Landlord ending tenancy for renovation - can we leave earlier than the notice period

howayahorse

Hi all
My landlord has served a notice of termination because they want to renovate the bathroom. I've checked with Threshold and they have told me that we can leave at an earlier date if we find somewhere sooner and do not have to give any notice because the landlord initiated the termination - I would have thought I'd still have to give 56 days notice having been here for between 3 and 4 years.
Can anyone with experience of this scenario please advise if this is correct? From what I've read on this forum, Threshold don't always give the correct information!
The reason I'm concerned about it is that despite telling us we are great tenants, my landlord has in the past been dishonest and even manipulative and reneged on promises regarding repairs etc. so I don't trust them to come to an agreement on this.
Thanks in advance!

runawaybishop

Dunno what threshold are on about to be honest. You can walk out of the door tomorrow but you will still need to pay for 56 days of rent.

gizmo81

Has the landlord given the correct information in the notice, refurbishment of a bathroom might not meet the criteria. We had our bathroom replaced while being resident tenants. So this is something you could argue with the RTB if you don't want to move given the lack of properties and prices. Also, perhaps look at taking a case for breech in landlord obligations for other issues you mentioned.

Landlord intends to substantially refurbish or renovate the dwelling
A landlord is entitled to terminate a Part 4 tenancy where the landlord intends to substantially refurbish or renovate the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling in a way which requires the dwelling to be vacated for that purpose (and, where planning permission is required for the carrying out of that refurbishment or renovation, that permission has been obtained) and the notice of termination (the ‘‘notice’’) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—
(a) specifying the nature of the intended works,
and
(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—
(i) the dwelling becomes available for re-letting,
and
(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/landlord-intends-to-substantially-refurbish-or-renovate.pdf?sfvrsn=2

schemingbohemia

Is this a ploy to get around the 4% increase? Are you in a Rent controlled area? Renovating a bathroom isn't to my mind a proper reason to terminate a tenancy. Having had my own bathroom renovated (home owner) it took 3 or 4 days from memory.
I would think your landlord is doing this to get you out and up the rent considerably.

crossmolinalad

Don't know why someone has to leave a rented property for a renovation like a bathroom
Half a year ago landlord renovated our bathroom in three day while were living in the house
This summer he promised to renovate the kitchen new cabinets ect takes two days he said
three years ago got a new flat roof with isulation while staying in the house
If the house were yours your not moving out for such a renovation do you??

howayahorse

Yes I Think it is definitely a ploy to get around the 4% increase rule! The bathroom is actually fine as it is and I don't believe the renovation would add value. They are saying they want to take out the bath and put in a shower cubicle. There was previously a leak but they re sealed the around the bath and the problem was solved. 
They have said they plan to do a couple of other things like install a dishwasher and tumbledryer but these aren't included on the notice. And that because the landlord himself is going to remove the bath in his own free time that it will take around a month and the water will be shut off for this time.

gizmo81

White goods are definitely excluded from this, I'll find you a link and edit it in.

From the RTB website FAQS

HOW “SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED” DOES A PROPERTY NEED TO BE TO QUALIFY FOR AN EXEMPTION?
A ‘substantial change’ 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 – this may include, among other things, building works or works requiring planning permission. For example, simple repainting or replacement of white goods would not be sufficient.

https://www.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones/faqs

howayahorse wrote: »

Yes I Think it is definitely a ploy to get around the 4% increase rule! The bathroom is actually fine as it is and I don't believe the renovation would add value. They are saying they want to take out the bath and put in a shower cubicle. There was previously a leak but they re sealed the around the bath and the problem was solved. 
They have said they plan to do a couple of other things like install a dishwasher and tumbledryer but these aren't included on the notice. And that because the landlord himself is going to remove the bath in his own free time that it will take around a month and the water will be shut off for this time.

howayahorse

The exact wording on the notice is "Total renovation of the bathroom. The renovation work involves a partial replacement of internal plumbing which will require the water supply to be shut off for the duration of the work. Planning permission is not required for these renovations."
Does this leave it vague enough for them to get away with it?

LuckyLloyd

howayahorse wrote: »

Yes I Think it is definitely a ploy to get around the 4% increase rule! The bathroom is actually fine as it is and I don't believe the renovation would add value. They are saying they want to take out the bath and put in a shower cubicle. There was previously a leak but they re sealed the around the bath and the problem was solved.?
They have said they plan to do a couple of other things like install a dishwasher and tumbledryer but these aren't included on the notice. And that because the landlord himself is going to remove the bath in his own free time that it will take around a month and the water will be shut off for this time.

His notice is invalid. Inform him of same, and that you intend to stay put.

gizmo81

Telephone mediation with RTB is free of charge. I'd put in an application and just let the landlord prove to them the work meets the criteria of the RTA.

howayahorse wrote: »

The exact wording on the notice is "Total renovation of the bathroom. The renovation work involves a partial replacement of internal plumbing which will require the water supply to be shut off for the duration of the work. Planning permission is not required for these renovations."
Does this leave it vague enough for them to get away with it?

howayahorse

The other problem is that the notice was served on 12th April - so I am over the 28 days. I've been abroad for the last 3 weeks and have only now realised the notice may be invalid. Am I definitely too late to refer to RTB or is there any leeway on this?

PMBC

howayahorse wrote: »

The exact wording on the notice is "Total renovation of the bathroom. The renovation work involves a partial replacement of internal plumbing which will require the water supply to be shut off for the duration of the work. Planning permission is not required for these renovations."
Does this leave it vague enough for them to get away with it?

I'm not a plumber but I don't think he need to shut off the water supply to carry out those/that work. There should be valves on those specific services to allow for repairs/replacement e.g. to replace bath or whb taps. It might be however that a new shower is to be connected directly to mains water. That's if local plumbing by-laws allow that.
Best wishes to you.

Quackster

Water supply at the most only needs to be completely shut off for short periods of time (if even) to isolate the sections of plumbing being replaced. Landlord is totally taking the piss here.

gizmo81

The notice should state:

1. Any dispute in relation to the setting of the rent pursuant to a review of the rent under a tenancy must be referred to the Residential Tenancies Board under Part 6 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 before-
(i) [insert date from which the new rent is to have effect]
or
(ii) the expiry of 28 days from the receipt by you of this notice,



So you have until the date before the new rent takes effect. Which should be 90 days from the 12th April.

howayahorse wrote: »

The other problem is that the notice was served on 12th April - so I am over the 28 days. I've been abroad for the last 3 weeks and have only now realised the notice may be invalid. Am I definitely too late to refer to RTB or is there any leeway on this?

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

The notice should state:

1. Any dispute in relation to the setting of the rent pursuant to a review of the rent under a tenancy must be referred to the Residential Tenancies Board under Part 6 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 before-
(i) [insert date from which the new rent is to have effect]
or
(ii) the expiry of 28 days from the receipt by you of this notice,



So you have until the date before the new rent takes effect. Which should be 90 days from the 12th April.

New rent??

gizmo81

Apologies I've crosswired with my own situation. Give me 5 minutes and I'll get info on termination.

gizmo81

I'd ring the RTB or email, if you were out of the country you'd have a ticket or something to prove that. Ask for an exemption.

I'm away from desk this afternoon but will try get more info when I return. My advice is contact RTB asap.

howayahorse

gizmo81 wrote: »

I'd ring the RTB or email, if you were out of the country you'd have a ticket or something to prove that. Ask for an exemption.

I'm away from desk this afternoon but will try get more info when I return. My advice is contact RTB asap.

Thanks, they've said I can submit a complaint to them anyway but to include a letter and proof as to why I took longer than the 28 days. 
Still waiting to hear back from Threshold who are reviewing the notice. Logically I absolutely agree with everyone here and it shouldn't take more than a few days to renovate a bathroom but I don't know if the law is too vague to let the landlord away with this

the_syco

gizmo81 wrote: »

My advice is contact RTB asap.

And don't bother with Threshold. It seems their advice can sometimes be untrue.

howayahorse

Hi all
OP here again - just back to my original question regarding leaving earlier than notice period without penalty. I asked RTB while on another call to them and they confirmed that Threshold informed me correctly. If the landlord has ended the tenancy then we are free to leave as soon as we find another place without having to pay rent up to the last day of the notice period and it is just courtesy to inform the landlord when we will be leaving. Thought it might be useful info for other people!
But I am strongly leading towards disputing the notice of termination!

LuckyLloyd

Open a dispute, inform your landlord of same, and start having a look around for alternative accomodation. Open activities on all fronts as it were.

Mr. Incognito

Hi there.

If a Notice of Termination is served then it should reflect a form located on the PRTB website.

It will normally say that you have till X day to leave and you have the entire 24 hours of that day to leave.

If the Notice of Termination is for works it is oblidged to state;

1. The Nature of the Works
2. Contractor/ duration of the works etc

And say that if the apartment is let within 6 months or becomes available for rent you get the right of first refusal.

Threshold are incorrect. If the Notice allows you to leave early then you can leave early without penalty. If it does not then you will owe rent for all that period.

Personally I dont believe that the refurb of a bathroom requires vacant possession and I would appeal on this basis.

howayahorse

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Hi there.

If a Notice of Termination is served then it should reflect a form located on the PRTB website.

It will normally say that you have till X day to leave and you have the entire 24 hours of that day to leave.

If the Notice of Termination is for works it is oblidged to state;

1. The Nature of the Works
2. Contractor/ duration of the works etc

And say that if the apartment is let within 6 months or becomes available for rent you get the right of first refusal.

Threshold are incorrect. If the Notice allows you to leave early then you can leave early without penalty. If it does not then you will owe rent for all that period.

Personally I dont believe that the refurb of a bathroom requires vacant possession and I would appeal on this basis.

The notice has all of the above except for the Contractor and duration of works - this is the reason I believe the notice to be invalid.

runawaybishop

howayahorse wrote: »

The notice has all of the above except for the Contractor and duration of works - this is the reason I believe the notice to be invalid.

If you believe the notice is invalid you can lodge a dispute, but I don't know where they are coming from saying you don't need to pay rent once you give notice.

gizmo81

I was wondering this also and tried to find info on it.

I'm presuming what's mean't is if a mutual agreement is struck between landlord and tenant to vacate the property early?

runawaybishop wrote: »

If you believe the notice is invalid you can lodge a dispute, but I don't know where they are coming from saying you don't need to pay rent once you give notice.

Michael D Not Higgins

gizmo81 wrote: »

I was wondering this also and tried to find info on it.

I'm presuming what's mean't is if a mutual agreement is struck between landlord and tenant to vacate the property early?

Indeed, there's no mechanism for leaving early or not being liable for rent within the RTA other than by mutual agreement.

mrslancaster

howayahorse wrote: »

The notice has all of the above except for the Contractor and duration of works - this is the reason I believe the notice to be invalid.

just curious - if the LL intends to carry out the work personally does he need to name himself as the contractor on the termination notice?

can a LL not do work on their own property & take as long as they like - say if the work is only done at weekends. how can the rtb rule against that

LuckyLloyd

mrslancaster wrote: »

just curious - if the LL intends to carry out the work personally does he need to name himself as the contractor on the termination notice?

can a LL not do work on their own property & take as long as they like - say if the work is only done at weekends. how can the rtb rule against that

Because they've chosen to rent out the property and that gives some of their rights to the property away according to the law. So, if the renovations are not significant - and they're clearly not in this case - they can't chuck the tenant out.

howayahorse

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

gizmo81 wrote: »

I was wondering  this also and tried to find info on it.

I'm presuming what's mean't is if a mutual agreement is struck between landlord and tenant to vacate the property early?

Indeed, there's no mechanism for leaving early or not being liable for rent within the RTA other than by mutual agreement.

I questioned the RTB on this again and it is down to the notice stating that we must leave "On or before XXX date". Therefore you can leave before and only pay rent up until that date. However, in reality I think it's hard to plan this as we pay rent a month in advance and it drives me mad that you rarely see places advertised into the future, it always seems to be immediately and you end up paying rent for 2 places for a few weeks.

gizmo81

This is a huge problem and the reason people stay in properties that otherwise they wouldn't.

howayahorse wrote: »

I questioned the RTB on this again and it is down to the notice stating that we must leave "On or before XXX date". Therefore you can leave before and only pay rent up until that date. However, in reality I think it's hard to plan this as we pay rent a month in advance and it drives me mad that you rarely see places advertised into the future, it always seems to be immediately and you end up paying rent for 2 places for a few weeks.

CruelCoin

mrslancaster wrote: »

just curious - if the LL intends to carry out the work personally does he need to name himself as the contractor on the termination notice?

can a LL not do work on their own property & take as long as they like - say if the work is only done at weekends. how can the rtb rule against that

I'm not sure there is any rule that obliges a landlord to do the work with a contractor, or any rule that says it must be post-haste.

If it takes him a month to do it, then that's how long it will take.

CruelCoin

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Because they've chosen to rent out the property and that gives some of their rights to the property away according to the law. So, if the renovations are not significant - and they're clearly not in this case - they can't chuck the tenant out.

We're not talking about putting in a new kettle.

Bath out, shower in, and the whole lot will need to be re-tiled, given that the existing probably no longer exist on the market.

What exactly is minor about that?

Quackster

CruelCoin wrote: »

We're not talking about putting in a new kettle.

Bath out, shower in, and the whole lot will need to be re-tiled, given that the existing probably no longer exist on the market.

What exactly is minor about that?

And replacing a bathroom requires a house to be vacated..?! :rolleyes:

LuckyLloyd

As posted earlier in the thread:

From the RTB website FAQS

HOW ?SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED? DOES A PROPERTY NEED TO BE TO QUALIFY FOR AN EXEMPTION?
A ?substantial change? 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 ? this may include, among other things, building works or works requiring planning permission. For example, simple repainting or replacement of white goods would not be sufficient.

https://www.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones/faqs

CruelCoin wrote: »

We're not talking about putting in a new kettle.

Bath out, shower in, and the whole lot will need to be re-tiled, given that the existing probably no longer exist on the market.

What exactly is minor about that?

Landlord has no right to remove a tenant for such works. It's an inconvenience, sure, but not a substantial change.

GGTrek

Quackster wrote: »

CruelCoin wrote: »

We're not talking about putting in a new kettle.

Bath out, shower in, and the whole lot will need to be re-tiled, given that the existing probably no longer exist on the market.

What exactly is minor about that?

And replacing a bathroom requires a house to be vacated..?! :rolleyes:

Again in this forum, opinions are spouted without looking at the reality and law. Yes replacing a bathroom is a proper reason to issue a termination notice (again tested at RTB myself). These are the reasons:
1) Section 6 of the Housing Standards Regulations 2008 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2008/si/534/made/en/print  which states:

 6. (1) There shall be provided within the habitable area of the house, for the exclusive use of the house:
(a) A watercloset, with dedicated wash hand basin adjacent thereto with a continuous supply of cold water and a facility for the piped supply of hot water, and
(b) A fixed bath or shower with continuous supply of cold water and a facility for the piped supply of hot water.

So first of all if the landlord does not provide a bathroom to a tenant is in breach of Section 6.

Second it is an obligation of the landlord to perform repairs that are necessary Section 12(1)(b) of the RTA:

2.—(1) In addition to the obligations arising by or under any other enactment, a landlord of a dwelling shall—
       
(b) subject to subsection (2), carry out to—
       
(i) the structure of the dwelling all such repairs as are, from time to time, necessary and ensure that the structure complies with any standards for houses for the time being prescribed under section 18 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992 , and

(ii) the interior of the dwelling all such repairs and replacement of fittings as are, from time to time, necessary so that that interior and those fittings are maintained in, at least, the condition in which they were at the commencement of the tenancy and in compliance with any such standards for the time being prescribed,

notice the underlined section where the Standard regulations linked above applies, so the landlord has not got a choice, it is an OBLIGATION!

Third Section 34 of the RTA 2004-2016 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/enacted/en/print#sec34):

 5. The landlord intends to substantially refurbish or renovate the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling in a way which requires the dwelling to be vacated for that purpose (and, where planning permission is required for the carrying out of that refurbishment or renovation, that permission has been obtained) and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—
(a) specifying the nature of the intended works, and
(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—
(i) the dwelling becomes available for reletting, and
(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table.

There were many discussions in this forum about what constitutes "substantially refurbish", I shall tell you how this rule is applied in practice by adjudicators, it is a very simple questions: WOULD THE DWELLING BE LIVEABLE/HABITABLE WHILE THE REFURBISHMENT/REPAIRS HAPPEN? They would of course consider the length of the repairs. The obvious answer is that a dwelling is NOT habitable without a bathroom (it is a pretty fundamental part of any dwelling).

In addition as other posters can see from Section 34 there is no obligation for a landlord to use a contractor (although it would be wise to do so) or request planning permission to repair a bathroom, but this does not mean that section 34 table 5 does not apply!

Try to check how long it takes to completely remodel a decent size bathroom in practice (done it several times, but you might be ignorant of the reality): https://www.thespruce.com/how-long-to-remodel-small-bathroom-1821360

The article says 23 working days, but I would say that even for a tiny bathroom never took my contractors less than a week, now ask yourself: "Can I reasonably live in an apartment or a house with no bathroom for a full week?". Now try to make the same question to an adjudicator (usually a solicitor with practice in law) and see what the answer is.

[RANT START]
So your "smart" exclamatory sentence does not have any foundation in law and in practice. As I said previously I am sick of posters in this forum spouting opinions with no foundations that might have very adverse effects on the OP, as of late I only enter the forum to stop the most egregious examples like this one. People spout short and "smart" sentences without stopping and thinking a bit about all the details and difficulties of the task of repairing/refurbishing, in this way oversimplifying and diminishing the value of the people performing the task: this is what Irish politicians do so well. [RANT CLOSED]

Quackster

GGTrek wrote: »

[RANT START]
So your "smart" exclamatory sentence does not have any foundation in law and in practice. As I said previously I am sick of posters in this forum spouting opinions with no foundations that might have very adverse effects on the OP, as of late I only enter the forum to stop the most egregious examples like this one. People spout short and "smart" sentences without stopping and thinking a bit about all the details and difficulties of the task of repairing/refurbishing, in this way oversimplifying and diminishing the value of the people performing the task: this is what Irish politicians do so well. [RANT CLOSED]

My point stands. I completely replaced the main bathroom in my house recently and it didn't inconvenience me so much that I had to move out of my house for the duration of the works.

I can understand from a legal perspective why the RTB would side with a landlord on this matter but I think that a landlord who uses bathroom refurbishment to kick out their tenants is a person of very poor character.

CruelCoin

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Landlord has no right to remove a tenant for such works. It's an inconvenience, sure, but not a substantial change.

Really?

I'd hate to see your idea of "substantial"....Demolition of half the house?

runawaybishop

Quackster wrote: »

My point stands. I completely replaced the main bathroom in my house recently and it didn't inconvenience me so much that I had to move out of my house for the duration of the works.

I can understand from a legal perspective why the RTB would side with a landlord on this matter but I think that a landlord who uses bathroom refurbishment to kick out their tenants is a person of very poor character.

Depends how many bathrooms are in the house.

gizmo81

The landlord completely replaced our bathroom over a weekend, including all new tiles floor and ceiling and new suite. We were resident.

<quote snipped: please don't quote lengthy posts as it makes it difficult for mobile readers>

seamus

GGTrek is right here.

For the avoidance of confusion, The reason for the termination is valid because the nature of the works will render the property uninhabitable for their duration. There will be no water and no toilet facilities, therefore the property is uninhabitable.

The landlord is not obliged to provide the name of any contractors nor the duration of the works for this kind of notice. (Edited)

seamus

Quackster wrote: »

My point stands. I completely replaced the main bathroom in my house recently and it didn't inconvenience me so much that I had to move out of my house for the duration of the works.

gizmo81 wrote: »

The landlord completely replaced our bathroom over a weekend, including all new tiles floor and ceiling and new suite. We were resident.

And we had to get ours done, whole suite replaced, room retiled, it took the guts of a week and we had to move out, because perhaps shockingly, you can't live in a house that has no toilet, no water and no heating.

Your experiences and willingness to take your sh1ts down the local pub are somewhat irrelevant. A house without water is not an habitable rental property.

Quackster

seamus wrote: »

- The reason for the termination is valid because the nature of the works will render the property uninhabitable for their duration. There will be no water and no toilet facilities, therefore the property is uninhabitable. .

There will be water, except in the bathroom being renovated. Whether there are toilet facilities depends on whether there is another toilet in the house, which the OP didn't specify.

gizmo81

There's no need to be rude. I am explaining my experience.

We had water. We poured a bucket down the loo as advised by the landlord.

seamus wrote: »

And we had to get ours done, whole suite replaced, room retiled, it took the guts of a week and we had to move out, because perhaps shockingly, you can't live in a house that has no toilet, no water and no heating.

Your experiences and willingness to take your sh1ts down the local pub are somewhat irrelevant. A house without water is not an habitable rental property.

seamus

Quackster wrote: »

There will be water, except in the bathroom being renovated. Whether there are toilet facilities depends on whether there is another toilet in the house, which the OP didn't specify.

Well you don't actually know that unless you've been in there and seen the plumbing. Depending on where it was fitted and by whom, there may indeed be no valves that can isolate the room sufficiently. Or part of the works may involve replacing the valves, which requires the water to be shut off at a higher level.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what is and isn't required for a house you know nothing about.

howayahorse

seamus wrote: »

GGTrek is right here.

For the avoidance of confusion;

- The reason for the termination is valid because the nature of the works will render the property uninhabitable for their duration. There will be no water and no toilet facilities, therefore the property is uninhabitable.

- The landlord is not obliged to provide the name of any contractors nor the duration of the works for this kind of notice.

The RTB have advised that a valid notice should include the duration and contractor name in the case that no planning permission is required.

gizmo81

Refurbishment/Renovation
You must be given a copy of
the planning permission if it is required and, where this is not the case, details of the work, the contractor if relevant and the dates and expected duration of the works.

http://www.threshold.ie/download/pdf/thresholdending_a_tenancy.pdf

Quackster

seamus wrote: »

Well you don't actually know that unless you've been in there and seen the plumbing. Depending on where it was fitted and by whom, there may indeed be no valves that can isolate the room sufficiently. Or part of the works may involve replacing the valves, which requires the water to be shut off at a higher level.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what is and isn't required for a house you know nothing about.

At most, water would have to be shut off for a short period to isolate the works, something that would cause minimal inconvenience.

seamus

howayahorse wrote: »

The RTB have advised that a valid notice should include the duration and contractor name in the case that no planning permission is required.

My bad, I missed that part, it's added into a separate section of the act. What a mess that legislation is.

Any road, the reason for the termination is fine, but it would appear that the notice is in fact invalid, probably because he did a copy/paste from the RTB site, which is apparently out of date.

So I'd bull on with the appeal, but start looking for somewhere else to live anyway.

crossmolinalad

seamus wrote: »

And we had to get ours done, whole suite replaced, room retiled, it took the guts of a week and we had to move out, because perhaps shockingly, you can't live in a house that has no toilet, no water and no heating.

Your experiences and willingness to take your sh1ts down the local pub are somewhat irrelevant. A house without water is not an habitable rental property.

Ours is done in three days
They started on Monday morning and were done on Wednesday evening
Got back a complete clean house done by landlord and his wife
Landlord organized also for the Monday evening a B&B for us
Next week we get a new kitchen and will take another 3 days
For two days we can go take a reasonable dinner paid by landlord
So a week for a bathroom is stupid were lazy builders or they did things somewhere else in between the job

Quackster

crossmolinalad wrote: »

Ours is done in three days
They started on Monday morning and were done on Wednesday evening
Got back a complete clean house done by landlord and his wife
Landlord organized also for the Monday evening a B&B for us
Next week we get a new kitchen and will take another 3 days
For two days we can go take a reasonable dinner paid by landlord
So a week for a bathroom is stupid were lazy builders or they did things somewhere else in between the job

No two bathrooms are the same and the 'under-the-hood' work required can vary a lot so a week would definitely not be out of the question.

howayahorse

crossmolinalad wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

And we had to get ours done, whole suite replaced, room retiled, it took the guts of a week and we had to move out, because perhaps shockingly, you can't live in a house that has no toilet, no water and no heating.

Your experiences and willingness to take your sh1ts down the local pub are somewhat irrelevant. A house without water is not an habitable rental property.

Ours is done in three days
They started on Monday morning and were done on Wednesday evening
Got back a complete clean house done by landlord and his wife
Landlord organized also for the Monday evening a B&B for us
Next week we get a new kitchen and will take another 3 days
For two days we can go take a reasonable dinner paid by landlord
So a week for a bathroom is stupid were lazy builders or they did things somewhere else in between the job

Wow! My landlord is the polar opposite,  She has been really unreasonable. Manipulated a situation to encourage me to stay at the last rent review and then took a year to complete some simple improvements that I negotiated on that would bring the value of the property closer to what she wanted to charge for it. One of them is still outstanding.
I decided to tolerate it now that I had rent security with the new rules but she is clearly trying to dodge it with this bathroom renovation. All this despite telling me I'm the model tenant. (I am by the way! but the way she has treated me makes me feel like I should be more demanding of my next landlord and not let any minor repairs requirements slip etc.)
A dispute isn't going to do anything except buy me time. My first Part 4 tenancy comes to an end in October and I'm guessing she will ask me to leave then as a result of the dispute. But I want to proceed with the dispute just to stand up to her and fight for what I'm entitled to even if it is short lived.