on-rent-increases-and-notices-of-termination-effective-from-4th-december-2015

I'm not sure what you're getting at. There's two parts here, rent reviews before and after the enactment date.

Before was a review with 28 days notice of the new rent and only once every 12 months.

After it's 90 days notice and only every 24 months, with the conditions of it having to be at least 24 months after the start of the tenancy and 24 months after the last rent review if one was done in the 12 months before the enactment date.

anothernight

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

It's a bit irrelevant really, don't worry about it.

Butters1979

theteal wrote: »

This issue seems to becoming more common - there have been a couple of similar threads iirc. I suspect my cousin is in a similar position but they're not aware of the potential issue yet i.e. 7-8 months into lease, now landlord wants to sell so they're out at the end of the month

Anyway OP, I can't offer anything by way of support other than best wishes

Sorry to go off on a tangent here again. The LL cannot terminate mid lease even if they are selling the property, unless they have a specific clause in the lease to allow this.

How long a lease did your cousin sign and was their anything about selling the property in the lease?

AeoNGriM

Sorry, should have clarified. Rent increase letter was received after the new legislation came into effect, wasn't dated and didn't give enough notice so even if we weren't protected by the new legislation the notice itself wasn't valid.

I think I've got enough to proceed with the claim, thanks so much for all the advice. I'll be sure to keep the thread updated and post the final outcome

the world wonders

Here is a recent High Court case that may interest you:

Notice terminating lease on family home deemed invalid
A mere intention to sell was not sufficient to terminate lease, court rules
...
[Ms Justice Marie Baker] did not consider the Oireachtas intended to permit termination of a Part 4 tenancy merely in anticipation of the commencement of the sale or advertising process, the judge said. While not saying there had to be an identified sale, there must be more than an intention to sell.

AeoNGriM

the world wonders wrote: »

Here is a recent High Court case that may interest you:

Interesting read, thanks for posting this!

Update on dispute : finally managed to get all of our evidence together and have registered the dispute with the PRTB.

Filed the dispute under Breach of Landlord Obligations, Invalid Notice of Termination and Unlawful Termination of Tenancy.

Took ages as the PRTB site is a bit quirky, but relatively straightforward to use. For anyone looking for info on the PRTB website, a lot of the pages are broken, plain and simple, and have been since September last year. Fairly shocking state of affairs from the PRTB!

The only way I was able to get the info from the PRTB site was to find the web address of the broken page I needed and use Wayback Machine to find an archived version of the page, so fecking time consuming!

Anyways, got it logged with them and requested Adjudication. Will update when I hear back, thanks again all

ED E

You should try and separately report the broken pages to their webmaster, hopefully get them fixed.

AeoNGriM

ED E wrote: »

You should try and separately report the broken pages to their webmaster, hopefully get them fixed.

Have been reporting this to them since 2012! It periodically gets fixed and then borks again.....D'oh!

AeoNGriM

Hey all,

Quick update, my Adjudication Hearing is tomorrow at 10am. Spending this evening getting all my ducks in a row and checking all the paperwork is in order.

Not sure how long the hearing will take, but have taken the day off work. The Adjudicator will look at the evidence of both sides (landlord has not uploaded any to the PRTB website) and issue a recommendation within 21 days of the hearing. Hoping they find in my favour!

Interestingly enough, when my landlord found I'd logged the dispute I got a call from them all but begging to sort it out without having to go down the PRTB route. All they were short of doing is offering me money!

Anyways, I'll let you know how it goes and ultimately how it's resolved

Cheers

JupiterKid

OP - sounds like your landlord was a very nasty piece of work. But they messed with the wrong tenant! Hope the PRTB Adjudication went in your favour.

athtrasna

Mod note

This is not a soap opera, the OP may come back in their own time. Please stop asking for updates.

AeoNGriM

Hi, sorry for the lack of an update. I didn't want to post anything until I've heard back from the PRTB. There's a letter at home today so am thinking that's the adjudicator's determination order. I'll confirm and post an update on how the hearing went and what the outcome is asap

endacl

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Hi, sorry for the lack of an update. I didn't want to post anything until I've heard back from the PRTB. There's a letter at home today so am thinking that's the adjudicator's determination order. I'll confirm and post an update on how the hearing went and what the outcome is asap

Hope it goes your way.

AeoNGriM

Hey guys,

Final update on the adjudication hearing and the PRTB's decision.

The hearing itself was quite informal, just myself, landlord & their witness and the adjudicator. The adjudicator explained the process at the start of the hearing and then asked each of us a number of questions on the evidence we had submitted. My landlord rambled on a bit, protesting their innocence fairly indignantly, I've been a landlord for x number of years I've never done anything illegal or untoward to my tenants kind of thing.

The witness they had brought was the person who showed my friends around the apartment when they viewed it at my request, and both the witness and the landlord claimed that they had listed the apartment, and then physically showed prospective tenants around just to establish the market rate of the property for any prospective investors, which was complete nonsense.

We were pretty much done after about 25 minutes and the adjudicator said that she had enough to proceed with a determination order, and she would issue a report on everything in the next 10 days.

So the report from the PRTB arrived yesterday, and after everything my claim was not upheld. Given that 3 months hadn't passed since I vacated the property, I'm unable to claim that we've been unjustly deprived of possession of the property. So my landlord escaped on a technicality really as they are still within their 3 month notice of intention to sell period.

I'm a little disappointed as it was fairly plain to see that the landlord was trying to re-rent at a higher market rate, however the landlord did submit documentation at a very late stage which shows they have at least listed the property for sale on a number of property websites. This was all done after they were made aware of the dispute I filed with the PRTB, so it's really little more than an arse covering excercise after having tried to re-let the apartment.

Overall I'm glad I went ahead with the process, and I hope that I've at least inconvenienced the landlord somewhat having to keep the property vacant for the last 2 months and run around trying to drum up some sort of documentation to make it look like they were going to sell the place.

I have a sneaky feeling the landlord will re-let the property after things have died down so I'll be keeping an eye on it in case this happens

Thanks again for all your help and support, if there's anyone going through something similar and needs some advice or has any questions about any of the process, post a reply here or lob me a PM and I'll be happy to chat!

Graham

Not quite the result you were hoping for which is a little disappointing but well done for following through with the PRTB, you've done your fellow renters a great service.

That's one landlord that won't be so quick to illegally evict in the future and the lost rent for a minimum of three months will have wiped out any sort-term financial advantage of behaving as he did.

Michael D Not Higgins

AeoNGriM wrote: »

So my landlord escaped on a technicality really as they are still within their 3 month notice of intention to sell period.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/notice-terminating-lease-on-family-home-deemed-invalid-1.2599202
It's disheartening to see the RTB are not taking heed of rulings in higher courts.

The text of the RTA 2004 does not cover intention to sell but

The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.

There's an important distinction here. The intention to sell is not enough. Having it on a property selling website is not enough to show compliance with the law as stipulated. It needs to be demonstrable that there is intention to complete a sale within those three months.

AeoNGriM

Graham wrote: »

Not quite the result you were hoping for which is a little disappointing but well done for following through with the PRTB, you've done your fellow renters a great service.

That's one landlord that won't be so quick to illegally evict in the future and the lost rent for a minimum of three months will have wiped out any sort-term financial advantage of behaving as he did.

If nothing else I would hope that the landlord would think twice about doing something similar to another tenant. Given the current chronic shortage in available properties and the massive rents landlords are asking, it's getting increasing more difficult for prospective tenants to get a fair deal.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/notice-terminating-lease-on-family-home-deemed-invalid-1.2599202
It's disheartening to see the RTB are not taking heed of rulings in higher courts.

The text of the RTA 2004 does not cover intention to sell but


There's an important distinction here. The intention to sell is not enough. Having it on a property selling website is not enough to show compliance with the law as stipulated. It needs to be demonstrable that there is intention to complete a sale within those three months.

My landlord was arguing that they will have to sell as they can no longer afford the mortgage on the property. I believe that they had 2 choices, bump the rent or actually sell, so there may be a grain of truth in there somewhere, however every action they took up to being notified of the dispute clearly showed the intention to re-let at a much higher rent. I probably should have waited until another tenant had moved in before logging the dispute, as that would have made the whole thing clear cut.

Bob24

AeoNGriM wrote: »

If nothing else I would hope that the landlord would think twice about doing something similar to another tenant. Given the current chronic shortage in available properties and the massive rents landlords are asking, it's getting increasing more difficult for prospective tenants to get a fair deal.

Even though you lost the case, I indeed think it will have an impact on that landlord. It seems like his intend was obviously to re-rent, and they won't be able to do that for some time, which will clearly cause inconvenience. And I assume the PTRB is keeping track of previous disputes, so they must know that if the play the same trick again in the future that history will make them look bad shall another tenant go through the process again.

By the way, my understanding is that you are not interested in moving back into that property? So should the PTRB have sided with you, what kind of compensation would you have expected? (could the PTRB have order anything else than requesting the landlord to take you back as a tenant at the previous rent level?)

AeoNGriM

Bob24 wrote: »

Even though you lost the case, I indeed think it will have an impact on that landlord. It seems like his intend was obviously to re-rent, and they won't be able to do that for some time, which will clearly cause inconvenience. And I assume the PTRB is keeping track of previous disputes, so they must know that if the play the same trick again in the future that history will make them look bad shall another tenant go through the process again.

By the way, my understanding is that you are not interested in moving back into that property? So should the PTRB have sided with you, what kind of compensation would you have expected? (could the PTRB have order anything else than requesting the landlord to take you back as a tenant at the previous rent level?)

That was mentioned, the adjudicator did ask what I was hoping for in terms of a resolution or any sort of compensation. I advised that I would wait for their recommendation and wasn't looking for anything specific, except that I definitely wasn't looking to be re-instated to the property. That would have led to a fairly toxic relationship with the landlord and they would have bumped the rent to unaffordable levels come August either way.

Back home with my folks atm and resigning myself to a long search for a place at an affordable price now

matrim

In terms of compensation for similar cases, I think a fair minimum would be the difference between the current rental market price for a similar apartment and the previous rent. The exact amount could be calculated based on how long it is until the landlord could put up the rent again

For example, if there are 10 months until the landlord can raise the rent, and the rent was 1200. If the current market rent is 1500 for a similar apartment, then the compensation would be (1500 - 1200) * 10 = €3000. And that would be ignoring any costs associated with moving.

You could even use what the landlord tried to re-rent the apartment as a guide for the current market rent.

Graham

matrim wrote: »

In terms of compensation for similar cases, I think a fair minimum would be the difference between the current rental market price for a similar apartment and the previous rent. The exact amount could be calculated based on how long it is until the landlord could put up the rent again

For example, if there are 10 months until the landlord can raise the rent, and the rent was 1200. If the current market rent is 1500 for a similar apartment, then the compensation would be (1500 - 1200) * 10 = €3000. And that would be ignoring any costs associated with moving.

You could even use what the landlord tried to re-rent the apartment as a guide for the current market rent.

I'd suggest the compensation should be 2 or 3 times the cumulative difference in rent. It would act as an incentive for tenants to report such behaviour and a significant deterrent to landlords.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

I'd suggest the compensation should be 2 or 3 times the cumulative difference in rent. It would act as an incentive for tenants to report such behaviour and a significant deterrent to landlords.

Considering the PRTB found in favour of the LL isn't talking about fines a bit pointless? No reason to suggest a similar case won't have a similar outcome either.