Question on termination notice

Paddy1234

Hi All

Looking for a bit of advice on this.

Received a termination notice for 224 days notice on 19th February (the service date). The termination date quoted was 1st October. We have the whole of the 24 hours of 1st October to vacate.

I was reading the legislation and it seems to me that the notice period should start the day after the service date and that 224 days later would mean that the termination date should have been quoted as the 2nd October rather than the 1st October.

Does anyone agree with this and if so does it constitute an invalid notice?

Thanks

davo10

Slips or omissions in Termination notices are allowed by law, they are giving you 224 days notice, does 24 hours make a difference?


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/42/section/30/enacted/en/html

dennyk

What exactly would you hope to gain from quibbling about a few hours on an otherwise valid 224-day notice? If you challenged it on that basis, you'd probably just piss off the adjudicator, honestly, not to mention ruin any chance of getting a good reference from your current landlord.

Conall Cernach

According to the RTB the notice should start the next day.

The tenant or landlord should try to ensure they give the adequate notice. The first day of a period of notice is the day after the notice is served. Therefore if the notice is served on the Monday the period of notice is counted from the Tuesday.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/ending-a-tenancy/sample-notices-of-termination/
Though given what Davo has posted above I wouldn't fancy trying to make a case of it.

Paddy1234

davo10 wrote: »

Slips or omissions in Termination notices are allowed by law, they are giving you 224 days notice, does 24 hours make a difference?


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/42/section/30/enacted/en/html

It does when you're landlord is terminating the lease in order to increase the rent for the new tenants. He wanted to increase the rent by €500 in a rent pressure zone but we wouldn't play ball and next thing he wants it for his son. If we can get an extra month - then that's the least we deserve.

GingerLily

Paddy1234 wrote: »

It does when you're landlord is terminating the lease in order to increase the rent for the new tenants. He wanted to increase the rent by €500 in a rent pressure zone but we wouldn't play ball and next thing he wants it for his son. If we can get an extra month - then that's the least we deserve.

Why do you deserve a month extra?

the_syco

Paddy1234 wrote: »

If we can get an extra month - then that's the least we deserve.

How are you getting an extra month from the extra day?

Paddy1234

the_syco wrote: »

How are you getting an extra month from the extra day?

If it's an invalid notice you have 28 days to notify him of it and then he has to reissue the notice.

I know it sounds petty but this is absolutely the reason he wants us out and he has said that

GingerLily

Paddy1234 wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

How are you getting an extra month from the extra day?

If it's an invalid notice you have 28 days to notify him of it and then he has to reissue the notice.

I know it sounds petty but this is absolutely the reason he wants us out and he has said that

Its extremely petty and your screwing yourself be ruining a reference.

the_syco

Paddy1234 wrote: »

If it's an invalid notice you have 28 days to notify him of it and then he has to reissue the notice.

I know it sounds petty but this is absolutely the reason he wants us out and he has said that

As per Davo's post above, I doubt it'll matter. And you'll be renting with no reference from the current landlord.

davo10

Paddy1234 wrote: »

It does when you're landlord is terminating the lease in order to increase the rent for the new tenants. He wanted to increase the rent by €500 in a rent pressure zone but we wouldn't play ball and next thing he wants it for his son. If we can get an extra month - then that's the least we deserve.

If you feel the eviction is illegal, this would be far better grounds for challenging the validity of the notice than whether it's 224 or 225 days from the date you received the notice. If you are certain it is not for a family member, contact the RTB. Having no reference in a RPZ makes finding a new property practically impossible. If your rent was substantially below market rate, you are now going to have to pay a much higher rent in a new property, assuming you can find one. You would be wise to look at the bigger picture here, perhaps contact the LL and negotiate a new rent agreeable to you both.

Graham

the_syco wrote: »

And you'll be renting with no reference from the current landlord.

In reality, I doubt that's likely to be an issue.

Realistically it's more likely to be the case that the landlord falls over himself to provide a reference to get the property back.

Michael D Not Higgins

Graham wrote: »

In reality, I doubt that's likely to be an issue.

Realistically it's more likely to be the case that the landlord falls over himself to provide a reference to get the property back.

What the landlord says on a piece of paper and what he says to another landlord on a phonecall can be completely different.

Claw Hammer

davo10 wrote: »

Slips or omissions in Termination notices are allowed by law, they are giving you 224 days notice, does 24 hours make a difference?


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/42/section/30/enacted/en/html

Lack of the proper period of notice cannot be cured by the slip or omission rule. The o/p will win a challenge to the notice.

Graham

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

What the landlord says on a piece of paper and what he says to another landlord on a phonecall can be completely different.

I've absolutely no doubt but put yourself in the current landlords shoes.

Option 1)
Give a glowing reference, get the tenant out quickly.

Option 2)
Play silly beggars, refuse to give tenant a reference, file with the RTB when the tenant overholds.

Cash_Q

Paddy1234 wrote:

It does when you're landlord is terminating the lease in order to increase the rent for the new tenants. He wanted to increase the rent by €500 in a rent pressure zone but we wouldn't play ball and next thing he wants it for his son. If we can get an extra month - then that's the least we deserve.

As far as I know, the landlord must issue a Statutory Declaration that he requires the property to house a family member. If he hadn't issued this statutory declaration you can request it and your notice period will restart from when he issues this.

This declaration is legally binding so if he doesn't in fact move in a family member you could have a case against him for illegal eviction.

davo10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Lack of the proper period of notice cannot be cured by the slip or omission rule. The o/p will win a challenge to the notice.

Op has correct notice, 224 days, the slip or omission is the day on which it ends. But you are probably right. At best the op gets an extra month, at worst he gets evicted with no reference into an awful market where no doubt he will be paying more. All in all a depressing situation, the op should give himself the best chance of either staying there by agreeing to a higher rent, or getting a good reference.

Claw Hammer

davo10 wrote: »

Op has correct notice, 224 days, the slip or omission is the day on which it ends. But you are probably right. At best the op gets an extra month, at worst he gets evicted with no reference into an awful market where no doubt he will be paying more. All in all a depressing situation, the op should give himself the best chance of either staying there by agreeing to a higher rent, or getting a good reference.

The slip or omission is that he got 223 days not 224. The notice period doesn't start to run until the day after service. He won't get an extra month. He can overhold and when he wins his overholding case, he will have to get another notice which will be another 224 days. Along with the 224 and the time it takes the hearing to get on.

Browney7

You don't have any of his trying to increase the rent by 500 in writing op? Suspect you'd have a case if he miraculously needed the property for his son a few days after trying to increase the rent.

If you agreed to pay his new demand, do you think he'd accept? He'd be foolish to accept your offer to pay more but he may just be the foolish type

davo10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The slip or omission is that he got 223 days not 224. The notice period doesn't start to run until the day after service. He won't get an extra month. He can overhold and when he wins his overholding case, he will have to get another notice which will be another 224 days. Along with the 224 and the time it takes the hearing to get on.

The op has 28 days from date of service to make a complaint to the RTB, the LL can then issue a new, correct notice of eviction. At most it delays eviction by a couple of weeks.

Ya know, sometimes you have to get out of your own way. The op should be looking for the best outcome achievable from this, delaying eviction by a couple of weeks and going to viewings knowing you have no reference and a disgruntled LL is just about the worst possible outcome. Slips and omissions, according to the statute amendment, are subject to interpretation and adjudication by the RTB. The op was given the correct notice period, 224 days on the letter, they got the last day wrong, there is a good chance the RTB would grant the op an extra 24 hours.

Claw Hammer

davo10 wrote: »

The op has 28 days from date of service to make a complaint to the RTB, the LL can then issue a new, correct notice of eviction. At most it delays eviction by a couple of weeks.

The o/p can also wait until the LL moves for overholding and it will only be at the adjudication hearing that the LL discovers the error. That will add about 8 months to the process.

davo10 wrote: »

Ya know, sometimes you have to get out of your own way. The op should be looking for the best outcome achievable from this, delaying eviction by a couple of weeks and going to viewings knowing you have no reference and a disgruntled LL is just about the worst possible outcome. Slips and omissions, according to the statute amendment, are subject to interpretation and adjudication by the RTB. The op was given the correct notice period, 224 days on the letter, they got the last day wrong, there is a good chance the RTB would grant the op an extra 24 hours.

I have been to an adjudication and the adjudicator says the Adjudicator said that notice periods are not covered by the slip or omissions discretion. Spelling mistakes or calling a Notice of termination a notice to quit, or possibly not stating that the tenant has the final 24 hours to vacate are what is covered by the omissions rule. The RTB is notoriously pro-tenant and there is no way it is going to add a day on for a landlord and terminate a tenancy. The o/p would win an appeal and a High Court appeal if necessary.

davo10

The op has 28 days to open a dispute, LL will be notified, new, correct notice given, delay of a couple of weeks, op house searching in an awful market with higher rent and no reference. Can you see the bigger picture here, or are you focused on the notice?

Are you assuming the RTB will wait for 6 months to inform the LL that a dispute was opened 5 months previously? The day the RTB informs the LL, a new notice will be given to the op.

The op is going to be evicted, be it in October or a couple of weeks later, 7 months is a good length of time to find a new property, the search will have a better chance of succeeding with a good reference and an amicable split with the LL, he could of course focus on the 24hr error like you advise, but the op won't have a snow balls chance in hell of getting another place, a serial killer with a good reference would probably get in before him.

Browney7

davo10 wrote: »

The op has 28 days to open a dispute, LL will be notified, new, correct notice given, delay of a couple of weeks, op house searching in an awful market with higher rent and no reference. Can you see the bigger picture here, or are you focused on the notice?

Are you assuming the RTB will wait for 6 months to inform the LL that a dispute was opened 5 months previously?

The op is going to be evicted, be it in October or a couple of weeks later, 7 months is a good length of time to find a new property, the search will have a better chance of succeeding with a good reference and an amicable split with the LL, you could of course focus on the 24hr error like to advise, but the op won't have a snow balls chance in hell of getting another place.

Or the op stays put, ignoring the termination notice and keeps paying their rent and forces LL to go to RTB to prove overholding. In that hearing the tenant says they ignored the termination notice as they deemed it to be invalid. They can also throw in the grenade the LL sought to increase the rent beyond permitted limits (I suspect this was a verbal communication so OP would be unable to prove). Does an invalid termination notice become valid if it's not disputed within 28 days of receipt? Whether RTB rules in tenant or landlord's favour I've no idea. Is there any similar cases on their database? If the OP wins they get realistically get upwards to a year extra in their current place at a "saving" of 500 per month.

Disclosure: I'm not advocating this course of action but it is a potential scenario for how this plays out. As you said, a reference goes out the window

davo10

Browney7 wrote: »

Or the op stays put, ignoring the termination notice and keeps paying their rent and forces LL to go to RTB to prove overholding. In that hearing the tenant says they ignored the termination notice as they deemed it to be invalid. They can also throw in the grenade the LL sought to increase the rent beyond permitted limits (I suspect this was a verbal communication so OP would be unable to prove). Does an invalid termination notice become valid if it's not disputed within 28 days of receipt? Whether RTB rules in tenant or landlord's favour I've no idea. Is there any similar cases on their database? If the OP wins they get realistically get upwards to a year extra in their current place at a "saving" of 500 per month.

Disclosure: I'm not advocating this course of action but it is a potential scenario for how this plays out. As you said, a reference goes out the window

The RTB rules on this are clear, the op has to open a dispute within 28days. If the op plans to overhold, well that's a different matter entirely. Bad news for both then.


https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/ending-a-tenancy/sample-notices-of-termination/

Browney7

davo10 wrote: »

The RTB rules on this are clear, the op has to open a dispute within 28days. If the op plans to overhold, well that's a different matter entirely. Bad news for both then.


https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/ending-a-tenancy/sample-notices-of-termination/

Just to apply this to a different type of notice a tenant could receive:

If I receive a rent review that ticks all validity boxes except the amount being sought is way in excess of RPZ rules, if I ignore the notice as it's clearly in contravention of rules but don't dispute within 28 days, the landlord would win at the RTB when he seeks to enforce the increase (pursue arrears) and the rent is reset?

davo10

Browney7 wrote: »

Just to apply this to a different type of notice a tenant could receive:

If I receive a rent review that ticks all validity boxes except the amount being sought is way in excess of RPZ rules, if I ignore the notice as it's clearly in contravention of rules but don't dispute within 28 days, the landlord would win at the RTB when he seeks to enforce the increase (pursue arrears) and the rent is reset?

No, different rules apply to notice of rent increase and notice of termination. The 28 day rule seems only to apply to termination, if you don't dispute, it would seem to be accepted.

I'm still not convinced that the LL would lose a dispute if raised by the op. If the letter contains only the date of termination then it would seem from what Claw Hammer posted that the LL would lose, but if it specifically references "224 days", then an adjudicator may use their discretion and say "well the 224 days is correct, just leave 24 hours later". I guess we'll find out if op disputes it, hopefully he will keep us informed by posting the outcome.

Claw Hammer

davo10 wrote: »

No, different rules apply to notice of rent increase and notice of termination. The 28 day rule seems only to apply to termination, if you don't dispute, it would seem to be accepted.

That is not how it works. If a LL claims for overholding, he has to prove a valid Notice of Termination was served. The fact that the tenant did not challenge a purported notice of termination within 28 days is irrelevant.

davo10 wrote: »

If you read the first post, you will see that a specific date was mentioned not 224 days from now.
You have obviously never been to an RTB hearing. The adjudicator will not fix a landlords notice. It is either valid or not. The RTB is pro tenant and there is no way that a landlord will be indulged. An adjudicator has no role in telling a tenant to go 24 hours later. What is more likely is that a landlord will be fined for issuing an invalid notice. Many a landlord has discovered at hearing that their unchallenged notice was invalid and they had to start again with another notice. Here is an example
https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports/tr0717-002459-dr0517-34072-tribunal-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0

davo10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is not how it works. If a LL claims for overholding, he has to prove a valid Notice of Termination was served. The fact that the tenant did not challenge a purported notice of termination within 28 days is irrelevant.

davo10 wrote: »

If you read the first post, you will see that a specific date was mentioned not 224 days from now.
You have obviously never been to an RTB hearing. The adjudicator will not fix a landlords notice. It is either valid or not. The RTB is pro tenant and there is no way that a landlord will be indulged. An adjudicator has no role in telling a tenant to go 24 hours later. What is more likely is that a landlord will be fined for issuing an invalid notice. Many a landlord has discovered at hearing that their unchallenged notice was invalid and they had to start again with another notice. Here is an example
https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports/tr0717-002459-dr0517-34072-tribunal-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Crikey, whoever filled out that notice made a complete helms of it. In the ops case, if 224 days appears on the letter and the end date is wrong, it would seem a smaller issue than the case you posted. It's also worth noting on that case, the adjudication occurred within 3 weeks of the notice being given and favoured the LL, the notice was initially found to be valid, the case then hinged on the reason for termination and the accuracy of the information given. I am not disputing with you that the op can challenge the notice, what I would suggest to you is that it would hinder his ability to secure a new rental when he is eventually evicted. 7 months is a long time to find a new rental, with a good reference and an amicable split, the op has a chance of finding one, without it, you know this, he has zero chance. A small victory in the short term , but ultimately a loss in the long term.

Claw Hammer

davo10 wrote: »

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is not how it works. If a LL claims for overholding, he has to prove a valid Notice of Termination was served. The fact that the tenant did not challenge a purported notice of termination within 28 days is irrelevant.


Crikey, whoever filled out that notice made a complete helms of it. In the ops case, if 224 days appears on the letter and the end date is wrong, it would seem a smaller issue than the case you posted. It's also worth noting on that case, the adjudication occurred within 3 weeks of the notice being given and favoured the LL, the notice was initially found to be valid, the case then hinged on the reason for termination and the accuracy of the information given. I am not disputing with you that the op can challenge the notice, what I would suggest to you is that it would hinder his ability to secure a new rental when he is eventually evicted. 7 months is a long time to find a new rental, with a good reference and an amicable split, the op has a chance of finding one, without it, you know this, he has zero chance. A small victory in the short term , but ultimately a loss in the long term.

The 224 days appearing on the notice and a wrong date would be fatal. The o/p will get another 224 days when the landlord discovers the error. He can then challenge the new notice and appeal that. He will get about 18 months out of it. References are not the be all and end all. Most tenants get around the lack of one easily enough.

GGTrek

Claw Hammer wrote: »

davo10 wrote: »

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is not how it works. If a LL claims for overholding, he has to prove a valid Notice of Termination was served. The fact that the tenant did not challenge a purported notice of termination within 28 days is irrelevant.


Crikey, whoever filled out that notice made a complete helms of it. In the ops case, if 224 days appears on the letter and the end date is wrong, it would seem a smaller issue than the case you posted. It's also worth noting on that case, the adjudication occurred within 3 weeks of the notice being given and favoured the LL, the notice was initially found to be valid, the case then hinged on the reason for termination and the accuracy of the information given.  I am not disputing with you that the op can challenge the notice, what I would suggest to you is that it would hinder his ability to secure a new rental when he is eventually evicted. 7 months is a long time to find a new rental, with a good reference and an amicable split, the op has a chance of finding one, without it, you know this, he has zero chance. A small victory in the short term , but ultimately a loss in the long term.

The 224 days appearing on the notice and a wrong date would be fatal. The o/p will get another 224 days when the landlord discovers the error. He can then challenge the new notice and appeal that. He will get about 18 months out of it. References are not the be all and end all. Most tenants get around the lack of one easily enough.

However being on the RTB disputes database for challenging a notice on a one day technicality and even worse challenging a valid notice will surely cause massive problems in finding a new tenancy for the OP. Whenever I receive a request for viewing the first thing I do is checking the name of the viewer against the RTB disputes database + online + courts search (in case the viewer was really too smart), if I see the name (and a few times I did see the names) and it is not a deposit or repairs issue (or I cannot ascertain the issue), for me the viewer is as good as dead: I hate smart a.. tenants playing the system. I remember a particular one (the worst really) that sent me a request for viewing for a nice 1 bed apartment in central Dublin who was a university lecturer and sure as .... he was a big player who lost at RTB tribunal (full s..t and all on display). 224 days of notice in my opinion are an abuse of property rights and a massive incentive to overhold for the tenants who really cannot care less about looking for alternative accommodation when they have what amounts practically to a new lease.

mdebets

Many people are saying that the OP wil get a bad reference from the LL if he challenges the incorrect notice. That is absolutely not true, only a very stupid LL would give a tenant who is still living in his house and whom he wants to get out a bad reference. Instead, he will get a glowing good reference, telling the new LL how good the tenant was and that he is really sad, seeing him go.
Why you ask, because the smart LL wants the tenant out of his house and a good reference will spped this up, without the chance of the tenant overholding. He might even be moving out much sooner thanks to the good reference. Giving him a bad reference instead, might see the tenant overholding, because he can't get a new house, costing the LL time and money in evictim him.

Paddy1234

OP here. I've calmed down a small bit after the initial shock of getting the termination notice.

On reflection I've decided I'm not going to do anything and take it on the chin.

I'll have a think about whether I'll do anything after the fact e.g. When he moves new tenants in for way more rent I might stop by and tell them what we were paying and let them do whatever they wish.

Thanks for the input

Muahahaha

Paddy1234 wrote: »

I'll have a think about whether I'll do anything after the fact e.g. When he moves new tenants in for way more rent I might stop by and tell them what we were paying and let them do whatever they wish.

If he actually does that then you have a nailed on case for illegal eviction. The RTB have been awarding tenants circa 5,000 in compensation for instances of illegal eviction.

Paddy1234

Muahahaha wrote: »

If he actually does that then you have a nailed on case for illegal eviction. The RTB have been awarding tenants circa 5,000 in compensation for instances of illegal eviction.

I have no interest in suing him - i just wanted to wipe the grin off his face after he hired a solicitor to do up the notice and he ends up getting it wrong.

dennyk

Oh, you're the guy from that other thread...makes more sense why you'd consider getting all nitpicky on the LL, heh. Still, though, I'd just use the notice period to find yourself a good place to move to and then keep an eye on it and take things to the RTB if it turns out the LL really is taking the piss and booting you for more rent. It's ****ty if that's what he is doing, but I think it'll be much less stress for you in the end to just roll with it and then bring the pain to your former LL after the fact if need be than to start a long drawn-out battle with him by challenging the notice or overholding and still end up having to move out eventually anyway. (Plus, a ~5k judgement awarded against him plus whatever his new tenant sues for in rent overpayment would definitely wipe that grin away and then some, so don't discount that option...)

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

The op has 28 days to open a dispute, LL will be notified, new, correct notice given, delay of a couple of weeks, op house searching in an awful market with higher rent and no reference. Can you see the bigger picture here, or are you focused on the notice?

Are you assuming the RTB will wait for 6 months to inform the LL that a dispute was opened 5 months previously? The day the RTB informs the LL, a new notice will be given to the op.

The op is going to be evicted, be it in October or a couple of weeks later, 7 months is a good length of time to find a new property, the search will have a better chance of succeeding with a good reference and an amicable split with the LL, he could of course focus on the 24hr error like you advise, but the op won't have a snow balls chance in hell of getting another place, a serial killer with a good reference would probably get in before him.

When I was at school there was always this threat of a bad reference. The headmaster eventually refused to give me any reference at all. Did me no harm. I got on just fine without it.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

When I was at school there was always this threat of a bad reference. The headmaster eventually refused to give me any reference at all. Did me no harm. I got on just fine without it.

Can you see how a rental and a school reference might differ?

How would that have worked out if you applied to move school which required a reference and your headmaster told the new school you were a complete wally?

Tonyandthewhale

davo10 wrote: »

Can you see how a rental and a school reference might differ?

How would that have worked out if you applied to move school which required a reference and your headmaster told the new school you were a complete wally?

They're different for sure but the point still stands that lack of a good reference is rarely a major stumbling block for anyone with a bit of cop-on. Plenty of ways around it if you don't have a reliable reference from you last landlord.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Can you see how a rental and a school reference might differ?

How would that have worked out if you applied to move school which required a reference and your headmaster told the new school you were a complete wally?

I got over all problems of not having a school reference, so I would get over any problem. As for headmasters telling each other someone is a wally, you would be better able to answer that.