Told our rental needed for family but up for rent again

gargargar

We were renting a house and had an 18 month lease. A couple of months before the 18 month lease was due to finish we were asked to leave because a family member would be moving in. The landlord's father to be precise. It sounded far fetched as the father was well elderly and had his own home. The property was a three storey house which did not make sense for an elderly man. We asked to stay on but were told there was a rush to get the father in which meant we had to move in with my parents while we sorted other accommodation.

Low and behold six months after we leave, it is up for rent at nearly 25% more than we were paying. Barely any changes have been done to the house bar some bathroom changes (from the photos).

Do we have any comeback? The landlord was a pretty awful person to deal with so I wouldn't have an issue reporting him.

1874

RTB is your only option in this case, report

Browney7

gargargar wrote: »

We were renting a house and had an 18 month lease. A couple of months before the 18 month lease was due to finish we were asked to leave because a family member would be moving in. The landlord's father to be precise. It sounded far fetched as the father was well elderly and had his own home. The property was a three storey house which did not make sense for an elderly man. We asked to stay on but were told there was a rush to get the father in which meant my family and we had to move in with my parents while we sorted other accommodation.

Low and behold six months after we leave, it is up for rent at nearly 25% more than we were paying. Barely any changes have been done to the house bar some bathroom changes (from the photos).

Do we have any comeback? The landlord was a pretty awful person to deal with so I wouldn't have an issue reporting him.

Did you get a written notice of termination or was it all verbal? Maybe send someone to view and take a few pictures. Did the LL have your contact details to reoffer the house to you?

The poor landlord getting caught with his sharp practice....

gargargar

We did get the required notice period. Heard nothing since we left. If I understand correctly there is a 6 month limit in which they need to offer to you? As I said the house has been empty for that period but is back on now.

1874

An 18 mth lease sounds odd, was it a fixed term lease?
Did they say it was ending in writing before the end of the lease? did you request in writing to extend that (or in a recorded format? ie email?) or give them your intention to continue on after the term (fixed or otherwise?)
Did you leave voluntarily?
Just thinking about the 6mths gap and if it is in an rpz or not, maybe they might be covered, they could say you left voluntarily and they just relet it, it depends on circumstances, like is it in rpz and what was the communication between both parties as technically you'd have had a right to stay other than the family member thing, but if after 6mths thats no longer a situation, I think its inside 6mths that it hs to be offered to the former tenant, but not 100% sure.

The only reason I can think that they might be genuine is if they moved the father in as it was a better warmer house or he had someone caring for him there?? if he passed away that might explain things, otherwise it looks different.

gargargar

We received around 3 month notice that at the end of our lease they would need us to move out. We left voluntary at end of our initial lease termination date.We asked, by email and phone, for another 3-6 months but were denied (by email). The father is still alive in his much nicer original house (we have acquaintances in common).

JJJackal

I think the 25% increase in rent with no modifications is a matter for the RTB? There was 6 month gap which would probably be legal. Obliged to offer it to you again if rented out before 6 months.

Marcusm

JJJackal wrote: »

I think the 25% increase in rent with no modifications is a matter for the RTB? There was 6 month gap which would probably be legal. Obliged to offer it to you again if rented out before 6 months.

Only legal if the original grounds for termination were not falsely grounded. If the family member has not moved in at any point then it is hard to see how it was validly grounded.

handlemaster

If someone rents you for 18 months only what would you think its ok to stay longer ?

handlemaster

handlemaster wrote: »

If someone rents you for 18 months only what would you think its ok to stay longer ?

Tenancy/Part 4 legislation certainly thinks its ok to stay longer if the tenant wants to and the LL doesn’t have a legal means of ending the tenancy.

Personally I don’t see the benefit of fixed term leases over 6 months, after 6 months it is effectively a redundant agreement.

Xterminator

handlemaster wrote: »

If someone rents you for 18 months only what would you think its ok to stay longer ?

Because being a landlord is a business not a hobby. The landlord needs to comply with the law of the land.

In this case they may not have done so.

Fol20

gargargar wrote: »

We were renting a house and had an 18 month lease. A couple of months before the 18 month lease was due to finish we were asked to leave because a family member would be moving in. The landlord's father to be precise. It sounded far fetched as the father was well elderly and had his own home. The property was a three storey house which did not make sense for an elderly man. We asked to stay on but were told there was a rush to get the father in which meant we had to move in with my parents while we sorted other accommodation.

Low and behold six months after we leave, it is up for rent at nearly 25% more than we were paying. Barely any changes have been done to the house bar some bathroom changes (from the photos).

Do we have any comeback? The landlord was a pretty awful person to deal with so I wouldn't have an issue reporting him.

They had a idea of the rules in what they did. If they provide you with a signed declaration and they leave it there for 6 months, they dont have to offer it you first after 6months.

In terms of price, if its in rpz. The only way they could increase by that much is substantial work done or they didnt increase the rent for a number of years. Ill leave that up to you. Some small bathroom changes are not enough.

Your ooptions are to report it to the rtb however if you raise a dispute, your name would be on a public dispute db that other ll can view. Personally although it might be unfair and you dont know the entire story from ll, inwould move on.

handlemaster

Xterminator wrote: »

Because being a landlord is a business not a hobby. The landlord needs to comply with the law of the land.

In this case they may not have done so.

its only a business when the tenant wants to enforce what benefits them after that it doesnt matter. Usually the Landlord is a charity

Graham

Mod Note

handlemaster, enough with the trolling.

3DataModem

All of the stuff about part 4, offering it back to you, etc... assumes they ended the tenancy using the formal "landlords own use" process. It seems to me that they didn't resort to this process; they just asked you to leave giving some sort of reason, and you left.

It doesn't seem like you made any attempt (other than asking to stay) to formally enforce your part 4 rights.

So this seems to be the case where both parties agreed to end a tenancy, and so it ended. This (as far as I know) removes any rights you have to being re-offered the place, etc.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

Only legal if the original grounds for termination were not falsely grounded. If the family member has not moved in at any point then it is hard to see how it was validly grounded.

All they have to say is they moved in, no way to prove they didn't.

The fact they waited the 6 months shows they know what they are doing so they will be well prepared for any come back from the op/RTB.

This is all assuming he didn't move in for the 6 months. Maybe he was getting his own house renovated and needed someone for 6 months or any other number of legit reasons he might have moved in.

gargargar

Just addressing a couple of points

* We did ask to extend the end date. A couple of times. Two of which were in emails. We didn't want to leave.
* When they said no we left on the agreed date.
* The property was empty for the entire 6 months but went back up for a rent about 6 months +1 week after we left. Family member never moved in and is over 90 years old so was never going to move in, which was totally obvious.
* Small cosmetic changes i.e. Changed shower cubicle in two room (left tiles/toilets as was).
* Its in a rent controlled zone.

We have since bought a house so no interest in going back, but I really didn't like being treated like an idiot. Also I have a family and we had nowhere to go. Had to move into my parents for a while.

Given the advice here I think I will probably just leave it.

3DataModem

I think that we need to remember that you don't need a valid notice for termination if landlord and tenant both agree to end a tenancy (part 4 or otherwise).

"Agree" can mean a landlord asking, the tenant accepting, and then the tenant moving out. Or indeed vice versa.

A landlord only should be resorting to formal notice of termination if this process fails or they believe the tenant is going to respond to the discussion by stopping rent (anticipating a more formal notice) or breaking the informal agreement.

marieholmfan

handlemaster wrote: »

If someone rents you for 18 months only what would you think its ok to stay longer ?

The law.

You may be entitled to compensation.
Free money!
Do you really want to be a sucker or do you want to make them rue the day they messed with you?

gargargar wrote: »

Just addressing a couple of points

* We did ask to extend the end date. A couple of times. Two of which were in emails. We didn't want to leave.
* When they said no we left on the agreed date.
* The property was empty for the entire 6 months but went back up for a rent about 6 months +1 week after we left. Family member never moved in and is over 90 years old so was never going to move in, which was totally obvious.
* Small cosmetic changes i.e. Changed shower cubicle in two room (left tiles/toilets as was).
* Its in a rent controlled zone.

We have since bought a house so no interest in going back, but I really didn't like being treated like an idiot. Also I have a family and we had nowhere to go. Had to move into my parents for a while.

Given the advice here I think I will probably just leave it.

3DataModem

gargargar wrote: »

Just addressing a couple of points

* We did ask to extend the end date. A couple of times. Two of which were in emails. We didn't want to leave.
* When they said no we left on the agreed date.
* The property was empty for the entire 6 months but went back up for a rent about 6 months +1 week after we left. Family member never moved in and is over 90 years old so was never going to move in, which was totally obvious.
* Small cosmetic changes i.e. Changed shower cubicle in two room (left tiles/toilets as was).
* Its in a rent controlled zone.

We have since bought a house so no interest in going back, but I really didn't like being treated like an idiot. Also I have a family and we had nowhere to go. Had to move into my parents for a while.

Given the advice here I think I will probably just leave it.

Congrats on finding your own place. I think in this case you simply could have enforced your rights better and stayed ('asking to stay' is not enforcing your rights alas).

The landlord played it smart by not resorting to a formal process that could be later challenged, and covered his bases by waiting 6 months before re-letting.

Graham

3DataModem wrote: »

The landlord played it smart by not resorting to a formal process that could be later challenged, and covered his bases by waiting 6 months before re-letting.

Or the landlord played it very stupid by giving the OP invalid notice on the basis of which the OP (unaware of his Part 4 rights) was forced into moving out.

Without knowing the form the OPs notice took, I wouldn't like to guess how this would play out with the RTB. In fact even if I did know the form the notice took, I wouldn't like to bet how this would play out.

marieholmfan

Also you believe that the landlord perjured himself.
That's a crime.

gargargar wrote: »

Just addressing a couple of points

* We did ask to extend the end date. A couple of times. Two of which were in emails. We didn't want to leave.
* When they said no we left on the agreed date.
* The property was empty for the entire 6 months but went back up for a rent about 6 months +1 week after we left. Family member never moved in and is over 90 years old so was never going to move in, which was totally obvious.
* Small cosmetic changes i.e. Changed shower cubicle in two room (left tiles/toilets as was).
* Its in a rent controlled zone.

We have since bought a house so no interest in going back, but I really didn't like being treated like an idiot. Also I have a family and we had nowhere to go. Had to move into my parents for a while.

Given the advice here I think I will probably just leave it.

gargargar

marieholmfan wrote: »

Also you believe that the landlord perjured himself.
That's a crime.

Well he wasn't under oath so not sure about perjury.

I don't hate the guy, just don't like the sharp practice

Ginger83

Gunner Victorious Salesman wrote: »

All they have to say is they moved in, no way to prove they didn't.

The fact they waited the 6 months shows they know what they are doing so they will be well prepared for any come back from the op/RTB.

This is all assuming he didn't move in for the 6 months. Maybe he was getting his own house renovated and needed someone for 6 months or any other number of legit reasons he might have moved in.

What if the LL is asked to prove his father did move in

.......

Gunner Victorious Salesman wrote: »

All they have to say is they moved in, no way to prove they didn't.

The fact they waited the 6 months shows they know what they are doing so they will be well prepared for any come back from the op/RTB.

If they say they moved in they would be expected to provide proof of same, utility bills, letters addressed to them there etc....

.......

....... wrote: »

If they say they moved in they would be expected to provide proof of same, utility bills, letters addressed to them there etc....

The gas, esb etc would have had to go into some name so you can be sure they went into the fathers. As I said, most LL who try this just rent it out straight away. These know what they are at waiting until after 6 months so you can be damn sure they have covered other bases too.

Also as an aside, letters being addressed to or not addressed to a place has nothing to do with a person living there. As an example I haven’t a single bill or letter in my name in the house I’ve lived for the last two years, nor the one I lived in before that. I’ve always kept all my correspondence to my home address for everything from bills, to bank a/c to car registration everything.

Even if the ops LL put the bills in his own name he can just say his father only needed to move in for 6 months so had no reason to change any of his correspondence.

Ginger83

Gunner Victorious Salesman wrote: »

The gas, esb etc would have had to go into some name so you can be sure they went into the fathers. As I said, most LL who try this just rent it out straight away. These know what they are at waiting until after 6 months so you can be damn sure they have covered other bases too.

Also as an aside, letters being addressed to or not addressed to a place has nothing to do with a person living there. As an example I haven’t a single bill or letter in my name in the house I’ve lived for the last two years, nor the one I lived in before that. I’ve always kept all my correspondence to my home address for everything from bills, to bank a/c to car registration everything.

Even if the ops LL put the bills in his own name he can just say his father only needed to move in for 6 months so had no reason to change any of his correspondence.

May still be asked to prove it.

Won't cost OP a cent to find out

.......

Gunner Victorious Salesman wrote: »

Also as an aside, letters being addressed to or not addressed to a place has nothing to do with a person living there. As an example I haven’t a single bill or letter in my name in the house I’ve lived for the last two years, nor the one I lived in before that. I’ve always kept all my correspondence to my home address for everything from bills, to bank a/c to car registration everything.

I cannot understand how an adult could live this way.

However, you may well find that gives you issues further down the road.

I know several people who have been forced to prove where they lived for various reasons (from the revenue commissioners making a mistake to a criminal investigation). Its always a good idea to have SOMETHING in your name at an address you reside.

Not to mention that its a commonly used tactic of fraudsters to pretend they live at one address while they really live at another.

And as has been pointed out to you in the past - your car insurance may well be invalid if you have lied about the address where you reside - so you should check that out.

Fol20

3DataModem wrote: »

Congrats on finding your own place. I think in this case you simply could have enforced your rights better and stayed ('asking to stay' is not enforcing your rights alas).

The landlord played it smart by not resorting to a formal process that could be later challenged, and covered his bases by waiting 6 months before re-letting.

I would find it a little odd though. Even with a 25pc increase. Leaving your place idle for 6months would take a long time to get that type of money back. I know of some that have done this not for financial reasons but for issues with a awkward tenants where they just wanted them out and this was the easiest way to go about it.

mrslancaster

....... wrote: »

I cannot understand how an adult could live this way.

However, you may well find that gives you issues further down the road.

I know several people who have been forced to prove where they lived for various reasons (from the revenue commissioners making a mistake to a criminal investigation). Its always a good idea to have SOMETHING in your name at an address you reside.

Not to mention that its a commonly used tactic of fraudsters to pretend they live at one address while they really live at another.

And as has been pointed out to you in the past - your car insurance may well be invalid if you have lied about the address where you reside - so you should check that out.

I know many who use a different correspondence address to the place they actually live, never heard of any issues with it

Garibaldi?

People who operate the tax-free rent a room scheme in their own homes are sometimes actually "spending a significant amount of time" at a different address-their partner's parents' home etc. Two people of my acquaintance are casually doing this-not breaking any laws. They live near enough to the second address to make it convincing to anyone who might happen to enquire. No law saying you have to spend every night in your own house. All the correspondence goes to the house which is actually in their name. But if you were living stateside! That would be a different kettle of fish!

.......

....... wrote: »

I cannot understand how an adult could live this way.

However, you may well find that gives you issues further down the road.

Why would I want to have to be changing addresses when I was moving houseshares or having important letters going to shared houses. Then I had other reasons in my last address but mostly again it was because I was never going to be there for very long and home was going to be my address again after a few years living in other places. Much handier having everything going home too anyway especially as I’d be home almost every week anyway.

As for “issues down the road” not sure what they could be? They certainly won’t be issues for me anyway since I’m mostly mostly living at home again now and when I build my own house it will have the exact same addresss as it’s rural and we don’t have house numbers, up to the post man to know the names of people in the houses there are 15 houses with the same address.

....... wrote: »

I know several people who have been forced to prove where they lived for various reasons (from the revenue commissioners making a mistake to a criminal investigation). Its always a good idea to have SOMETHING in your name at an address you reside.

Anytime I need to give proof of address I just use my home address and say I live there full time, never had an issue and in a few cases (like opening a bank account in a branch in a different part of the county where I was living) I just said I use my home address for everything and don’t use my local one here, never had an issue.

....... wrote: »

And as has been pointed out to you in the past - your car insurance may well be invalid if you have lied about the address where you reside - so you should check that out.

It’s been pointed out and then it’s been pointed out that is impossible for them to prove where you reside. I’ve seen people have crashes where there cars aren’t insured at their address and it’s not something that even gets asked and anyway in my if somehow they had questioned (as I said I live at home mostly now) my address despite absolutely nothing tying me to any other address (bar my work place being a few hours away) I would simply say I spend 4 nights a week at my home address therefore it’s where the car should be insured.

.......

Gunner Victorious Salesman wrote: »

It’s been pointed out and then it’s been pointed out that is impossible for them to prove where you reside.

Very naive of you to think this actually. Insurers who dont want to pay out will go to great lengths to prove a policy invalid.

Not to mention that you are technically committing fraud if you are availing of a cheaper rate of insurance based on address.