Refurbishment (Tenants rights)

gotsomemoves

Hello,

My landlord wants to improve the property with the hope of getting a higher rent.

Do we as tenants have to vacate the home? We can work around the buliders, no issue. It will be a new kitchen and repainting of interior/exterior walls.

We would rather not leave, UNLESS it was a danger to our family to stay.

Any advice welcome, in home 6 years, no issues.

We are on the HAP scheme with the council.

Cuddlesworth

gotsomemoves wrote: »

Hello,

My landlord wants to improve the property with the hope of getting a higher rent.

Do we as tenants have to vacate the home? We can work around the buliders, no issue. It will be a new kitchen and repainting of interior/exterior walls.

We would rather not leave, UNLESS it was a danger to our family to stay.

Any advice welcome, in home 6 years, no issues.

We are on the HAP scheme with the council.

You don't have to agree to the works and in order to complete the works the landlord will have to evict. The landlord is doing this because the current Minister has publicly said he is removing this loophole in the next few weeks.

gotsomemoves

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You don't have to agree to the works and in order to complete the works the landlord will have to evict. The landlord is doing this because the current Minister has publicly said he is removing this loophole in the next few weeks.

Hi, can I ask WHY he has to evict? a neighbor who rents beside me got new kitchen didn't move out.

Do you have a link to the proposed change in law?

thanks"!

Graham

gotsomemoves wrote: »

Hi, can I ask WHY he has to evict? a neighbor who rents beside me got new kitchen didn't move out.

Do you have a link to the proposed change in law?

thanks"!

He wants to end the tenancy so he can start a new one at the market rate after the renovations are complete.

You are entitled to be offered the property at the new market rate after the work is complete.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming the landlord wants to put in a new kitchen. The reality is likely to be the landlord wants to significantly increase the rent and the renovations are one of the few ways he can do that legally.

Cuddlesworth

gotsomemoves wrote: »

Hi, can I ask WHY he has to evict? a neighbor who rents beside me got new kitchen didn't move out.

Do you have a link to the proposed change in law?

thanks"!

You don't have to let him make "substantial" works.

He wants to make "substantial" works.

For a new kitchen in a rented apartment with HAP tenants, most builders would want a vacant apartment.

If he does the substantial works, then there is little doubt in my mind that HAP will pay the "market" rate.

If he doesn't get them done asap, then the loophole will be closed.

I can't see you doing well out of this.

gotsomemoves

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You don't have to let him make "substantial" works.

He wants to make "substantial" works.

For a new kitchen in a rented apartment with HAP tenants, most builders would want a vacant apartment.

If he does the substantial works, then there is little doubt in my mind that HAP will pay the "market" rate.

If he doesn't get them done asap, then the loophole will be closed.

I can't see you doing well out of this.

We can refuse for the works to go ahead? therefore delaying the process. Why would a bulider want it vacated? my neighbor and co-worker had kitchens put in while remaining.

If w make a case to HAP ythey may at their discretion up the payments, either that or another fmaily presenting homeless.

BrokenArrows

gotsomemoves wrote: »

Hello,

My landlord wants to improve the property with the hope of getting a higher rent.

Do we as tenants have to vacate the home? We can work around the buliders, no issue. It will be a new kitchen and repainting of interior/exterior walls.

We would rather not leave, UNLESS it was a danger to our family to stay.

Any advice welcome, in home 6 years, no issues.

We are on the HAP scheme with the council.

You are missing the point.
The land lord does not need your permission and you cannot refuse.

The landlord is likely doing the work so that he can legally evict you and charge whatever rent he wants after the work is complete.

All you can do is ask him if you can stay throughout the renovation process.

CIARAN_BOYLE

The builder will often demand an eviction of tenants because if you want to stay in the property it's in your best interests to stop them doing work as the landlord will want to raise the price of rent perhaps beyond the level of hap.

gotsomemoves

BrokenArrows wrote: »

You are missing the point.
The land lord does not need your permission and you cannot refuse.

The landlord is likely doing the work so that he can legally evict you and charge whatever rent he wants after the work is complete.

All you can do is ask him if you can stay throughout the renovation process.

I was told by the RTB, we as tenants can argue that the work proposed is not substantial. We would not mind staying there and when work done he can request to raise the rent, if we can't pay it, that's ok, we will leave.

gotsomemoves

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

The builder will often demand an eviction of tenants because if you want to stay in the property it's in your best interests to stop them doing work as the landlord will want to raise the price of rent perhaps beyond the level of hap.

How can a builder have the right to demand tenants leave their home, you telling me every new kitchen in rented home is vacated??

Ms Doubtfire1

BrokenArrows wrote: »

gotsomemoves wrote: »

Hello,

My landlord wants to improve the property with the hope of getting a higher rent.

Do we as tenants have to vacate the home? We can work around the buliders, no issue. It will be a new kitchen and repainting of interior/exterior walls.

We would rather not leave, UNLESS it was a danger to our family to stay.

Any advice welcome, in home 6 years, no issues.

We are on the HAP scheme with the council.

You are missing the point.
The land lord does not need your permission and you cannot refuse.

The landlord is likely doing the work so that he can legally evict you and charge whatever rent he wants after the work is complete.

All you can do is ask him if you can stay throughout the renovation process.

Wrong. first of all it has to be determined if these works are indeed ; substantial'. Generally it's said that if you can stay in the house practically during the work (the installation of a new kitchen would not qualify as substantial and you can stay in the house regardless what the builders want). I would do this very short n sweet. tell the LL you have no obligations to him doing up the property but you will remain in the house meanwhile. If he tries to evict, involve the RTB.

Ms Doubtfire1

won't let me edit - obligations should say objections

CIARAN_BOYLE

gotsomemoves wrote: »

How can a builder have the right to demand tenants leave their home, you telling me every new kitchen in rented home is vacated??

Whether the builder or the landlord makes the demand it's stupid to allow a tenant to stay if the landlord is doing substantial refurbishment so that they can raise the price of rent to a level that the tenant cannot afford.

If your were staying in the property it would be in your interest to deadbolt the door to keep the builder out. The builder is not stupid enough to agree to do a job in this situation with you living there.

I'm making an assumption here because of the housing assistance payment and the refurbishment that the landlord is looking to raise the rent significantly.

That said I'm not 100% certain that repainting and doing a new kitchen is technically significant refurbishment under the acts and you may want to consult with a professional.

Ms Doubtfire1

It's not. thousands of people install new kitchens each day and they are not moving out.

Gileadi

As far as I understand the landlord does not have to prove to anybody that the works are substantial in order to issue an eviction notice. The landlord would in theory need to prove that they are substantial to trigger the clause in the legislation that allows the market rate to be reset. But the whole issue of what defines substantial still hasn't been established.

If a kitchen is being removed, area cleaned/painted, minor adjustments to plumping infrastructure, new kitchen installed it could take weeks, depending on how the availability of different trades. It wouldn't be practical for a tenant to remain in situ during such works as there would be no access to water or cooking facilities. In fact the presence of a tenant would massively slow down the works as at the end of each day the tradesmen would have to tidy up so as not to leave health and safety issues.

Graham

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

It's not. thousands of people install new kitchens each day and they are not moving out.

Without knowing the extent of the refurbishment you absolutely cannot state as fact the proposed works are not substantial.

gotsomemoves wrote: »

I was told by the RTB, we as tenants can argue that the work proposed is not substantial. We would not mind staying there and when work done he can request to raise the rent, if we can't pay it, that's ok, we will leave.

I'd bet that such an argument would result in the scope of the refurbishment suddenly including things like disconnection of water, moving of plumbing, upgrading of heating.........

serox_21

Why not? A kitchen refurbishment might include new tiles, new furniture, maybe new sockets etc.
Water supply needs be be turned off, gas, maybe even electricity(for a few days ).
How are you going to cook, wash or flush the toiler if there is no water.
Maybe in the same time the house is going to be painted. So where are you going to stay? In 1 bedroom?

BrokenArrows

Sorry i misread the original OP and didnt realise it was just a kitchen installation and painting. Yes there is no way you would need to leave for that reason.

I could have sworn the OP originally wrote that "a friend" had a kitchen renovation and didnt have to leave.

Gileadi

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

It's not. thousands of people install new kitchens each day and they are not moving out.

That they key though, people install them in their own home where they are not obliged to provide minimum standards as per http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/FileDownLoad%2C33422%2Cen.pdf

Ms Doubtfire1

that's not the tenants problem. They have not requested those works and they are not required for the house to be livable and in line with the requirements for rental accomodations. Don't let yourself be scared OP - just contact the RTB directly. all these varying opinions will be rather confusing.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Gileadi wrote: »

That they key though, people install them in their own home where they are not obliged to provide minimum standards as per http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/FileDownLoad%2C33422%2Cen.pdf

That's true. I have heard to tenants who stayed during kitchen installations and then took a case to rtb that minimum standards weren't provided. Landlords had to pay compensation.

Graham

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

that's not the tenants problem. They have not requested those works and they are not required for the house to be livable and in line with the requirements for rental accomodations. Don't let yourself be scared OP - just contact the RTB directly. all these varying opinions will be rather confusing.

There is no requirement for the tenants to have requested the works.

The landlord is entitled to end the tenancy to allow specific type of works. That's it.

The Tenant could argue to the RTB that the works are not substantial/significant, I don't see anything that would then prevent the landlord from making the works more substantial/significant.

Gileadi

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

that's not the tenants problem. They have not requested those works and they are not required for the house to be livable and in line with the requirements for rental accomodations. Don't let yourself be scared OP - just contact the RTB directly. all these varying opinions will be rather confusing.

The landlord should be free to renovate their property if they wish though, it is their property and the legislation has listed this as a valid reason for an eviction.

Surely the landlord should have the option for bringing a property from livable to a higher spec. Without a mechanism for renovating you will have the same landlord being labelled a slumlord for having a property that just scrapes over the 'livable' line.

At a macro level, a property will be off the market briefly and then relet,if this is done enough across the country it will increase the overall standard of rental accommodation which should be welcomed by all.

Lumen

Graham wrote: »

The Tenant could argue to the RTB that the works are not substantial/significant, I don't see anything that would then prevent the landlord from making the works more substantial/significant.

That would leave a paper trail which would be suggestive of refurbishment for the purposes of eviction. Given that the definition of substantial is subjective, I can't see that ending well.

Tenant could easily end up with a nice new kitchen and no increase in rent!

Graham

Lumen wrote: »

That would leave a paper trail which would be suggestive of refurbishment for the purposes of eviction.

Am I missing something. That's the very right a landlord is granted under the assorted legislation.

i.e. the ending of an existing tenancy to allow for a refurbishment and subsequent letting at a higher rent.

Browney7

Graham wrote: »

Am I missing something. That's the very right a landlord is granted under the assorted legislation.

i.e. the ending of an existing tenancy to allow for a refurbishment and subsequent letting at a higher rent.

Assume Lumen is implying the OP would dispute to the RTB that the works detailed don't require the OP to vacate. If they won and the LL then made the works more detailed and more disruptive in light of the adverse determination, the RTB may view in a dim light. Who knows for certain.

Likely in my view that a new kitchen and some paint isn't enough to reset the rent control but it hasn't been clarified to date so no one knows for certain.

The OP being on HAP may complicate any disputing of the new market rent set by the LL which may or may not be valid. What happens if LL changes kitchen and when the OP inspects upon being offered the property once again, doesn't feel the works have been sufficient to reset the rent?

This is very messy

davindub

gotsomemoves wrote: »

We can refuse for the works to go ahead? therefore delaying the process. Why would a bulider want it vacated? my neighbor and co-worker had kitchens put in while remaining.

If w make a case to HAP ythey may at their discretion up the payments, either that or another fmaily presenting homeless.

You can appeal the notice on the basis that the works are not substantial.

You can cite the neighbours etc. And there has been comments from the minister regarding what isn't substantial. But it will be up to the RTB to adjudicate the case ultimately.

Also the criteria for terminating an tenancy and increasing the rent beyond the RPZ are different. I doubt a kitchen would ever meet the criteria for increasing the rent, but I believe there is to be clarification on this in the upcoming legislation in December.

davindub

Graham wrote: »

Am I missing something. That's the very right a landlord is granted under the assorted legislation.

i.e. the ending of an existing tenancy to allow for a refurbishment and subsequent letting at a higher rent.

The two terms you describe are exclusive of each other. Meeting the criteria for one does not necessarily mean you have met the criteria for the other.

The RPZ term does not mention substantial refurbishment at all. It is phrased "substantial change in nature of the accommodation". The new RTB explanation is below, I don't believe it is accurate on how it will be applied, but it is a little more informative.

"If a property that had previously never been modernised, had a new kitchen and bathroom installed, new floors fitted throughout etc. then tenants should expect to pay more for the modernised property compared to the old fashioned one. A landlord will have to satisfy themselves that it is substantial change and bear in mind that if a tenant at the commencement of the tenancy, when shown how the rent was set, queries this, and went on to take a case regarding the nature of the substantial change that they could defend this. Landlords should keep a record of all alterations, receipts, and take photographs before and after."

Lumen

Graham wrote: »

Am I missing something. That's the very right a landlord is granted under the assorted legislation.

i.e. the ending of an existing tenancy to allow for a refurbishment and subsequent letting at a higher rent.

I believe the spirit of the law is eviction to enable refurbishment rather than refurbishment to enable eviction.

In my view, the most sensible way to apply it is to allow an increase based on the increase in market rent, i.e. if the renovations have changed market rent from 1500 to 2000 (+500) then a new tenancy should be offered to the existing tenant at +500 over whatever they are paying at the moment. This allows the landlord to recover the cost of the renovations as they would normally.

I understand that there is some debate over how the rules are actually applied.

Graham

davindub wrote: »

The two terms you describe are exclusive of each other. Meeting the criteria for one does not necessarily mean you have met the criteria for the other.

The RPZ term does not mention substantial refurbishment at all. It is phrased "substantial change in nature of the accommodation". The new RTB explanation is below, I don't believe it is accurate on how it will be applied, but it is a little more informative.

Can't disagree with any of that but the point remains. The landlord can terminate the tenancy, the tenant can dispute the works as failing the mythical 'substantial' test, if the RTB agree with the tenant I don't see anything preventing the landlord from increasing the scope of the works.

I get the feeling the RTB aren't too keen to make a judgment either way, kicking the can down the road until the upcoming clarification.

gotsomemoves

Hi all, thanks for the replies, it's all very confusing.

We have a decent relationship with the landlord. Never an issue.

Work proposed needs to be detailed and time given to start/end, this must be in writing. This was advice from RTB & threshold. We do not want to cause friction, however, we need to secure a home for our family members.

We feel we can still live here while work is being done, also have relatives who can let us use facilities (shower etc..) our fear is if we move out or get evicted, where are we going to live while the work being done? dublin is crazy to rent in, maybe if more homes then we would just move out completely.

We don't want to stop the landlord from putting in a new kitchen in HIS property, our issue is, let us stay, after work done, make a request to increase the rent! The HAP may at their discretion top up the payment IF they feel the work is to a very high standard?

I hope we can resolve it without getting the RTB involved, it will be weeks before they make a decision at which time the minister may clarify the existing law.


***Just to clarify***

We have no issue with works taking place to improve the property value, our issue is, let us stay, do the job, then apply for the rent increase.