tenant and sale of the property

chakwal

hi,

is there any law stating if tenant is living in a property, and landlord wants to sell it, it should tell the tenant officially with notice that he wants to sell the property and this is the price. and priority or atleast chance should be given to tenant to consider buying this property.

In my case, i am living in this property more than 3 years and i just got a letter stating your apartment is sold and landlord is changed and your tenancy is not affected.

BBMcQ

chakwal wrote: »

hi,

is there any law stating if tenant is living in a property, and landlord wants to sell it, it should tell the tenant officially with notice that he wants to sell the property and this is the price. and priority or atleast chance should be given to tenant to consider buying this property.

In my case, i am living in this property more than 3 years and i just got a letter stating your apartment is sold and landlord is changed and your tenancy is not affected.

Nope unless originally written into your lease contract, you can sell whatever you want to to whoever you want to.

athtrasna

Absolutely not. You have tenancy rights but no right to purchase.

The_Conductor

If the landlord is ending your tenancy- as they wish to sell the property- fine- they give you the requisite notice and you vacate the property. A landlord can however sell the property with the tenant in situ- which is what happened in your case- and what happens then is you are notified of the details of your new landlord. Unless otherwise allowed for in your lease, and in keeping with the RTA- the terms of your tenancy continue without change.

Samuel T. Cogley

The_Conductor wrote: »

If the landlord is ending your tenancy- as they wish to sell the property- fine- they give you the requisite notice and you vacate the property. A landlord can however sell the property with the tenant in situ- which is what happened in your case- and what happens then is you are notified of the details of your new landlord. Unless otherwise allowed for in your lease, and in keeping with the RTA- the terms of your tenancy continue without change.

Do they now not have to sell the property with the tenant in situ unless they can show a loss of over 20% vs vacant possession? Assuming a pressure zone of course, which is not in the OP in fairness.

handlemaster

Its not good enough tenants have all the power with regard to occupying a property they now want the landlord to be forced to sell it to them also if the landlord wants to sell. The BTL business is as good as dead

The_Conductor

handlemaster wrote: »

Its not good enough tenants have all the power with regard to occupying a property they now want the landlord to be forced to sell it to them also if the landlord wants to sell. The BTL business is as good as dead

If the tenant is willing to meet/match the open market price of the property- I don't see why its an issue. They don't have any right to expect a discount though- nor should they have the right to try and trigger the landlord to sell the property- if a landlord wishes to put a property on the market- it should be their prerogative to do so.

I would also argue any discount because of a pre-existing tenancy- should be made good- it doesn't make sense that it isn't.

It is a bit nutty- and quite incredible how one-sided everything is- however, if property owners try to coordinate efforts or advocate on behalf of their sector- they end up getting hit over the head with the Competition Authority- it really doesn't make sense.............

Samuel T. Cogley

I worry that it's open to abuse.

A scenario where a LL is only able to attain say 75% of the value of the property decides to look for vacant possession. Tenant raises a case with the RTB saying 'I'm willing to pay 81% market value'. Have we now not got a situation where the LL has to sell to the tenant (or not at all)?

I'm genuinely think I'm missing something in this legislation. I welcome a correction if I've misinterpreted it!

This is what I'm looking at:

Amendment of section 34 (grounds for termination by landlord) of Act of 2004

38. Section 34 of the Act of 2004 is amended by substituting “Subject to section 35A, a Part 4 tenancy” for “A Part 4 tenancy”.

Amendment of section 35 (Table to section 34: interpretation and supplemental) of Act of 2004

39.Section 35 of the Act of 2004 is amended by substituting the following for subsection (8):

“(8) The statutory declaration that is to accompany a notice of termination in respect of a termination referred to in paragraph 3 of the Table shall include—

(a) a declaration that the landlord intends to enter into an enforceable agreement to transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling, and

(b) where section 35A(3)(a) applies, a declaration that section 35A(2) does not apply to the said notice of termination as the price to be obtained by selling at market value the dwelling that is the subject of an existing tenancy to which Part 4 applies is more than 20 per cent below the market value that could be obtained for the dwelling with vacant possession, and that the application of that subsection would, having regard to all the circumstances of that case be unduly onerous on, or would cause undue hardship on, that landlord.”.

Restriction on termination of certain tenancies by landlords

40. The Act of 2004 is amended by inserting the following section after section 35:

“35A. (1) In this section—

‘development’ means a development consisting of land upon which there stands erected a building or buildings comprising a unit or units where, as respects such unit or units, it is intended that amenities, facilities and services are to be shared;

‘relevant period of time’ means any period of 6 months within the period—

(a) beginning with the offering for sale in the development concerned of the first dwelling the subject of a tenancy, and

(b) ending with the offering for sale in that development of the last dwelling the subject of a tenancy.

(2) Except where subsection (3) or (4) applies, a Part 4 tenancy shall not be terminated by the landlord on the ground specified in paragraph 3 of the Table to section 34 where the landlord intends to enter into an enforceable agreement—

(a) in respect of dwellings situated within the development concerned,

(b) for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in 10 or more of those dwellings, each being the subject of such a tenancy, and

(c) to so transfer during a relevant period of time.

(3) (a) Subsection (2) does not apply where the landlord can show to the satisfaction of the Board—

(i) that the price to be obtained by selling at market value the dwelling that is the subject of an existing tenancy to which Part 4 applies is more than 20 per cent below the market value that could be obtained for the dwelling with vacant possession, and

(ii) that the application of that subsection would, having regard to all the circumstances of that case—

(I) be unduly onerous on that landlord, or

(II) would cause undue hardship on that landlord.

(b) In paragraph (a)(i), the reference to the market value of the dwelling is a reference to the estimated amount that would be paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing (where appropriate) where both parties act knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.

(4) Where, before the commencement of section 40 of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016, a notice under section 34 of this Act has been served on a tenant specifying as one of the grounds for termination the ground in paragraph 3 of the Table to section 34, then that section shall continue to apply to that notice as if the said section 40 had not been enacted.

(5) Subject to subsection (4), this section applies to all tenancies, including a tenancy created before the coming into operation of this section.”.

Baby01032012

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

Do they now not have to sell the property with the tenant in situ unless they can show a loss of over 20% vs vacant possession? Assuming a pressure zone of course, which is not in the OP in fairness.

That is not law as it was not passed by the Dail this week.

Samuel T. Cogley

Baby01032012 wrote: »

That is not law as it was not passed by the Dail this week.

The Act is quoted above and as far as I know enacted. On rereading though is this only applicable where 10 or more units are being sold?

Baby01032012

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

The Act is quoted above and as far as I know enacted. On rereading though is this only applicable where 10 or more units are being sold?

Correct. The AAA did try to change it this week so that a single property would be subject to this. Governement barely defeated this. That would be horrific for any landlord if that came to play. They could only sell to another investor.

Samuel T. Cogley

Many Thanks Baby - I was hoping that was the case.

Sorry for causing confusion in this regard OP and The_Conductor.

newacc2015

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

A scenario where a LL is only able to attain say 75% of the value of the property decides to look for vacant possession. Tenant raises a case with the RTB saying 'I'm willing to pay 81% market value'. Have we now not got a situation where the LL has to sell to the tenant (or not at all)?

The problem is also that there is so little housing stock for sale. I have seen valuer value a property at €300k then estate agents saying they could easily get €400k. If your tenant can get a valuer to value the property at €300k but you have an agent who says it is worth €400k, there is no easy way to tell what is the market value.

The only way to find the true market value is put it on the market. But with a sitting tenant, the landlord will struggle to get the maximum price.