ex landlord advertising house for rental!

anodos

I lived in a shared house for the last 5 years, with others who have come and gone. The landlord served us notice to leave as they were selling the property. Two months after us moving out the property is back up on daft with a couple of carpets replaced for 1000e a month more (it's in a rent pressure zone). If I go through the RTB is there much that they can/ will do? I have signed a new lease elsewhere so it's not really practical to move back in.

I see they are probably breaking section 34 of 2004 tenancy act.. just unsure will anything be done and if it's worth pursuing. Any ideas? Thanks

jimmycrackcorm

anodos wrote:

I see they are probably breaking section 34 of 2004 tenancy act.. just unsure will anything be done and if it's worth pursuing. Any ideas? Thanks

Definitely go to the RTB. This carry on shouldn't be tolerated and will only stop when landlords get heavy fines.

April 73

anodos wrote: »

I lived in a shared house for the last 5 years, with others who have come and gone. The landlord served us notice to leave as they were selling the property. Two months after us moving out the property is back up on daft with a couple of carpets replaced for 1000e a month more (it's in a rent pressure zone). If I go through the RTB is there much that they can/ will do? I have signed a new lease elsewhere so it's not really practical to move back in.

I see they are probably breaking section 34 of 2004 tenancy act.. just unsure will anything be done and if it's worth pursuing. Any ideas? Thanks

So you were asked to leave a place that was your home for 5 years because the landlord wanted to sell the property? You played ball, found another place and moved out. Are you paying more in rent than you were previously?
The LL has skirted the rent pressure zone rules that others are complying with. He inconvenienced you & lied in order to increase the rent by €1000(!!!) a month.
You are wondering if you should report him? I think you should screen shot the new ad & open a case with the RTB straight away. People like your ex-LL are part of the reason why LL’s get negative press.
If more people believed in right & wrong and did something about it - these people will get away with these things less & less.

Should you report it? Absolutely you should!

Bob24

April 73 wrote: »

So you were asked to leave a place that was your home for 5 years because the landlord wanted to sell the property? You played ball, found another place and moved out. Are you paying more in rent than you were previously?
The LL has skirted the rent pressure zone rules that others are complying with. He inconvenienced you & lied in order to increase the rent by €1000(!!!) a month.
You are wondering if you should report him? I think you should screen shot the new ad & open a case with the RTB straight away. People like your ex-LL are part of the reason why LL’s get negative press.
If more people believed in right & wrong and did something about it - these people will get away with these things less & less.

Should you report it? Absolutely you should!

Agree with all that, but I am wondering what will happen in practice?

Can the landlord be fined or forced to pay sigificant compensation to their previous tenant for illegally evicting them and does it happen in practice?

anodos

I’d be interested to hear the answer to bob24 s questions. I also suspect that given they replaced the carpets etc they’ll argue refurbishment is justification. It’s very bad of them.

I’m paying a similar amount in rent now but for a far smaller house, that I was lucky to get at all.

shivermetimber

The government recently outlined the level of refurbishment works that need to be carried out in order to evict tenants on this basis. It involves major structural changes and not simply a carpet change and lick of paint. Given the recent housing and rental market situation I would proceed with this as if you don't it's another landlord getting away with bending the rules.

anodos

Thanks for that. After reading the relevant links it sounds like they don’t have a leg to stand on, especially as they lied on their reason for eviction.

Another question - I’m looking at going through the rtb dispute resolution process, I take it that’s the advisable way to do things. I’m thinking of going with adjudication as i doubt mediation will get anywhere.

Fol20

Another thing that has also not been mentioned is that he is legally required to give your first choice if he decides to rent it again within 6months. As a landlord I hate the RPZ rules but we have to play the game to best of our ability and not cheat. This LL has left him self right open and has shot himself in the foot by not giving you first choice and more importantly not doing enough to renovate the place.

davo10

House could have been sold.

anodos

That did cross my mind and would be nice to believe but it hasn’t had any sign outside, and they’ve been redoing it since we moved out, and it’s not on the property register, so I doubt it.

Samuel T. Cogley

davo10 wrote: »

House could have been sold.

Even if sold the new owners can't increase the rent like that in a RPZ and should be reported.

Fol20

anodos wrote: »

That did cross my mind and would be nice to believe but it hasn’t had any sign outside, and they’ve been redoing it since we moved out, and it’s not on the property register, so I doubt it.

It can take time for it to show on property price register and depending on situation some do not have signs when they are sold. The point of contact on the ad. That would be most telling if it was sold. Likewise if you have proof it was never advertised. It will help your case even more

anodos

It was certainly never advertised for sale (does it have to be?). It's a letting agent advertising for rent it so I can't tell from that..

amcalester

Fol20 wrote: »

It can take time for it to show on property price register and depending on situation some do not have signs when they are sold. The point of contact on the ad. That would be most telling if it was sold. Likewise if you have proof it was never advertised. It will help your case even more

New owner is still tied to previous rent + 4% rules so even if it has been sold the new landlord is breaking the law.

Or it hasn’t been sold and the old landlord has broken the law.

Either way the OP should report it.

The_Conductor

anodos wrote: »

It was certainly never advertised for sale (does it have to be?). It's a letting agent advertising for rent it so I can't tell from that..

Yes- it does have to be (offered for sale). No- it doesn't have to have a sign outside- it could be sold by any of a long list of possible methods (such as the very popular XBid (formerly Allsop) auctions- who have over 200 residential properties for sale in April alone).

However- if it is let by a new owner- the rent you paid- is the rent associated with the property- the rent is not reset because the property was sold (this is why a property that was let in the previous 2 years- is of very limited interest to landlords- their hands are tied.

anodos

Thanks for the information everyone, I'm going to submit the dispute to the RTB shortly. I'll keep ye updated but I imagine it'll take a while to be resolved!

98q76e12hrflnk

Get over it.

steddyeddy

Jolene Low Aftershave wrote: »

Get over it.

Unfortunately no one has to. Housing, like education and health is and should be protected.

Pkiernan

As a landlord who hates scumbag tenants and scumbag landlords equally, I'd say that you have been illegally evicted and you should pursue this with the RTB.

You could be in line for 5 figure compensation.

TheAnalyst_

Absolutely ****ing crucify him for you and all the other tenants dealing with this crap.

davo10

sugarman wrote: »

Ever buy a house? Takes a hell of a lot longer than 2 months to go through!

I've been buying and selling residential and commercial properties since 1997, over 30 at this stage. Many have been cash transactions and a lot have taken less than 2 months. Yes, is the answer to your question.

Fol20

davo10 wrote: »

I've been buying and selling residential and commercial properties since 1997, over 30 at this stage. Many have been cash transactions and a lot have taken less than 2 months. Yes, is the answer to your question.

I would like to be in your enviable position right now but with respect I presume times have changed and buying back in the day was much quicker.now days yes it still can be done. I even got a place in 30 days however most do take a min of 3 months or longer

The_Conductor

Fol20 wrote: »

I would like to be in your enviable position right now but with respect I presume times have changed and buying back in the day was much quicker.now days yes it still can be done. I even got a place in 30 days however most do take a min of 3 months or longer

And thats presuming there is nothing unusual with the title deeds and no chains involved etc.......... 12 weeks is a good yardstick- you may get lucky but its prudent to assume you won't.

Vojera

anodos wrote: »

Thanks for the information everyone, I'm going to submit the dispute to the RTB shortly. I'll keep ye updated but I imagine it'll take a while to be resolved!

Just be sure to document everything, screenshots/archive pages etc.

davo10

Fol20 wrote: »

I would like to be in your enviable position right now but with respect I presume times have changed and buying back in the day was much quicker.now days yes it still can be done. I even got a place in 30 days however most do take a min of 3 months or longer

Agreed, I have used the same solicitor for most of the last 20 years so he knows the story, also I use the same tradesmen no matter where it is in the country. Over 60% of all property sales are cash purchases so it's not unusual for the transaction times to be short. In my experience, title issues are unusual, unless you buy at auction. Hold ups are often due to the vendors solicitor not being on the ball so I always make sure that if I'm buying, I ask if the vendor is ready to wrap it up quickly.

Visconti

anodos wrote: »

Thanks for the information everyone, I'm going to submit the dispute to the RTB shortly. I'll keep ye updated but I imagine it'll take a while to be resolved!

RTB are very fair in my experience (as a landlord) you will get a good outcome but it wont be fast. As a landlord who treats tenants with respect I can say the whole thing does not have to be as hard as many scumbag landlords and scumbag tenants make it.
I got a very fair RTB judgment and got a fair court judgment also but unfortunately the scumbag tenant who trashed my house has nothing to take off him.
Its quite different in your case, You deserve and hopefully will get compensation and justice for yourself and the good tenants and good landlords out there.

tradesman

davo10 wrote: »

Agreed, I have used the same solicitor for most of the last 20 years so he knows the story, also I use the same tradesmen no matter where it is in the country. Over 60% of all property sales are cash purchases so it's not unusual for the transaction times to be short. In my experience, title issues are unusual, unless you buy at auction. Hold ups are often due to the vendors solicitor not being on the ball so I always make sure that if I'm buying, I ask if the vendor is ready to wrap it up quickly.

I have sold at auction before & they made sure all docs were in place before the auction or the property didnt get into the auction

davo10

tradesman wrote: »

I have sold at auction before & they made sure all docs were in place before the auction or the property didnt get into the auction

Problem properties may have an issue with structure or title, all the docs may be present, but that does not mean there is no issue with them. Some auctioneers will not bring a problem property to auction, but many will, bidders are advised of the status of the property in advance of bidding.

handlemaster

OP , was the Landlord fair with their deals with you up until this point ?   was the rent market rate or below ? how do now what has been done to the property ? Have you been in the property since leaving ?

Bubbaclaus

handlemaster wrote: »

OP , was the Landlord fair with their deals with you up until this point ?   was the rent market rate or below ? how do now what has been done to the property ? Have you been in the property since leaving ?

Here comes the landlord.

OP, let us know how much compensation you end up getting. A party for the people of boards is always welcomed

aaakev

handlemaster wrote: »

OP , was the Landlord fair with their deals with you up until this point ?   was the rent market rate or below ? how do now what has been done to the property ? Have you been in the property since leaving ?

Why does any of that matter?

D3V!L

aaakev wrote: »

Why does any of that matter?

It does to a landlord that needs to justify his actions

Bob24

handlemaster wrote: »

OP , was the Landlord fair with their deals with you up until this point ?   

If the landlord blatantly broke the law, having been fair in the past is irrelevant.

handlemaster wrote: »

was the rent market rate or below ?

Irrelevant to a person which was potentially illegal evicted.

handlemaster wrote: »

how do now what has been done to the property ? Have you been in the property since leaving ?

Irrelevant as the notice was given on the basis of selling the property.

***
----
***

I am all in favour of cordial tenant/landlord relationships, but it doesn't mean past good behaviour excuses present wrongdoings

Because I have been a good tenant my current landlord has kept rent well below market rate for a while and when I leave I won't check on them to see what they do with the next tenant (and I will happily be flexible with assisting them in any way they need when they look for a new tenant, and maintain the same healthy trust relationship we have had).

BUT no matter how excellent the relationship has been, if they tried to evict me illegally none of that will matter and I will fight back. And similarly I am sure no matter how good a tenant I have been in the past if I started to get reckless tomorrow and to stop paying the rent or to trash the place, they would react to it and rightly defend their interest.

Graces7

As gets said often, this IS a business arrangement.

Bob24 wrote: »

If the landlord blatantly broke the law, having been fair in the past is irrelevant.



Irrelevant to a person which was potentially illegal evicted.



Irrelevant as the notice was given on the basis of selling the property.

***
----
***

I am all in favour of cordial tenant/landlord relationships, but it doesn't mean past good behaviour excuses present wrongdoings

Because I have been a good tenant my current landlord has kept rent well below market rate for a while and when I leave I won't check on them to see what they do with the next tenant (and I will happily be flexible with assisting them in any way they need when they look for a new tenant, and maintain the same healthy trust relationship we have had).

BUT no matter how excellent the relationship has been, if they tried to evict me illegally none of that will matter and I will fight back. And similarly I am sure no matter how good a tenant I have been in the past if I started to get reckless tomorrow and to stop paying the rent or to trash the place, they would react to it and rightly defend their interest.

aaakev

D3V!L wrote: »

aaakev wrote: »

Why does any of that matter?

It does to a landlord that needs to justify his actions

Yeah ot was a rhetorical question tbh, i was curious to hear his answer though!

longgonesilver

anodos wrote: »

Thanks for the information everyone, I'm going to submit the dispute to the RTB shortly. I'll keep ye updated but I imagine it'll take a while to be resolved!

How about your former housemates, will each of them be bringing a case.

handlemaster

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

handlemaster wrote: »

OP , was the Landlord fair with their deals with you up until this point ?   was the rent market rate or below ? how do now what has been done to the property ? Have you been in the property since leaving ?

Here comes the landlord.

OP, let us know how much compensation you end up getting. A party for the people of boards is always welcomed

in fairness the system only works for the tenants so nothing to lose for the OP

Bubbaclaus

handlemaster wrote: »

in fairness the system only works for the tenants so nothing to lose for the OP

The landlord is breaking the law here and the tenant should be compensated accordingly. What's your issue?

handlemaster

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

handlemaster wrote: »

in fairness the system only works for the tenants so nothing to lose for the OP

The landlord is breaking the law here and the tenant should be compensated accordingly. What's your issue?

We only have one side of the story .

handlemaster

Bob24 wrote: »

handlemaster wrote: »

OP , was the Landlord fair with their deals with you up until this point ?   

If the landlord blatantly broke the law, having been fair in the past is irrelevant.

handlemaster wrote: »

was the rent market rate or below ?

Irrelevant to a person which was potentially illegal evicted.

handlemaster wrote: »

how do now what has been done to the property ? Have you been in the property since leaving ?

Irrelevant as the notice was given on the basis of selling the property.

***
----
***

I am all in favour of cordial tenant/landlord relationships, but it doesn't mean past good behaviour excuses present wrongdoings

Because I have been a good tenant my current landlord has kept rent well below market rate for a while and when I leave I won't check on them to see what they do with the next tenant (and I will happily be flexible with assisting them in any way they need when they look for a new tenant, and maintain the same healthy trust relationship we have had).

BUT no matter how excellent the relationship has been, if they tried to evict me illegally none of that will matter and I will fight back. And similarly I am sure no matter how good a tenant I have been in the past if I started to get reckless tomorrow and to stop paying the rent or to trash the place, they would react to it and rightly defend their interest.

Ex tenant is doesnt know whàt was done to the properry so its all immaterial really. We only have a compension hungry ex tenants side . That would be 50% of the actual facts

Bubbaclaus

handlemaster wrote: »

We only have one side of the story .

What potentially is the other side of it? Seriously?

amcalester

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What potentially is the other side of it? Seriously?

Either the new landlord is breaking the law or the old landlord is breaking the law.

Let the OP start a dispute and the facts will out.

Bob24

handlemaster wrote: »

Ex tenant is doesnt know whàt was done to the properry so its all immaterial really. We only have a compension hungry ex tenants side . That would be 50% of the actual facts

All those questions are still irrelevant though as not matter that answer it won't change the fact that as per the information given here there was an illegal eviction.

If you want the other perspective of the story you'd need to talk to the landlord, which realistically won't happen here. The questions in your post are all irrelevant.

bluescat

Yes, report the individual. And maybe a "sit-in" outside the house with a placard,naming and shaming. The PRTB is lame, they go after good landlords with nasty tenants [my old former landlady had years of trouble with a female who made her life hell. She is THE best landlady, and had nothing but trouble with tenant and PRTB]; I rented for 4 months from a psycho [found place via agency- NEVER AGAIN !!!], and PRTB did nothing.I wish you success !

handlemaster

Bob24 wrote: »

handlemaster wrote: »

Ex tenant is doesnt know whàt was done to the properry so its all immaterial really. We only have a compension hungry ex tenants side . That would be 50% of the actual facts

All those questions are still irrelevant though as not matter that answer it won't change the fact that as per the information given here there was an illegal eviction.

If you want the other perspective of the story you'd need to talk to the landlord, which realistically won't happen here. The questions in your post are all irrelevant.

As per the info given idea

Bubbaclaus

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What potentially is the other side of it? Seriously?

Due to potentially illegal government intervention and goal post moving the LL could have been stuck on a crazily low rent through no fault of his own and at best could have a non-performing investment or at worst be unable to keep paying the mortgage with his rental income capped well below market rate.

The fact the rent he is looking is for 1k higher than the op was paying shows that this scenario is very liklely. While what he has done is illegal I'd find it very hard to complain about him as he is simply trying to get his investment back working for him against waves of anti-LL government intervention and more crap being called for like banning evictions for 2 years in the media today.

LLs simply have to try fight their corner, they are in the game to make money not provide housing or act like a charity. They need fight within the law however, though its not going to be easy with so much media and public opinion against them.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

handlemaster

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's all the op needs concern themselves with.[/quote]


Each to his own you mean. Increase in rent in this case if property has been renovated OP is only assuming without viewing.

Bubbaclaus

Fabian Poor Volleyball wrote: »

Due to potentially illegal government intervention and goal post moving the LL could have been stuck on a crazily low rent through no fault of his own and at best could have a non-performing investment or at worst be unable to keep paying the mortgage with his rental income capped well below market rate.

The fact the rent he is looking is for 1k higher than the op was paying shows that this scenario is very liklely. While what he has done is illegal I'd find it very hard to complain about him as he is simply trying to get his investment back working for him against waves of anti-LL government intervention and more crap being called for like banning evictions for 2 years in the media today.

LLs simply have to try fight their corner, they are in the game to make money not provide housing or act like a charity.

Pretty sure advocating breaking the law is against the forum charter, nox.

Bubbaclaus

handlemaster wrote: »

Each to his own you mean. Increase in rent in this case if property has been renovated OP is only assuming without viewing.

The renovations necessary to meet the requirements of the law would take more than the time outlined by OP.

I also assume the house is up online for rent and as such can be viewed by whoever wants to view it.

liquoriceall

I am wondering did all of you in the house have the house leased or was it done on a room by room basis? Does this impact on the potential for a case?