Evicted and now apartment will be rented out again

Chitza

Hi,

I honestly didn't think it would happen to me as well (after having heard all these stories out there) but here it goes:

I was renting an apartment for 5 years. Increases every year of 10-15%. 4% after RPZ came in but overall slightly below market value (1250,-).

The EA gave me notice in December that the LL wants to sell. I was lucky and found something pretty quickly, had to pay double rent of course to secure the new house, costs for moving, etc. I moved out mid January. The house went on the market right away for sale.

I am still chasing the EA for an outstanding overpayment of rent, get a call today (5 weeks later) that they have to contact the LL to see if they can return the overpayment and also, would I like to move back in since they are renting the apartment out again from Monday on? The rent they offered to me is 1350,-

Of course I do not want to move again, I have just finished unpacking the boxes. But I am slightly miffed tbh. It was an incredibly stressful time. I'm a single mom, didn't know if I would find something I could afford close enough to school and friends, had to dip into my savings to pay for it all, etc.

Is it even legal to only advertise for sale for 5 weeks and then rent out again for a higher rent? Do I have a leg to stand on if I ring the PRTB to let them know about this behaviour?

LirW

I understand fully that this is beyond annoying but honestly I'd let it go. Since they rang you, I'd assume that they genuinely wanted to sell and changed their plans since rent only slightly changed.

If there's money outstanding, hound them for that.

The_Conductor

The only thing that they've done wrong- is possibly the rent increase 'may' breach RPZ limits (may- it depends on when it was last reviewed- perhaps it doesn't). Honestly- they put it on the market- they gauged that interest was not what they imagined- and when they decided to rent it again- they followed the rules and gave you first refusal on it (at probably the wrong rent).

Your only genuine grievance here- is the rent level they offered it back to you at- everything else seems to have been legit.

godtabh

Sounds like a landlord who knows the rules and is following them to the letter of the law. Unfortunately your circumstances don't come into it at all.

rightmove

Title is very misleading

garhjw

OP you said your rent was €1250 when you moved out. When was it increased to this? You can enter the numbers and date into the RPZ calculator on the RTB site and it will tell you what the rent can be increased to.

sounds like a landlord that knew you wouldn't be bothered to move back in after all the hassle you were put through

report imo

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

The only thing that they've done wrong- is possibly the rent increase 'may' breach RPZ limits (may- it depends on when it was last reviewed- perhaps it doesn't). Honestly- they put it on the market- they gauged that interest was not what they imagined- and when they decided to rent it again- they followed the rules and gave you first refusal on it (at probably the wrong rent).

Your only genuine grievance here- is the rent level they offered it back to you at- everything else seems to have been legit.

The RTB has previously determined that simply decide to market the property was insufficient reason for eviction; there had to be an intention to enter into a sale contract within 3 months. I would suspect that an RTB claim would result in compensation for increased costs should the OP so decide. In the current market, I do not think that any serious effort can have been made to sell the property.

Actually High Court not RTB. See the link.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/notice-terminating-lease-on-family-home-deemed-invalid-1.2599202%3fmode=amp

Graham

Reading the article linked, it suggests the wording of the notice was invalid, not the reason behind it.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

The RTB has previously determined that simply decide to market the property was insufficient reason for eviction; there had to be an intention to enter into a sale contract within 3 months. I would suspect that an RTB claim would result in compensation for increased costs should the OP so decide. In the current market, I do not think that any serious effort can have been made to sell the property.

Actually High Court not RTB. See the link.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/notice-terminating-lease-on-family-home-deemed-invalid-1.2599202%3fmode=amp

Was the family offered the property back? I can’t read article without subscribing.

Graham

It doesn't say.

There's a bit of an analysis of the case here:

http://sellors.ie/case-note-update-on-section-34-terminations/

Marcusm

Graham wrote: »

Reading the article linked, it suggests the wording of the notice was invalid, not the reason behind it.

The reason for the particular notice to be invalid was that it did not state the grounds. What is more important and more generally relevant for other cases is the following reasoning of the judge (not necessary in the case she was determining):

She did not consider the Oireachtas intended to permit termination of a Part 4 tenancy merely in anticipation of the commencement of the sale or advertising process, the judge said. While not saying there had to be an identified sale, there must be more than an intention to sell.

The circumstances set out by the OP would to my kind, in the timeframe and effort describe, provide evidence that the reason for terminating was not valid. They have offered back the premises but unless they are going to discharge the moving expenses this is not a genuine offer.

Graham

Marcusm wrote: »

The circumstances set out by the OP would to my kind, in the timeframe and effort describe, provide evidence that the reason for terminating was not valid. They have offered back the premises but unless they are going to discharge the moving expenses this is not a genuine offer.

There's no suggestion the notice sent to the OP was not valid which appears to be the issue in the case you're referring to.

Chitza

Sorry, only seeing all the replies now. Thank you all for taking the time to respond.

The notice was valid insofar that it adhered to the termination notice, solicitor’s letter, etc. I didn’t see any formal mistakes there. Tbh, I never had any issues with the EA or the LL ever, everything was always done above board. I am very surprised by the fact that they were so keen on selling and not even 6 weeks later want to rent it out again. I had gotten on to them to enquire about buying it myself, but they never got back to me, so I left it since I wasn’t too keen on it anyways. It would have been more for convenience reasons.

The rent was last reviewed a year ago in November and raised to 1250,- then. That was within the 4% limit.

The whole thing just strikes me as being very odd. I have always been a good tenant, never missed a payment, had a cleaner coming weekly, so place was always clean and tidy, no complaints whatsoever. I got a glorious reference and found something new quickly enough. If it would have been on the market for a while and then decided to rent it again, I would have thought, sure, maybe they couldnt find a buyer...but not even 6 weeks? I’ll be checking Daft the next couple days to see for how much it will be advertised.

Nothing can be done anyways, so I’ll see that I least recover my overpayment.

Chitza

Chitza wrote: »

Sorry, only seeing all the replies now. Thank you all for taking the time to respond.

The notice was valid insofar that it adhered to the termination notice, solicitor’s letter, etc. I didn’t see any formal mistakes there. Tbh, I never had any issues with the EA or the LL ever, everything was always done above board. I am very surprised by the fact that they were so keen on selling and not even 6 weeks later want to rent it out again. I had gotten on to them to enquire about buying it myself, but they never got back to me, so I left it since I wasn’t too keen on it anyways. It would have been more for convenience reasons.

The rent was last reviewed a year ago in November and raised to 1250,- then. That was within the 4% limit.

The whole thing just strikes me as being very odd. I have always been a good tenant, never missed a payment, had a cleaner coming weekly, so place was always clean and tidy, no complaints whatsoever. I got a glorious reference and found something new quickly enough. If it would have been on the market for a while and then decided to rent it again, I would have thought, sure, maybe they couldnt find a buyer...but not even 6 weeks? I’ll be checking Daft the next couple days to see for how much it will be advertised.

Nothing can be done anyways, so I’ll see that I least recover my overpayment.

What’s the overpayment?

Chitza

About 400,- Euro.

4ensic15

Make a claim to the RTB.

beauf

4ensic15 wrote: »

Make a claim to the RTB.

For what specifically?

What would the OP hope to get out of it?

Chitza

Chitza wrote: »

About 400,- Euro.

Ya, but how did you overpay?. You were there for 5 years so notice is 112 days, you got notice in December and left in January, presumably by agreement with LL, did he say he would refund or are you assuming you are due a refund?

the_syco

Chitza wrote: »

About 400,- Euro.

400? I'm guessing you left a week before you had to pay another months rent?

TBH, the LL has given you first choice. You not being able to take it is not his fault.

Chitza

We agreed on 1 months notice, I gave him 5 weeks notice and didn't really get hold of him over Christmas to agree on how much rent I should pay for January. I paid for the full month so since I didn't want to make any mistakes, and he agreed to reimburse me when I handed over the key.

Never got the money, chasing them ever since...

Graham

beauf wrote: »

For what specifically?

What would the OP hope to get out of it?

€400

beauf

Ah. Yeah I stop chasing and go rtb about that.

Life's too short.

Marcusm

Graham wrote: »

There's no suggestion the notice sent to the OP was not valid which appears to be the issue in the case you're referring to.

It was not valid if it contained assertions not supported by the facts!

Marcusm

the_syco wrote: »

400? I'm guessing you left a week before you had to pay another months rent?
The
TBH, the LL has given you first choice. You not being able to take it is not his fault.

It might in fact be his fault if, on a true analysis of the facts, he had not fulfilled the requirements that he intended to enter into a contract to sell within 3 months. As was specified in the earlier High Court case, it was not sufficient to simply intend to put it on the market.

Marcusm

Graham wrote: »

€400

If the termination was invalid then he would expect substantial damages including most particularly and increased rental costs up to and including the end of his part 4.

mrslancaster

Marcusm wrote: »

It might in fact be his fault if, on a true analysis of the facts, he had not fulfilled the requirements that he intended to enter into a contract to sell within 3 months. As was specified in the earlier High Court case, it was not sufficient to simply intend to put it on the market.

If the 'LL put the house on the market and it didn't sell for whatever reason and it was then offered back to the previous tenant what did he do wrong? It's not always possible to sell within 3 months even in a seller's market, lots of things could delay a sale.

Selling is not guaranteed so what would be the correct thing to do?

Graham

Marcusm wrote: »

If the termination was invalid then he would expect substantial damages including most particularly and increased rental costs up to and including the end of his part 4.

There is no suggestion that the termination was invalid.

The failure to sell does not make a termination invalid.

Read the article you linked to earlier:

Ms Justice Marie Baker found, because the notice failed to specifically state the receiver intended to conclude a contract to sell the property within three months of termination, it did not meet the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.

Marcusm

Graham wrote: »

There is no suggestion that the termination was invalid.

The failure to sell does not make a termination invalid.

Read the article you linked to earlier:

That’s the ratio of the case; did you see the report on the obiter which would seem to be illuminating in this instance - see extract below (again). In the instance at hand, the LL seems to have made little or no effort in advance of the eviction and placed the property on the market for a short period of time (less than 2 months in the depths of winter).

“She did not consider the Oireachtas intended to permit termination of a Part 4 tenancy merely in anticipation of the commencement of the sale or advertising process, the judge said. While not saying there had to be an identified sale, there must be more than an intention to sell.”

Graham

You have no idea what the landlord in the OPs case did/didn't do so you are not in a position to conclude that the landlords actions were limited to intent.

Given the upside for the OPs landlord is limited and the OP was offered the property back, you could just as easily conclude that the landlords plans/arrangements to sell fell through.