Landlord attempting eviction

caien

Hello,

Our landlord is attempting to evict us atm, almost definitely because we refused an illegal rent increase last week (our rent had already been increased in September).

The house has been for sale for months with no interested buyers, mainly because the price is sky high. The landlord rang us last week to say there's a guy interested but he doesn't seem to be in a rush, and he wanted us to sign a 6 month lease at increased rent (we refused the rent but agreed to the lease, as it would give us some security). This was after I had to have a big fight with him on the phone, where he tried to bully me into accepting the illegal rent increase and then tried to evict us there and then.

Now today he texted us to say the house has sold and we have to leave in a month. Now, I know he has to give us 56 days notice in writing, and a signed statement from a solicitor swearing the house will be selling within 3 months which I told him via text (he hasn't responded).

My question is does anybody know if this rule has teeth? I don't believe for a minute that there's suddenly a buyer 4 days after he failed to bully us into an illegal rent increase. He also told us this 'buyer has his own plans for the property' which is also hard to believe since its a town house clearly designs as an investment (4 massive double bedroom en suites, a tiny kitchen/sitting room) and we had been thinking that we would likely be passed on to another landlord. But I'm thinking wouldn't it be easy enough if he had a friend who was a solicitor to have the sign a declaration and kick us out?

ninebeanrows

It's pretty clear the relationship between you and the landlord is over. You either leave in a month or drag your feet and move in 3. I suggest get looking for a new home.

foggy_lad

Start a case with the RTB now as the Landlord is clearly breaking the law in trying to raise your rent illegally and by trying to get you out by claiming that the property has sold miraculously despite being overpriced.

super_furry

Weathercheck wrote: »

It's pretty clear the relationship between you and the landlord is over. You either leave in a month or drag your feet and move in 3. I suggest get looking for a new home.

Three? If he/she wants they could drag their feet and be there for a year.

davo10

foggy_lad wrote: »

Start a case with the RTB now as the Landlord is clearly breaking the law in trying to raise your rent illegally and by trying to get you out by claiming that the property has sold miraculously despite being overpriced.

A valid notice of termination in the coming days will do the trick, the op has pretty much told the LL what he has to do. That was probably a mistake, the op should have kept schtum and bated away the invalid notices as they came in. You know that selling a property is a valid reason for eviction and op, all buyers insist on vacant possession so I wouldn't count on being passed as tenants to the new owner.

foggy_lad

davo10 wrote: »

A valid notice of termination in the coming days will do the trick, the op has pretty much told the LL what he has to do. That was probably a mistake, the op should have kept schtum and bated away the invalid notices as they came in. You know that selling a property is a valid reason for eviction and op, all buyers insist on vacant possession so I wouldn't count on being passed as tenants to the new owner.

the landlord will have to prove that the property has sold as they have stated, there are other rules which must be followed.

Go with the RTB case and shake up another cowboy landlord!

Browney7

RTB - sure he'll have no problem defending it if he's legitimately sold it. Otherwise, he can take a hike with his gouging attempt

davo10

foggy_lad wrote: »

the landlord will have to prove that the property has sold as they have stated, there are other rules which must be followed.

Go with the RTB case and shake up another cowboy landlord!

No he doesn't have to prove it is sold, he has to get a declaration that he "intends" to enter into a contract to sell the property within the next three months, this will form part of the eviction notice that the op has told him he needs to serve on the op. Once that is recieved, the notice is valid.


http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/landlord-intends-to-sell-the-dwelling.pdf?sfvrsn=2

caien

Perhaps it was naive of me to tell him what he needs to do, but I'm a straight shooter and I don't think I would have had it in me to just ignore a whole series of eviction notices coming in the door, invalid or not.

My original question was whether anyone knows it the signed declaration makes any difference? Like does a landlord just have to go to a solicitor and say, 'I'm planning to sell this house' and the solicitor just signs, done job.

davo10

caien wrote: »

Perhaps it was naive of me to tell him what he needs to do, but I'm a straight shooter and I don't think I would have had it in me to just ignore a whole series of eviction notices coming in the door, invalid or not.

My original question was whether anyone knows it the signed declaration makes any difference? Like does a landlord just have to go to a solicitor and say, 'I'm planning to sell this house' and the solicitor just signs, done job.

The link I provided is the template letter which should be sent by a landlord when evicting a tenant due to selling a house according to the RTB. I think the important word in that document is "intend", it does not require that the contract be entered into but rather that he intends to enter into it. The fact that the house is for sale shows intent so it would be easy enough to get a solicitor to sign that letter.

foggy_lad

davo10 wrote: »

The link I provided is the template letter which should be sent by a landlord when evicting a tenant due to selling a house according to the RTB. I think the important word in that document is "intend", it does not require that the contract be entered into but rather that he intends to enter into it. The fact that the house is for sale shows intent so it would be easy enough to get a solicitor to sign that letter.

But the landlord is open to being brought up before a tribunal when they are found renting the property out a week after they illegally evict the previous tenant!

davo10

foggy_lad wrote: »

But the landlord is open to being brought up before a tribunal when they are found renting the property out a week after they illegally evict the previous tenant!

The house is for sale.

20/20

Iam curious how long have you been living in the house?

caien

davo10 wrote: »

The link I provided is the template letter which should be sent by a landlord when evicting a tenant due to selling a house according to the RTB. I think the important word in that document is "intend", it does not require that the contract be entered into but rather that he intends to enter into it. The fact that the house is for sale shows intent so it would be easy enough to get a solicitor to sign that letter.

I thought this might be the case. So our only recourse really would be to keep an eye out for it to go up for rent again a few weeks after we are evicted (I do believe this is his intention) and then bring a case to the PRTB, at which point the damage would be done.

20/20

How long have you been in the house?
When does your lease finish?
Do you need 4 massive double bedroom en-suites ?
Have you been sub-letting rooms in the property?

davindub

davo10 wrote: »

The link I provided is the template letter which should be sent by a landlord when evicting a tenant due to selling a house according to the RTB. I think the important word in that document is "intend", it does not require that the contract be entered into but rather that he intends to enter into it. The fact that the house is for sale shows intent so it would be easy enough to get a solicitor to sign that letter.

Prima facie if it appears to be an illegal eviction, it is. I don't think adjudicators will test the meaning of "intends", but given the balance of probabilities are against the LL for prior recent attempts to breach the legislation, it would be a very poor decision to rule the LL has valid grounds to issue notice.

J.pilkington

foggy_lad wrote: »

But the landlord is open to being brought up before a tribunal when they are found renting the property out a week after they illegally evict the previous tenant!

Seriously man you need to read threads!

The house is for sale, ll wanted to offer a 6mth extension to give him space to sell, why else offer only a 6mth contact. He's probably well aware a new owners preference is an empty property so does not want to engage in a long lease.

<mod snip: report don't retort>

davo10

davindub wrote: »

Prima facie if it appears to be an illegal eviction, it is. I don't think adjudicators will test the meaning of "intends", but given the balance of probabilities are against the LL for prior recent attempts to breach the legislation, it would be a very poor decision to rule the LL has valid grounds to issue notice.

Op has not been evicted.

It is not an offence to serve an invalid notice, happens all the time, it is an offence to evict on foot of an invalid notice.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/74/enacted/en/html

If a LL serves a valid notice, using the RTB template then why would the RTB rule against the LL, it's their template?

If the LL does not intend to sell, (which to be fair is hard to argue in this case because the op confirms its for sale and even knows the advertised sale price and a solicitor will have declared their clients intention to enter an agreement) or if the LL rents the property again for a higher rate after the op moves out, then the RTB will slap him hard one would presume.

I think it's fair to assume that the word "intends" is used because property sales do fail to complete through no fault of the vendor, could the RTA put a legal requirement on the LL to complete a sale or face prosecution?

davindub

davo10 wrote: »

If a LL serves a valid notice, using the RTB template then why would the RTB rule against the LL, it's their template?

The notice will be taken in the context of the case. Thus far we have:
1. The landlord may sell in about 6 months as evidenced by the contract negotiation. The legislation states intends to sell within 3 months and for Market value. Also I would read intends as a high level of effort, i.e. house listed, offers accepted at the MV (EA's need to register offers, so proof of this will be available).
2. The LL tried to increase the rent, which was refused on the grounds he had increased the rent in September.
3. The notice to vacate is insufficient, the LL is guilty of an offense if he attempts to evict on the basis of a notice he knows or ought to have known is invalid. (Which he is attempting to do)

I'm not saying the LL is certain to lose, it depends on the evidence he can produce, but I think he has placed a higher burden on himself due to his prior actions.

davo10 wrote: »

I think it's fair to assume that the word "intends" is used because property sales do fail to complete through no fault of the vendor, could the RTA put a legal requirement on the LL to complete a sale or face prosecution?

[/QUOTE]

Yes that would be my reading of it, except, that a high level of intent may be required. The RTB has no powers to order the completion of a sale and most cases will not be heard until the 3 months has expired. A LL could show intent to sell for MV evidenced by offers, accepting offers at MV etc. Sorry no court report for this but - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/notice-terminating-lease-on-family-home-deemed-invalid-1.2599202 - look at the last paragraph.

davo10

davindub wrote: »

The notice will be taken in the context of the case. Thus far we have:
1. The landlord may sell in about 6 months as evidenced by the contract negotiation. The legislation states intends to sell within 3 months and for Market value. Also I would read intends as a high level of effort, i.e. house listed, offers accepted at the MV (EA's need to register offers, so proof of this will be available).
2. The LL tried to increase the rent, which was refused on the grounds he had increased the rent in September.
3. The notice to vacate is insufficient, the LL is guilty of an offense if he attempts to evict on the basis of a notice he knows or ought to have known is invalid. (Which he is attempting to do)

I'm not saying the LL is certain to lose, it depends on the evidence he can produce, but I think he has placed a higher burden on himself due to his prior actions.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Invalid notices are served all the time, that is not an offence unless the LL actually tries to evict the tenant on foot of that notice. The LL can of course rectify his/her mistake by serving a valid notice, it would seem obvious that if the LL serves notice using the RTB template letter, intends to sell (remembering in this case the house is advertised for sale) and gets the necessary statutory declaration from a solicitor, the RTB are highly unlikely to rule against the LL because the LL has done exactly what the RTB tells him he had to do. If the notice is valid in these circumstances, the RTB would effectively be ruling against itself.

The op, in a kind natured way, has effectively pointed out to the LL what he needs to do to serve a valid notice.

The situation would of course change if the LL rented the property again a couple of weeks after the op was evicted, then the op can apply to the RTB to spank the LL.

Claw Hammer

davo10 wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Invalid notices are served all the time, that is not an offence unless the LL actually tries to evict the tenant on foot of that notice. The LL can of course rectify his/her mistake by serving a valid notice, it would seem obvious that if the LL serves notice using the RTB template letter, intends to sell (remembering in this case the house is advertised for sale) and gets the necessary statutory declaration from a solicitor, the RTB are highly unlikely to rule against the LL because the LL has done exactly what the RTB tells him he had to do. If the notice is valid in these circumstances, the RTB would effectively be ruling against itself.

The op, in a kind natured way, has effectively pointed out to the LL what he needs to do to serve a valid notice.

The situation would of course change if the LL rented the property again a couple of weeks after the op was evicted, then the op can apply to the RTB to spank the LL.

Things have moved on since the RTB developed that template. In this High Court case the RTB once again got it wrong.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/03AD319C75E2F3C580257F9A002F232B

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Things have moved on since the RTB developed that template. In this High Court case the RTB once again got it wrong.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/03AD319C75E2F3C580257F9A002F232B

The RTB got it right IMO, that tenant was some pain in the arse arguing on such a technically it should have been thrown out of court and the tenant made to pay the costs.

Claw Hammer

Cristiano Embarrassed Radiance wrote: »

The RTB got it right IMO, that tenant was some pain in the arse arguing on such a technically it should have been thrown out of court and the tenant made to pay the costs.

The RTB got it wrong. The Court applied the law as it found it. No point in dwelling on might-have-beens. That is the law that as it will be applied to all future cases.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is the law that as it will be applied to all future cases.

There is no guarantee of that.

Glass fused light

Cristiano Embarrassed Radiance wrote: »

There is no guarantee of that.

The high courts function in this case was to look at the law, then determine its meaning, the judge followed the sections and is pretty much "a to b to c = copy and paste from the legislation", same as not giving proper notice by mixing up the days to be given etc.
So for a house sale if the quoted reason in the section is not on the letter, it's going to be invalid

Point 13 in the ruling:

“3. 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.”

If the notice has not got that bit it will fail, but per point 45 if a declaration is included with the notice that may be sufficient form to cover the wording.

That bit of case law will not change unless someone wants to prove the judge was wrong in the ruling.

Note as the future is uncertain and there is still no obligation to actually sell the property.

This notice could be done by the OP's seller, then the buyer could do the offer, get the contract and not sign due to the tennents and their bank saying no.
So if not a buy-to-let buyer, the issued of 6 mth fixed contract could be taken to court as the "whole interest" would included the fixed lease so the enforceable bit would come into play.

Michael D Not Higgins

Just to note the legislation now in force allows leeway on the part of the RTB to allow a notice as valid even if it contains a slip or omission:

“64A. On the hearing of a complaint under Part 6 in respect of a notice of
termination, an adjudicator or the Tribunal, as the case may be, may make
a determination that a slip or omission which is contained in, or occurred
during the service of, the notice of termination shall not of itself render
the notice of termination invalid, if he or she or it, as the case may be, is
satisfied that—
(a) the slip or omission concerned does not prejudice, in a material
respect, the notice of termination, and
(b) the notice of termination is otherwise in compliance with the
provisions of this Act.”

Glass fused light

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Just to note the legislation now in force allows leeway on the part of the RTB to allow a notice as valid even if it contains a slip or omission:

“64A. On the hearing of a complaint under Part 6 in respect of a notice of
termination, an adjudicator or the Tribunal, as the case may be, may make
a determination that a slip or omission which is contained in, or occurred
during the service of, the notice of termination shall not of itself render
the notice of termination invalid, if he or she or it, as the case may be, is
satisfied that—
(a) the slip or omission concerned does not prejudice, in a material
respect, the notice of termination, and
(b) the notice of termination is otherwise in compliance with the
provisions of this Act.”

Is the basis of this quoted case not about the wording? The notice in this case had a line on the house being sold but the judge ruled that the specific of the sale within 3 months is material? So the RTB cant have any leeway on the 3 months if wording notice has not got this?

davindub

davo10 wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Invalid notices are served all the time, that is not an offence unless the LL actually tries to evict the tenant on foot of that notice. The LL can of course rectify his/her mistake by serving a valid notice, it would seem obvious that if the LL serves notice using the RTB template letter, intends to sell (remembering in this case the house is advertised for sale) and gets the necessary statutory declaration from a solicitor, the RTB are highly unlikely to rule against the LL because the LL has done exactly what the RTB tells him he had to do. If the notice is valid in these circumstances, the RTB would effectively be ruling against itself.

The op, in a kind natured way, has effectively pointed out to the LL what he needs to do to serve a valid notice.

The point is that serving the correct notice is procedural compliance, that is not to say the notice is valid if done for reasons other than intent to sell within 3 months. I'm not saying the LL has committed an offense as yet.

The comments in the high court case Claw Hammer linked ( thanks for looking it up btw) are important, not to the final outcome of that case but because it gives guidance to how to interpret "intends to sell". One of the comments related to the intent to sell outlined the below

The reason must therefore be one of the six justifying reasons identified in the Table to s.34. In construing s.34, it cannot be ignored that the time frame of three months within which it is intended to sell is quite short, and in that context a landlord may terminate a tenancy on the grounds of an intended sale only if he has taken some preliminary steps to place a property on the market, as it would not always or perhaps usually be possible for an owner to predict that he or she would make an binding contract for sale within three months of placing the premises on the market. A landlord may not seek to recover possession of premises the subject matter of a Part 4 tenancy merely on account of a general intention on his part to sell the premises, and the intention must be to sell within three months and not merely, for example, to place the property on the market to test the market or to place the property on the market and wait a period of time until the appropriate price is achieved. The intention must be one to enter into a binding contract within three months of the termination of the tenancy, and that intention must exist before a notice of termination can validity be served. That in many cases will involve the requirement that the landlord has identified a potential purchaser, or commenced negotiations towards an eventual sale. Because of the short time frame of three months, it does not seem to me that the Oireachtas intended permitting termination of a Part 4 tenancy merely in anticipation of the commencement of the sale or advertising process. I would not go so far as to say that the intention was that a notice of termination could be served only in the context of an identified sale, but the legislation in my view envisages more that a mere intention to sell, and requires a landlord to have as a matter of fact, and to state, that he intends to bind himself to a sale within three months of termination.

Also i'll include this paragraph which references back to the act:

there is provision for the award of damages to a tenant when that is not done within the period of three months, and the tenant has vacated the dwelling on foot of that notice, redress is sought before the Board which may, inter alia, make a direction that the landlord pay an amount by way of damages for the deprivation of the tenancy and the right of possession, and/or may make a direction that the tenant be permitted to resume possession of the premises. Again, these provisions make it clear that the Oireachtas considered the statutory protection to be important and that breach of the requirements sounds both in criminal and civil law.

As expected, it is holding a much higher standard for the word "intends".

Also specific to this case, the adjudicator/ High Court on appeal can look at the true intentions of the LL in serving notice at this time.

1. He had offered a 6 month contract in anticipation of sale in 6 months rather than shorter than 3 months.
2. Contract was denied by the OP due to rent increase (permitted only after a rent review, which cannot take place less than 24 months after a the last).
3. He then served notice to terminate on the grounds to sell.

I.e. the OP would be wise to go ahead with disputing the notice on the above grounds. In any event, the OP really should be dealing with Threshold for advice, its free and they may have a better understanding of what is currently happening in the adjudication process, which is unreported to the rest of us.

Michael D Not Higgins

Glass fused light wrote: »

Is the basis of this quoted case not about the wording? The notice in this case had a line on the house being sold but the judge ruled that the specific of the sale within 3 months is material? So the RTB cant have any leeway on the 3 months if wording notice has not got this?

The case is based on the law that was in force when the notice was served which pre-dated the 2015 amendment. I'm not sure on the extent of leeway that the RTB would apply to notices though.