Landlord evicted us to use apartment for own use and now advertises it on Airbnb

davindub

Jabari Squeaking Violoncello wrote: »

Why on earth you would want to be a landlord is beyond me.

Personally for capital gains. The income is quite attractive as well, just play fair. Yes there is a risk of non payment, same as any debtor, but that's business for you.

tretorn

matrim wrote: »

Things like this and the people defending it are exactly why the current loopholes about eviction need to be removed.

If a landlord can't commit to renting somewhere for 6 years they should sell up.

And if too many landlords sell up then the rental stock is reduced. This means people moving further out to rent and then rents further out increase too.

Who loses out when this happens, the tenant.

Sleeper12

davindub wrote: »

Not one valid/ relevant point.

I'm sorry if you don't understand my point being made. Fortunately most readers do.


OP would have a case if the LL rented it out again to tenants. He didn't do this & OP has no case.

So last October we got an eviction notice from our landlord, who is based in the US, stating that he wanted to use the apartment for himself and his wife for the periods of time when they returned home to Ireland.

In bold is the reasons given in the eviction notice & this is exactly what the LL is doing.


Please explain what case OP has. Dwelling is now a private property & not governed by RTB.



The RTB has no say in what goes on in a private dwelling.



The landlord changed the rental property into his own private dwelling. He is now governed by the same rules & laws you & I have in our own private homes.

Technocentral

Always Tired wrote: »

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

this thread is yet another example of why i as a LL never rent to Irish people.

because you don't want to follow the regulations and Irish people are more likely to know them and insist they be followed, so that their lives are not upended to foster bigger profits for landlords? well good for you i guess. but to me that's like saying, 'I much prefer to rob the elderly, they're less likely to fight back.'

anyway who cares what you do with your properties, it's irrevelant here.

Pesky tenants knowing their rights is the slippery slope.

davindub

Sleeper12 wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

Not one valid/ relevant point.

I'm sorry if you don't understand my point being made. Fortunately most readers do.


OP would have a case if the LL rented it out again to tenants. He didn't do this & OP has no case.

So last October we got an eviction notice from our landlord, who is based in the US, stating that he wanted to use the apartment for himself and his wife for the periods of time when they returned home to Ireland.

In bold is the reasons given in the eviction notice & this is exactly what the LL is doing.


Please explain what case OP has. Dwelling is now a private property & not governed by RTB.



The RTB has no say in what goes on in a private dwelling.



The landlord changed the rental property into his own private dwelling. He is now governed by the same rules & laws you & I have in our own private homes.

I understand it, it's just not correct.

The tenant appears to have been served an invalid notice stating the LL requires the property for his own holiday use, which the LL should not have evicted based upon. There is a remedy for this through the RTB. Whatever after this is irrelevant.

As I said earlier, occupation is unlikely to mean occasional/ holiday use. But, the OP is free to decide for themselves and pursue it if he/she wishes.

Dav010

theneilmobile wrote: »

So last October we got an eviction notice from our landlord, who is based in the US, stating that he wanted to use the apartment for himself and his wife for the periods of time when they returned home to Ireland.

The RTB does not seem to define whether the LL/family need to occupy the property full time, it does say that the eviction notice does need to confirm it is for a family member and it’s duration. The op has said they stated that the owners needed its use while they are in this country. And nothing posted so far contradicts this in any way. If they use it while they are in Ireland 5 times a year, they are “using” their property. What they do with it the rest of the time is their business.

So op, have you any reason to believe they are not using the property while they are in Ireland?

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/ending-a-tenancy/how-a-landlord-can-end-a-tenancy/landlords-grounds-for-ending-a-tenancy/

Technocentral

tretorn wrote: »

matrim wrote: »

Things like this and the people defending it are exactly why the current loopholes about eviction need to be removed.

If a landlord can't commit to renting somewhere for 6 years they should sell up.

And if too many landlords sell up then the rental stock is reduced. This means people moving further out to rent and then rents further out increase too.

Who loses out when this happens, the tenant.

The state should buy up these rental apts and offer them for rental only, simple, no tricky dicky landords needed.

JJJackal

Technocentral wrote: »

The state should buy up these rental apts and offer them for rental only, simple, no tricky dicky landords needed.

Would you be willing to pay 10% more tax per year to facilitate these purchases?

Sleeper12

davindub wrote: »

I understand it, it's just not correct.

The tenant appears to have been served an invalid notice stating the LL requires the property for his own holiday use, which the LL should not have evicted based upon. There is a remedy for this through the RTB. Whatever after this is irrelevant.

As I said earlier, occupation is unlikely to mean occasional/ holiday use. But, the OP is free to decide for themselves and pursue it if he/she wishes.

That's not what it says in the OP. You are reading into it what you want to see. The LL doesn't say how often he'll be in Ireland. This could be weekly or monthly. He does NOT say holiday use. LL could be here every week. His sons, daughters, brothers & sisters could all use it. This falls under his "personal" use.

Cryptopagan

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That's not what it says in the OP. You are reading into it what you want to see.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

OP would have a case if the LL rented it out again to tenants. He didn't do this & OP has no case.

In bold is the reasons given in the eviction notice & this is exactly what the LL is doing.

[...]

The landlord changed the rental property into his own private dwelling. He is now governed by the same rules & laws you & I have in our own private homes.

Irony alert.

FishOnABike

JJJackal wrote: »

The LL can also evict for substantial repair or renovations - which the OP said was done

Renovations need to be more than sprucing up the decor and fittings.

Unless the renovations were structural or of a nature that would have made it necessary for the tenant to vacate the property for a significant time I doubt the renovations would have been substantial enough for a valid termination of a tenancy.

The original post doesn't give any detail of the nature or extent of the renovations so it's difficult to say whether the termination of their tenancy was valid or not.

Mortelaro

davindub wrote: »

I understand it, it's just not correct.

The tenant appears to have been served an invalid notice stating the LL requires the property for his own holiday use, which the LL should not have evicted based upon. There is a remedy for this through the RTB. Whatever after this is irrelevant.

As I said earlier, occupation is unlikely to mean occasional/ holiday use. But, the OP is free to decide for themselves and pursue it if he/she wishes.

To get that definition determined properly,it would mean going to court
The OP could be lucky and the RTB decides the OP was wronged
The LL could then sue with a view to determine that their conditions determined that they now have a private home and that their right to do what they wish trumps the RTB opinion
Their opinion might be against the OP in the first place of course and I think it would
It would be surprising that the RTB would fund a case if there’s not enough open and shut law to back them up(specifically here a legally defined definition of how much own use is own use)
So I’m in the move on camp on this one

Wheres Me Jumper?

Always Tired wrote: »

because you don't want to follow the regulations and Irish people are more likely to know them and insist they be followed, so that their lives are not upended to foster bigger profits for landlords? well good for you i guess. but to me that's like saying, 'I much prefer to rob the elderly, they're less likely to fight back.'

anyway who cares what you do with your properties, it's irrevelant here.

actually, i don't rob anybody, nor do i jump on any passing compo bandwagon as so many posters like you, are so eager to do.

my tenants are treated very well, enjoy below market rents, never cause problems.
i never had a problem with them, except on one occasion when i made the mistake of letting to a dublin "gentleman" who wasn't in the apartment 5 mins. and he kept phoning me at all hours, rambling on about "his gaff".
luckily i managed to encourage this moron to vacate "his gaff" within a month.

my advice is to personally interview your tenants. i have found foreign nationals make much better, more mature tenants. as with irish, they are fully aware of their rights and 'er entitlements, but from my experience approach issues in a much more reasoned and mature manner, without the "evil landlord is killin us" chip on the shoulder, so evident from your posts.

luckily for me and other LLs, there is a steady supply of such people, many of whom work in the tech sector. they are busy professional people, whose main concern is their careers and have little time for creating problems with their LLs.

tretorn

Technocentral wrote: »

The state should buy up these rental apts and offer them for rental only, simple, no tricky dicky landords needed.

Do you mean buy them through complilsory purchase.

Anthonylfc

theneilmobile wrote: »

So last October we got an eviction notice from our landlord, who is based in the US, stating that he wanted to use the apartment for himself and his wife for the periods of time when they returned home to Ireland.

He gave us the correct amount of notice and although we suspected that he was just going to use the place for Airbnb we were respectful and went looking for new accommodation without causing too much fuss.

Luckily for us we managed to get another apartment for slightly under the rent we were paying, although it was a little more out of town and not as nice as where we were. This was a bit of a fluke since everything else we looked at was on average 300 more a month that what we were paying.

4 months have passed since we moved and our old apartment has been renovated and is on booking.com and Airbnb. We don't think that our eviction was legal (maybe we are wrong?) and we would like to report the landlord. We don't want to force a way to move back in, or want compensation.

Looking at the RTB site the options are for mediation or adjudication. However it seems to be that these are for resolving a dispute, but I don't need to mediate anything, I just want to report that what he has done is illegal and for the relevant authority to take appropriate action

Any advice?

people like you make my blood boil

ffs move on

his place , he gave adequate notice , regardless what he uses it for is none of your concern , he gave you the appropriate notice

Squatter

Jabari Squeaking Violoncello wrote: »

Why on earth you would want to be a landlord is beyond me.

Possibly because you didn't for an instance dream that a Fine Gael government would even dream of riding a coach and horses through the rights of property owners in order to pander to populism.

And it's worth bearing in mind that future governments are likely to be even less concerned with property owners' rights so if I was a LL I'd bail out now before things get even worse.

(I am not a LL, DG! Merely a disinterested observer of the ongoing assault on property owners' rights by a cowardly government led by a populist clown.)

Wheres Me Jumper?

davindub wrote: »

I understand it, it's just not correct.

The tenant appears to have been served an invalid notice stating the LL requires the property for his own holiday use, which the LL should not have evicted based upon. There is a remedy for this through the RTB. Whatever after this is irrelevant.

As I said earlier, occupation is unlikely to mean occasional/ holiday use. But, the OP is free to decide for themselves and pursue it if he/she wishes.

i disagree.
if the LL uses this property for his personal use while in ireland, and if it is his only residence in this state, then under revenue rules it is deemed as his PPR, and he is entitled to rent it out with AirBnB if he so desires.

i imagine he has changed the electricity, phone/broadband etc. into his name and will be able to furnish evidence/proof of such.

of course the OP is entitled to pursue a case through the RTB if he/she feels hard done by, but personally i would have thought most folk have better things to be doing.

then again reading some of these posts...:o

Cryptopagan

Anthonylfc wrote: »

people like you make my blood boil

ffs move on

his place , he gave adequate notice , regardless what he uses it for is none of your concern , he gave you the appropriate notice

If he is not occupying the place himself on an ongoing basis the notice is invalid.


As per the legislation:

4. The landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or her own occupation or for occupation by a member of his or her family and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—

(a) specifying—

(i) the intended occupant's identity and (if not the landlord) his or her relationship to the landlord, and

(ii) the expected duration of that occupation

Residential Tenancies Act 2004


So if the OP sees the whole property is available on Airbnb for extended periods, their former landlord couldn't be in occupation during those periods.

Garibaldi?

What is the landlord's current postal address? For his regular mail-car tax, insurance, vhi, revenue, gas, electricity, all the stuff that comes through the door? That's significant!

Cryptopagan

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

of course the OP is entitled to pursue a case through the RTB if he/she feels hard done by, but personally i would have thought most folk have better things to be doing.

OP has said their new place is cheaper, but not as nice and further away, so you know, they might be quite happy to get the original rental back if they could.

The_Conductor

FishOnABike wrote: »

Renovations need to be more than sprucing up the decor and fittings.

Unless the renovations were structural or of a nature that would have made it necessary for the tenant to vacate the property for a significant time I doubt the renovations would have been substantial enough for a valid termination of a tenancy.

The original post doesn't give any detail of the nature or extent of the renovations so it's difficult to say whether the termination of their tenancy was valid or not.

The renovations undertaken in the property were incidental in nature, and not stated as the reason for ending the tenancy- so any renovations are moot. The OP has stated the reason given to end the tenancy- and despite wild deductions on people's parts- there is nothing to say it was or is invalid in nature. The fact that the owner is occasionally letting their property on airbnb/booking.com/overlook and/or elsewhere- is moot- they are simply doing what any owner is entitled to do (subject to restrictions on the numbers of days etc- which is coming in, I believe in May). There is absolutely nothing to say that the owner is not using the property personally- as he/she stated they were going to do.

I get people hate landlords- however, until such time as the government get their act together and sufficient ongoing supply hitting the market- people are going to have to continue dealing with landlords. This owner decided to exit the sector- doubtless for numerous reasons- he/she shouldn't be forced to let their property- if they do not want to?

The OP has not stated what he/she wants to achieve by taking a case against their old landlord- despite my and other people seeking clarification. Does he/she want to move back into the unit? Should the owner be forced to relet the property against their wishes? The pendulum on tenancy law has swung so far in favour of tenants- that landlords are simply quitting- as indeed the OP's old landlord seems to have done.

Once the Airbnb restrictions come in (I don't know the date)- it'll be moot- however, trying to imply that using airbnb or other similar websites- between now and then- equates with a formal tenancy- is dodgy dodgy territory- and an area that the RTB itself has not been willing to adjudicate on.

I can see why landlords are leaving the sector- they're damned no matter what they do.

davindub

Sleeper12 wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

I understand it, it's just not correct.

The tenant appears to have been served an invalid notice stating the LL requires the property for his own holiday use, which the LL should not have evicted based upon. There is a remedy for this through the RTB. Whatever after this is irrelevant.

As I said earlier, occupation is unlikely to mean occasional/ holiday use. But, the OP is free to decide for themselves and pursue it if he/she wishes.

That's not what it says in the OP. You are reading into it what you want to see. The LL doesn't say how often he'll be in Ireland. This could be weekly or monthly. He does NOT say holiday use. LL could be here every week. His sons, daughters, brothers & sisters could all use it. This falls under his "personal" use.

Occupation to me means you live there and you do need to state who will occupy, it's unlikely to be so easy to terminate a tenancy, but you obviously feel differently. Again up to the OP.

Holiday use is airbnb/ occasional use so I think it fits here, but not really the issue either!

Anthonylfc

Cryptopagan wrote: »

If he is not occupying the place himself on an ongoing basis the notice is invalid.


As per the legislation:


Residential Tenancies Act 2004


So if the OP sees the whole property is available on Airbnb for extended periods, their former landlord couldn't be in occupation during those periods.

don't give a toss about that tripe

landlord wanted place empty , gave notice , old tennant got a new place

still online looking to trap landlord

what a toss pot

jesus move on like

Cryptopagan

The_Conductor wrote: »

The renovations undertaken in the property were incidental in nature, and not stated as the reason for ending the tenancy- so any renovations are moot. The OP has stated the reason given to end the tenancy- and despite wild deductions on people's parts- there is nothing to say it was or is invalid in nature. The fact that the owner is occasionally letting their property on airbnb/booking.com/overlook and/or elsewhere- is moot- they are simply doing what any owner is entitled to do (subject to restrictions on the numbers of days etc- which is coming in, I believe in May). There is absolutely nothing to say that the owner is not using the property personally- as he/she stated they were going to do.

I get people hate landlords- however, until such time as the government get their act together and sufficient ongoing supply hitting the market- people are going to have to continue dealing with landlords. This owner decided to exit the sector- doubtless for numerous reasons- he/she shouldn't be forced to let their property- if they do not want to?

The OP has not stated what he/she wants to achieve by taking a case against their old landlord- despite my and other people seeking clarification. Does he/she want to move back into the unit? Should the owner be forced to relet the property against their wishes? The pendulum on tenancy law has swung so far in favour of tenants- that landlords are simply quitting- as indeed the OP's old landlord seems to have done.

Once the Airbnb restrictions come in (I don't know the date)- it'll be moot- however, trying to imply that using airbnb or other similar websites- between now and then- equates with a formal tenancy- is dodgy dodgy territory- and an area that the RTB itself has not been willing to adjudicate on.

I can see why landlords are leaving the sector- they're damned no matter what they do.

We don't know what the OP saw on the Airbnb listing. If it's only available here and there, that's one thing, but if it is available for booking over extended periods then the former landlord can't be in occupying the property over those dates. And that's the question, is the former landlord occupying the property or not.

Wheres Me Jumper?

davindub wrote: »

Personally for capital gains. The income is quite attractive as well, just play fair. Yes there is a risk of non payment, same as any debtor, but that's business for you.

Exactly but it must be treated as a business. and as with any business, you must be hands-on and involved when needed.

a property acquired in the 1990s will now be valued at multiples of the then PP. also the LL will have received 100s of €1000s in rental income. mortgage is likely to be paid off.

Garibaldi?

If he has moved back and intends to stay in that house he will have changed his address to there. That would be a clear indication of where he lives(should the matter be investigated). There are many people who spend long periods away from home for many reasons. However they are still domiciled there.

Askthe EA

davindub wrote: »

Personally for capital gains. The income is quite attractive as well, just play fair. Yes there is a risk of non payment, same as any debtor, but that's business for you.

But if its a business, it should be taxed as one, surely?

amcalester

Cryptopagan wrote: »

If he is not occupying the place himself on an ongoing basis the notice is invalid.


As per the legislation:


Residential Tenancies Act 2004


So if the OP sees the whole property is available on Airbnb for extended periods, their former landlord couldn't be in occupation during those periods.

Can the tenant take a claim re: invalid notice after he has moved out? Surely the time to take such a claim is before moving out so as to allow the landlord rectify it.

Wheres Me Jumper?

amcalester wrote: »

Can the tenant take a claim re: invalid notice after he has moved out? Surely the time to take such a claim is before moving out so as to allow the landlord rectify it.

no doubt under the new legislation, they will have a few hundred years in which to pursue any such action.

Viva La Revolution!

_Brian

There’s no evidence here that OP was lied to.

The guy may well be using the property himself and then the times he’s not there doing short term lets.

Just move on and leave the guy be.

Those suggesting op should get compensation are just being disgusting.