Landlord told us he was selling the house, ten days after leaving its up for rent

tim3000

Hi all,

A little back story, we were renting from November 2012 to August 2017. There was a singular rent increase in that time of 100 euros per month occurring in March 2016. Last May the LL came in with a letter stating that his circumstances had changed and he intends to sell the place. The letter stated that he must enter a binding contract of sale within 3 months of our departure. A for sale sign went up about 5 people viewed the residence (we heard that he wanted approx 210k for the house dramatically in excess of local prices)

He gave us 13 weeks notice, we moved house on the August 19th about 3 weeks shy of the date stated on the letter. Approximately 10 days after we left the for sale sign disappeared and the property was relisted from daft.ie to rent.ie at 400 euros per month higher than our rent was, and a minimum lease of 1 year.

Is this legal? Or is it case of a LL exploiting a loophole?

Any help would be welcome I am extremely unhappy about it as it was the finish of my little family living together.

Tim

davindub

tim3000 wrote: »

Hi all,

A little back story, we were renting from November 2012 to August 2017. There was a singular rent increase in that time of 100 euros per month occurring in March 2016. Last May the LL came in with a letter stating that his circumstances had changed and he intends to sell the place. The letter stated that he must enter a binding contract of sale within 3 months of our departure. A for sale sign went up about 5 people viewed the residence (we heard that he wanted approx 210k for the house dramatically in excess of local prices)

He gave us 13 weeks notice, we moved house on the August 19th about 3 weeks shy of the date stated on the letter. Approximately 10 days after we left the for sale sign disappeared and the property was relisted from daft.ie to rent.ie at 400 euros per month higher than our rent was, and a minimum lease of 1 year.

Is this legal? Or is it case of a LL exploiting a loophole?

Any help would be welcome I am extremely unhappy about it as it was the finish of my little family living together.

Tim

No its not legal. Did you keep the statutory declaration on the notice?

Also he cannot raise the rent either.

The remedy is not clear but you could try a case for illegal eviction.

q85dw7osi4lebg

This is a very unlikely case given the timelines but just be sure the property hasn't changed ownership before making any complaint, perhaps check with the agent.

Conveyancing normally takes 4-6 weeks minimum but it might be a case of tenants being sought in advance of it closing.

All very unlikely however.

Reati

The only reasonable action here is to burn the house down with 400 euro of petrol...

Joking aside, what outcome do you want from this? Yes it's ****. Yes, it's not right or fair but it's kinda done and dusted. The best you get out of this is a feeling of getting the last laugh I guess?

Browney7

I'd send someone you know and trust to try and get a viewing and take some photos of the place so he can't claim extensive refurbishment either.

Sounds like you left in good faith and lo and behold he had a dramatic change of heart and missed having a tenant in his life as soon as you left. Take screenshots of the ad etc

seagull

Or reporting the LL to the RTB and being awarded compensation.

gmisk

Is there pics online has it been refurbed?
If not I would definitely talk to prtb

michaelp97

If you found somewhere else to rent I wouldn't push any further what's to gain from it? Granted what the LL is doing may be annoying but at the end of the day he owns the house and purchased or inherited it with the intention of making money from it, if you were in their shoes of owning an other property wouldn't you try and get as much money from it as you could? It might be a ****ty way to look at it but in my eyes he has done something right to own more than one property, he could've said he wanted to raise the rent agreed but maybe he didn't get anywhere near his asking price so decided to rent again

Ultimate Seduction

Go for a viewing of the property yourself, maybe under a false name. See what he says then when you meet him. Keep the letter and save the ad. Report to prtb. You may get compensation

tim3000

davindub wrote: »

No its not legal. Did you keep the statutory declaration on the notice?

Also he cannot raise the rent either.

The remedy is not clear but you could try a case for illegal eviction.

I kept the declaration, to tell the truth we kind of anticipated this situation occurring

Ridge Hundreds Whiff wrote: »

This is a very unlikely case given the timelines but just be sure the property hasn't changed ownership before making any complaint, perhaps check with the agent.

Conveyancing normally takes 4-6 weeks minimum but it might be a case of tenants being sought in advance of it closing.

All very unlikely however.

That is an approximate timeline of events, the ad states that a minimum lease of one year is required at the new rent of 1100 euros per month.

Reati wrote: »

The only reasonable action here is to burn the house down with 400 euro of petrol...

Joking aside, what outcome do you want from this? Yes it's ****. Yes, it's not right or fair but it's kinda done and dusted. The best you get out of this is a feeling of getting the last laugh I guess?

It was an extremely stressful time in my families life, and if it was brought about due to shady LL practices then yes I would like some form retribution.

Browney7 wrote: »

I'd send someone you know and trust to try and get a viewing and take some photos of the place so he can't claim extensive refurbishment either.

Sounds like you left in good faith and lo and behold he had a dramatic change of heart and missed having a tenant in his life as soon as you left. Take screenshots of the ad etc

We did leave in good faith but we weren't surprised to see it relisted, and extensive refurbishment did not take place there simply wasn't time between our leaving and his relisting if you get me.

michaelp97 wrote: »

If you found somewhere else to rent I wouldn't push any further what's to gain from it? Granted what the LL is doing may be annoying but at the end of the day he owns the house and purchased or inherited it with the intention of making money from it, if you were in their shoes of owning an other property wouldn't you try and get as much money from it as you could? It might be a ****ty way to look at it but in my eyes he has done something right to own more than one property, he could've said he wanted to raise the rent agreed but maybe he didn't get anywhere near his asking price so decided to rent again

You see if it was just me I would walk away but there were 4 of us living in the house, I have had to move to Galway and am currently unemployed (having just finished college). My sister had to relocate away from her job too, my brother had emigrated leaving a large collection of his collectibles in our care so we had to rent a storage unit at 120 euro a month to accommodate them and other stuff. Lastly my dad has had to move to an isolated house in the country as that was all he could afford. So my sympathies for the LL are in extremely short supply. It was an absolute disaster for my family to be honest

pansophelia

Were you in a Rent Pressure Zone?
I would check the legalities - PRTB and Threshold websites quite good - and then if appropriate make a complaint with the PRTB.
It doesn't really matter what the landlord wants to do - it only matters what he's legally allowed to do.
Keep careful details of all correspondence and dates.
Best wishes

April 73

It's pretty obvious what happened here & it had a big impact on a family that had been renting the house for a long period of time.
They left & ten days later the LL has it up for rent? Sudden change of heart on selling? Dubious to say the least.
That's not right & if it were me I would persue it through the RTB.

GhostyMcGhost

Even if it was re-rented, OP you must be offered first refusal on it

Doesn't sound like you were asked if you wanted it back

Hollister11

Sounds like the OP wants to be a member of the compo culture we have here.

OP, yes it's ****ty but get over it. It's his house, and because of the government sticking their noses in, instead of building houses he's ROI is greatly affected. Give the man a break.

davindub

tim3000 wrote: »

I kept the declaration, to tell the truth we kind of anticipated this situation occurring



That is an approximate timeline of events, the ad states that a minimum lease of one year is required at the new rent of 1100 euros per month.



It was an extremely stressful time in my families life, and if it was brought about due to shady LL practices then yes I would like some form retribution.



We did leave in good faith but we weren't surprised to see it relisted, and extensive refurbishment did not take place there simply wasn't time between our leaving and his relisting if you get me.



You see if it was just me I would walk away but there were 4 of us living in the house, I have had to move to Galway and am currently unemployed (having just finished college). My sister had to relocate away from her job too, my brother had emigrated leaving a large collection of his collectibles in our care so we had to rent a storage unit at 120 euro a month to accommodate them and other stuff. Lastly my dad has had to move to an isolated house in the country as that was all he could afford. So my sympathies for the LL are in extremely short supply. It was an absolute disaster for my family to be honest

Good, breach of statutory declaration is a criminal offense, So get legal advice on how to proceed with reporting this as well as the RTB case. But build evidence while it is available, get screenshots of the listing, etc. Best of luck.

Browney7

Hollister11 wrote: »

Sounds like the OP wants to be a member of the compo culture we have here.

OP, yes it's ****ty but get over it. It's his house, and because of the government sticking their noses in, instead of building houses he's ROI is greatly affected. Give the man a break.

And it's actions from people like the OP's landlord who may influence the government into removing the reason for sale clause for terminating a part 4 tenancy and screws over legitimate LLs who may genuinely wish to exit the business....

Mech1

Hollister11 wrote: »

Sounds like the OP wants to be a member of the compo culture we have here.

OP, yes it's ****ty but get over it. It's his house, and because of the government sticking their noses in, instead of building houses he's ROI is greatly affected. Give the man a break.

"His return on investment may well be affected", tough shi*, all investments come with a risk attached. He decided to take that risk.

WoollyRedHat

Hollister11 wrote: »

Sounds like the OP wants to be a member of the compo culture we have here.

OP, yes it's ****ty but get over it. It's his house, and because of the government sticking their noses in, instead of building houses he's ROI is greatly affected. Give the man a break.

What? Talking out of your hoop here im afraid. Easy to say to just 'Get over it' when you didnt have to go through the stress of having you and your family uprooted because the landlord decided to do a fast one.

Its quite scurrilous that it was only on market 10 days before going back on rental market.

Tigger

Hollister11 wrote: »

Sounds like the OP wants to be a member of the compo culture we have here.

OP, yes it's ****ty but get over it. It's his house, and because of the government sticking their noses in, instead of building houses he's ROI is greatly affected. Give the man a break.

It's not compo culture to want to be financially compensated for someone breaking your residential rights
Like it or not the law is the law and if you want a tenant out you must obey the law because it will affect them
Moving is hassel and costs money

tim3000

pansophelia wrote: »

Were you in a Rent Pressure Zone?
I would check the legalities - PRTB and Threshold websites quite good - and then if appropriate make a complaint with the PRTB.
It doesn't really matter what the landlord wants to do - it only matters what he's legally allowed to do.
Keep careful details of all correspondence and dates.
Best wishes

I am not in one of these rent pressure zones. But rent prices in the area had increased markedly in the last few years. I am trying to ascertain if it was illegal, I will visit a solicitor on Monday and see.

April 73 wrote: »

It's pretty obvious what happened here & it had a big impact on a family that had been renting the house for a long period of time.
They left & ten days later the LL has it up for rent? Sudden change of heart on selling? Dubious to say the least.
That's not right & if it were me I would persue it through the RTB.

I am also going to go down that route, once I have gained legal counsel of some form, I am wary of engaging solicitors as he is considerably netter off than me and mine.

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Even if it was re-rented, OP you must be offered first refusal on it

Doesn't sound like you were asked if you wanted it back

No we were never asked that at all we were just told that it was to be sold. Then surprise surprise it was relisted for rent.

Hollister11 wrote: »

Sounds like the OP wants to be a member of the compo culture we have here.

OP, yes it's ****ty but get over it. It's his house, and because of the government sticking their noses in, instead of building houses he's ROI is greatly affected. Give the man a break.

I am not trying to gain compensation from it, I am just trying to ascertain if a wrong had happened and how to right it. I don't believe I mentioned hauling him through the courts and getting rich quick did I? It might be his house by he may have trodden on MY rights.

For those of you interested I will seek legal counsel and see. It is a bit of a grey area from my understanding but perhaps there is grounds for a RTB mediation or something similar. The property according to the ad is available from October so I am thinking if it is re-rented that that may breach the clauses mentioned in the letter, but I am not well versed in legalities of this nature, if anyone knows anyone that has experienced something similar please post here. I will update this thread once I know more.

Tim

Sleeper12

It's wrong. It's illegal. It happens every day of the week.the average annual rent increase in Dublin is a lot more than the 4 percent allowed

Fanny Wank

Hollister11 wrote: »

Sounds like the OP wants to be a member of the compo culture we have here.

OP, yes it's ****ty but get over it. It's his house, and because of the government sticking their noses in, instead of building houses he's ROI is greatly affected. Give the man a break.

Yes I agree, we should all just obey the laws we want to and that suit us

LuckyLloyd

Open a dispute with the RTB. You will win, be financially compensated and may even be offered the place back at original terms.

The most idiotic thing in all this is the OP was not in a rent pressure so the LL could just have increased his rent by 400 euro and if the op refused he would have had to move out so the LL would have gotten his increase either way.

The LL was totally clueless!

GarIT

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Open a dispute with the RTB. You will win, be financially compensated and may even be offered the place back at original terms.

I would actually advise against this. If the OP complains now the landlord can offer the OP the opportunity to move back in and if the OP refuses all is considered resolved with no harm done. If the OP waits until there is a new tenant in the house and the landlord can't offer the OP the option to move back in then the OP will have to be compensated.

GarIT

GarIT wrote: »

I would actually advise against this. If the OP complains now the landlord can offer the OP the opportunity to move back in and if the OP refuses all is considered resolved with no harm done. If the OP waits until there is a new tenant in the house and the landlord can't offer the OP the option to move back in then the OP will have to be compensated.

Wasn't there a case posted on here a while back where the op waited to report in a similar scenario and the RTB decided that they didn't complain in time so lost the case. I may be remembering the details incorrectly though so I'm not 100% sure.

GarIT

Poppy Sour Viewer wrote: »

Wasn't there a case posted on here a while back where the op waited to report in a similar scenario and the RTB decided that they didn't complain in time so lost the case. I may be remembering the details incorrectly though so I'm not 100% sure.

I haven't heard anything about it so can't comment either way.

As far as I know, though the landlord hasn't done anything wrong until he rents it out again without offering the OP the opportunity to take it.

rsynnott

Hollister11 wrote: »

Sounds like the OP wants to be a member of the compo culture we have here.

OP, yes it's ****ty but get over it. It's his house, and because of the government sticking their noses in, instead of building houses he's ROI is greatly affected. Give the man a break.

Landlords presumably know what they're getting into; the rules aren't new, and if they weren't happy when the law changed over a decade ago they could presumably have sold up then. Landlords, no matter how hard done by they might feel, have to obey the rules just like any other business.

Note that you rarely see posts about "restaurants should be allowed have rat infestations if they want" on threads about FSAI closure orders. I'm not sure why people think landlords are so different. If they want to be in the business, they must follow the law. If they don't like the law, well, get out of the business (I understand there are some people stuck in it due to negative equity on the family home and having to move, and that's unfortunate, but they're a shrinking minority). And if they don't obey the law, they should be punished; otherwise what's the incentive to obey the law?

On the point about the government sticking their noses in rather than building houses, well, building houses isn't the PRTB's job, and it should be largely self-funding. The government can do multiple things at once; it's pretty big.

davindub

GarIT wrote: »

I haven't heard anything about it so can't comment either way.

As far as I know, though the landlord hasn't done anything wrong until he rents it out again without offering the OP the opportunity to take it.

The termination is the issue, the landlord has not terminated the lease under s.34 as he did not have the intent to sell the property within 3 months of the termination date (as per HC comments, intent is more than placing the house on the market).

stingray555

Do not contact a solicitor. Just call RTB and open a case with them. Contact your nearest Threshold office for legal advice. The LL clearly illegally evicted you.

jimmycrackcorm

michaelp97 wrote:

If you found somewhere else to rent I wouldn't push any further what's to gain from it?

It's with pursuing with the RTB if only to warn off other shyster landlords from doing illegal evictions.

But check the PPR to see of it had actually been sold even though it looks doubtful.

MSVforever

I feel for the OP.

There is a lot of ****e going on in the private rental market in Ireland (for both tenants and landlords).
Long term rentals seem to be unusual unlike in Germany, Holland etc where you can actually make the rented property your home.
I don't want the landlords granny furniture either so unfurnished should be the way to go.

You are either lucky enough to get a heavily subsidized council house which has to be kitted out to EU standards (unlike the private rented house) and where you can't be kicked out (unless you are antisocial and keep "missing" paying rent).

Or you can afford to buy which is getting more difficult with increasing rents plus paying for childcare....

Lantus

You appear to of been illegally evicted.

Keep all documents. Take screen shots of rent.ie before the listing goes with dates wherever possible.

Document the entire timeline.

Report to ptb. You have nothing to lose and you may well be due compensation for what has been done to you.

April 73

OP - I wouldn't bother with a solicitor at all. Get your documentation together & open a case with the RTB. You don't need a solicitor to do that.
You need to write down the events chronologically to tell your story. Especially important are the dates you received notice, when the house was listed for sale & for how long, when you vacated & when the house was taken off the market & relisted for renting. The very fact that it has been delisted without giving you first refusal is wrong.

I once tookacase against a bank to the Financial Ombudsman & won (no solicitor involved in my side) because I had the documentation & proof & could tell the story of what happened chronologically.

Don't waste money on a solicitor. You have nothing to lose by taking a case to the RTB. Never mind compensation - it's a point of principle.

tim3000

GarIT wrote: »

I would actually advise against this. If the OP complains now the landlord can offer the OP the opportunity to move back in and if the OP refuses all is considered resolved with no harm done. If the OP waits until there is a new tenant in the house and the landlord can't offer the OP the option to move back in then the OP will have to be compensated.

I am going to wait until such time as I receive (or more likely don't receive) first refusal. The house will likely be rented soon I'd say.

April 73 wrote: »

OP - I wouldn't bother with a solicitor at all. Get your documentation together & open a case with the RTB. You don't need a solicitor to do that.
You need to write down the events chronologically to tell your story. Especially important are the dates you received notice, when the house was listed for sale & for how long, when you vacated & when the house was taken off the market & relisted for renting. The very fact that it has been delisted without giving you first refusal is wrong.

I once tookacase against a bank to the Financial Ombudsman & won (no solicitor involved in my side) because I had the documentation & proof & could tell the story of what happened chronologically.

Don't waste money on a solicitor. You have nothing to lose by taking a case to the RTB. Never mind compensation - it's a point of principle.

I am likely going to a solicitor to asses if he can come back at me should I lose on the day (if it gets that far). The responses here are heartening as your case was. And your're right its the principle of the matter not financial compensation that I am after. I wouldn't do it to someone and I don't expect it done to me.

I have found this link below stating that it is indeed illegal should the house not have been sold in due course so the next stage is to see if the house has been sold and relisted by someone else (highly unlikely)

http://www.thejournal.ie/landlord-selling-property-2742723-May2016/

Also on further googling it seems that we weren't served with the appropriate notice period of 112 days though I believe that this point is moot as a claim has to be entered within 28 days of receipt of notice.

https://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/how-your-landlord-may-end-your-tenancy/

I a likely going to open this with the RTB soon but I would like to see it re-rented to put the final nail in the coffin so to speak

Thanks for all the encouragement

Xterminator

Hollister11 wrote: »

Sounds like the OP wants to be a member of the compo culture we have here.... Give the man a break.

If the OP is right about the landlord breaking the law of the land then his is entitled to compensation.

When a tenant lives in a house its their home. If someone whips your home out from under you in an underhand manner then they are deserving of every single bit of comeuppance they get.

And karma's not a liar, She keeps receipts

Lantus

tim3000 wrote:

I am likely going to a solicitor to asses if he can come back at me should I lose on the day (if it gets that far). The responses here are heartening as your case was. And your're right its the principle of the matter not financial compensation that I am after. I wouldn't do it to someone and I don't expect it done to me.

Don't bother with solicitor. An rtb hearing will go for or against you. The landlord cannot counter Sue if you lose!

tomwaits48

Lantus wrote: »

Don't bother with solicitor. An rtb hearing will go for or against you. The landlord cannot counter Sue if you lose!

yeah but what actually happens to the landlord? He can just ignore the RTB can't he. Do they have any teeth?

michaelp97

Just curious as to the for sale sign that was up for a few days, does the sign itself have to be up for a minimum amount of time before the LL could change his mind and decide it's not going to meet his asking price so he'll just rent again?

tim3000

michaelp97 wrote: »

Just curious as to the for sale sign that was up for a few days, does the sign itself have to be up for a minimum amount of time before the LL could change his mind and decide it's not going to meet his asking price so he'll just rent again?

The for sale sign was erected around 5 days after he gave us notice so maybe the 14th 15th of May. It was taken down at best guess around the 26-27th of August less than 10 days after we vacated the house. He did have viewings maybe 4 in all, but we reckon he he deliberately priced himself out of the market in order to re-rent it. Looking online it hasn't been sold since we left. This is all conjecture on my part but its likely whats after happening.

On Monday I am going to lodge it formally with the RTB and see what they say.

xpletiv

I have absolutely no sympathy for the landlord here and those that are saying that they should 'get over it', well, you're pretty awful people... this should absolutely be pursued to full extent. Letting landlords get away with this shady practice is ruining the country and ruining lives. Greed mentality should not be just let go.

Don't get over it, get even.

Very interested in finding out the outcome!

DirkVoodoo

The attitudes here are shocking and part of the reason we are in a crisis of not enough rental properties at affordable prices. Ah sure he's only a poor oul sod, let him off.

No, he broke the law, he created a stressful situation for a family and threatened a very basic and essential need that they had.

Security of tenancy is something we as a nation seem to really struggle with. You can't just throw people out because your agent has said you could be getting more rent, you just need to break the law first.

"Chancer", "gas character", "cute hoor"...we're great at excusing pathetic law breaking. Time for it to stop.

tim3000

xpletiv wrote: »

I have absolutely no sympathy for the landlord here and those that are saying that they should 'get over it', well, you're pretty awful people... this should absolutely be pursued to full extent. Letting landlords get away with this shady practice is ruining the country and ruining lives. Greed mentality should not be just let go.

Don't get over it, get even.

Very interested in finding out the outcome!

I will keep you all updated. I am hoping that this thread will act as a reference point for others in a similar situation. I visited Threshold yesterday and the lady said it is quite common. i am just hoping that in the event of legal proceedings that I haven't overlooked anything.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Going by what you have said OP, it seems the landlord at least made some effort to market the property for 3 months.

This is their prime obligation when using the sale of a property to end a lease.

From what I can see, if they didn't sell the property in that period, then the only mistake they have made is to not offer you the property first, before going back to the rental market.

I hope you get sorted but I don't see there being major implications for the LL by going down the RTB route, as the landlord may have simply "made a mistake", and you may be offered the property again, however not at the previous rent.

Given you are not in a RPZ I think the RTB will be quite lenient on the LL, as they are entitled to up the rent to any figure they wish, whenever you were still in the property or not.

This is just my basic understanding, correct me if I'm wrong (likely).

tim3000

Ridge Hundreds Whiff wrote: »

Going by what you have said OP, it seems the landlord at least made some effort to market the property for 3 months.

This is their prime obligation when using the sale of a property to end a lease.

From what I can see, if they didn't sell the property in that period, then the only mistake they have made is to not offer you the property first, before going back to the rental market.

I hope you get sorted but I don't see there being major implications for the LL by going down the RTB route, as the landlord may have simply "made a mistake", and you may be offered the property again, however not at the previous rent.

Given you are not in a RPZ I think the RTB will be quite lenient on the LL, as they are entitled to up the rent to any figure they wish, whenever you were still in the property or not.

This is just my basic understanding, correct me if I'm wrong (likely).

An effort was made (he even had a painter in to paint some of the rooms while we were moving out) but I think the for sale sign was just to save face in front of us while we were there. On the RTB website there is a sample letter on it stating
"The reason for the termination of the tenancy is due to the fact that the landlord intends to enter into a binding contract for sale within three months of the termination of the tenancy and to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer for full consideration of his or her interest in the
premises".

I think the fact that it was immediately relisted for rent and not entered in to this binding contract of sale will be key (likely before it changed hands) with a stipulation of a minimum of a 1 year might mean he is breaking the law according to new regulations that I only found out and are quoted above in that Journal article I linked some posts back.

I imagine they will be lenient on him all right, he owns several properties and is extremely well off, which matters a lot in this country it seems

q85dw7osi4lebg

tim3000 wrote: »

An effort was made (he even had a painter in to paint some of the rooms while we were moving out) but I think the for sale sign was just to save face in front of us while we were there. On the RTB website there is a sample letter on it stating
"The reason for the termination of the tenancy is due to the fact that the landlord intends to enter into a binding contract for sale within three months of the termination of the tenancy and to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer for full consideration of his or her interest in the
premises".

I think the fact that it was immediately relisted for rent (likely before it changed hands) with a stipulation of a minimum of a 1 year might mean he is breaking the law according to new regulations that I only found out and are quoted above in that Journal article I linked some posts back.

I imagine they will be lenient on him all right, he owns several properties and is extremely well off, which matters a lot in this country it seems

Understood. it sounds like he has done the absolute bare minimum, which to me sounds like a box ticking exercise, meaning he may well believe he has done everything by the book just to keep himself out of trouble.

Hope you get sorted.

fishy_fishy

There was a thread on here a while ago where something similar happened. The renter lost the PRTB case because the landlord said he was only offering it for rent because someone interested in buying it wanted to see what it could fetch for rent.

It might be worth waiting until it has been let.

tim3000

Ridge Hundreds Whiff wrote: »

Understood. it sounds like he has done the absolute bare minimum, which to me sounds like a box ticking exercise, meaning he may well believe he has done everything by the book just to keep himself out of trouble.

Hope you get sorted.

Thanks Ridge Hundreds Whiff I hope it gets sorted too.

Browney7

Ridge Hundreds Whiff wrote: »

Going by what you have said OP, it seems the landlord at least made some effort to market the property for 3 months.

This is their prime obligation when using the sale of a property to end a lease.

From what I can see, if they didn't sell the property in that period, then the only mistake they have made is to not offer you the property first, before going back to the rental market.

I hope you get sorted but I don't see there being major implications for the LL by going down the RTB route, as the landlord may have simply "made a mistake", and you may be offered the property again, however not at the previous rent.

Given you are not in a RPZ I think the RTB will be quite lenient on the LL, as they are entitled to up the rent to any figure they wish, whenever you were still in the property or not.

This is just my basic understanding, correct me if I'm wrong (likely).

Based on what the OP said, their rent was reviewed in 2016 by €100 so it would have been set at the reviewed level for two years until 2018 and could have been reviewed upwards to "market" rent at that point. This also begs the question, was the original rent review delivered in the required format - in writing, three comparable properties etc?

Also, curious the LL had the property listed for sale on Daft but the Rental on Rent.ie - may have been hoping the OP wouldn't have seen it readvertised (I've never looked at rent.ie before).

My guess is the LL didn't want to wait a further 6-9 months to review rent or else was anticipating the area becoming a RPZ and was trying to be smart getting the OP out and hoped he'd get away with it

tim3000

Browney7 wrote: »

Based on what the OP said, their rent was reviewed in 2016 by €100 so it would have been set at the reviewed level for two years until 2018 and could have been reviewed upwards to "market" rent at that point. This also begs the question, was the original rent review delivered in the required format - in writing, three comparable properties etc?

Also, curious the LL had the property listed for sale on Daft but the Rental on Rent.ie - may have been hoping the OP wouldn't have seen it readvertised (I've never looked at rent.ie before).

My guess is the LL didn't want to wait a further 6-9 months to review rent or else was anticipating the area becoming a RPZ and was trying to be smart getting the OP out and hoped he'd get away with it

You are correct the rent increased from 600 to 700 in March 16. I don't think it was delivered in the correct format rather he showed up and said that it will have to go up. We didn't question the lack of writing at the time as we were happy it didn't go up further!

The area will likely become a RPZ in the near future and the increase of 400 is inline with other prices in the area.

OnDraught

Have to despair at the landlord class on here wanting to give this guy a pass for an illegal eviction. Dirt.