Landlord trying to kick tenant out

varuka

Tenant moves into dwelling in D24 area 3 years ago on 01/02/2014 paying 850 euro p/m and lives happily with no rent increases for 3 years until 2 weeks before end of lease the landlord shows up with new lease with rent increase of 100 euro... tenant refuses to sign as 4% rent cap is in affect so 1 week later landlord sends email to tenant saying that he will not be renewing the lease and tenant has to vacate the dwelling at end of lease because tenant did not notify the landlord that he intends to stay past lease end but tenant does want to stay.

So tenant thinks the invalid rent notice is turning into an invalid termination.
PRTB dispute filed by tenant.
IS the tenant or IS the landlord breaking the law?

Advice appreciated.

nhunter100

varuka wrote:

Tenant moves into dwelling 3 years ago on 01/02/2014 paying 850 euro p/m and lives happily with no rent increases for 3 years until 2 weeks before end of lease the landlord shows up with new lease with rent increase of 100 euro... tenant refuses to sign as 4% rent cap is in affect so 1 week later landlord sends email to tenant saying that he will not be renewing the lease and tenant has to vacate the dwelling at end of lease because tenant did not notify the landlord that he intends to stay past lease end but tenant does want to stay.

Tenant hasn't recieved a rent review in 3 years. Lucky tenant. The 4% cap only applies to identified pressure areas. While 100 extra based on 850 is alot, what are comparable properties renting for? Maybe try and compromise with the LL regarding increase.

Boater123

Invalid reason for terminating a part IV tenancy, LL is in the wrong.

varuka

nhunter100 wrote: »

Tenant hasn't recieved a rent review in 3 years. Lucky tenant. The 4% cap only applies to identified pressure areas. While 100 extra based on 850 is alot, what are comparable properties renting for? Maybe try and compromise with the LL regarding increase.

Edited with location.
Rents for 1 bed apt go from 700 to 1400 in D24 area on daft.
Landlord won't budge on increase.

Michael D Not Higgins

Landlord is in the wrong, wrong notice period and type for rent increase, wrong limit applied, invalid notice of termination, etc. They clearly are ignorant of the law and also of the recent changes. A slam dunk in front of the RTB.

Boater123

Either a LL whom hasn't a clue, or a sly one trying to get around the RPZ legislation by hoping the tenant hasn't a clue.

There are a few things you can do, but the easiest would be to refuse their demands, not sign a new lease, and if the LL has a problem let them bring you to the RTB if they can.

You have strong part IV tenancy rights and it looks like its 4%pa for you for the foreseeable future.

Lucky so and so.

GGTrek

Boater123 wrote: »

Either a LL whom hasn't a clue, or a sly one trying to get around the RPZ legislation by hoping the tenant hasn't a clue.

There are a few things you can do, but the easiest would be to refuse their demands, not sign a new lease, and if the LL has a problem let them bring you to the RTB if they can.

You have strong part IV tenancy rights and it looks like its 4%pa for you for the foreseeable future.

Lucky so and so.

His strong part 4 rights will terminate in exactly one year. If the op wishes to stay there long term I suggest to explain to the landlord without being confrontational.

Boater123

GGTrek wrote: »

His strong part 4 rights will terminate in exactly one year. If the op wishes to stay there long term I suggest to explain to the landlord without being confrontational.

I was thinking of the 6 years. My Bad. Confrontation, as some would see it, has started, rtb dispute was filed by the OP

Still a good deal for the OP, €34pcm rise after 3 years, below market rent, a lengthier notice period than LL is saying now and longer again if needed in 12 months time.

No financial advantage to the LL to get rid in a year either, still will only get 4% with the next tenant. And be down income with down periods associated with change of tenancy, rtb reg fee's, advertising etc.

Claw Hammer

Boater123 wrote: »

I was thinking of the 6 years. My Bad. Confrontation, as some would see it, has started, rtb dispute was filed by the OP

Still a good deal for the OP, €34pcm rise after 3 years, below market rent, a lengthier notice period than LL is saying now and longer again if needed in 12 months time.

No financial advantage to the LL to get rid in a year either, still will only get 4% with the next tenant. And be down income with down periods associated with change of tenancy, rtb reg fee's, advertising etc.

The landlord will need a valid reason to terminate a further part 4.

Claw Hammer

varuka wrote: »

IS the tenant or IS the landlord breaking the law?

Advice appreciated.

How can it be against the law to refer a dispute to the RTB? That is what it is there for, to determine disputes.

Aye Bosun

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The landlord will need a valid reason to terminate a further part 4.

no reason is needed in the first 6 month of the further part 4 tenancy but still needs to give the proper notice ie 112 days.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html

campingcarist

Boater123 wrote: »

I was thinking of the 6 years. My Bad. Confrontation, as some would see it, has started, rtb dispute was filed by the OP

My understanding is that a Further Part 4 tenancy now starts after 6 years, as you were thinking. Am I incorrect?

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The landlord will need a valid reason to terminate a further part 4.

Further part 4 does not kick in for 6 months after the original part 4 ends, in this 6 months no reason is needed to terminate.

campingcarist wrote: »

My understanding is that a Further Part 4 tenancy now starts after 6 years, as you were thinking. Am I incorrect?

Only for tenancies which commenced since the new legislation came in. Any existing tenancy (even if it started one day before the legislation came into force) is still a 4 year part 4 term.

campingcarist

Aubrie Beautiful Riot wrote: »

Only for tenancies which commenced since the new legislation came in. Any existing tenancy (even if it started one day before the legislation came into force) is still a 4 year part 4 term.

Thank you.

varuka

Can someone explain what compensation for losses they're on about in the last sentence in this link...

http://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/the-three-stages-of-a-tenancy/ending-fixed-term-tenancies

Also does partIV tenancy restart from 6 months after each new lease is signed or from initial lease .I signed a new lease last year and the year before.

Sarn

Part IV is dated from the start of the tenancy.

GGTrek

There are so many wrong statements about the law in this thread that I wouldn't know where to start.

1) PART IV rights start 6 months after you have first occupied the dwelling, the additional leases that you sign do not count and you are not obliged to sign them

2) HOWEVER PART IV is not indefinite (as some socialists/communists thinkers of this forum would like), for current tenancies started before 24th of December 2016 it ends at 4 years from the first date of occupation of the dwelling, for tenancies that started afterward it would end at 6 years from the first date of occupation of the dwelling.

3) For tenancies whose 4 years expired after the 24th of December 2016 and received no notice of termination from Landlord, PART IV is automatically renewed right from the first day for 6 years (the first 6 months of the further part tenancy are gone with the repeal of section 42)

4) If landlord provides a notice of termination before the 4 years are up with at least 112 days of notice period and this notice expires after the 4 years, PART IV rights are deemed terminated and the tenant HAS to vacate (which in plain English means he can be evicted). There are reasons to provide for this type of termination, but they are not the reasons that people think (like sale or own use or breach of tenancy obligations), they could be as simple as "you have paid your rent late by one day once" or "the landlord does not wish to grant you a new part iv tenancy". Basically when the 4 years/6 years are up, security of tenure for tenant is gone and he can be "forced" to accept a new lease by the landlord, if he wants to remain at the dwelling, with much worse conditions (believe me in the current climate setup by the Irish govvie the conditions will be much worse) or vacate/leave the dwelling.

Someone was saying that the original OP was getting a good deal in contesting the rent review at the RTB and only getting a (possible depends on the specifics of the case which are not clear) 4% increase and the landlord would get no benefit in getting a new tenant in one year time since he could not increase rent. Well I beg to strongly disagree, a tenant that takes the landlord to RTB without first negotiating or trying to mediate with him is going to cause the landlord a lot of aggravations and costs (obviously the naive poster does not undertand how much time and money the RTB process will cost to the landlord) and he is going to go first in the queue for termination when the 4 years are up.

The landlord would be much more likely to find a better tenant (i.e. that costs less money and time) than him in the open market even if the rent was set at the same level as previous tenant (what counts is net rent, not gross rent!). In addition when part IV rights are gone, the law that says that rent level should be the same as previous lease is for all practical purposes unenforceable and impossible to monitor (RTB database is all over the place and even address details are verified with the parties and corrected by RTB officers when setting up a dispute!). Through the new lease various service charges can be added leaving nominal rent at the same level, but increasing net rent which is what matters: with new lease the landlord has numerous ways to circumvent the limitations set.

<mod snip: on thread discussion of moderation is contrary to the forum charter>

So if a tenant really cares about staying at the property long term, the RTB should be his absolute last option, not the first one as suggested by many posters in this forum. A long term tenancy needs a good long term business relationship with the landlord, a good business relationship needs good negotiating, negotiating means taking and giving (some posters here are missing the giving part of negotiating). RTB is the easy escape valve short term for the tenant, but long term it will hit the tenant hard.

Sarn

In this case Part IV rights were obtained after 6 months but they are dated from the commencement of the tenancy when considering the 4/6 year period.

Browney7

@GGTrek all well and good with you speech there but there is no excusing the conduct of the landlord here - he's either ignorant of the law (which you are entitled to disagree with) or he's chancing his arm trying to get a rent increase outside the law by threatening the tenant. Neither situation should be tolerated by the tenant and landlord should be told in the nicest possible way to go sing for it.

PhoenixParker

I thought the rent review max was 4% per year not 4% fullstop?

In that case a tenancy of 3 years duration without increase, starting at E850, the landlord would be entitled to increase the rent to E956? or E106, meaning the rent increase is potentially legal?

The notice would still have to be compliant.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/rent_increases.html

Rent Pressure Zones: Under the new Rent Predictability Measure, annual rent increases will be allowed in future in designated Rent Pressure Zones. Rent increases in these zones are capped at 4% per year.

. . .

Notice of rent review
The notice of new rent must comply with the provisions of Section 26 of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015. The notice must:

State the amount of new rent and the date from which is to have effect
Include a statement that any dispute about the setting of the rent must be referred to the RTB before the date the new rent takes effect, or within 28 days from the date that the tenant gets the notice, whichever is the later
Include a statement by the landlord that, in their opinion, the new rent is not greater than the market rent, having regard to the other terms of the tenancy and to letting values of dwellings of a similar size, type and character and situated in a comparable area
Specify the rent amount being asked for 3 dwellings of a similar size, type and character and in a comparable area, which have been advertised for rent in the 4-week period immediately before the notice
Be signed by the landlord or their authorised agent and include the date on which it was signed
In a Rent Pressure Zone designated under the Rent Predictability Measure, the notice must also comply with Section 35 of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016.

In a Rent Pressure Zone, the landlord must also provide information and calculations to demonstrate that the rent increase is not more than 4% per year for the period since the rent was last set.
The RTB has published a sample notice of rent review, which includes the extra information required in Rent Pressure Zones.

GGTrek

Browney7 wrote: »

@GGTrek all well and good with you speech there but there is no excusing the conduct of the landlord here - he's either ignorant of the law (which you are entitled to disagree with) or he's chancing his arm trying to get a rent increase outside the law by threatening the tenant. Neither situation should be tolerated by the tenant and landlord should be told in the nicest possible way to go sing for it.

Landlord in this case looks either unprofessional or trying his chances, but from initial post it is not possible to understand if the tenant tried to explain and negotiate the situation with landlord, it looks like tenant does not seem to appreciate that he had the good fortune of paying well below market for many years and should try to communicate and negotiate the situation before going to RTB. Especially knowing that his four years are up in exactly 12 months taking straight away a case to RTB is not the smart solution if he wants to stay long term at the property, the landlord will probably hire a solicitor that will advise him to kick the tenant out in 12 months time.
Some landlords are just d@@ks (I met a few) but in my long experience with tenants I would say 70% of tenants are completely unable to negotiate or communicate and in very few cases they act in bad faith which for me is unforgivable in a business relationship.

Boater123

GGTrek wrote: »

Someone was saying that the original OP was getting a good deal in contesting the rent review at the RTB and only getting a (possible depends on the specifics of the case which are not clear) 4% increase and the landlord would get no benefit in getting a new tenant in one year time since he could not increase rent. Well I beg to strongly disagree, a tenant that takes the landlord to RTB without first negotiating or trying to mediate with him is going to cause the landlord a lot of aggravations and costs (obviously the naive poster does not undertand how much time and money the RTB process will cost to the landlord) and he is going to go first in the queue for termination when the 4 years are up.

...Through the new lease various service charges can be added leaving nominal rent at the same level, but increasing net rent which is what matters...

I said the new laws have left the OP in good circumstances, not a rtb adjudication

I am not "naive" and can understand perfectly how a RTB hearing can cause a LL time and expense. (And in this case the LL deserves every lost minute and cent, for trying to pull a fast one)

And I still maintain that it would be a stupid LL that takes such a course of action due to a "grudge" and ignore sound financial reasoning. The LL still might decide to terminate after 48 months, but what should a tenant do, take an illegal rent increase just to keep the LL happy.

Whether the RTB database is in a mess or not (and I don't know how you can decide what state it is in or what plans are in the pipeline to improve), a higher rent increase than is permitted is still illegal.

And I'm sure the RTB will deem new charges as a way to increase "net rent" just as you have said, despite what you meant.

You do realize that you are advocating that a tenant in this situation should just ignore their rights, and "negotiate" a new rent higher than that permitted by law..... all to keep the big bad LL happy so he doesn't throw you out in 12 months time?

3DataModem

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The landlord will need a valid reason to terminate a further part 4.

A reason. Not a valid reason.

4ensic15

3DataModem wrote: »

A reason. Not a valid reason.

A valid reason must be given under Part 34.

varuka

Boater123 wrote: »

I said the new laws have left the OP in good circumstances, not a rtb adjudication

I am not "naive" and can understand perfectly how a RTB hearing can cause a LL time and expense. (And in this case the LL deserves every lost minute and cent, for trying to pull a fast one)

And I still maintain that it would be a stupid LL that takes such a course of action due to a "grudge" and ignore sound financial reasoning. The LL still might decide to terminate after 48 months, but what should a tenant do, take an illegal rent increase just to keep the LL happy.

Whether the RTB database is in a mess or not (and I don't know how you can decide what state it is in or what plans are in the pipeline to improve), a higher rent increase than is permitted is still illegal.

And I'm sure the RTB will deem new charges as a way to increase "net rent" just as you have said, despite what you meant.

You do realize that you are advocating that a tenant in this situation should just ignore their rights, and "negotiate" a new rent higher than that permitted by law..... all to keep the big bad LL happy so he doesn't throw you out in 12 months time?

This tenant must agree with you here. The RTB was setup for disputes and for people to do everything by the law. In my case the the landlord gave me 2 weeks to sign a new invalid lease which i didn't and so he's trying to get me out of the property so he can get he's 100 euro increase even though he might knows that the 4% rule applies for new tenants too.

The landlord wants the property vacated by end of lease(in 4 days) and the landlord said he has cancelled the rent standing order( which he can't do) further to intimidate.

The 2 parties have been in rent review negotiation through email for about a week which turned into eviction emails which made me the tenant go to friends and Threshold which recommended to open a dispute with RTB.

So fellow tenants if negotiations fail then go to RTB.
Don't be bullied.

varuka

4ensic15 wrote: »

A valid reason must be given under Part 34.

It's all good and well bringing up laws and numbers but a lot of tenants won't know or understand those laws and numbers.
Landlords will take advantage of this to their benefit.

So fellow tenants go to Threshold and get help/ clarity.

GGTrek

I shall give an example of negotiating ability and I am not advocating to break the law. If the tenant undestands that he has the good fortune of paying well below market rent he can tell the landlord: "My understanding is that you can only increase 4% but I will perform small repairs out of my own pocket or pay for a re-painting of a room in bad need of a redecoration if you offer me a new long term lease that complies with new regulations". These are smart negotiating tactics, if instead the tenant tells the landlord: "screw you, it is my right, I take you to RTB" like some posters here suggest, then the tenant is not very smart in a long term view, he is not offering anything but aggravation to the landlord and landlord will terminate at first possible occasion. It is not a "grudge" for the landlord, it just does not make any business sense to keep a tenant like the second one. You might have a different opinion, but I am giving you a clear view of the landlord side. The first tenant is smart and the second one very naive, since reality is not as simple as the law or the Irish govvie would like it to be.

With the new rent controls and a property rented at well below market, the landlord has every incentive to legally terminate tenancy and leave the property empty for 2 years in order to recover market value for sale: this is the law of unintended consequences that the Irish govvie and the naive tenants did not think about.

varuka

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I thought the rent review max was 4% per year not 4% fullstop?

In that case a tenancy of 3 years duration without increase, starting at E850, the landlord would be entitled to increase the rent to E956? or E106, meaning the rent increase is potentially legal?

The notice would still have to be compliant.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/rent_increases.html

It's 4% going forward from valid written notice date (90 days) not retrospectively.

Browney7

GGTrek wrote: »

I shall give an example of negotiating ability and I am not advocating to break the law. If the tenant undestands that he has the good fortune of paying well below market rent he can tell the landlord: "My understanding is that you can only increase 4% but I will perform small repairs out of my own pocket or pay for a re-painting of a room in bad need of a redecoration if you offer me a new long term lease that complies with new regulations". These are smart negotiating tactics, if instead the tenant tells the landlord: "screw you, it is my right, I take you to RTB" like some posters here suggest, then the tenant is not very smart in a long term view, he is not offering anything but aggravation to the landlord and landlord will terminate at first possible occasion. It is not a "grudge" for the landlord, it just does not make any business sense to keep a tenant like the second one. You might have a different opinion, but I am giving you a clear view of the landlord side. The first tenant is smart and the second one very naive, since reality is not as simple as the law or the Irish govvie would like it to be.

With the new rent controls and a property rented at well below market, the landlord has every incentive to legally terminate tenancy and leave the property empty for 2 years in order to recover market value for sale: this is the law of unintended consequences that the Irish govvie and the naive tenants did not think about.

In fairness this case from what the OP says is a slam dunk in his favour. Negotiations have failed. The threat of the RTB in this case should be enough for any landlord with 2 brain cells to rub together to desist with his actions and reissue a valid review. If he's idiotic enough to actually contest it he has no one but himself to blame for the hassle he's bringing on himself.

In the OP's case I'd give the advice "never argue with stupidity, it drags you down to it's level and beats you with experience"

varuka

Browney7 wrote: »

In fairness this case from what the OP says is a slam dunk in his favour. Negotiations have failed. The threat of the RTB in this case should be enough for any landlord with 2 brain cells to rub together to desist with his actions and reissue a valid review. If he's idiotic enough to actually contest it he has no one but himself to blame for the hassle he's bringing on himself.

In the OP's case I'd give the advice "never argue with stupidity, it drags you down to it's level and beats you with experience"

Yes that's why negotiations were halted and RTB were brought in to deal with my case. RTB will sort out the stupidity.

Boater123

GGTrek wrote: »

...... You might have a different opinion, but I am giving you a clear view of the landlord side.....

......With the new rent controls and a property rented at well below market, the landlord has every incentive to legally terminate tenancy and leave the property empty for 2 years in order to recover market value for sale....

I don't want to argue the 4% with you anymore, an illegal rent increase is an illegal rent increase. It's deflection to say that you were suggesting tenants should under take maintenance rather than pay more than legal rent limits. It is also weak argument and an impractical suggestion.

How would you enforce it if the tenant decided not to keep up their end of the bargain?

How do you get around the bit about it being the legal responsibility of the LL? For the next 6 years with new tenants?

Thank you for your clear view but I am a landlord, 26 years next September, and I can assure you that's not the clear view of every LL. The tenant would have to have done a lot more than pull me up on an illegal NOT and rent increase for me to terminate.

Then again I never would have thought to try a path of illegal NOT and RI.

Go down 2 years rent to return to a market where prices are unknown??

Heh!!

To use the OP's case as example the LL goes down current gross rent of €850 by 24 months so €20,400, not including +4%pa, plus incur LPT, insurance, upkeep, security risk, possible management fee's, etc. Only to return to a future property market where then prices are unknown and both sale and rent markets could be vastly different than today. That's some risk.

4ensic15

Aye Bosun wrote: »

no reason is needed in the first 6 month of the further part 4 tenancy but still needs to give the proper notice ie 112 days.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html

The provision allowing the termination of a further part 4 has been abolished.

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

The provision allowing the termination of a further part 4 has been abolished.

The tenancy will reset after the elapse of the current Part IV - and there are set reasons for ending the tenancy- one of which has to be used- you can't just take the property back as you could under the old legislation.

GGTrek

The_Conductor wrote: »

4ensic15 wrote: »

The provision allowing the termination of a further part 4 has been abolished.

The tenancy will reset after the elapse of the current Part IV - and there are set reasons for ending the tenancy- one of which has to be used- you can't just take the property back as you could under the old legislation.

There are no sets of reasons in the RTA 2004 to 2016 for a section 34(b) notice of termination. As I said in previous post which was heavily criticised by people with limited knowledge of the legislation, section 34(b) termination notice has not been abolished by the RTA 2016 (AAA and Sinn Fein almost managed to do this last week):

"If landlord provides a notice of termination before the 4 years are up with at least 112 days of notice period and this notice expires after the 4 years, PART IV rights are deemed terminated and the tenant HAS to vacate (which in plain English means he can be evicted). There are reasons to provide for this type of termination, but they are not the reasons that people think (like sale or own use or breach of tenancy obligations), they could be as simple as "you have paid your rent late by one day once" or "the landlord does not wish to grant you a new part iv tenancy". Basically when the 4 years/6 years are up, security of tenure for tenant is gone and he can be "forced" to accept a new lease by the landlord or risk termination."
Check directly with the RTB, this is a "very badly drafted" section 34(b) notice template:
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/sample-notice---terminating-before-a-further-part-4-commences-16-01-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=2

That is why I am repeating to the original OP, you run a serious risk of your tenancy being legally terminated in 12 months time, even if you win this RTB case and even if your landlord is very unprofessional and a chancer. My suggestion is to plan for what is going to happen in 9-12 months.

This is not a popularity contest, the OP has skin-in-the game and he is risking his place where he lives unlike many popular posters in this thread, he should be told what he is risking, instead of "he is getting a good deal" by going to RTB. In my opinion his tenancy beyond the 12 months horizon is seriously compromised given that on 01/02/2018 his part 4 rights end.

Boater123

GGTrek wrote: »

There are no sets of reasons in the RTA 2004 to 2016 for a section 34(b) notice of termination. As I said in previous post which was heavily criticised by people with limited knowledge of the legislation, section 34(b) termination notice has not been abolished by the RTA 2016 (AAA and Sinn Fein almost managed to do this last week):

"If landlord provides a notice of termination before the 4 years are up with at least 112 days of notice period and this notice expires after the 4 years, PART IV rights are deemed terminated and the tenant HAS to vacate (which in plain English means he can be evicted). There are reasons to provide for this type of termination, but they are not the reasons that people think (like sale or own use or breach of tenancy obligations), they could be as simple as "you have paid your rent late by one day once" or "the landlord does not wish to grant you a new part iv tenancy". Basically when the 4 years/6 years are up, security of tenure for tenant is gone and he can be "forced" to accept a new lease by the landlord or risk termination."
Check directly with the RTB, this is a "very badly drafted" section 34(b) notice template:
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/sample-notice---terminating-before-a-further-part-4-commences-16-01-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=2

That is why I am repeating to the original OP, you run a serious risk of your tenancy being legally terminated in 12 months time, even if you win this RTB case and even if your landlord is very unprofessional and a chancer. My suggestion is to plan for what is going to happen in 9-12 months.

This is not a popularity contest, the OP has skin-in-the game and he is risking his place where he lives unlike many popular posters in this thread, he should be told what he is risking, instead of "he is getting a good deal" by going to RTB. In my opinion his tenancy beyond the 12 months horizon is seriously compromised given that on 01/02/2018 his part 4 rights end.

You keep advising the OP and those in their situation that they run the risk of their tenancy being legally terminated in 12 months time. And I can only think that this is something that a unprofessional chancer of a LL would consider. The fact that you keep flaming on about it makes me think that this is what you personally would do in these circumstances.

Don't you get it. Faced with that which the OP faces, whats a tenant supposed to do??? Bend over as you're suggesting! Please answer at least this one, please.

When you're at it could you also address the points that you were pulled up on so far in this thread

• You originally implied op should have negotiated an illegal rent increase to keep the LL happy
• You said tenants should accept maintenance obligations on the property instead of illegal rent rises
• You maintain LL's in this situation should just take the property off the rental market for two years then sell.
• That LL's introduce "fee's", yet admit this is just an attempt to circumvent the law and to increase your rental income

Claw Hammer

GGTrek wrote: »

There are no sets of reasons in the RTA 2004 to 2016 for a section 34(b) notice of termination. As I said in previous post which was heavily criticised by people with limited knowledge of the legislation, section 34(b) termination notice has not been abolished by the RTA 2016 (AAA and Sinn Fein almost managed to do this last week):

"If landlord provides a notice of termination before the 4 years are up with at least 112 days of notice period and this notice expires after the 4 years, PART IV rights are deemed terminated and the tenant HAS to vacate (which in plain English means he can be evicted). There are reasons to provide for this type of termination, but they are not the reasons that people think (like sale or own use or breach of tenancy obligations), they could be as simple as "you have paid your rent late by one day once" or "the landlord does not wish to grant you a new part iv tenancy". Basically when the 4 years/6 years are up, security of tenure for tenant is gone and he can be "forced" to accept a new lease by the landlord or risk termination."
Check directly with the RTB, this is a "very badly drafted" section 34(b) notice template:
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/sample-notice---terminating-before-a-further-part-4-commences-16-01-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=2

That is why I am repeating to the original OP, you run a serious risk of your tenancy being legally terminated in 12 months time, even if you win this RTB case and even if your landlord is very unprofessional and a chancer. My suggestion is to plan for what is going to happen in 9-12 months.

This is not a popularity contest, the OP has skin-in-the game and he is risking his place where he lives unlike many popular posters in this thread, he should be told what he is risking, instead of "he is getting a good deal" by going to RTB. In my opinion his tenancy beyond the 12 months horizon is seriously compromised given that on 01/02/2018 his part 4 rights end.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7F4D66320A5B7A3880257F5C00349E68

Look at this case. A reason has to be given.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7F4D66320A5B7A3880257F5C00349E68

Look at this case. A reason has to be given.

Yes but any reason at all. "My dog doesn't like the colour of your shoes"' would suffice.

Edit: on reading the case you linked it actually says a reason does not have to be given, RTB found in favour of the LL, the tenant appealed but not on grounds of no reason given and the case was referred to another tribunal.

LuckyLloyd

varuka wrote: »

Tenant moves into dwelling in D24 area 3 years ago on 01/02/2014 paying 850 euro p/m and lives happily with no rent increases for 3 years until 2 weeks before end of lease the landlord shows up with new lease with rent increase of 100 euro... tenant refuses to sign as 4% rent cap is in affect so 1 week later landlord sends email to tenant saying that he will not be renewing the lease and tenant has to vacate the dwelling at end of lease because tenant did not notify the landlord that he intends to stay past lease end but tenant does want to stay.

So tenant thinks the invalid rent notice is turning into an invalid termination.
PRTB dispute filed by tenant.
IS the tenant or IS the landlord breaking the law?

Advice appreciated.

The landlord is in the wrong.

- max increase allowed is 4%
- earliest date he can look to give you a termination notice with any old reason is 01/02/18, which will be subject to 112 days notice period

The PRTB will rule in the tenant's favour. The tenant should 1) stay and 2) continue to pay 850E per month

4ensic15

Brooklyn Bewildered Window wrote: »

Yes but any reason at all. "My dog doesn't like the colour of your shoes"' would suffice.

Edit: on reading the case you linked it actually says a reason does not have to be given, RTB found in favour of the LL, the tenant appealed but not on grounds of no reason given and the case was referred to another tribunal.

.

Where are you getting that nonsense from? Ther Court found the RTB had got the law wrong regarding not giving a reason.

From the case report:

Part 1: Issue
1. Must a notice of termination served on a ‘Part 4 tenant’ under s.34(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, as amended, state a reason for that termination?

11. Section 62(1) sits in Part 5. It requires that “A notice of termination to be valid shall…(e) if the duration of the tenancy is a period of more than 6 months, state (where the termination is by the landlord) the reason for the termination”. There is nothing in the Act of 2004 to suggest that this requirement does not apply to the notice of termination that is required under s.34(b).Thus the court’s answer to the question posed in the opening sentence of this judgment is that a notice of termination served on a ‘Part 4 tenant’ under s.34(b) of the Act of 2004 must state a reason for that termination.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

.

Where are you getting that nonsense from? Ther Court found the RTB had got the law wrong regarding not giving a reason.

From the case report:

Part 1: Issue
1. Must a notice of termination served on a ‘Part 4 tenant’ under s.34(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, as amended, state a reason for that termination?

11. Section 62(1) sits in Part 5. It requires that “A notice of termination to be valid shall…(e) if the duration of the tenancy is a period of more than 6 months, state (where the termination is by the landlord) the reason for the termination”. There is nothing in the Act of 2004 to suggest that this requirement does not apply to the notice of termination that is required under s.34(b).Thus the court’s answer to the question posed in the opening sentence of this judgment is that a notice of termination served on a ‘Part 4 tenant’ under s.34(b) of the Act of 2004 must state a reason for that termination.

I read it very quickly but took the below to mean that as the notice complied otherwise that the omission of a reason could be overlooked as a "slip or omission" and would not render a notice invalid. I may be wrong though as I only skimmed the details and read only the conclusion in detail.

Should the Tenancy Tribunal so convened consider it proper to invoke s.64A of the Act of 2004 it may or may not wish to note this Court’s view that (a) the omission of the reason for the termination from the notice of termination of 18th June, 2014, has not resulted in any prejudice of the type described in s.64A(a) of the Act of 2004, and (b) apart from the omission of the reason for termination, the notice of termination of 18th June, 2014, appears otherwise to be in compliance with the Act of 2004; indeed the contrary appears never to have been pleaded by Ms Dunivya.

4ensic15

Brooklyn Bewildered Window wrote: »

I read it very quickly but took the below to mean that as the notice complied otherwise that the omission of a reason could be overlooked as a "slip or omission" and would not render a notice invalid. I may be wrong though as I only skimmed the details and read only the conclusion in detail.

You entirely missed the finding of the Court that a reason was required. You also said the tenant appealed on some other ground, which is utterly wrong. The court was only suggesting that the omission could be dealt with using the accidental slip rule. Legal judgments have to be read in their entirety, not just the last paragraph.

varuka

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The landlord is in the wrong.

- max increase allowed is 4%
- earliest date he can look to give you a termination notice with any old reason is 01/02/18, which will be subject to 112 days notice period

The PRTB will rule in the tenant's favour. The tenant should 1) stay and 2) continue to pay 850E per month

Thats what i'll be doing. Better to have 12 months to vacate that 1 or 2 weeks.

So 850 + 4% = 884 right?

Michael D Not Higgins

varuka wrote: »

Thats what i'll be doing. Better to have 12 months to vacate that 1 or 2 weeks.

So 850 + 4% = 884 right?

Based on your OP, assuming the correct notice was given (90 days) and for simplicity say the notice is sent on the third anniversary of the start of the tenancy.

The formula is R x (1 + 0.04 x t/m). t in this instance would be 36 months plus the 3 months notice and m would be 24 since it's the first rent review. This means the allowable increase is 6.5% or ~€55.

varuka

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Based on your OP, assuming the correct notice was given (90 days) and for simplicity say the notice is sent on the third anniversary of the start of the tenancy.

The formula is R x (1 + 0.04 x t/m). t in this instance would be 36 months plus the 3 months notice and m would be 24 since it's the first rent review. This means the allowable increase is 6.5% or ~€55.

Threshold told me that if valid written rent review comes after 27/01/2017 then it's only max increase of 4% full stop. So 850 + 4% = 884 euro... but i'd settle at an even 50.

Michael D Not Higgins

varuka wrote: »

Threshold told me that if valid written rent review comes after 27/01/2017 then it's only max increase of 4% full stop. So 850 + 4% = 884 euro... but i'd settle at an even 50.

Threshold are wrong, and not for the first time. The RTB examples are clear on the increase allowed, see example 1 for instance.

The_Conductor

varuka wrote: »

Threshold told me that if valid written rent review comes after 27/01/2017 then it's only max increase of 4% full stop. So 850 + 4% = 884 euro... but i'd settle at an even 50.

Do not rely on information supplied by Threshold- they are on record (on RTE and elsewhere) supplying seriously dubious advice to tenants.

varuka

The_Conductor wrote: »

Do not rely on information supplied by Threshold- they are on record (on RTE and elsewhere) supplying seriously dubious advice to tenants.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Threshold are wrong, and not for the first time. The RTB examples are clear on the increase allowed, see example 1 for instance.

RTB will have a rent calculator up soon which will make things easier for tenants and landlords.

Threshold might not get all their facts straight but they are very helpful for tenants with concerns.

Galadriel

varuka wrote: »

Threshold might not get all their facts straight but they are very helpful for tenants with concerns.

But not if their facts are wrong and or misleading!

Michael D Not Higgins

Galadriel wrote: »

But not if their facts are wrong and or misleading!

Exactly. In fact there's only one situation where 4% is the max increase allowed, that's the second (and subsequent) rent increase after the new law came in and only if the review and notice periods are on the same dates.

Example 1, an existing tenancy can only have a review 24 months after the last or the start of the tenancy. If there were a rent review two years ago with 28 days notice under the old law, i.e. review 31st Jan 2015, new rent 28th Feb, the next review is allowed 31st Jan 2017 with 90 days notice for new rent 1st May. That's 26 months between the two new rents. That allows for 4%*26/24 or 4.33% increase. If the tenancy started on 31st Jan 2015, the difference is 27 months between rent and increase allowed is 4.5%.

Example 2, new tenancy after introduction of cap. Say it starts today and an rent review is allowed in one year on 31st Jan 2018 with 90 days notice. That's a period of 15 months between start of tenancy and new rent. So the formula is 4%*15/12 which is 5% allowed increase.

Example 3, the only case where 4% is the max is when it's the second review.
3a. For an existing tenancy which has the first review today and second on 31st Jan 2018, the second new rent comes in on the same date in 2018 as the first new rent in 2017 so the formula is 4%*12/12 or 4% max.
3b. For a new tenancy starting today, first review is 31st Jan 2018 and second review is 31st Jan 2019 with both rents coming into force on the same date 90 days after the review. Again the formula would then be 4%*12/12 or 4% max.

spaceHopper

Sorry for your trouble OP but you are in a sticly situation.

The LL can only increas the rent 4% or maybe a bit more, even if there is a new tennant, make sure that he finds this out from the RTB.

From a LL's side it's very fustrating, he's been good to you in the past and kept the rent low. Now he's after been made a fool of by the goverment.

If he's had jacked up the rent each year to keep pace with inflation or market rates he's be OK but now for who knows how long he's locked in to below market rates while everybody lease is charging more and there is very little he can do about it.

If he see you as a good tennant who keeps the place well and pays on time that's OK you may get to stay. But as far as I know you are covered under the old part four rules. I a year he can ask you to leave with out a reason. That's changes undere the new rules but it may not apply to existing tennants, you need to check that!!!!

If you can win him over you'll be fine but if you can't he'll ask you go in a year (if he can). The thing is he can't increase the rent more that 4% then either so maybe you can convince him it's not worth the risk of a bad tennant moving in after you. Having to pay to have the place painted ......