Notice of Termination

hmeephmeep

If one is to argue that a Notice of Termination does not comply with a "particular rule" (in this case that ***the Notice of Termination does not explicitly state that planning permission for proposed works is not required***) to what part of the legislative framework does one refer?


On citizens info housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave
the following text details "particular rules"


"Detailed rules

If the landlord needs the property for their own use or for an immediate family member, you must be given the following information in writing, along with the notice of termination: the person’s name; their relationship to the landlord; and how long they will occupy the dwelling. The notice must also include a statutory declaration stating that the landlord needs the property for their own use or for an immediate family member. The RTB’s sample notice of termination when the landlord needs the property (pdf)contains the required information and a sample statutory declaration.

If the landlord intends to refurbish the property to the extent that it needs to be vacant, they must state the nature of the works in writing, along with the notice of termination. If planning permission is required, the notice must be accompanied by a copy of the permission. ***If planning permission is not required, the notice must state this*** and must provide the name of the contractor (if any); the dates of the intended works; and their proposed duration – see the RTB’s sample notice of termination due to intention to refurbish (pdf).

If the landlord intends to change the use of the property (and has obtained any necessary planning permission) they must state the nature of the change in writing, along with the notice of termination. The notice must confirm that any necessary planning permission has been received. The RTB’s sample notice of termination due to change of use (pdf) contains the required information."

davo10

What's the point? The next day you are just going to get a notice with the detail included.

Ms Doubtfire1

you don't refer to anything.it's not your job to tell the LL what he needs to write in his/her notice.If you want to dispute the notice open a case with the RTB.

I love Sean nos

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

you don't refer to anything.it's not your job to tell the LL what he needs to write in his/her notice.If you want to dispute the notice open a case with the RTB.

Indeed. Do nothing and say nothing until the end of the notice period, then only if asked why you're still there state that the notice was invalid.

Baby01032012

Or just accept the notice as given...accept that there might have been a typo/ommission...but move on and dont get hooked up on it...the RTB will most likely not find in your favour if everything else was to the letter of the law and the intention of the notice was clear.

Ms Doubtfire1

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Or just accept the notice as given...accept that there might have been a typo/ommission...but move on and dont get hooked up on it...the RTB will most likely not find in your favour if everything else was to the letter of the law and the intention of the notice was clear.

No they won't. Generally.Those rules are there for a reason.

shivral

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Indeed. Do nothing and say nothing until the end of the notice period, then only if asked why you're still there state that the notice was invalid.

that's actually incorrect. You have 28 days to respond to the landlord that the notice is invalid, after that it is presumed that the notice was accepted.

I love Sean nos

shivral wrote: »

that's actually incorrect. You have 28 days to respond to the landlord that the notice is invalid, after that it is presumed that the notice was accepted.

I stand corrected. OP has 28 days to wait then.

hmeephmeep

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I stand corrected. OP has 28 days to wait then.

My objective is to establish ASAP, whether it is plausible to expect that the RTB could or would uphold that the Notice of Termination is invalid.

hmeephmeep wrote: »

to what part of the legislative framework does one refer?

The answer is: One would refer to amendments of section 34 of the principle act, which inserted the following;

<(aa) that, in a case where planning permission has been obtained, a copy of the planning permission is attached to the notice or statement,

(ab) that planning permission is not required and he or she has complied with the requirements of section 35(9)(b), and>

<35(9)b specify, where planning permission is not required—

(i) the name of the contractor, if any, employed to carry out the intended works, and
(ii) the dates on which the intended works are to be carried out and the proposed duration of the period in which those works are to be carried out.>

The question is whether the following line on the related citizens info page is a correct interpretation of the act, or whether it adds its own dimension by misinterpretation.

"If planning permission is not required, the notice must state this" (housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave Citizens Info)

As it stands, the Notice of Termination does not state that planning permission is not required. It does not attach a planning permission document. And it contains details about contractors and length of works, details which I don't need to know about. Am I to ASSUME that planning permission is not required, by virtue of the inclusion of details about contractor and works in the Notice of Termination?

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Or just accept the notice as given...accept that there might have been a typo/ommission...but move on and dont get hooked up on it...the RTB will most likely not find in your favour if everything else was to the letter of the law and the intention of the notice was clear.

<“64A. On the hearing of a complaint under Part 6 in respect of a notice of termination, an adjudicator or the Tribunal, as the case may be, may make a determination that a slip or omission which is contained in, or occurred during the service of, the notice of termination shall not of itself render the notice of termination invalid, if he or she or it, as the case may be, is satisfied that—

(a) the slip or omission concerned does not prejudice, in a material respect, the notice of termination, and

(b) the notice of termination is otherwise in compliance with the provisions of this Act.”.>


How could a documented Notice of Termination be prejudiced in a material respect?

pilly

Are you just carrying out a pop quiz here OP for your own amusement?

Michael D Not Higgins

So you're saying that they do include the contractor and intended duration? The RTB will interpret that as valid in my opinion. The only reason to include that information is when planning permission is not needed and by providing it, it implies the statement. If the rest of the notice is valid and you're only relying on the statement of "planning permission is not required", you're wasting everyone's time.

hmeephmeep

davo10 wrote: »

What's the point? The next day you are just going to get a notice with the detail included.

The detail included, will either be a. the sentence "planning permission is not required"
or b. a copy of the already obtained planning permission document.

I would be very interested in seeing either of those details in black and white. I will revert to the landlord and ask whether planning permission is required and has been sought or is being sought. And on the basis of the examples shown on the RTB website, and on the advice which I recieved from Citizens Info, I will challenge the validity of the Notice.

I see that in the sample Notice of Termination Docs on the RTB website, those pertaining to Termination for reasons of "change of use" and/or "substantially refurbish" contain the lines "Planning permission for the change of use has been obtained from Kildare County Council." and "Planning permission is not required for these renovations." respectively.

pilly wrote: »

Are you just carrying out a pop quiz here OP for your own amusement?

I can find better things to amuse myself with than the underwriting of Notices of Termination, but since this one affects me I am treating it as a matter of urgency and something which I should figure out poste haste.

The Example Notices of Termination for Landlords on the RTB website would seem to suggest that there is a requirement for the Notice of Termination in the case of *change of use* and *refurbishment* to explicitly state that either a. Planning permission is not required or b. to attach the planning permission document which has been obtained already.

pilly

hmeephmeep wrote:

I can find better things to amuse myself with than the underwriting of Notices of Termination, but since this one affects me I am treating it as a matter of urgency and something which I should figure out poste haste.

So what's the silly poll about then?

The_Conductor

OP- honestly- I don't comprehend what you're trying to do here.
Either dispute the notice- and risk loosing the adjudication- but one way or the other, you're simply kicking the can down the road- or accept it, and seek alternate accommodation now, rather than in 8 weeks time (when lets face it, its going to be far harder to find alternate accommodation).

Its not a smorgasbord- where you can pick and choose what best suits you- you're picking up a small discrepancy and trying to make it into something it most probably is not- but I don't see what you're going to achieve, even if it is upheld (and there is a strong chance it may not be). You're taking a chance- for the sake of a couple of extra weeks, nothing more- its not like a rent review which then can't be served for another 12 months- the landlord simply reissues the notice, and what have you achieved other than aggrevation and stress for both yourself and the landlord- alongside the cost of attending a tribunal etc (if you don't sign up to the telephone diplomacy service they're now pushing).

Honestly- I don't see what you're hoping to achieve here- other than making a point- but its a pointless point- as even if you push the termination 7-8 weeks down the road- it'll be even harder to find alternate accommodation at that point............

I'd ring the landlord- advise him that he might like to reissue the termination order, cognisant of the wording requirement and ask for a little sweetener- an extra week rent free or whatever, in cognisance of being helpful.

Make it a plus for both sides?

4ensic15

The o/p can get much longer in the accommodation by challenging the notice.After the adjudication there is an appeal. It may well be worth the o/ps while to keep it going if the cost of alternative accommodation is much higher.

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

The o/p can get much longer in the accommodation by challenging the notice.After the adjudication there is an appeal. It may well be worth the o/ps while to keep it going if the cost of alternative accommodation is much higher.

These are fast tracked- they aim to fully resolve them in 4-6 weeks- its not that the OP will get a protracted additional period of time.

4ensic15

The_Conductor wrote: »

These are fast tracked- they aim to fully resolve them in 4-6 weeks- its not that the OP will get a protracted additional period of time.

The time taken for an adjudication and appeal will be much longer than 4-6 weeks. the adjudication alone will be at lease 4 weeks. Priority is only given when the rent is not being paid. There is a long interval between the end of an adjudication an d a tribunal hearing. It takes weeks to get decisions from adjudication or tribunal. i am waiting nearly 2 months for a decision from an adjudication.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

The time taken for an adjudication and appeal will be much longer than 4-6 weeks. the adjudication alone will be at lease 4 weeks. Priority is only given when the rent is not being paid. There is a long interval between the end of an adjudication an d a tribunal hearing. It takes weeks to get decisions from adjudication or tribunal. i am waiting nearly 2 months for a decision from an adjudication.

Op has 28 to respond or the termination is deemed to be accepted, then the LL re-issues a new termination notice with the omission inserted, what are the grounds for filing a dispute then? Or do you just encourage people to make nuisance claims?

At this point the op can leave with a good reference, if he/she goes down the route you advocate, then it will ultimately end in eviction and a tarnished reputation for the tenant, in a market where there is immense competition for properties, that's a killer.

Sometimes, you just have to wake up and smell the coffee in the morning.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Op has 28 to respond or the termination is deemed to be accepted, then the LL re-issues a new termination notice with the omission inserted, what are the grounds for filing a dispute then? Or do you just encourage people to make nuisance claims?

At this point the op can leave with a good reference, if he/she goes down the route you advocate, then it will ultimately end in eviction and a tarnished reputation for the tenant, in a market where there is immense competition for properties, that's a killer.

Sometimes, you just have to wake up and smell the coffee in the morning.

The 28 days is nonsense. If the Ll attempts to rely on it and it is faulty, the Ll has to open an overholding case. With appeals it will go on for quite some time. The reference is easily got over. I remember at school people going on about references from the school. fat lot of good the reference or lack of it ever did anyone. Sometims you have to stop rolling over, lying down and being scared every time you stand up for your rights.

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

The time taken for an adjudication and appeal will be much longer than 4-6 weeks. the adjudication alone will be at lease 4 weeks. Priority is only given when the rent is not being paid. There is a long interval between the end of an adjudication an d a tribunal hearing. It takes weeks to get decisions from adjudication or tribunal. i am waiting nearly 2 months for a decision from an adjudication.

4ensic15 - you really seem to be pushing an agenda here.
There is nothing whatsoever to say that the OP's experience will mirror yours- nor is there anything to say that their circumstances are akin to yours.
I accept you have had issues with your landlord- however, using this as a yardstick to offer dubious advice to others- is fraught with risk for anyone who imagines their situation will mirror yours.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

The 28 days is nonsense. If the Ll attempts to rely on it and it is faulty, the Ll has to open an overholding case. With appeals it will go on for quite some time.

So are you suggesting the OP overhold or just abuse the RTB process?

OP, I can't help think you'd be better off spending your time finding new accommodation. At least you're working to a definite end-date rather than relying on dragging things out for an indeterminate period.

4ensic15

The_Conductor wrote: »

4ensic15 - you really seem to be pushing an agenda here.
There is nothing whatsoever to say that the OP's experience will mirror yours- nor is there anything to say that their circumstances are akin to yours.
I accept you have had issues with your landlord- however, using this as a yardstick to offer dubious advice to others- is fraught with risk for anyone who imagines their situation will mirror yours.

It has nothing to do with my situation.The o/p has options. Run out the door or stand and fight. It is a matter for the o/p to decide if it is worth it.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

It has nothing to do with my situation.The o/p has options. Run out the door or stand and fight. It is a matter for the o/p to decide if it is worth it.

'stand and fight' is a bit am dram.

A more accurate description would be 'appeal validity of notice, receive new notice'.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

The o/p can get much longer in the accommodation by challenging the notice.After the adjudication there is an appeal. It may well be worth the o/ps while to keep it going if the cost of alternative accommodation is much higher.

You really have an aim of creating as many bad tenants as possible, nearly every thread you encourage tenants to act the bo*llocks.

People bringing time wasting cases like the ops to the RTB should be heavily fined that would stop the type of thing you encourage fairly fast.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

The 28 days is nonsense. If the Ll attempts to rely on it and it is faulty, the Ll has to open an overholding case. With appeals it will go on for quite some time. The reference is easily got over. I remember at school people going on about references from the school. fat lot of good the reference or lack of it ever did anyone. Sometims you have to stop rolling over, lying down and being scared every time you stand up for your rights.

I think you are underestimating the importance of a good reference, because of the difficulty in removing errant tenants, LLs and EA's are doing everything possible to check prospective tenants out, the reference from a previous LL being at the top of the list. If you are asked for one and cannot supply it, alarm bells ring, another applicant who can, gets the property.

I suspect you will soon find out how important one is, no LL, even the best ones, wants a bad tenant or a trouble maker.

Fian

davo10 wrote: »

I think you are underestimating the importance of a good reference, because of the difficulty in removing errant tenants, LLs and EA's are doing everything possible to check prospective tenants out, the reference from a previous LL being at the top of the list. If you are asked for one and cannot supply it, alarm bells ring, another applicant who can, gets the property.

I suspect you will soon find out how important one is, no LL, even the best ones, wants a bad tenant or a trouble maker.

I agree. It is bloody hard to secure a tenancy in Dublin these days. Trying to do it without a good reference from your most recent landlord - good luck with that.

pilly

Every single one of these threads ends up in the same crap. One side trying to push the "all LL's are scum and we should make life difficult for them" the other side arguing that "tenants should roll over and take whatever".

Is there no bleeding medium here? It's getting so tiresome.

In the meantime the OP is left more confused than ever and disappears.

The_Conductor

pilly wrote: »

In the meantime the OP is left more confused than ever and disappears.

In all fairness- the OP hasn't logged into Boards since 7pm yesterday evening- though I get fully what you're saying.

If the OP does dispute the validity of the notice- all their landlord will do- is reissue the notice- and everything gets booted a few weeks down the road.

I personally don't see any upside here- other than if the OP goes to their landlord, points out the issue with the notice, and tries to use to get a week or two's rent in agreement for keeping things moving as smoothly as possible (and even that is an ask- their landlord might be stubborn and tell them to take a hike).

Its really playing games one way or the other.

hmeephmeep

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its not a smorgasbord

Do you mean that the Notice of Termination is not a Smorgasbord? Correct.

The first Notice of Termination has been challenged and another version of the first document has been posted. The wording of the two Notice of Termination Documents is spurious to say the least. "Fireproofing of this adjacent units will occur". The word "occur" suggestive of a kind of "shazam-it-is-done" wizardry, rather than real planning and implementation.

There is also a new descriptive element to the detail included in the emended first Notice, "...a new door joining flat x and y".

<new detail> “There is no planning permission required re these internal changes which will include a new door joining Flat x and flat no. y” </new detail> The landlords son has access to flat y, and accesses and frequents the space regularly, as does the landlord.

It seems as though the combination of reasons (think of a smorgasbord The_Conductor) which the landlord has picked and mixed, in this case "change of use" + "refurbishment" is perhaps just a guise for another reason - Landlord requires dwelling for own/family use or, Landlord wants his office back, or landlord just doesn't like being asked by the RTB to agree to fix a leak, admit to giving the master key to the son (not the wife) to enter the tenants flat, etc etc.

The building is registered with the rates office as being in the category & use of a "Georgian and Victorian office". Yet it has a residential use.

My objective is to get to the truth. What is the real reason for this "Notice of Termination". It is obviously not what is written in the Notice. The Notice is Prop.

The_Conductor

As we are expressly prohibited from allowing legal advice- and you seem intent on seeking such- I am going to have to insist you go elsewhere. I would suggest a meeting with a solicitor who is fully au fait with the RTA and its implementation would be a logical port of call for you- given the path you are choosing. Best of good luck to you- whatever the outcome.

Thread closed.