Termination notice to Substantially Refurbish

rangav

Hi

I got a notice today from Letting agent that our tenancy will be terminated as Landlord want to substantially refurbish the Apt.

I moved into the Apartment just 2 years ago which was totally refurbished at that time. This Apartment still looks brand new, no need to even repaint or change anything. But the agent sent a notice for refurbish again now to vacate us and so he increase the rent.

Currently I am paying €1200, got a rent review notice recently for €1260 from Oct 1st. Others were paying €1500 in same apts.

It looks to me agent wants to use this loophole to vacate us to increase the rent.

Anyone please suggest me what we should do.

Thanks

rangav

This below are the works landlord wants to carry. ( None of them is needed as the Apt was refurnbished just 2 years ago and looks very new still).

The following works will be carried out:

• Upgrades to the kitchen including new countertops, splash back, extractor fan, extractor unit and kitchen cabinetry
• Install new kitchen appliances: new hob, oven and microwave.
• Full paint of the apartment — all walls, ceilings, doors, door frames & skirting boards
• Replacing flooring — carpet to bedrooms and laminate flooring to hail and living room
• Clearing the apartment of all existing furniture and flooring
• Replacing all furniture items
• Replacing all window coverings
• Replacing tiling in both the bathroom and en suite
• Upgrade the extractor fan system in both bathrooms
• Install new shower unit in en suite and in main bathroom

The renovation works involves the removal of sanitary ware in the bathroom, which will require the water supply to be shut off.
Planning permission is not required for these renovations.
The contractor engaged to carry out these renovation works is ****.
The duration of the works will take approximately 5-6 weeks.
The works will commence within 5 working days of tenant vacate.

__..__

Welcome to the world of rent caps.

Lumen

I assume you're in an RPZ?

If the market rate is only €240/mo extra than what you're paying, those "upgrades" will take quite some time to pay off.

Maybe the landlord will back off if met with sufficient resistance.

Take some high quality photos of the current condition of the property, then seek advice.

Anecdotal: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104785201&postcount=33

PhoenixParker

__..__ wrote: »

Welcome to the world of rent caps.

Without the rent caps the op would be paying €1500 or moving to somewhere cheaper.

With the rent caps and a landlord trying to circumvent them the tenant has to move out temporarily and then pay €1500 or move somewhere cheaper.

While the inconvenience of moving out temporarily is not insignificant, the tenants long term position is pretty much identical.

davo10

rangav wrote: »

This below are the works landlord wants to carry. ( None of them is needed as the Apt was refurnbished just 2 years ago and looks very new still).

The following works will be carried out:

• Upgrades to the kitchen including new countertops, splash back, extractor fan, extractor unit and kitchen cabinetry
• Install new kitchen appliances: new hob, oven and microwave.
• Full paint of the apartment — all walls, ceilings, doors, door frames & skirting boards
• Replacing flooring — carpet to bedrooms and laminate flooring to hail and living room
• Clearing the apartment of all existing furniture and flooring
• Replacing all furniture items
• Replacing all window coverings
• Replacing tiling in both the bathroom and en suite
• Upgrade the extractor fan system in both bathrooms
• Install new shower unit in en suite and in main bathroom

The renovation works involves the removal of sanitary ware in the bathroom, which will require the water supply to be shut off.
Planning permission is not required for these renovations.
The contractor engaged to carry out these renovation works is ****.
The duration of the works will take approximately 5-6 weeks.
The works will commence within 5 working days of tenant vacate.

To be fair, in the case of an apartment it is hard to argue that the refurbishment could not be more substantial, so it the work is carried out then it's a legitimate termination and rent increase. The LL has to give you first option to re occupy so you can easily check if the work has been done.

From the LL's viewpoint, it really isn't up to the tenant to decide if refurbishmemt is needed, that decision rests solely with the property owner. The notice seems correct so, best to start looking for new digs.

__..__

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Without the rent caps the op would be paying €1500 or moving to somewhere cheaper.

With the rent caps and a landlord trying to circumvent them the tenant has to move out temporarily and then pay €1500 or move somewhere cheaper.

While the inconvenience of moving out temporarily is not insignificant, the tenants long term position is pretty much identical.

Sounds like the apartment might be taking a jump in quality. High end apartment will command a higher price than the average.
Possibly even the LL might be going for corporate let's instead.

Lumen

davo10 wrote: »

To be fair, in the case of an apartment it is hard to argue that the refurbishment could not be more substantial, so it the work is carried out then it's a legitimate termination and rent increase. The LL has to give you first option to re occupy so you can easily check if the work has been done.

The law makes no reference to refurbishment, it refers to a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation.

The argument that the property is small and therefore there's no much you can do to it does not support the idea of a "substantial change in nature", quite the opposite.

Obvs we have only one side of this story. Maybe the apartment is currently total crap and the refurb will involve gold wallpaper and wall-to-wall Roche Bobois.

__..__

Lumen wrote: »

The law makes no reference to refurbishment, it refers to a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation.

The argument that the property is small and therefore there's no much you can do to it does not support the idea of a "substantial change in nature", quite the opposite.

Obvs we have only one side of this story. Maybe the apartment is currently total crap and the refurb will involve gold wallpaper and wall-to-wall Roche Bobois.

If he's going for high end or moving to corporate or short term let's that a substantial change to the nature of the property.

davo10

Lumen wrote: »

The law makes no reference to refurbishment:D

What?

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

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

The law makes no reference to refurbishment, it refers to a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation.

You are confusing the RPZ wording with the reason for termination wording.

Refurbishment is very much a reason for termination.

Lumen

Eleanor Old-fashioned Catamaran wrote: »

You are confusing the RPZ wording with the reason for termination wording.

Refurbishment is very much a reason for termination.

Ah, thanks.

But when a property in an RPZ is re-offered after refurbishment, presumably the criteria for increasing the rent to market rate is governed by "substantial change in nature"?

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Ah, thanks.

But when a property in an RPZ is re-offered after refurbishment, presumably the criteria for increasing the rent to market rate is governed by "substantial change in nature"?

Yes but as "substantial change" is not defined I would be increasing rent based on the refurbishment if I were the LL.

rangav

I just talked to RTB, they said LL can issue termination for substantial change of Prop.

But if I dont think what they are doing is substantial then i can file a dispute with RTB. and there is no proper definition of Substantial Change in RTB.

After doing all the research i think introducing RPZ is not that useful at all, when LL's have this loophope - "Substantial Refurbish" to terminate tenancy and increase the rents.

Anyone filed a dispute with RTB regarding this?

PhoenixParker

rangav wrote: »

I just talked to RTB, they said LL can issue termination for substantial change of Prop.

But if I dont think what they are doing is substantial then i can file a dispute with RTB. and there is no proper definition of Substantial Change in RTB.

After doing all the research i think introducing RPZ is not that useful at all, when LL's have this loophope - "Substantial Refurbish" to terminate tenancy and increase the rents.

Anyone filed a dispute with RTB regarding this?

I would focus more on the "change" aspect in your submission. What they're doing is substantial but if the apartment is in good condition and was freshly refurbished when you moved in, it doesn't constitute a (substantial) change.

rangav

According this website
http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/private-rented-housing/minister-eoghan-murphys-address-publication-rtb-q2-2017-rent-index-report-and-further-rental-sector-measures

Substantial refurbishment: should involve major renovation works, such as rewiring, extensions, increasing the number of bedrooms or substantially reducing energy usage through insulation or new windows and doors, which clearly improve the quality of the accommodation being offered, to the extent that would merit an increased rent. It’s not envisaged that this would include merely cosmetic improvement works like re-painting of a property or new carpets/flooring.


Based on the above definition what they are doing is not substantial at all.

__..__

rangav wrote: »

According this website
http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/private-rented-housing/minister-eoghan-murphys-address-publication-rtb-q2-2017-rent-index-report-and-further-rental-sector-measures

Substantial refurbishment: should involve major renovation works, such as rewiring, extensions, increasing the number of bedrooms or substantially reducing energy usage through insulation or new windows and doors, which clearly improve the quality of the accommodation being offered, to the extent that would merit an increased rent. It’s not envisaged that this would include merely cosmetic improvement works like re-painting of a property or new carpets/flooring.


Based on the above definition what they are doing is not substantial at all.

I don't think you would find anyone who wouldn't consider that list substantial.

seamus

I'm not sure if the definition of "substantial" is relevant here.

The notice states that the water supply will be shut off and the kitchen completely gutted. Therefore the works require that the property is vacated while they're ongoing. That's really the measure of whether the termination is valid - whether the works being carried out require the property to be indefinitely vacant.

davo10

rangav wrote: »

According this website
http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/private-rented-housing/minister-eoghan-murphys-address-publication-rtb-q2-2017-rent-index-report-and-further-rental-sector-measures

Substantial refurbishment: should involve major renovation works, such as rewiring, extensions, increasing the number of bedrooms or substantially reducing energy usage through insulation or new windows and doors, which clearly improve the quality of the accommodation being offered, to the extent that would merit an increased rent. It’s not envisaged that this would include merely cosmetic improvement works like re-painting of a property or new carpets/flooring.


Based on the above definition what they are doing is not substantial at all.

It's an apartment, there is only so much renovation you can do to an apartment and by the looks of the list, he is doing every bit of it.

FishOnABike

davo10 wrote: »

It's an apartment, there is only so much renovation you can do to an apartment and by the looks of the list, he is doing every bit of it.

The corollary of that is that if there is only so much renovation you can do to an apartment then you cannot at the same time have "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy"

While the level of refurbishment would be sufficient to support aht termination notice the current tennant would have first refusal on re-occupying the apartment after the refurbishment.

I wouldn't think replacing two year old fittings with new ones and redecorating would constitute "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy" that would support a rent increase above the RPZ limits.

I don't see how the LL expects a return on the cost of the renovations.

__..__

FishOnABike wrote: »

The corollary of that is that if there is only so much renovation you can do to an apartment then you cannot at the same time have "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy"

While the level of refurbishment would be sufficient to support aht termination notice the current tennant would have first refusal on re-occupying the apartment after the refurbishment.

I wouldn't think replacing two year old fittings with new ones and redecorating would constitute "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy" that would support a rent increase above the RPZ limits.

I don't see how the LL expects a return on the cost of the renovations.

May be is doing it to bust the cap so that he can get a sale price not effected by a rent capped below market.
There are lots of legit reasons he could be doing it.

LuckyLloyd

I think you have valid grounds to take a dispute to the RTB. Open a case, inform the landlord you have done so and start having a look for alternative accomodation in the meantime.

FishOnABike

__..__ wrote: »

May be is doing it to bust the cap so that he can get a sale price not effected by a rent capped below market.
There are lots of legit reasons he could be doing it.

I don't see how he will work around the RPZ cap by doing that as it would be difficult to argue that replacing two year old appliances and fittings and redecorating constitutes "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy".

As far as I can see, the LL will be down two months rent, the cost of renovations, the cost of readvertising and will still be limited by the Residential Tenancy Act and RPZ rules to the existing rent of 1260.

davo10

FishOnABike wrote: »

The corollary of that is that if there is only so much renovation you can do to an apartment then you cannot at the same time have "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy"

While the level of refurbishment would be sufficient to support aht termination notice the current tennant would have first refusal on re-occupying the apartment after the refurbishment.

I wouldn't think replacing two year old fittings with new ones and redecorating would constitute "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy" that would support a rent increase above the RPZ limits.

I don't see how the LL expects a return on the cost of the renovations.

Is there a clause in the Act specifically prohibiting apartment owners from terminating when doing substantial renovations/refurbishment? I can't find it, you might be able to point it out please.

If there isn't, then is there any more "substantial" refurbishment that can be done to an apartment than outlined in the list?

davo10

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I think you have valid grounds to take a dispute to the RTB. Open a case, inform the landlord you have done so and start having a look for alternative accomodation in the meantime.

Which grounds? The list is pretty comprehensive/substantial, it's an apartment and as above, I'm not aware that apartment owners are exempted, the water is being turned off, there will be no bathroom nor kitchen facilities, the notice would seem to comply with the RTB template, the notice period is right, so which "grounds" do you see?

PhoenixParker

That it doesn't substantially improve the quality of the accommodation being offered.
In a run down dwelling it would count but if the dwelling is in good nick then I think there are grounds to dispute.

LuckyLloyd

davo10 wrote: »

Which grounds? The list is pretty comprehensive/substantial, it's an apartment and as above, I'm not aware that apartment owners are exempted, the water is being turned off, there will be no bathroom nor kitchen facilities, the notice would seem to comply with the RTB template, the notice period is right, so which "grounds" do you see?

"Substantial refurbishment: should involve major renovation works, such as rewiring, extensions, increasing the number of bedrooms or substantially reducing energy usage through insulation or new windows and doors, which clearly improve the quality of the accommodation being offered, to the extent that would merit an increased rent. It’s not envisaged that this would include merely cosmetic improvement works like re-painting of a property or new carpets/flooring."


It's not clear, in an apartment that has been substantially refurbished two years ago, that the proposed works clearly improve the quality of the accomodation being offered. Repainting and replacement of flooring are specifically noted as not being included above and they make up the substantial part of the proposed improvements.

So I'd dispute it personally and roll the dice.

PhoenixParker

PhoenixParker wrote: »

That it doesn't substantially improve the quality of the accommodation being offered.
In a run down dwelling it would count but if the dwelling is in good nick then I think there are grounds to dispute.

If the op can't live there during the works then that in itself confirms that its substantial. There could be weeks without kitchen and bathroom facilities, particularly now where builders are up the walls with work and everything takes longer due to juggling multiple jobs etc.

Another question the op needs to ask himself is would be be better off moving now or in 2 years time? As you can bet every cent in your bank a/c that his tenancy will be terminated at the end of the 4 year part4 if he does manage to get around this notice of termination.

LuckyLloyd

Eleanor Old-fashioned Catamaran wrote: »

If the op can't live there during the works then that in itself confirms that its substantial. There could be weeks without kitchen and bathroom facilities, particularly now where builders are up the walls with work and everything takes longer due to juggling multiple jobs etc.

Let the RTB judge that. While the dispute is open and waiting to be heard the works cannot commence. The tenant might win the dispute and get to stay in the apartment under current terms; and they might also find suitable alternative accomodation in the meantime. As there's no cost to opening the RTB dispute, that is clearly the best way to proceed. Leave all your options open.

liam7831

Just offer the LL the rate the other apartments are getting and save a load of hassle

__..__

FishOnABike wrote: »

I don't see how he will work around the RPZ cap by doing that as it would be difficult to argue that replacing two year old appliances and fittings and redecorating constitutes "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy".

As far as I can see, the LL will be down two months rent, the cost of renovations, the cost of readvertising and will still be limited by the Residential Tenancy Act and RPZ rules to the existing rent of 1260.

But he only has to argue that he is doing substantial ronovations, which he clearly is.

davo10

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

"Substantial refurbishment: should involve major renovation works, such as rewiring, extensions, increasing the number of bedrooms or substantially reducing energy usage through insulation or new windows and doors, which clearly improve the quality of the accommodation being offered, to the extent that would merit an increased rent. It’s not envisaged that this would include merely cosmetic improvement works like re-painting of a property or new carpets/flooring."


So I'd dispute it personally and roll the dice.

As a matter of interest, how many apartments have you seen that were capable of extension, increasing number of bedrooms, need new windows/doors etc? If the Act was not meant to apply to apartments, surely it would hav said so, maybe it does? Assuming the Act does apply to apartments, how much refurbishmemt can be done? Again, I'd say the list above is about the maximum which can be done so it's hard to argue that it isn't substantial relative to the type of property.

That last line in your post is everything that is wrong with the RTB, it allows for vexatious claims. The claimant should be made pay the landlords/panel costs of the proceedings if they are unsuccessful.

FishOnABike

davo10 wrote: »

Is there a clause in the Act specifically prohibiting apartment owners from terminating when doing substantial renovations/refurbishment? I can't find it, you might be able to point it out please.

If there isn't, then is there any more "substantial" refurbishment that can be done to an apartment than outlined in the list?

The point I was trying to make was that although the refurbishment is substantial enough to support a termination notice the works will not provide "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy" and therefore will not support a rent increase above the current RPZ cap.

The LL will be down two months rent, the cost of the refurbishment and reletting and will not be able to cover those costs as they will still be limited in the when and by how much they can raise the rent by the RTA and RPZ rules.

If the increase to 1260 is recent it will have to be relet at the same rate and future increases will still be subject to the RPZ cap. The LL would appear to be going to a lot of trouble for nothing.

FishOnABike

__..__ wrote: »

But he only has to argue that he is doing substantial ronovations, which he clearly is.

Substantial renovations would support the termination notice but would arguably not support an increase above the RPZ cap as they would not result in "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy".

It seems an expensive way of potentially achieving nothing.

Tigger

landlord wants tenant out
dontbknownwhy but thats the story

syntheticjunk

liam7831 wrote: »

Just offer the LL the rate the other apartments are getting and save a load of hassle

That's exactly that I've done. When LL told us that he's going to sell the apartment - offered full market price starting next month. Problem solved.

Browney7

FishOnABike wrote: »

The point I was trying to make was that although the refurbishment is substantial enough to support a termination notice the works will not provide "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy" and therefore will not support a rent increase above the current RPZ cap.

The LL will be down two months rent, the cost of the refurbishment and reletting and will not be able to cover those costs as they will still be limited in the when and by how much they can raise the rent by the RTA and RPZ rules.

If the increase to 1260 is recent it will have to be relet at the same rate and future increases will still be subject to the RPZ cap. The LL would appear to be going to a lot of trouble for nothing.

Exactly, whilst it's probable the LL terminating the tenancy is valid, once renovations are complete he will have to offer it back to the OP (op stays in an Airbnb for a month) and then it could be argued that the new rent set by the LL is in contravention of the RTA - ie the definitions of "substantial" could be different.

OP in a way has two bites of the cherry to stay where they are at the current rent

Browney7

syntheticjunk wrote: »

That's exactly that I've done. When LL told us that he's going to sell the apartment - offered full market price starting next month. Problem solved.

And just before you leave you could raise a dispute about accepting gan illegal increase under duress if you were so inclined... LL's are walking on dodgy ground doing this as many LL's on this forum have alluded to in the past

LuckyLloyd

syntheticjunk wrote: »

That's exactly that I've done. When LL told us that he's going to sell the apartment - offered full market price starting next month. Problem solved.

Still illegal as per current legislation - you now can take a RTB case against your LL and use your correspondence as reference.

LuckyLloyd

davo10 wrote: »

As a matter of interest, how many apartments have you seen that were capable of extension, increasing number of bedrooms, need new windows/doors etc? If the Act was not meant to apply to apartments, surely it would hav said so, maybe it does? Assuming the Act does apply to apartments, how much refurbishmemt can be done? Again, I'd say the list above is about the maximum which can be done so it's hard to argue that it isn't substantial relative to the type of property.

That last line in your post is everything that is wrong with the RTB, it allows for vexatious claims. The claimant should be made pay the landlords/panel costs of the proceedings if they are unsuccessful.

This is not a vexatious claim imo. The questions you highlight above can be reasonably debated relative to the current guidance available. Maybe the coming definition of substantial renovation will put this particular scenario in a different light, but at present it is a worthy case.

And, as it stands, the claimant is not required to pay costs in the case of an unsuccessful proceeding so they would absolutely be advised to pursue the matter.

FishOnABike

syntheticjunk wrote: »

That's exactly that I've done. When LL told us that he's going to sell the apartment - offered full market price starting next month. Problem solved.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Still illegal as per current legislation - you now can take a RTB case against your LL and use your correspondence as reference.

If you're referring to full market rent rate any LL risking this approach is potentially setting themselves for a slamdunk in a RTB dispute. If you offered to buy the apartment then everyone's happy.

Browney7

Browney7 wrote: »

And just before you leave you could raise a dispute about accepting gan illegal increase under duress if you were so inclined...

I would wish karma to deliver physical harm on anyone who would be low enough to do that.

FishOnABike

Eleanor Old-fashioned Catamaran wrote: »

I would wish karma to deliver physical harm on anyone who would be low enough to do that.

A LL should not be foolish enough to put themselves in that position in the first place. I wouldn't put myself in a position where I was dependent on the good will of others not to report me for breaking the law.

Browney7

Eleanor Old-fashioned Catamaran wrote: »

I would wish karma to deliver physical harm on anyone who would be low enough to do that.

Lower than a LL looking to break the law and threaten to remove someone from their house unless they pay an amount that's against the law? Or is acting in bad faith a one way street?

Browney7

Browney7 wrote: »

Lower than a LL looking to break the law and threaten to remove someone from their house unless they pay an amount that's against the law? Or is acting in bad faith a one way street?

A law that's most likely unconstitutional if challenged? I doubt many LL people lose sleep over breaking it, if they could do it without getting caught which is the issue.

Its insane that a business can not sell their product to the highest bidder, that's all a LL is trying to do. Imagine someone getting in trouble with the law because they sold their car at auction above a certain price.

davo10

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This is not a vexatious claim imo. The questions you highlight above can be reasonably debated relative to the current guidance available. Maybe the coming definition of substantial renovation will put this particular scenario in a different light, but at present it is a worthy case.

And, as it stands, the claimant is not required to pay costs in the case of an unsuccessful proceeding so they would absolutely be advised to pursue the matter.

This is why Airbnb is so appealing to property owners. Why take the risk?

Lumen

davo10 wrote: »

This is why Airbnb is so appealing to property owners. Why take the risk?

Because disputes only occur in a small minority of cases, and the rest of the time you get maximum occupancy with little effort.

davo10

Lumen wrote: »

Because disputes only occur in a small minority of cases, and the rest of the time you get maximum occupancy with little effort.

Because rents are capped, terminations are difficult, evictions are nigh on impossible and it's too easy for tenants to bring frivolous claims to the RTB, therefore dragging out the process. Much easier to have short lets where fees are paid in advance and no tenancy exists.

Little effort getting people in, a lot of effort getting them out.

davo10

davo10 wrote: »

Because rents are capped, terminations are difficult, evictions are nigh on impossible and it's too easy for tenants to bring frivolous claims to the RTB, therefore dragging out the process. Much easier to have short lets where fees are paid in advance and no tenancy exists.

Little effort getting people in, a lot of effort getting them out.

Potentially considerably less rent from a long term let stuck on below market rate!

rangav

Thanks everyone for your valuable suggestions

I have decided to file a dispute with RTB and see how it goes.

Thanks.

Michael D Not Higgins

rangav wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your valuable suggestions

I have decided to file a dispute with RTB and see how it goes.

Thanks.

Do let us know how it goes, this is still a grey area for the RTB's interpretation. So it would be good to get a steer.