Another Part 4 Query

Paddy1234

Hi All

Some brief background

Tenancy commenced 15 Dec 2009 - 1 year lease. Nothing happened after 1 year no new lease - we just continued on as was. Does that mean it automatically becomes a part 4 and then became a further part 4 in 2013 and will be another part 4 in December.

Had a discussion with the landlord and to cut a long story short - he wants to increase the rent substantially (from 1600 to 2100). The property is worth the 2100 he just never made increases over the years but wants to make it now. The last increase was 6 months ago for 4% as in a RPZ.

If we don't agree to the increase I think he will try and get us out.

I was reading the various sites and it seems to me that he is entitled to terminate our tenancy if he provides the requisite notice before the 15 December?

Can anyone confirm if my understanding of this is correct?

Thanks

Baby01032012

Paddy1234 wrote: »

Hi All

Some brief background

Tenancy commenced 15 Dec 2009 - 1 year lease. Nothing happened after 1 year no new lease - we just continued on as was. Does that mean it automatically becomes a part 4 and then became a further part 4 in 2013 and will be another part 4 in December.

Had a discussion with the landlord and to cut a long story short - he wants to increase the rent substantially (from 1600 to 2100). The property is worth the 2100 he just never made increases over the years but wants to make it now. The last increase was 6 months ago for 4% as in a RPZ.

If we don't agree to the increase I think he will try and get us out.

I was reading the various sites and it seems to me that he is entitled to terminate our tenancy if he provides the requisite notice before the 15 December?

Can anyone confirm if my understanding of this is correct?

Thanks

Your understanding is spot on. He has one legal opportunity to terminate your tenancy and that is before 15 December 2017 once he gives the required notice but no reason need be given this prevents another Part IV. Any other action to terminate or impose another rent review will be illegal.

Of course he must stick to the 4% with any new tenants. Your call. You could agree to the increase. And down the line hang him with the RTB for invalid rent review and get the extra rent repaid to you.

dudara

The current Part IV terminates in Dec. The landlord has to give notice of termination in advance of that. Given you have been resident for nearly 8 years, the required notice period is 28 weeks.

Taken from RTB, bold my own

At the end of the 4-year/6-year cycle period, the tenancy is deemed terminated and a new tenancy comes into being where the dwelling continues to be let to the same tenant(s). This new tenancy is known a 'further Part 4 tenancy' and, if not terminated by the landlord before the further part 4 tenancy comes into existence ie serving a notice of termination before the last day of the Part 4 tenancy to expire in the first few days of the Further Part 4 tenancy, it may only be terminated during the remainder of the successive four/six years where one of the grounds in the Table to section 34 arises, or an actionable breach of obligations.

Even if your landlord gave notice on the last day, it would have to be for 28 weeks (196 days) which doesn't seem to match the guidance of "expire in the first few days of the further Part Four tenancy".

Paddy1234

Thanks for the replies

The following is taken from the citizens information site. I took that as meaning that they can serve the notice now and the notice period can end anytime after. Can anyone clarify?

Preventing a further Part 4 tenancy

If a landlord wishes to stop a further Part 4 tenancy coming into existence, they may serve a notice during the original Part 4 tenancy, with the notice period expiring on or after the end of the tenancy. A notice served in this way should provide a reason for termination, but the reason does not need to be one of the above grounds.

Paddy1234

Hi All - just to update you on this. We didn't play ball and as suspected landlord wants us to vacate the property. We were given the requisite notice - he needs it for his son.

I know this is not true but there's nothing we can do about it only find somewhere else to rent.

Do we have any options at all?

Cuddlesworth

Paddy1234 wrote: »

Hi All - just to update you on this. We didn't play ball and as suspected landlord wants us to vacate the property. We were given the requisite notice - he needs it for his son.

I know this is not true but there's nothing we can do about it only find somewhere else to rent.

Do we have any options at all?

I would get everything in writing for the eviction and find a place. When done, wait to see when if it goes up for rent and keep a eye on it to see when somebody moves in, popping in to grab your mail and a couple of questions. If he rented it out again, is pretty easy to find out, since he isn't going to be telling the new tenant to pretend to be his son.

When done, take him to the cleaners. Costs of moving, difference of new rent versus old rent over, lets say, a 2 year period. Plus damages for a illegal eviction which can go into the 5 figures. I'd follow up on the RTB if he didn't pay with a nice interest gathering lien on his property and the legal costs.

I say this because at this point, your looking at a soured business relationship regardless. No point in staying, no point in over-holding. Best to use the time to find a new place or discuss your options.

dennyk

If you do pop in, don't forget to ask the new tenant what he's paying, then tell him what your last rent amount was and remind him that in an RPZ the 4% limit applies between tenancies as well, unless the property has been off the rental market for a long time in between (think it's a year or something). He'll no doubt want to have his own pleasant little chat with the landlord as well...

Paddy1234

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I would get everything in writing for the eviction and find a place. When done, wait to see when if it goes up for rent and keep a eye on it to see when somebody moves in, popping in to grab your mail and a couple of questions. If he rented it out again, is pretty easy to find out, since he isn't going to be telling the new tenant to pretend to be his son.

When done, take him to the cleaners. Costs of moving, difference of new rent versus old rent over, lets say, a 2 year period. Plus damages for a illegal eviction which can go into the 5 figures. I'd follow up on the RTB if he didn't pay with a nice interest gathering lien on his property and the legal costs.

I say this because at this point, your looking at a soured business relationship regardless. No point in staying, no point in over-holding. Best to use the time to find a new place or discuss your options.

Just following up on this thread. We moved out and low and behold the house appeared on daft a month after we moved out - with the rent increased to 2200. Any thoughts - I don’t want to bring a case against him but I don’t want him to get away scot free either.

quadrifoglio verde

Paddy1234 wrote: »

Just following up on this thread. We moved out and low and behold the house appeared on daft a month after we moved out - with the rent increased to 2200. Any thoughts - I don’t want to bring a case against him but I don’t want him to get away scot free either.

I'd bring a case and have him taken to the cleaners for three reasons
The inconvenience he has caused you
He has broken the law
He gives good landlords a bad name

It's funny, all he had to do was wait a few weeks, make contact with you and explain that look my son is after taking a job opportunity, it's yours at your previous rent if you want it, knowing full well that you'd settled in somewhere else. Then it's not an illegal eviction.

Take him to the cleaners

First step would be phoning the prtb on Monday morning

April 73

I think you should report him. You were long-term tenants who I assume treated the property as a home? It seems the only reason he wanted you out was to increase the rent. Therefore he illegally evicted you. I’d report him.

4ensic15

Paddy1234 wrote: »

Just following up on this thread. We moved out and low and behold the house appeared on daft a month after we moved out - with the rent increased to 2200. Any thoughts - I don’t want to bring a case against him but I don’t want him to get away scot free either.

Drop a note in to the new tenant explaining how they can have their rent reduced.

meijin

Paddy1234 wrote: »

Any thoughts - I don’t want to bring a case against him but I don’t want him to get away scot free either.

Why not?

check this out https://www.threshold.ie/news/2018/03/21/slowdown-in-rent-increases-welcome-but-rent-regist/

A family including three children who saw their previous home advertised on Daft.ie two months after their tenancy had been terminated by their landlady, who stated she wanted the property back for a family member. The rent was raised from €1,200 to €1,700 per month, beyond the 4 per cent RPZ cap. Threshold represented the client at the RTB and was awarded €20,000 by an adjudicator.

ted1

Paddy1234 wrote: »

Just following up on this thread. We moved out and low and behold the house appeared on daft a month after we moved out - with the rent increased to 2200. Any thoughts - I don’t want to bring a case against him but I don’t want him to get away scot free either.

You were their 10 years and he just f€€led you over. Absolutely report him. He gets the rest of us a bad name.

dennyk

Definitely open a case against the landlord with the PRTB. Contact Threshold and they can likely help you out with doing so if you're unsure of the process. You are likely entitled to damages, quite possibly a significant sum, and the landlord absolutely deserves to be raked over the coals for this. Also, drop a letter off to the current tenant, if it's been rented again already, advising them of the rent you were paying; they can also bring their own case against the landlord for overcharging them and will probably collect some rent overpayment and possibly some damages of their own from the landlord as well. The only way to put an end to this sort of behaviour on the part of bad landlords is if tenants stand up for their rights and use the procedures in place to pursue them.

super_furry

Take him to the cleaners. It's the only way people like him will ever learn.

BrokenArrows

Paddy1234 wrote: »

Just following up on this thread. We moved out and low and behold the house appeared on daft a month after we moved out - with the rent increased to 2200. Any thoughts - I don’t want to bring a case against him but I don’t want him to get away scot free either.

How much money did it cost you to move and how much extra is it costing you a month to rent somewhere else?

Its not your fault that the landlord didn't gradually increase the rent.

Your landlord screwed you over and is also probably screwing over the new tenant by illegally charging too much.

Cuddlesworth

Paddy1234 wrote: »

Any thoughts - I don’t want to bring a case against him but I don’t want him to get away scot free either.

Your choice, I would take him to the cleaners.

April 73

Well Paddy1234? Any thoughts now after the feedback you’ve received?

The_Conductor

The OP is not entitled to take a case against the landlord after they have terminated the tenancy.
They could have taken a case prior to vacating the tenancy.
The only people the RTB will entertain a case from now- are the new tenants.
By all means contact the RTB- however, they will explain this to you- you could have disputed the termination- you didn't- now the ball is in the court of the new tenant.

dennyk

The_Conductor wrote: »

The OP is not entitled to take a case against the landlord after they have terminated the tenancy.
They could have taken a case prior to vacating the tenancy.

That is not the case; if the landlord removed a tenant for a Part 4 reason (family needed the property) and then did not offer the right of first refusal to the previous tenant when it became available again within six months, the former tenant has a case against them and can bring it via the PRTB. Prior to vacating, there was no evidence that would happen, so challenging the notice would not have been successful at that time.

The new tenant has no case against the landlord for the invalid Part 4 notice or failure to offer right of first refusal to the old tenant, as they are not involved in that relationship or dispute. The new tenant would have a cause of action against the landlord for the illegal rent amount in violation of the RPZ legislation, however, and could file a dispute with the PRTB about that. (Similarly, though, the old tenant cannot bring a case about the new tenant's rent to the PRTB because they have no cause of action...).

Paddy1234

April 73 wrote: »

Well Paddy1234? Any thoughts now after the feedback you’ve received?

Thanks for all the feedback. It’s fairly unanimous. He has really pissed me off with the way he treated us after all that time. In his defense we were getting a great deal on the rent for quite a while but as others have said it was not our fault. We did everything by the book and we refused his illegal attempt to increase. He had plenty of opportunities to increase it before RPZ rules kicked in.

I’ll think about it for another while - but I don’t want him to get away scott free.

At worst I’ll tell him how much he pissed me off and that I’m taking a case against him and let him sweat for a while.

I just don’t think it’s in me to sue him.