What is "substantial refurbishment"

Fol20

Hi Guys,

Im just trying to identify what "substantial refurbishment" means.

To me the following, individually or separately would count as this:

Replace kitchen
Replace boiler
Replace heaters/rads
Replace floor/carpet
Replace toilets
Replace tiling

Can anyone shed some light on what this means from a rental point of view?

Ms Doubtfire1

I don't think any of that falls under substantial refurbishment. I think one of the qualifications for that is that the house has to be deemed uninhabitable while the refurbishments are carried out. Non of the works quoted above require that i.m.h.o

whiskeyman

If an EA is using the term 'substantial refurbishment', I'd consider that said property needs to be totally rebuilt!

:pac:

whiskeyman

whiskeyman wrote: »

If an EA is using the term 'substantial refurbishment', I'd consider that said property needs to be totally rebuilt!

:pac:

Not in all cases to be fair...........



My ole lad sold his mothers house a while back, 10 years after she passed away. No central heating (storage heater in living room and master bedroom iirc), was uninhabited for 10 years +, rear extension needed a rough but it wasn't leaking to be fair. 1960s kitchen, bathroom & decor etc.

The description was "........... in need of re-furbishment....... this property is in need of substantial re-furbishment and modernisation."

All said and done it wasn't too bad, structurally sound, had PVC windows to the front.

Was more than a DIY project but not too bad.

Selik

OP That is substantial refurbishment in my book assuming all being done at the same time. If it is an apartment you're referring to the there is not much else you can do!

Can you clarify in what context you are asking this question?

whiskeyman

whiskeyman wrote: »

If an EA is using the term 'substantial refurbishment', I'd consider that said property needs to be totally rebuilt!

:pac:

The OP is asking "from a rental point of view".

OP, Ms Doubtfire is right. Substantial refurbishment should require "vacant possession" which wouldn't be the case for any or all of the items on your list .... OK, maybe ALL.

Threshold states:

Threshold wrote:

Substantial Refurbishment or Renovation

Your landlord can give notice if vacant possession is required for the substantial refurbishment or rennovation of the dwelling. The notice must contain or be accompanied by a written statement specifying the nature of the work and if planning permission is required this must be included. Where no planning permission is required it should identify the contractor where relevant, the nature of the work and the proposed duration of the intended works. The statement must also inform you that should the property become available to rent again within 6 months then, providing you keep the landlord updated with your contact details you are offered the tenancy back.

Fian

The OP i am assuming is asking in the context of the rent pressure zone legislation.

It is difficult to be certain what will satisfy the test. We will have to see what approach RTB takes. I would not be taking any guideance from Threshold on the issue.

I would be of the view that changing kitchen, or boiler & rads, would constitute substantial refurbishment.

RTB state as follows on their website:

A ‘substantial refurbishment’ must be a significant change to the dwelling resulting in increased market value of the tenancy. Therefore this would involve significant alterations or improvements which add to the letting value of the property - usually involving major building works or works requiring planning permission. For example, simple repainting or replacement of white goods would not be sufficient.

Ms Doubtfire1

It's an interesting question.

Fian

Fian wrote: »

. I would not be taking any guideance from Threshold on the issue

What Threshold says above is exactly what the PRTB say:

http://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/sample-notices-of-termination

A Notice of Termination using the reason that the landlord intends to substantially refurbish or renovate the dwelling to terminate the tenancy must now be accompanied by a statement specifying:
· What is the nature of the intended works to be carried out and where planning permission has been obtained a copy of it must be attached to the notice and the statement.
· Where planning permission is not required the following must be provided
o The name of the contractor, if any, employed to carry out the intended works
o The dates on which the intended works are to be carried out
o The proposed duration of the intended works
• State that the landlord acknowledges that they must offer to re-let the dwelling to the tenant where the tenant has provided them with their contact details and the following conditions are met
o The dwelling becomes available for re-letting within six months of the expiry of the notice or six months from the final determination of a dispute, if there was one
o The tenancy to which the notice relates to had not been terminated validly citing grounds 1, 2, 3 or 6 of the reasons set out in the Table to section 34 of the Act.
• The statement must be in writing, dated and signed by the landlord or his or her authorised agent

Fol20

Fian wrote: »

The OP i am assuming is asking in the context of the rent pressure zone legislation.

It is difficult to be certain what will satisfy the test. We will have to see what approach RTB takes. I would not be taking any guideance from Threshold on the issue.

I would be of the view that changing kitchen, or boiler & rads, would constitute substantial refurbishment.

RTB state as follows on their website:

A ‘substantial refurbishment’ must be a significant change to the dwelling resulting in increased market value of the tenancy. Therefore this would involve significant alterations or improvements which add to the letting value of the property - usually involving major building works or works requiring planning permission. For example, simple repainting or replacement of white goods would not be sufficient.

Hey guys, if you will purchasing a vacant property in the near future, im just trying to identify the above if that helps.

76544567

OP dont let anyone tell you the following arent major

Replace kitchen
Replace floor/carpet
Replace toilets

Nobody could live in a property when that work is going on unless the property is huge.

Also you most likely dont have a contractor at the point you need to issue notice etc.
And you may even be doing the work yourself.
Ive done the above recently myself and I can tell you it was major work.
But its like a brand new property after it, so worth it if you get the return on rent. I wouldnt bother otherwise.

Remember too that the day the RTB declare any of the works in your list not major is the day all investors stop doing those jobs forever in rentals. There would be no chance to ever claw back the money spent on them, so why do them.

Fol20

Fol20 wrote: »

Can anyone shed some light on what this means from a rental point of view?

Fol20 wrote: »

if you will purchasing a vacant property in the near future, im just trying to identify the above if that helps.

OP, you'll need to clarify. Is this about "substantially refurbishing" a rental property or buying a property that needs "substantial refurbishing".

76544567 wrote: »

OP dont let anyone tell you the following arent major

Replace kitchen
Replace floor/carpet
Replace toilets

Nobody could live in a property when that work is going on unless the property is huge

Of course they could, and they do all the time.

76544567

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course they could, and they do all the time.

They do if its their own house they are doing up. They even live in caravans and sheds if its their own house.

But not when renting they dont.

Imagine my tenants living in the apartment while there were 3 weeks with no kitchen, toilet, dust everywhere, no floors bar dusty concrete. No doors hanging. And the dust gets everywhere. Noise and dust til all hours and all day too. Windows open 24 hours a day, to let the fumes and heat out. Beds and furniture and white goods all piled up to the ceiling in one corner of the living room, while we work in the other areas. And thats only the tip of the iceberg. I dont think so.

Gatling

76544567 wrote: »

They do if its their own house they are doing up. They even live in caravans and sheds if its their own house.

But not when renting they dont.

Imagine my tenants living in the apartment while there were 3 weeks with no kitchen, toilet, dust everywhere, no floors bar dusty concrete. No doors hanging. And the dust gets everywhere. Noise and dust til all hours and all day too. Windows open 24 hours a day, to let the fumes and heat out.

It's an apartment not a palace it certainly would not take 3 weeks to install a kitchen , toilet or carpets ,
We had our heating system replaced by our landlord recently which included replacing 5 rads and a boiler it was all done in one day with very little disruption ,

76544567

Gatling wrote: »

It's an apartment not a palace it certainly would not take 3 weeks to install a kitchen , toilet or carpets ,
We had our heating system replaced by our landlord recently which included replacing 5 rads and a boiler it was all done in one day with very little disruption ,

That's a simple job. I could do that in a day myself too. Not the same thing at all.

Fol20

Deleted User wrote: »

OP, you'll need to clarify. Is this about "substantially refurbishing" a rental property or buying a property that needs "substantial refurbishing".



Of course they could, and they do all the time.

This is about substantially refurbishing a rental property And like i mentioned all the above even on their own are a big improvement and improve the value of the property. What would you prefer , an old fashioned carpets made in the 40's or brand new laminate flooring. Old rads that are not BER efficient and take ages to heat or the new ones that heat up extremely quickly. Im living in a place right now trying to do work at the same time and we dont have heating, or even a shower installed yet. lets just say it wouldnt be practical for a renter to be in the same conditions

Fol20

76544567 wrote: »

They do if its their own house they are doing up. They even live in caravans and sheds if its their own house.

But not when renting they dont.

Imagine my tenants living in the apartment while there were 3 weeks with no kitchen, toilet, dust everywhere, no floors bar dusty concrete. No doors hanging. And the dust gets everywhere. Noise and dust til all hours and all day too. Windows open 24 hours a day, to let the fumes and heat out. Beds and furniture and white goods all piled up to the ceiling in one corner of the living room, while we work in the other areas. And thats only the tip of the iceberg. I dont think so.

Dust is a big thing as well.. i had one tenant threatening a law suit as dust got on their clothes.. All of the above work mentioned improve the value of the rental so it should make it more rentable.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

It's an apartment not a palace it certainly would not take 3 weeks to install a kitchen , toilet or carpets ,
We had our heating system replaced by our landlord recently which included replacing 5 rads and a boiler it was all done in one day with very little disruption ,

You could be doing the work yourself in evenings and weekends which can take quite a while to complete.

Boater123

Gatling wrote: »

It's an apartment not a palace it certainly would not take 3 weeks to install a kitchen , toilet or carpets ,
We had our heating system replaced by our landlord recently which included replacing 5 rads and a boiler it was all done in one day with very little disruption ,

So you had no heating for a while.

What if the pipes needed replacing, every floor ripped up for a week would be a health and safety hazard.

A full refurb like the list above would have tenants having to go around day and night in a high viz, hard hat and ventilator mask:D

They'd have to move out.

76544567

Fol20 wrote: »

Dust is a big thing as well.. i had one tenant threatening a law suit as dust got on their clothes.. All of the above work mentioned improve the value of the rental so it should make it more rentable.

To me dust is the biggest issue for any job. Concrete dust being the worst but not the only dust problem.
Dust just gets everywhere no matter what you do to prevent it. Even weeks after you are still cleaning up dust.

76544567

Boater123 wrote: »

So you had no heating for a while.

What if the pipes needed replacing, every floor ripped up for a week would be a health and safety hazard.

A full refurb like the list above would have tenants having to go around day and night in a high viz, hard hat and ventilator mask:D

They'd have to move out.

No they would just be on to the RTB and asking you for compensation and a hotel while.you are at it.

Boater123

76544567 wrote: »

No they would just be on to the RTB and asking you for compensation and a hotel while.you are at it.

And they wouldn't get it because...............substantial refurbishment.

Selik

OP have have bought a rental in a RPZ and wanna refurbish and rent again at market rates?

athtrasna

Selik wrote: »

OP have have bought a rental in a RPZ and wanna refurbish and rent again at market rates?

Please read the thread, this has already been clarified

Victor

Fol20 wrote: »

Replace kitchen
Replace boiler
Replace heaters/rads
Replace floor/carpet
Replace toilets
Replace tiling

Individually, I don't think any of these would count as refurbishment. Collectively, all of them would. Where the line between the two is would be dependent on scale.

Replacing kitchen cupboards / appliances should take a day, at most two if both are happening.

Replacing a boiler should be done in a morning.

Replacing heaters/rads might take 2-3 days, depending on number. It would likely take a bit longer if all piping needs to be replaced, but that would be rare.

Replacing flooring / carpets might take 1 day per story. However, this is redecoration, not refurbishment. If you are replacing the floor structure, that might be another matter.

Replace toilets should take maybe a morning per fitting

Tiling can be removed very quickly from walls (maybe 50% adhesive), harder from floors (maybe 90% adhesive).

Victor

Victor wrote: »

Individually, I don't think any of these would count as refurbishment. Collectively, all of them would. Where the line between the two is would be dependent on scale.

Replacing kitchen cupboards / appliances should take a day, at most two if both are happening.

Replacing a boiler should be done in a morning.

Replacing heaters/rads might take 2-3 days, depending on number. It would likely take a bit longer if all piping needs to be replaced, but that would be rare.

Replacing flooring / carpets might take 1 day per story. However, this is redecoration, not refurbishment. If you are replacing the floor structure, that might be another matter.

Replace toilets should take maybe a morning per fitting

Tiling can be removed very quickly from walls (maybe 50% adhesive), harder from floors (maybe 90% adhesive).

Replacing a kitchen or floors could easily take weeks if doing the work on and off yourself.

Floors could take a long time even for a contractor if they are solid and are being fitted to order with cutting, sanding, multiple coats of varnish etc.

Can't see how anyone of them individually wouldn't count as refurbishment to be honest. As replacing any of the items is refurbishment.

76544567

Julianna Poor Banking wrote: »

Replacing a kitchen or floors could easily take weeks if doing the work on and off yourself.

Floors could take a long time even for a contractor if they are solid and are being fitted to order with cutting, sanding, multiple coats of varnish etc.

Can't see how anyone of them individually wouldn't count as refurbishment to be honest. As replacing any of the items is refurbishment.

I agree with you. And ive done most of those items at one time or another.
People who never did these things dont know the ins and outs of it.
No mention by them of preparation, cleanup, dust everywhere, possibly no electricity or water for times, things going wrong, like sh1t not turning up when its supposed to or things going in and having to be redone again. Or shifting stuff around to make room for the next job.

Ray Palmer

I think the only thing that I would see from the original list as substantial would be replacing a kitchen but in saying that it would need to be more than just replacing units. I would be more inclined to say it only counts if it is a redesign involving moving the sink an cooker around type stuff.
I am not saying it would not be disruptive to be living in a place getting the other stuff done but it would be very mild. Replacing carpets certainly wouldn't be at that level but a new flooring would be.
It is interesting to see what would be seen as substantial refurbishment. Take getting external insulation being added to a property. It is expensive, a big change to the quality of the property but not that disruptive. Probably less disruptive than changing windows. A tenant wouldn't need to move out but it would be substantial change to the property. The wording on the legislation would suggest because the tenant doesn't move out it wouldn't count. At the same time the whole idea of the BER was to encourage people to pay attention to the rating and also suggesting to landlords they should upgrade as it will be vital for your ability to rent.
I am waiting for a tenant to move out before I do any works now as the current legislation makes it the only option to invest in the property and get a return on it. Where as before I would do it for the tenants there.

76544567

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I think the only thing that I would see from the original list as substantial would be replacing a kitchen but in saying that it would need to be more than just replacing units. I would be more inclined to say it only counts if it is a redesign involving moving the sink an cooker around type stuff.
I am not saying it would not be disruptive to be living in a place getting the other stuff done but it would be very mild. Replacing carpets certainly wouldn't be at that level but a new flooring would be.
It is interesting to see what would be seen as substantial refurbishment. Take getting external insulation being added to a property. It is expensive, a big change to the quality of the property but not that disruptive. Probably less disruptive than changing windows. A tenant wouldn't need to move out but it would be substantial change to the property. The wording on the legislation would suggest because the tenant doesn't move out it wouldn't count. At the same time the whole idea of the BER was to encourage people to pay attention to the rating and also suggesting to landlords they should upgrade as it will be vital for your ability to rent.
I am waiting for a tenant to move out before I do any works now as the current legislation makes it the only option to invest in the property and get a return on it. Where as before I would do it for the tenants there.

Agree. There is certainly nothing i it but a loss for the landlord to be doing any type of renovations now unless they can raise the rent to cover the improvements. Even between tenancies this is not possible now. So i see improvements to let properties going to zero now.

Victor

Julianna Poor Banking wrote: »

Replacing a kitchen or floors could easily take weeks if doing the work on and off yourself.

Evicting someone because you can't do a kitchen quickly is inappropriate.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

Evicting someone because you can't do a kitchen quickly is inappropriate.

Says who? There is no rule to say you have to get a super quick and expensive contractor. We have done lots of work in our own home and spent a long time doing it to get it done much cheaper. I would do it the same in a rented property.

Michael D Not Higgins

Substantial refurbishment will be taken as a case by case basis if referred for a dispute to the RTB. How long it takes to replace a kitchen in your spare time is not relevant to whether it's substantial or not.

76544567

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Substantial refurbishment will be taken as a case by case basis if referred for a dispute to the RTB. How long it takes to replace a kitchen in your spare time is not relevant to whether it's substantial or not.

I think you'll find it is a substantial piece of work. My back tells me so after doing it many times. So does my pocket. Replacing a kitchen is not a simple job. And neither is replacing a whole apartments floors on It's own, never mind at the same time as a kitchen or any of the ops other issues.
People seem to think updating properties is a piece of p1ss. But i guess watching others work is easy. So that may be why people think these things are trivial.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Substantial has not been defined by a body of legal precedence as of yet. I feel that it is not reasonable for the definition of substantial to be set based on how long it takes a non expert to do it in their free time.

If a professional could do it in a day I don't think you can call it significant.

__Alex__

Julianna Poor Banking wrote: »

Says who? There is no rule to say you have to get a super quick and expensive contractor. We have done lots of work in our own home and spent a long time doing it to get it done much cheaper. I would do it the same in a rented property.

I'd imagine how long it takes you to complete the work is irrelevant. If you decide to spread it out, that's up to you. There will probably be a guide completion time for each type of work.

76544567

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Substantial has not been defined by a body of legal precedence as of yet. I feel that it is not reasonable for the definition of substantial to be set based on how long it takes a non expert to do it in their free time.

If a professional could do it in a day I don't think you can call it significant.

I would consider myself an expert at doing all kinds of jobs in rental properties. I've been doing them long enough to know what's substantial and what's not.

Though One man's doing it quick is another man's doing it arseways i suppose.

Victor

Julianna Poor Banking wrote: »

Says who? There is no rule to say you have to get a super quick and expensive contractor. We have done lots of work in our own home and spent a long time doing it to get it done much cheaper. I would do it the same in a rented property.

The purpose of the legislation is to protect tenants from abuse. In any case to the RTB, that is what they are looking for. Evicting someone because you can't do a job quickly or promptly is your problem and not one you should transfer to a tenant.

garhjw

Victor wrote: »

The purpose of the legislation is to protect tenants from abuse. In any case to the RTB, that is what they are looking for. Evicting someone because you can't do a job quickly or promptly is your problem and not one you should transfer to a tenant.

Where is this stated in the legislation? Does it say the work has to be completed promptly? Does it say you can't do it yourself? What if you can't afford to pay a contractor to do the work and have to DIY? It's not unreasonable to do work, substantial or otherwise, yourself and in your own time.

4ensic15

garhjw wrote: »

Where is this stated in the legislation? Does it say the work has to be completed promptly? Does it say you can't do it yourself? What if you can't afford to pay a contractor to do the work and have to DIY? It's not unreasonable to do work, substantial or otherwise, yourself and in your own time.

It says the work must be substantial. Just because it takes someone a long time does not make it substantial. Putting a tenant out to indulge in a DIY hobby is unlikely to pass. Quite often if the work takes a long time there is a substantial loss of rent meaning the saving of going the DIY route is reduced or eliminated.

Fol20

4ensic15 wrote: »

It says the work must be substantial. Just because it takes someone a long time does not make it substantial. Putting a tenant out to indulge in a DIY hobby is unlikely to pass. Quite often if the work takes a long time there is a substantial loss of rent meaning the saving of going the DIY route is reduced or eliminated.

It isnt to indulge in a hobby. Its down to cashflow and reducing costs.. Even if it takes one month to complete everything while it would take a few days for a contractor, there is large opportunity cost where savings can be made. Even in PRTb terms, it says it must add value.. Any of the things i mentioned add value so i guess they are substantial refurbishments

4ensic15

Fol20 wrote: »

It isnt to indulge in a hobby. Its down to cashflow and reducing costs.. Even if it takes one month to complete everything while it would take a few days for a contractor, there is large opportunity cost where savings can be made. Even in PRTb terms, it says it must add value.. Any of the things i mentioned add value so i guess they are substantial refurbishments

Guesswork is not enough.

Fol20

4ensic15 wrote: »

Guesswork is not enough.

A lot of what this is is guesswork.. Even how it describes substantial refurbishment is vague and every year its a battle of trying to guess what the government will do next to intervene in the market.

garhjw

4ensic15 wrote: »

It says the work must be substantial. Just because it takes someone a long time does not make it substantial. Putting a tenant out to indulge in a DIY hobby is unlikely to pass. Quite often if the work takes a long time there is a substantial loss of rent meaning the saving of going the DIY route is reduced or eliminated.

Never say doing work DIY wouldn't be substantial. What do you mean substantial loss of rent? Doing something DIY could take 3 weeks vs 1 week for a contractor. I think the cost saving of DIY would be greater than 2 weeks rent if a contractor was used.

CIARAN_BOYLE

garhjw wrote: »

Where is this stated in the legislation? Does it say the work has to be completed promptly? Does it say you can't do it yourself? What if you can't afford to pay a contractor to do the work and have to DIY? It's not unreasonable to do work, substantial or otherwise, yourself and in your own time.

It's not. There's no body of precedence through the courts so we don't know how the word substantial will be interpreted.

Those of us who have some experience with the costs expect that the word substantial be determined by the expectation of a 'reasonable person'. I consider myself reasonable. I would not consider something substantial if a competent professional can do it in two days. You deciding to do it in your own time over three weeks doesn't change my opinion as to whether it's substantial.

76544567

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

It's not. There's no body of precedence through the courts so we don't know how the word substantial will be interpreted.

Those of us who have some experience with the costs expect that the word substantial be determined by the expectation of a 'reasonable person'. I consider myself reasonable. I would not consider something substantial if a competent professional can do it in two days. You deciding to do it in your own time over three weeks doesn't change my opinion as to whether it's substantial.

Well the ops list is a hell of a lot longer than two days work any way you cut corners.

Anyway there is much more at play nowadays. These days no work will be done on properties during tenancies. And if the RTB start to deem substantial work not substantial, well we know where that will go.

CIARAN_BOYLE

76544567 wrote: »

Well the ops list is a hell of a lot longer than two days work any way you cut corners.

Anyway it's a moot point. These days no work will be done on properties during tenancies. And if the RTB start to deem substantial work not substantial, well we know where that will go.

True. Most people are saying anyone of them is not substantial but all of them probably are substantial.

Victor

I spoke to a friend who has worked in property maintenance and refurbishment.

He makes a good point about whether the work makes the property uninhabitable or not. So, if it is a bathroom refurbishment and there is only one bathroom, that is much more likely to be "substantial refurbishment" than a situation where there are several bathrooms.

tradingwizz

There is a lot of conjecture here about what is substantial refurbishment. I talked to a senior representative at both RTB and Dublin City Council. The simple definition of "substantial refurbishment" is if the works "increase the selling price of the property". It's that simple. Everything else regarding whether the property is inhabitable during refurbishment etc is just hearsay.

So basically it is a 2 step process to having permission to increase the rent beyond the RPZ calculator. In my case specifically I have a tenant who is on rent allowance (€950) and wants to join the HAP scheme and go out and work. It makes no sense to go out and work for a HAP of €950 when she already gets rent allowance of €950 for not working at all. For me, I need to get something close to market rent which is €1500-1600 in my area. €1250 would be fine if I got that for HAP and the tenant would be happy too since she can go out and legitimately work.

The 2 steps are:
1) Get RPZ exemption. This is based on satisfying the requirement for substantial refurbishment above.
2) Provide proof of market rent by providing 3 examples of recent rents of similar properties in the area.

The main point here is that exemption is just a *key* to legitimately unlocking rent increase to market rent. It is not depending on the type or size or how many different refurbishments there are. There is also no relationship between the amount invested in the refurbishment and the amount by which you can increase the rent - this is important to know.

davindub

tradingwizz wrote: »

There is a lot of conjecture here about what is substantial refurbishment. I talked to a senior representative at both RTB and Dublin City Council. The simple definition of "substantial refurbishment" is if the works "increase the selling price of the property". It's that simple. Everything else regarding whether the property is inhabitable during refurbishment etc is just hearsay.

So basically it is a 2 step process to having permission to increase the rent beyond the RPZ calculator. In my case specifically I have a tenant who is on rent allowance (€950) and wants to join the HAP scheme and go out and work. It makes no sense to go out and work for a HAP of €950 when she already gets rent allowance of €950 for not working at all. For me, I need to get something close to market rent which is €1500-1600 in my area. €1250 would be fine if I got that for HAP and the tenant would be happy too since she can go out and legitimately work.

The 2 steps are:
1) Get RPZ exemption. This is based on satisfying the requirement for substantial refurbishment above.
2) Provide proof of market rent by providing 3 examples of recent rents of similar properties in the area.

The main point here is that exemption is just a *key* to legitimately unlocking rent increase to market rent. It is not depending on the type or size or how many different refurbishments there are. There is also no relationship between the amount invested in the refurbishment and the amount by which you can increase the rent - this is important to know.

I would seek better qualified advice tbh, the council wouldn't have any sort of training and it's unlikely the RTB person you spoke to had either. Ideally if you were to get advice, it would be from an adjudicator, not admin/ managerial staff. There are two very different pieces of the legislation in your description which have been merged together.

1. Is the grounds in section 34 of the RTB act to allow termination by the landlord on the grounds of "substantial refurbishment", nothing to do with increasing the market rate.

2. The exemption in the 2016 RPZ amendment, allowing for an increase beyond the rent increase limits on the grounds there have been substantial changes to the nature of the property (note refurbishment is not mentioned, no relation to section 34).

tradingwizz

‘substantial change in the nature of the accommodation’ includes substantial refurbishment works - this is the way the ruling is being applied and this is what matters.

In my case, it is Dublin coco who decide - I just need to get close to market rent since it is being held artificially low. The coco and anyone else will refer to RTB for ultimate adjudication which is why I needed to know the exact criteria being used. Also, the substantial refurbishment doesn't mean I need to remove the tenant from the property - for sure this could never be the intention but could be seen as an unfortunate consequence. Of course, the tenant gets first rights to the refurbished property, albeit at the higher rent.

davindub

Well if the tenant is accepting it, you're probably fine but the legal situation is different. It is very unlikely change in nature will include refurbishments at all if tested. Maybe if you add an extra bedroom etc.