Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Invalid notice of termination, solicitor

Options
2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    cherrypick wrote: »
    I can confirm you that as it was my experience, however, I did my own research. In fairness, they offered both good and bad advice.



    The law is very clear on the matter, I have posted the excerpt few times here already. It clearly says it is.

    So you are wrong there, but do not trust me and look into this actual tribunal report, here you are:
    https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/downloads/tribunal-report/TR1217-002734-DR0517-34310_Tribunal_Report.pdf

    You understand that in the case you linked, the tenant was unlawfully evicted? You have not been evicted, you were served an invalid notice of termination, which the relevant adjudicator (RTB) has ruled in your favour. Your tenancy therefore continues and has not been adversely affected by the notice i.e. your tenancy has not been terminated.

    If you read down to "Findings" you will see that the RTB found that the tenancy was invalidly terminated. You are still in the property, that is the key difference, the LL in this case acted unlawfully, in your case the LL would have broken the law if you had been evicted ( adversely affect by termination) You disputed the notice and won, no eviction, no law broken.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭CeilingFly


    cherrypick wrote: »
    Also, to be precise, sending a notice of termination that is invalid knowing that it would end up in some sort of action by the tenants is an offence by itself:


    "74.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

    (a) a notice of termination that is invalid purports to be served by the person (or on his or her behalf) in respect of a tenancy, and

    (b) the person does any act, in reliance on the notice, that affects adversely, or is calculated to affect adversely, any interest of the person on whom the notice is served.
    ...
    "

    note the word "and"

    Little words are extremely important in legal disputes. The notice on its own is not an offence. The notice and then acting on the notice is the offence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,760 ✭✭✭C3PO


    OP my guess is that English is not your first language? Consequently it makes your posts very difficult to follow and I also think it makes it hard for you to interpret the legal terminology correctly. I would suggest that you need to go and talk to a solicitor who specialises in this area and follow his advice but as stated before I think you are "on a hiding to nothing"!


  • Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭tvjunki


    cherrypick wrote: »
    First thing I did is to call him and offered to pay more, and call it a day. He refused.

    Now, on the matter, please take a look into this case
    https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/downloads/tribunal-report/TR1217-002734-DR0517-34310_Tribunal_Report.pdf

    This is quite similar to my case and the landlord had to compensate for terminating the tenancy unlawfully (the tenant moved out on its own and the landlord wanted her to stay after all).


    Good luck with that, he will have to spend a lot of money to make sure it is valid as it has to change the nature of the property and it is not possible to do so in this apartment. So as soon as he does the maths he will realise how stupid the whole thing was, it would take years to recover the expense. I get your point, though.

    Also for those reading this that do not know, the landlord has to offer the tenancy back regardless. We are assuming here he would not do that, but if he does, he cannot simply increase your rent.

    However, he will definitively keep increasing the rent not like he was not doing that.

    This case is not relevant as the landlord did not give notice in writing, he wanted the house for himself and do short term lettings which he can do. He did offer it back to the x tenant but she did not move back in.

    Substantial change. You have missed something there as well. Your landlord has to improve the property(that could be a new boiler or insulation etc) but only has to offer you back the property if completed in 6months but can charge you the market rent. He can offset the cost against the 52% tax he pays if he is on the higher tax bracket.

    He can also give you notice that he will not be renewing your lease to a further part 4.(you have not said how long you have lived in the property)Section 34b and he does not have to give reason apart from not renewing a further part 4. You may be looking for another place anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23 cherrypick


    C3PO wrote: »
    OP my guess is that English is not your first language? Consequently it makes your posts very difficult to follow and I also think it makes it hard for you to interpret the legal terminology correctly. I would suggest that you need to go and talk to a solicitor who specialises in this area and follow his advice but as stated before I think you are "on a hiding to nothing"!
    Going too fast there while doing things in parallel... but you are right. Apologies for not writing more carefully.

    Please let me know what sentences in particular sound bad to you other than typos and grammar mistakes ? so I can correct those. I know you refer more or less like "in general" but I will appreciate guidance. Feel free to PM me.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23 cherrypick


    tvjunki wrote: »
    he wanted the house for himself and do short term lettings which he can do.

    No he can´t. He cannot say he wanted it back for a family or himself and also do short term letting. That makes no freaking sense, I do not know in what world people live.

    And that is why she won the case. Because her tenancy was unlawfully terminated despite she moved voluntarily to a new apartment does not even matter how she was notified which I thought it was by letter but I must have misunderstood (note that was an appeal so the original claim would have more details).

    Or that is what I understood in the summary. I believe it is very explicit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23 cherrypick


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    note the word "and"

    Little words are extremely important in legal disputes. The notice on its own is not an offence. The notice and then acting on the notice is the offence.

    True, true. However he is acting on the notice, I cannot provide details but so you have an idea, he no longer replies to anything related to the apartment nor he provides basic information he should provide. There are other people involved on this other than my greedy landlord.

    Also he did this calculating an outcome that no matter how would cause me detriment (have an effect), the mere fact I had to fill a claim to the RTB is proof of it. Now he could even serve a better letter in the future, thanks to this attempt. Well, as I said, he will have to really spend money if he does not want to give up but...


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭Baby01032012


    After last post I think personal issues forum might be more appropriate


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    cherrypick wrote: »
    True, true. However he is acting on the notice, I cannot provide details but so you have an idea, he no longer replies to anything related to the apartment nor he provides basic information he should provide. There are other people involved on this other than my greedy landlord.

    Also he did this calculating an outcome that no matter how would cause me detriment (have an effect), the mere fact I had to fill a claim to the RTB is proof of it. Now he could even serve a better letter in the future, thanks to this attempt. Well, as I said, he will have to really spend money if he does not want to give up but...

    Yes you will be spending money, you want to take a civil case against the LL, that is going to cost you. The intended outcome of the notice was to adversely affect your tenancy by terminating it. This did not happen because the RTB ruled in your favour, it's a mystery why you think you are due money when you were not evicted on foot of an invalid notice. I think that you feel that the LL should reimburse you for what you paid for the other property, but you voluntarily jumped the gun and paid this before the RTB made its findings.

    I don't think you will be happy until you have paid a solicitor to tell you that as the LL didn't act on the notice, you have no case for compensation.

    Incidentally, there is nothing to stop the LL serving you with a new, valid notice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23 cherrypick


    davo10 wrote: »
    I don't think you will be happy until you have paid a solicitor to tell you that as the LL didn't act on the notice, you have no case for compensation.

    Incidentally, there is nothing to stop the LL serving you with a new, valid notice.
    That could be the case, easily. However there are other similar cases published were the landlord had to actually pay, as I said, either a fine or compensation is what I am looking for.

    https://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/how-your-landlord-may-end-your-tenancy/ see the paragraph that explains that what he did is an offence regardless of what I did or not on my side in the meanwhile. Also, there is something that can easily be considered as "taken action" but I cannot explain that detail because this is a public forum.

    But I do agree, If I am mistaken, then I will reconsider the situation and reevaluate the options.

    In any event this adjudication is something that had to be done, I might or might not benefit from it but if the increases the rent further to a new tenant I can always put another claim.

    Or I can just not leave and keep paying the rent, and wait until there is new legislation in place were this is a criminal offence which is meant to happen "soon".


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    At the risk of repeating the same point over and over, that link relates to ending a tenancy.

    I assume the paragraph you are referring to is this:

    "It is an offence for a landlord/agent to knowingly take any action in reliance on an invalid notice of termination of tenancy that he/she knew or ought to have known was invalid."

    The "action" is terminating the tenancy, that would be an offence if he acted on an invalid notice to evict you. But he didn't, you have not been evicted, you are still there, the tenancy is still in place, the RTB ruled in your favour, it is not a criminal offence, the LL has broken no law.

    Can you please provide a link to the other cases where LLs were punished for giving invalid notice but not acting on it to evict the tenant. The relevant law is clear, another poster has linked to it, for it to be an offence the LL must give invalid notice AND act on it by terminating tenancy/evicting you.

    If you leave or your tenancy is ended with valid notice, and a new tenant is charged more, it is the new tenant who claims, not you.

    "Soon" in Irish legislation process means a very, very long time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,326 ✭✭✭Deub


    Soon may come at best in a few months but it doesn't mean it will be retroactive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23 cherrypick


    Deub wrote: »
    Soon may come at best in a few months but it doesn't mean it will be retroactive.

    Correct, so if I do not stop paying my rent and I do not surrender the contract then it will apply going forward. Which is the whole point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23 cherrypick


    davo10 wrote: »
    At the risk of repeating the same point over and over, that link relates to ending a tenancy.

    I assume the paragraph you are referring to is this:

    "It is an offence for a landlord/agent to knowingly take any action in reliance on an invalid notice of termination of tenancy that he/she knew or ought to have known was invalid."

    The "action" is terminating the tenancy, that would be an offence if he acted on an invalid notice to evict you. But he didn't, you have not been evicted, you are still there, the tenancy is still in place, the RTB ruled in your favour, it is not a criminal offence, the LL has broken no law.

    Can you please provide a link to the other cases where LLs were punished for giving invalid notice but not acting on it to evict the tenant. The relevant law is clear, another poster has linked to it, for it to be an offence the LL must give invalid notice AND act on it by terminating tenancy/evicting you.

    If you leave or your tenancy is ended with valid notice, and a new tenant is charged more, it is the new tenant who claims, not you.

    "Soon" in Irish legislation process means a very, very long time.

    Hi Davo,

    First of all, sure it is not a criminal offence (yet), please I am not stupid. But a civil one.

    Find some in the link below (filter by "invalid notice of termination" or "unlawful") read the tribunal appeals, else, I put one in some post before where a woman left to go to another apartment and later on she acted on base of an unlawful termination, and she was not evicted or anything and in fact the landlord wanted her back.. The RTB ruled in her favour.

    https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/search-results/listing/

    My understanding is that the "action" can mean many things, for example: do not fix anything in the apt., do not reply your calls to repair things, do not provide his address or a rent book, do not fix things broken due to usual wear among other things. Also the action can be to force you to look for other apartments in the meanwhile or even negotiate a higher rent on the hearing.

    The action is not meant to be terminating the tenancy when it is INVALID - but the attempt to do so - because if it is invalid the tenancy cannot terminate indeed. Unless:

    - You were evicted illegally.
    - You voluntarily left, because you felt like doing so AFTER you got such letter of termination.

    I do not think it is that difficult to get the backgrounds of that article, whether you will win or not in a circuit court... or if that is worth it... that I do not know.

    Also this could be easily a movie script but I would not be surprised if we know some years from now that all agencies and asset managers were doing shady activities and cooperating to artificially inflate prices (even evicting people whenever that would help them to achieve their goals). So considering this a criminal offence is probably something that has to be done, too much greediness.


  • Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Askthe EA


    Lock. It. Up!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    cherrypick wrote: »
    That could be the case, easily. However there are other similar cases published were the landlord had to actually pay, as I said, either a fine or compensation is what I am looking for.

    https://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/how-your-landlord-may-end-your-tenancy/ see the paragraph that explains that what he did is an offence regardless of what I did or not on my side in the meanwhile. Also, there is something that can easily be considered as "taken action" but I cannot explain that detail because this is a public forum.

    But I do agree, If I am mistaken, then I will reconsider the situation and reevaluate the options.

    In any event this adjudication is something that had to be done, I might or might not benefit from it but if the increases the rent further to a new tenant I can always put another claim.

    Or I can just not leave and keep paying the rent, and wait until there is new legislation in place were this is a criminal offence which is meant to happen "soon".


    Just out of interest is compensation or a fine expendable from a tax point of view?


Advertisement