tenancy termination letter near 4 years

chakwal

hi,

I have got letter from property management on behalf of landlord for termination of tenancy. Reason is "due to the fact that the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy before a further part 4 tenancy cycle commences".

we are going to be 4 years now. this is company investor landlord. I have read from threshold that part tenancy can be moved to 5.5 to 6 years.

I have called and property management are not in mood of negotiation or discuss further on this at all to continue. although I am ready to pay some more rent even a bit more than 4% that is cap these days.

These days it is very difficult to get to another apartment near by with small 2 kids. any advise for if there is any possibility that tenancy act can make us live here more than 4 years.

punisher5112

chakwal wrote: »

hi,

I have got letter from property management on behalf of landlord for termination of tenancy. Reason is "due to the fact that the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy before a further part 4 tenancy cycle commences".

we are going to be 4 years now. this is company investor landlord. I have read from threshold that part tenancy can be moved to 5.5 to 6 years.

I have called and property management are not in mood of negotiation or discuss further on this at all to continue. although I am ready to pay some more rent even a bit more than 4% that is cap these days.

These days it is very difficult to get to another apartment near by with small 2 kids. any advise for if there is any possibility that tenancy act can make us live here more than 4 years.

https://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/terminating-a-fixed-term-tenancy

dudara

How much notice have they given you?

Your tenancy started before the new rules came in so it's a 4 year part 4. Only new tenancies which start after the new rules came in are 6 year part 4.

punisher5112

6 months notice must be given from what I recall.

GGTrek

punisher5112 wrote: »

6 months notice must be given from what I recall.

Why don't you stop providing wrong advice?

GGTrek

chakwal wrote: »

hi,

I have got letter from property management on behalf of landlord for termination of tenancy. Reason is "due to the fact that the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy before a further part 4 tenancy cycle commences".

we are going to be 4 years now. this is company investor landlord. I have read from threshold that part tenancy can be moved to 5.5 to 6 years.

I have called and property management are not in mood of negotiation or discuss further on this at all to continue. although I am ready to pay some more rent even a bit more than 4% that is cap these days.

These days it is very difficult to get to another apartment near by with small 2 kids. any advise for if there is any possibility that tenancy act can make us live here more than 4 years.

OP, you have probably received a Section 34(b) notice, if it complies with this format:
https://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
And you received at least 112days of notice, then it is valid and it would be better to comply.
As previously explained you have no right to 6 years because laws cannot be retroactive. Your security of tenure was of 4 years and it is close to expiring.

dennyk

Because your tenancy started before December 24th 2016, you are currently under a four-year Part 4 tenancy. Should a Further Part 4 tenancy begin, it would be for six years, but your current one is still four.

Your landlord is still permitted to terminate your tenancy for any reason at the end of your first Part 4 tenancy. They must serve notice before you've reached the four-year mark, with the date of effect being on or after the end of the four years. The notice must be as legally required (in writing, hard copy only, and containing all of the legally required information), and the notice period must be at least the minimum length required by law (16 weeks if you've been there for 4 years, which should be the case for a notice ending your four-year Part 4 tenancy).

Unfortunately the termination of your lease is legal and valid if the landlord has complied with all of the requirements, so there is nothing you can legally do to remain in the property beyond the date of effect. Best to begin searching for a new home right away. If you find a new place and can move in before the date your termination comes into effect, legally you must give notice of 8 weeks in order to end your current tenancy on your end, but you and the landlord can mutually agree on a shorter notice period, so if you've got a new place locked down, call your landlord and discuss it with them; they may allow you to end your current tenancy early, since it would let them get on with their business of re-renting/re-developing/burning down the place for the insurance money early and it would eliminate the risk of you overholding.

chakwal

thanks for details response. notice is served date is 21st august and last day is 14th November.

I realize I made a mistake. back in january they served me a notice of rent increase by 25% starting from march. PRTB mediator told us that they can increase only by 4%. I was happy to go for 8% but landlord eventually said he wont increase any thing after PRTC mediator told him for 4%. If I would have agreed that time for 25% I would not be kicked out after few months based on 4 years tenancy cycle .... I didnt know 4 years case that time ...

gizmo81

chakwal wrote: »

thanks for details response. notice is served date is 21st august and last day is 14th November.

I realize I made a mistake. back in january they served me a notice of rent increase by 25% starting from march. PRTB mediator told us that they can increase only by 4%. I was happy to go for 8% but landlord eventually said he wont increase any thing after PRTC mediator told him for 4%. If I would have agreed that time for 25% I would not be kicked out after few months based on 4 years tenancy cycle .... I didnt know 4 years case that time ...

I read something about a tenant cannot be punished for taking a case to the RTB.

I'd take a case back to the RTB that this notice is punitive, they were happy to have you continue as a tenant with a 25% increase.

Victor

chakwal wrote: »

thanks for details response. notice is served date is 21st august and last day is 14th November.

I realize I made a mistake. back in january they served me a notice of rent increase by 25% starting from march. PRTB mediator told us that they can increase only by 4%. I was happy to go for 8% but landlord eventually said he wont increase any thing after PRTC mediator told him for 4%. If I would have agreed that time for 25% I would not be kicked out after few months based on 4 years tenancy cycle .... I didnt know 4 years case that time ...

Was a new lease signed recently?

chakwal

@Victor, New lease was not signed. after landlord said that he wont change any rent after he was advised by PRTB mediator that he cant increase more than 4%.

soc

dennyk wrote: »

Because your tenancy started before December 24th 2016, you are currently under a four-year Part 4 tenancy. Should a Further Part 4 tenancy begin, it would be for six years, but your current one is still four.

Your landlord is still permitted to terminate your tenancy for any reason at the end of your first Part 4 tenancy. They must serve notice before you've reached the four-year mark, with the date of effect being on or after the end of the four years. The notice must be as legally required (in writing, hard copy only, and containing all of the legally required information), and the notice period must be at least the minimum length required by law (16 weeks if you've been there for 4 years, which should be the case for a notice ending your four-year Part 4 tenancy).

Unfortunately the termination of your lease is legal and valid if the landlord has complied with all of the requirements, so there is nothing you can legally do to remain in the property beyond the date of effect. Best to begin searching for a new home right away. If you find a new place and can move in before the date your termination comes into effect, legally you must give notice of 8 weeks in order to end your current tenancy on your end, but you and the landlord can mutually agree on a shorter notice period, so if you've got a new place locked down, call your landlord and discuss it with them; they may allow you to end your current tenancy early, since it would let them get on with their business of re-renting/re-developing/burning down the place for the insurance money early and it would eliminate the risk of you overholding.

You are incorrect. I enquired about this lately from Threshold and I was told explicitly the following:

"You automatically move on to a Further Part 4 tenancy which since 24th December 2016 has been extended from a 4 to 6 year period." (FYI my lease was signed in 2013)

AND

"The Provision to serve notice without reason in the first 6 months of a Further Part 4 cycle was repealed and as you are in a Further Part 4 tenancy and do not have a current lease the tenancy can only be ended on specific grounds".

In the OP's case the Landlord's reason to terminate is invalid, and OP is perfectly entitled to stay where they are.
https://www.rtb.ie/search-results/news/article/2017/01/19/further-changes-to-policy-and-the-law

soc

GGTrek wrote: »

As previously explained you have no right to 6 years because laws cannot be retroactive.

This is incorrect.
According to RTB

The 2016 Act extends the Part 4 tenancy cycle from 4 years to 6 years. This applies to all new tenancies that commenced on or after 24 December 2016, including a Further Part 4 tenancy coming into existence on or after this date

Graham

soc wrote: »

This is incorrect.
According to RTB

Read this thread and the recently published RTB determination discussed:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=104555887

GGTrek

Unlike dennyk who gave you good advice, many posters in this thread are giving completely wrong advice based on no knowledge whatsoever of the law, especially people listening to advice coming from a dysfunctional organization like Threshold, who is only capable of saying: "open a dispute" and clearly play the system and in the process destroy the Irish rental market in this way (look at how many overholding and rent arrears disputes there are now, they are the vast majority of the RTB disputes: not rent increases like the sold out media and the govvie want people to believe, why are there so few rentals availabe now, socialits like some of the posters keep forgetting the effects of Threshold actions). For most tenants it just means they stay more time and cause unnecessary losses to landlords, a few tenants (for example one of mine) were made to pay damages (I do not forgive stupidity mixed with bad faith) and lost deposit.

OP I suggest you to read my very last thread on recent RTB tribunal decision exactly on section 34(b):
https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057782601

You will see that all the possible defenses suggested by the OPs above ("you have 6 years, not 4", or "I am persecuted by the landlord") were shot down very quickly by the RTB tribunal. In addition the decision I have posted is now legal precedent, so a landlord just quoting the decision I posted above in any RTB submission will quickly dispatch any naive defense like the ones suggested above.

I looked at the details you posted and you might try a very risky technicality defense since the RTA 2004 is written so badly (Laffoy J openly criticised the RTA and the confusion it caused in Canty vs PRTB) , but I am not going to suggest it here or even on PM because it goes against the spirit of the law and I personally find people getting out on technicalities as despicable. If you want proper legal advice: hire a solicitor specialised in Tenancy Law and pay money for the advice (hundreds of euros), cheap advice from Threshold is usually not worth much unless it is for slam dunk case like your wrong rent review: a section 34(b) notice served before the 4 years and expiring thereafter is not a slam dunk case at all: it is the easiest way a landlord has to terminate a tenancy!

subrosa

soc wrote: »

You are incorrect. I enquired about this lately from Threshold and I was told explicitly the following:

"You automatically move on to a Further Part 4 tenancy which since 24th December 2016 has been extended from a 4 to 6 year period." (FYI my lease was signed in 2013)

AND

"The Provision to serve notice without reason in the first 6 months of a Further Part 4 cycle was repealed and as you are in a Further Part 4 tenancy and do not have a current lease the tenancy can only be ended on specific grounds".

In the OP's case the Landlord's reason to terminate is invalid, and OP is perfectly entitled to stay where they are.
https://www.rtb.ie/search-results/news/article/2017/01/19/further-changes-to-policy-and-the-law

The advice you quote from Threshold is correct in so far as it goes. A further part four automatically rolls over and the right to terminate for no reason in the first six months of a further part four tenancy has been repealed. However, if the landlord wishes to prevent a further part four tenancy from happening he may issue a notice under 34(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act. This will end the tenancy.

The continued existence of 34(b) does not make a lot of sense given the government's commitment to more towards indefinite tenancies and the repeal of section 42 which allowed for no reason terminations during the first six months of a further part four.

I'd imagine the repeal of s34(b) will happen sooner or later. Probably as a compromise for those in other parties calling for sale to be removed as a ground for eviction.

jamesthepeach

Op you have been caught by the law of unintended consequences here.
I suspect your current landlord would be happy happy to come to an agreement that to meet you in the middle and negotiate your rent and let you stay, but they are not permitted to by the legislation.
Another example of why market interference is not only a waste of time, but detrimental

davo10

gizmo81 wrote: »

I read something about a tenant cannot be punished for taking a case to the RTB.

I'd take a case back to the RTB that this notice is punitive, they were happy to have you continue as a tenant with a 25% increase.

The op's tenancy is being terminated in accordance with the law, the reason being the end of a 4 year cycle. There is no "punishment", the landlord is exercising a well defined legal right and has given a valid reason. Read the ruling GGtrek linked.

gizmo81

davo10 wrote: »

The op's tenancy is being terminated in accordance with the law, the reason being the end of a 4 year cycle. There is no "punishment", the landlord is exercising a well defined legal right and has given a valid reason. Read the ruling GGtrek linked.

I've read the ruling. And it's all well and good but less than a year ago the landlord was willing to let the tenant stay on with an ILLEGAL rent increase.

The landlord lost the case at the RTB and now the tenant is being evicted.

We all know what the tenant is caught by and it isn't the legislation.

Take a case to the RTB for the termination being punitive. The landlord might be within the law but definitely not the spirit of it.

A tenant cannot be punished for taking a case to the RTB, if this tenant didn't take the case and paid the ILLEGAL rent they'd still be sitting tenants no doubt.

Let the RTB hear the case.

jamesthepeach

gizmo81 wrote: »

I've read the ruling. And it's all well and good but less than a year ago the landlord was willing to let the tenant stay on with an ILLEGAL rent increase.

The landlord lost the case at the RTB and now the tenant is being evicted.

We all know what the tenant is caught by and it isn't the legislation.

Take a case to the RTB for the termination being punitive. The landlord might be within the law but definitely not the spirit of it.

A tenant cannot be punished for taking a case to the RTB, if this tenant didn't take the case and paid the ILLEGAL rent they'd still be sitting tenants no doubt.

Let the RTB hear the case.

I wonder how many wasted hours of the RTBs time you are responsible for?
Probably more than threshold.

:D:D:D:D

gizmo81

Three homeless people died this weekend. There were 7,941 people homeless in the week of June 19-25th 2017 across Ireland, 2,985 children, according to the Department of Housing.

Keeping people in their homes is my aim and you are not going to shame or embarrass me for that.

jamesthepeach

gizmo81 wrote: »

Three homeless people died this weekend. There were 7,941 people homeless in the week of June 19-25th 2017 across Ireland, 2,985 children, according to the Department of Housing.

Keeping people in their homes is my aim and you are not going to shame or embarrass me for that.

What has that to do with the OP being legally been asked to leave at the end of their tenancy?

Using these tragedies as an attempt to make yourself sound credible is one of the lowest posts ive ever seen tbh, so keep going if you like, im out.

gizmo81

jamesthepeach wrote: »

What has that to do with the OP being legally been asked to leave at the end of their tenancy?

Using these tragedies as an attempt to make yourself sound credible is one of the lowest posts ive ever seen tbh, so keep going if you like, im out.

A few months ago the landlord was happy to keep on the tenant with an illegal rent increase, after losing at the RTB they want to evict the tenant. It's punitive in my opinion.

Squatter

gizmo81 wrote: »

A few months ago the landlord was happy to keep on the tenant with an illegal rent increase, after losing at the RTB they want to evict the tenant. It's punitive in my opinion.

Is this your qualfied legal opinion or one that came into your mind as you sipped your morning latte and read the Guardian online?

gizmo81

[QUOTE=chakwal;


back in january they served me a notice of rent increase by 25% starting from march.

PRTB mediator told us that they can increase only by 4%.

I was happy to go for 8% but landlord eventually said he wont increase any thing after PRTC mediator told him for 4%. If I would have agreed that time for 25% I would not be kicked out after few months based on 4 years tenancy cycle .... I didnt know 4 years case that time ...[/QUOTE]

Squatter wrote: »

Is this your qualfied legal opinion or one that came into your mind as you sipped your morning latte and read the Guardian online?

The landlord doesn't care for the law if they served a 25% increase in an RPZ in January 2017

I don't drink lattes in the morning or read the Guardian.

wordofwarning

gizmo81 wrote: »

I've read the ruling. And it's all well and good but less than a year ago the landlord was willing to let the tenant stay on with an ILLEGAL rent increase.

The landlord lost the case at the RTB and now the tenant is being evicted.

We all know what the tenant is caught by and it isn't the legislation.

Take a case to the RTB for the termination being punitive. The landlord might be within the law but definitely not the spirit of it.

A tenant cannot be punished for taking a case to the RTB, if this tenant didn't take the case and paid the ILLEGAL rent they'd still be sitting tenants no doubt.

Let the RTB hear the case.

The landlord had no choice a year ago but to let the tenant stay. She was under Part IV and the landlord could not kick her out. Who do you know that she was not going to be evicted under Part IV back in January regardless of the rent increase?

The tenant is being evicted as it is the end of Part IV. The landlord probably realises that if sticks with this tenant, she will be there for another 6 years. He might to replace her with the a tenant who is only going to be there for 1/2 years. Who knows what is coming down the road? Investors are doing whatever they can to limit long term leases that will diminish their property value

If this landlord has a habit like most landlords of religiously evicting tenants after 4 years. I doubt the RTB will buy that the landlord is punishing her with ending her tenancy, if he ends everyone tenancy.

Squatter

gizmo81 wrote: »

I don't drink lattes in the morning or read the Guardian.

Then it's about time that you did! Life is short and you're missing out on a wealth of good experiences!

I note that you didn't confirm that what you posted was a qualified legal opinion.

gizmo81

Squatter wrote: »

Is this your qualfied legal opinion or one that came into your mind as you sipped your morning latte and read the Guardian online?

Do i need to be a solicitor to have an opinion on a series of events?

gizmo81

wordofwarning wrote: »

The landlord had no choice a year ago but to let the tenant stay. She was under Part IV and the landlord could not kick her out. Who do you know that she was not going to be evicted under Part IV back in January regardless of the rent increase?

The tenant is being evicted as it is the end of Part IV. The landlord probably realises that if sticks with this tenant, she will be there for another 6 years. He might to replace her with the a tenant who is only going to be there for 1/2 years. Who knows what is coming down the road? Investors are doing whatever they can to limit long term leases that will diminish their property value

If this landlord has a habit like most landlords of religiously evicting tenants after 4 years. I doubt the RTB will buy that the landlord is punishing her with ending her tenancy, if he ends everyone tenancy.

Yes, the landlord had no choice in evicting the tenant before the end of the part 4. However, they had a choice in seeking an illegal 25% rent increase.

That was rather foolish. If they hasn't of done that we wouldn't be discussing it.

Squatter

gizmo81 wrote: »

Do i need to be a solicitor to have an opinion on a series of events?

Given that the OP was looking for informed advice rather than opinion, it would probably be a lot more helpful for him/her if you had kept your unqualified opinions to yourself.

Do you genuinely believe that your unqualified, knee-jerk opinion - with references to the recent deaths of homeless people - has helped them in any way?

gizmo81

Squatter wrote: »

Given that the OP was looking for informed advice rather than opinion, it would probably be a lot more helpful for her if you had kept your unqualified opinions to yourself.

Do you genuinely believe that your unqualified knee-jerk opinion has helped her in any way?

As opposed to what 'informed advice' she received from other posters? What qualifications have other posters?

accensi0n

gizmo81 wrote: »

As opposed to what 'informed advice' she received from other posters? What qualifications have other posters?

The ability to read and interpret the legislation, and then to disseminate that information without letting emotion take over.

gizmo81

Landlord seeks illegal rent increase of 25% ignoring the law, now landlord wants the protections under the law to evict tenant because they didn't get the illegal rent increase.

Teyla Emmagan

gizmo81 wrote:

Landlord seeks illegal rent increase of 25% ignoring the law, now landlord wants the protections under the law to evict tenant because they didn't get the illegal rent increase.

That's just your interpretation. Regardless of rent review the landlord is perfectly within their rights to issue termination now.

gizmo81

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

That's just your interpretation. Regardless of rent review the landlord is perfectly within their rights to issue termination now.

They are entitled to and the OP is entitled to refer a case back to the RTB to judge whether or not the eviction is punitive.

gizmo81

chakwal wrote: »

hi,
These days it is very difficult to get to another apartment near by with small 2 kids. any advise for if there is any possibility that tenancy act can make us live here more than 4 years.

Squatter wrote: »

Given that the OP was looking for informed advice rather than opinion, it would probably be a lot more helpful for him/her if you had kept your unqualified opinions to yourself.

Do you genuinely believe that your unqualified, knee-jerk opinion - with references to the recent deaths of homeless people - has helped them in any way?

The OP was looking for advice to stay in their home. It's within some literature I received from the RTB that you cannot be punished for referring a dispute.

Graham

Mod Note stop the personal digs.

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

The OP was looking for advice to stay in their home. It's within some literature I received from the RTB that you cannot be punished for referring a dispute.

Feel free to share the literature or link to the source.

gizmo81

Graham wrote: »

Feel free to share the literature or link to the source.

I am trying to find it, I always back up my assertions.

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

I am trying to find it, I always back up my assertions.

Thank you.

Until then the OP would be wise to consider the advice as an unqualified interpretation

gizmo81

Graham wrote: »

Thank you.

Until then the OP would be wise to consider the advice as an unqualified interpretation

Are you saying that a tenant hasn't the right to refer a dispute to the RTB?

gizmo81

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 2004

PART 2

Tenancy Obligations of Landlords and Tenants

Chapter 1

14.—(1) A landlord of a dwelling shall not penalise a tenant for—

(a) referring any dispute between the tenant and the landlord to the Board for resolution under Part 6,

(b) giving evidence in any proceedings under Part 6 to which the landlord is a party (whether the tenant is a party to them or not),

(c) making a complaint to a member of the Garda Síochána or to a public authority in relation to any matter arising out of, or in connection with, the occupation of the dwelling or making an application regarding such a matter to a public authority, or

(d) giving notice of his or her intention to do any or all of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/enacted/en/print#part2

You're welcome.

C3PO

gizmo81 wrote: »

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 2004

PART 2

Tenancy Obligations of Landlords and Tenants

Chapter 1

14.—(1) A landlord of a dwelling shall not penalise a tenant for—

(a) referring any dispute between the tenant and the landlord to the Board for resolution under Part 6,

(b) giving evidence in any proceedings under Part 6 to which the landlord is a party (whether the tenant is a party to them or not),

(c) making a complaint to a member of the Garda Síochána or to a public authority in relation to any matter arising out of, or in connection with, the occupation of the dwelling or making an application regarding such a matter to a public authority, or

(d) giving notice of his or her intention to do any or all of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/enacted/en/print#part2

You're welcome.

Grasping at straws .. again!

Paz-CCFC

gizmo81 wrote: »

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 2004

PART 2

Tenancy Obligations of Landlords and Tenants

Chapter 1

14.

Just to add another very important part of section 14 regarding your point, in subsection 3:

(3) Such action may constitute penalisation even though it consists of steps taken by the landlord in the exercise of any rights conferred on him or her by or under this Act, any other enactment or the lease or tenancy agreement concerned if, having regard to—


(a) the frequency or extent to which the right is exercised in relation to the tenant,

(b) the proximity in time of its being so exercised to the tenant's doing the relevant thing referred to in subsection (1), and

(c) any other relevant circumstances,

it is a reasonable inference that the action was intended to penalise the tenant for doing that thing.

Rights granted under any piece legislation are not viewed in isolation. They are not absolute and are interpreted with regard to the overall context. Just because one has the right to do something generally does not mean that the exercise of that right will always be accepted in every circumstance. Tenancy laws are quite similar to employment laws in this regard. Take for example, the dismissal of an employee. If an employee has been employed for less than 12 months, the employer is free to dismiss him or her without having to give a reason (kind of like the way a landlord can terminate a Part 4 within the first six months for any reason). But say the employee became pregnant, the employer found out and dismissed her the next day, without giving a reason. The employer could claim that he/she is exercising rights to terminate the employment. But, given the proximity to another event, it is likely that a court/tribunal would see this as merely a cloak for what is really a dismissal based on discrimination against one of the protected grounds. The employer would need to show a good reason that this was not the case, to shift the burden back onto the other side. Penalisation is also prohibited by employment legislation. So, if an employee were to take action against or make a complaint about their employer and shortly after, the employer began doing certain things regarding that employee, such as a reduction in hours or not granting a pay increase which was likely due, it could be viewed as penalisation. The mere fact that the employer has the general right to do these things is not a defence if it can be reasonably inferred from the facts that this was done as a result of the employee's previous actions.

This is similarly the case with tenancy law. A court/tribunal will not simply accept that something a landlord did was necessarily valid because they are generally entitled to do that thing. As section 14 states above, penalisation can come in the form of an act that the landlord is normally entitled to do. Could the OP's situation, where a landlord exercises his rights to terminate a tenancy granted by the 2004 Act, following an invalid notice of a rent review and a lost case in the RTB constitute penalisation? It would depend on the particular facts (and on a forum thread, we're likely not getting the full facts). But the mere fact that the landlord has a right to terminate the tenancy under section 34(b) does not necessarily mean that it did not constitute penalisation. If a notice of termination were granted in short proximity of an invalid rent review/RTB case, then I think that there's a good chance that this would be seen as prima facie evidence to shift the burden onto the landlord to show that the notice of termination was not done so as to penalise.

Whether an tenant in such as situation as the OP believes that it is something worth pursuing is up to themselves to decide, being in possession of the full facts. And imo, a landlord who decides to take any action such as terminating a tenancy should have a long think, look at the overall context and, if the situation warrants it, seek professional legal advice. Some landlords might believe they are clever in finding a way to remove a tenant they no longer want. Others might make an innocent mistake. But at least a professional adviser will afford them the chance to make such a decision in a fully informed manner and make them realise the potential consequences of their actions, as such consequences can be quite severe.

beauf

The LL either accepts to 4~2% or sells up.

wordofwarning

gizmo81 wrote: »

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 2004

PART 2

Tenancy Obligations of Landlords and Tenants

Chapter 1

14.—(1) A landlord of a dwelling shall not penalise a tenant for—

(a) referring any dispute between the tenant and the landlord to the Board for resolution under Part 6,

(b) giving evidence in any proceedings under Part 6 to which the landlord is a party (whether the tenant is a party to them or not),


You're welcome.

How do we know this tenant is being penalised? If this landlord evicts every tenant after the 4 years so they don't enter into another part IV. How can you say this tenant is being penalised, when the landlord is treating the tenant like every other tenant?

You are making the assumption that back in January, if they accepted the rent increase he was not going to evict them after Part IV kicked in. It is a bit of stretch IMO.

If the landlord has a history of evicting every tenant after 4 years (most landlords do). I think it will be very hard to prove he penalised them.

gizmo81

wordofwarning wrote: »

How do we know this tenant is being penalised? If this landlord evicts every tenant after the 4 years so they don't enter into another part IV. How can you say this tenant is being penalised, when the landlord is treating the tenant like every other tenant?

You are making the assumption that back in January, if they accepted the rent increase he was not going to evict them after Part IV kicked in. It is a bit of stretch IMO.

If the landlord has a history of evicting every tenant after 4 years (most landlords do). I think it will be very hard to prove he penalised them.

What stats have you "evicting every tenant after 4 years (most landlords do)"?

I said refer a dispute, I provided the section of the legislation this could come under and Paz-CCFC reinforced how even in pursing their rights under the legislation actions by the landlord could be considered punitive.

The_Conductor

beauf wrote: »

The LL either accepts to 4~2% or sells up.

The actual increase- is specified by a strict formula- and if the tenant has been there 4 years, and has not had their rent reviewed since the commencement of the tenancy- the landlord can seek an 8% increase as per the RPZ Calculator here: https://www.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones/rpz-calculator

After the initial review- its then 4% per annum- thereafter. At the outset- the formula is based on a 24 month basis for the first review- but a 12 month basis thereafter.

Vis-a-vis the rights and wrongs and whether or not you are being penalised for having taken the landlord to the RTB earlier- honestly- if you dispute the termination of the tenancy- it could go either way. If the landlord could be shown to be ending other tenancies in a similar manner- or having significant work lined up to do on the units which they are trying to schedule- it would be hard to try and argue the point.

Your Part IV tenancy- is up- and you have been advised its not being renewed- which is what a significant cohort of landlords are doing- to schedule periodic or significant works- the abortive rent review aside last January- would you be similarly trying to fight the end of the tenancy if you had not brought the landlord to the RTB?

I'm not advising you to either fight it- or not to do so- I'm suggesting that it is not a foregone conclusion that if you do fight it, that you will win the case- and I think, even if you do decide to fight it- that it would be prudent to try and line up alternate accommodation.

There are a few large scale units in Dublin at the moment- who are habitually ending 4 year Part IV contracts- both to extinguish the contracts- but also to undertake significant works (structural in nature- in the case of the developments in Smithfield)- arguably to extinguish the RPZ rent levels- so they can be reset to market rates.

The legislation as it stands- doesn't suit anyone- tenants or landlords- however, if it is made even more onerous- the only winners aside from the Revenue Commissioners- will be solicitors.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

What stats have you "evicting every tenant after 4 years (most landlords do)"?

I said was refer a dispute, I provided the section of the legislation this could come under and Paz-CCFC reinforced how even in pursing their rights under the legislation actions by the landlord could be considered punitive.

There are entire developments ending Part IV tenancies in due course as they arise- Threshold mentioned one particularly notorious development in Smithfield in their interview on Thursday. I'm not aware that a majority of landlords are doing it- however, it is becomming an issue.

davo10

I think this thread has now tipped over into grandstanding about morality and social problems rather than offering the op solid advice. If in doubt about your situation or rights, refer to the relevant legislation, that legislation states that it is legal to end a Part 4 tenancy after 4 years, giving a reason. Thankfully GGTrek posted a pertinent ruling. Op, the ruling outlines your position clearly.