Notice 196 days

info13

Hi all our landlord gave us 196 days notice to leave the property we are renting as he wishes to move back into it.

That was some 130 odd days ago.

I’ve just read online that if the landlord wants to move back into the property that there should have been a statutory declaration with the notice? This is not the case this never accompanied the notice just a written notice from himself.

Does this make the notice void? Should it be reissued for another 196days? Or what way should it work now?

Thanks in advance.

utmbuilder

Yes it's invalid although technically you only had 30 days to appeal. Anyhow that doesn't matter now. When he realises your not leaving in 196 days he will have to take a case to rtb to claim your overholding at which case your counter claim will be the notice was invalid.

A declaration is vital now , witnessed by a commissioner of oaths even

Will take another 3 months for that all to happen

At which case his only option will be to issue 196 days before or after the determination order from his rtb case

It's tough being a landlord don't put him into an early grave.

vkus6mt3y8zg2q

Buy your own house if you don't want to deal with landlords wanting to move back into their own property

utmbuilder

Jensen Uninterested Script wrote: »

Buy your own house if you don't want to deal with landlords wanting to move back into their own property

I did and I've it done up like a palace. New build a rated, solar, gigabite broadband

One of the lucky ones. 900 a month now mortgage

martyoo

utmbuilder wrote: »

I did and I've it done up like a palace. New build a rated, solar, gigabite broadband

One of the lucky ones. 900 a month now mortgage

Fairly sure they are speaking to the OP.

utmbuilder

martyoo wrote: »

Fairly sure they are speaking to the OP.

I'm sure the op will buy or would if the bank made it possible. Prior to 2007 1% deposit and people got mortgages

Now a loan of 226k you need 26000 another 2500fees and 2500 stamp duty

And 80k a year of a salary

overkill602

utmbuilder wrote: »

I'm sure the op will buy or would if the bank made it possible. Prior to 2007 1% deposit and people got mortgages

Now a loan of 226k you need 26000 another 2500fees and 2500 stamp duty

And 80k a year of a salary

Thats why banks where loved then and now they carry the biggest bad loan book in europe they cant lend the same way ever again and have the dearest rates.
Lot of people sill in home not paying a cent off there mortgages comes at a cost

mikemac2

Well this thread sure got hijacked

info13

mikemac2 wrote: »

Well this thread sure got hijacked

info13

utmbuilder wrote: »

A declaration is vital now , witnessed by a commissioner of oaths even

Will take another 3 months for that all to happen

Thanks for the reply!!

3 months to get a declaration set up? Or for the RTB to react?

We would love to buy but just not possible at the moment.

dudara

Yes, there should have been a statutory declaration.

But in reality, they gave you 196 days notice (28 weeks, or half a year). Personally, it’s not worth raising it now.

Are you having difficulty finding somewhere new to live?

info13

dudara wrote: »

Yes, there should have been a statutory declaration.

But in reality, they gave you 196 days notice (28 weeks, or half a year). Personally, it’s not worth raising it now.

Are you having difficulty finding somewhere new to live?

Why wouldn’t raise/ at least question it?

Yes I’m finding it very difficult to get a place.

tvjunki

info13 wrote: »

Why wouldn’t raise/ at least question it?

Yes I’m finding it very difficult to get a place.

Don't forget you will need a reference and your name will appear on rtb website for people to see. When you need another place in say a few years any landlord will look there and see you as trouble.
If you had 192days notice you have been with the same landlord a while so just talk to them.
I read somewhere that the landlord does not start from day one of the notice again. If you do go to rtb to bring a case against the landlord some of the time will be included in the notice. Will see if I can find it.

Fol20

Personally, i would not bring a dispute against the ll. Your being given plenty of notice to vacate and you want to dispute it on a technicality. You have more than likely been with the ll for a number of years and if you do something like this, as others have mentioned, your name will be publicly viewable on RTB site(i check this every time i have a new tenant) and you may also fail to get a reference.

sacamano

Great the know that renters are protected in this country where if they have a valid complaint to make (not saying the above is/isn't valid), they're reminded of the fact that their name appears on the PRTB site and will most likely go against you down the line.

Maybe the landlord in this case just wants to bump up the rent but is using the old rennovating/moving back in line.

Fol20

sacamano wrote: »

Great the know that renters are protected in this country where if they have a valid complaint to make (not saying the above is/isn't valid), they're reminded of the fact that their name appears on the PRTB site and will most likely go against you down the line.

Maybe the landlord in this case just wants to bump up the rent but is using the old rennovating/moving back in line.

Legally the customer is within their rights to dispute this and its completely their choice.

The ll here is clearly not trying to abuse the system and is mistakingly giving a notice without one technicality. If the tenant was given a months notice and lived there for 10 years, that would be a completely different story and i would telling them to dispute this.

Im just pointing out the obvious and the reality of the repercussions if they do decide to dispute it especially for a frivolous dispute like this.

I as a ll would read this if i saw their name on the RTB site would read this as BE CAREFUL with what you say to the tenant as they will most certainly use it against me while most tenants and ll alike will be decent and give lea-way. Its a too way street as well and you dont see many ll disputing notices when say a tenant informs the ll by text or by talking to them they want to leave when officially it should be all written on paper. Most people though accept this from both sides especially if you have a good relationship.

overkill602

He has had 7-8 years probably at a 30-40% discount is on a second 4 year part4 benefited year from 2 rent freeze and rent regulation why LL just terminates before another part4 starts would have been the best route for all concerned
Indefinite tenancies must be decided at the start not as consequence of sudden short supply which is not a LL fault
The LL has clearly drop the ball here, any LLs staying in the business need to be ruthless to match the changing rules and regs all railed against them with more to come for sure, no winners here

Claw Hammer

A lot of landlords have never had it so good. They have record high rents, combined with record low interest rates allied with intense demand keeping vacancy rates at the bare minimum.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A lot of landlords have never had it so good. They have record high rents, combined with record low interest rates allied with intense demand keeping vacancy rates at the bare minimum.

Strange that so many are leaving the market then, I wonder why that is?

Claw Hammer

Dav010 wrote: »

Strange that so many are leaving the market then, I wonder why that is?

They are mostly Johnny Come-Latelys who bought into a story.

Graham

Or people that have worked out current yield rather than yield on cost.

Or people that are now out of negative equity.

Or people that recognise the government action to discourage private landlords.

Or people that have heard the genuine terror stories around removing errant tenants.

Anyways, back on topic.

OP be careful of relying on an oversight to extend your tenancy. If it doesn't work out in your favour you could find yourself with little to no time left to source alternative rental accommodation.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They are mostly Johnny Come-Latelys who bought into a story.

Have you anything to back that up?

Considering the buy-to-let market was practically non existent for years due to the economy and credit restrictions, I would have thought most landlords are longer term owners. But I will of course bow to your knowledge that they are “mostly” recent owners.

Link please.

JJJackal

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A lot of landlords have never had it so good. They have record high rents, combined with record low interest rates allied with intense demand keeping vacancy rates at the bare minimum.

A lot of landlords never had it so bad either - eg the landlord about whom the OP is posting. Gave the correct notice but no stat dec (this LL is probably renting his primary residence out)

utmbuilder

tvjunki wrote: »

Don't forget you will need a reference and your name will appear on rtb website for people to see. .

can you do a few searchs for us on that RTB website as an example ??

it doesnt work very well

Gumbo

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They are mostly Johnny Come-Latelys who bought into a story.

Nonsense.
Either back up this rubbish or withdraw it.

NuMarvel

info13 wrote: »

Why wouldn’t raise/ at least question it?

Yes I’m finding it very difficult to get a place.

As others have said, it's past the point of raising with the RTB, so the only options you have is to go back to the landlord, or overhold.

Depending on your relationship with the landlord, maybe ask for an extension. The worst he can do is say no.

If that doesn't work out, I'd ask for the declaration. You still have a right to first refusal if he moves out within 6 months, and if nothing else the declaration will remind him of that. At least then, you have the possibility of a place in 6 months time, even if it is a very remote possibility. (I'm assuming he hasn't already covered these rights in the termination notice.)

I wouldn't suggest overholding, if for no other reason than you'll likely need a reference from him for your new place. And in this market, new landlords will easily, and understandably, pick someone with good references over someone without.

utmbuilder

basically you have been served a noticed in which you know is invalid and you are ignoring it, you know it is invalid as what you should of been served is in black and white on the RTB website.


if you inform the landlord its invalid, people are claiming he can just add a declaration to it which I dont believe is the case as it states by law a declaration must accompany the termination notice


if you don't inform him, the noticed will expire you where issued an invalid notice he has to bring a case against you and issue a new 196 notice during his long RTB process


Threshold
1800 454 454 will advise you on the right action to take, call them Tuesdsay.



basically when making your choices keep looking for a new home

California Dreamer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A lot of landlords have never had it so good. They have record high rents, combined with record low interest rates allied with intense demand keeping vacancy rates at the bare minimum.

Oh yeh I had it so brilliantly I am getting out!!!!!!!

utmbuilder

NuMarvel wrote: »

I wouldn't suggest overholding, if for no other reason than you'll likely need a reference from him for your new place. And in this market, new landlords will easily, and understandably, pick someone with good references over someone without.

in my experience landlords always giving shining references to get you out of their houses. giving the poster a bad reference when she is stuck in his house would not really be in his interest.

Claw Hammer

kceire wrote: »

Nonsense.
Either back up this rubbish or withdraw it.

Most of the people complaining bought from 2003 on. People who ought in the 80's and 90's paid very small money for their properties. Apartments in Mountjoy Square from 50k in the mid 90's with S23 allowances meaning the real price was about 35k. They now have their loans paid off, are sittig on considerable capital gain and have record breaking rents. The have never had it so ggod!

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Most of the people complaining bought from 2003 on. People who ought in the 80's and 90's paid very small money for their properties. Apartments in Mountjoy Square from 50k in the mid 90's with S23 allowances meaning the real price was about 35k. They now have their loans paid off, are sittig on considerable capital gain and have record breaking rents. The have never had it so ggod!

People who bought 16 years ago are “Johnny come-latelys”?

€64k for a one bed apartment was quite a lot in 1995, interest rates were 7%

Section 23 does not reduce the price of a property, in fact it often increases it as it allows the buyer to get tax relief on rental income so these types of properties often had inflated purchase prices. The tax relief only applied if the property was rented out immediately after purchase rather than being owner occupied and there was a significant claw back of the relief if sold within a certain period, I think it was 10 years.

utmbuilder

investing and making money from money is complicated business, property is not a an easy route these days

Claw Hammer

Dav010 wrote: »

People who bought 16 years ago are “Johnny come-latelys”?

€64k for a one bed apartment was quite a lot in 1995, interest rates were 7%

Section 23 does not reduce the price of a property, in fact it often increases it as it allows the buyer to get tax relief on rental income so these types of properties often had inflated purchase prices. The tax relief only applied if the property was rented out immediately after purchase rather than being owner occupied and there was a significant claw back of the relief if sold within a certain period, I think it was 10 years.

Property is a long term investment. There has been very little buy to let since 2008. The years between 2003 and 2008 are the pweriod when the Johnny come Lately's appeared. At the end of the party. Buying when interest rates were 7% now means that the landlords are paying little or nothing in repayments against which there are much higher rents. 500 per month is now then is now 1500. when has it been better?
Who said anything about €64K.

Fol20

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Property is a long term investment. There has been very little buy to let since 2008. The years between 2003 and 2008 are the pweriod when the Johnny come Lately's appeared. At the end of the party. Buying when interest rates were 7% now means that the landlords are paying little or nothing in repayments against which there are much higher rents. 500 per month is now then is now 1500. when has it been better?
Who said anything about €64K.

What is wrong with wanting to earn money? It doesnt matter what they paid for them x years ago. All that matters is that right now, you have an asset worth y and generating z. Is it worth your time,money and hearth ache to continue down this path. When you invest, you will loose and win at different points in your life. If you idle on the past, you will never move forward and your not a good investor as a result. Some people could have a 100k in a loss of a house/share and they hold on hoping to break even instead of just realising that loss and then reinvesting elsewhere.

If they have a house that is now fully paid off, yes they should be earning some money, whats honestly wrong with that? They have put blood sweat and tears into it for the bulk of 2-3 decades and you reap what you sow. A lot of people begrudge others doing better than them or people who make sacrifices and dont spend all their money on drink, holidays abroad or a new car every 3 years.

You seem to be dodging the question that davo ask earlier.. If they have it so good why is there a total declining market of available rentals?

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Property is a long term investment. There has been very little buy to let since 2008. The years between 2003 and 2008 are the pweriod when the Johnny come Lately's appeared. At the end of the party. Buying when interest rates were 7% now means that the landlords are paying little or nothing in repayments against which there are much higher rents. 500 per month is now then is now 1500. when has it been better?
Who said anything about €64K.

The average investment mortgage term is 25 years, how could someone who bought 16 years ago, nearly 2 thirds the average length of a mortgage be a “JCL”? It’s nonsense.

In 1995 you were buying in punts, £50k would be over €64k including fees. Simples.

The_Conductor

Fol20 wrote: »

If they have it so good why is there a total declining market of available rentals?

Because the regulatory regime is completely and utterly toxic for landlords.
Yes, they've never had it so good (in terms of potential financial gain)- however, it has also never had the sort of risks associated with it that it currently has.

We'll have the 2018 RTB annual report come July- its going to make interesting reading.......

Claw Hammer

Fol20 wrote: »

What is wrong with wanting to earn money?

Who said there was?

Fol20

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Who said there was?

You appear to be complaining that their rent has gone from 500 to 1500 etc

Claw Hammer

Fol20 wrote: »

You appear to be complaining that their rent has gone from 500 to 1500 etc

I am not complaining. I am observing.

Claw Hammer

Dav010 wrote: »

The average investment mortgage term is 25 years, how could someone who bought 16 years ago, nearly 2 thirds the average length of a mortgage be a “JCL”? It’s nonsense.

In 1995 you were buying in punts, £50k would be over €64k including fees. Simples.

Someone who bought in 2003 bought into a story that the only way is up. Investors who bought in 1995 bought in at a ;ow point. They are not complaining
now. They have never had it so good. I have looked at the Allsop/Bidx1 online auctions for a few years. Most of the sales are receiver sales and the mortgages were taken out or were remortgages in 2007 in a vast percentage of the properties listed.

pc7

utmbuilder wrote: »

in my experience landlords always giving shining references to get you out of their houses. giving the poster a bad reference when she is stuck in his house would not really be in his interest.

Some are now asking for references from last two landlords to overcome this.

Fol20

pc7 wrote: »

Some are now asking for references from last two landlords to overcome this.

Thats exactly what i do if im up in the air about a new tenant. If they decline, its one other way to remove them from the list.

mrslancaster

Fol20 wrote: »

Thats exactly what i do if im up in the air about a new tenant. If they decline, its one other way to remove them from the list.

Fair enough if they decline but what if it's their first time renting or they only have one previous LL?

Do LL's here ever ask for guarantors, say from parents? Afaik that happens in other countries.

Fol20

mrslancaster wrote: »

Fair enough if they decline but what if it's their first time renting or they only have one previous LL?

Do LL's here ever ask for guarantors, say from parents? Afaik that happens in other countries.

Well if i have multiple people interested, i need to separate them if they are close relative to other aspects of their cv. Yes its basically tough luck if its their first time renting.

College accommodation sometimes looks for guarantors. Id be ok with a guarantor if it actually meant anything in the legislation. Its difficult enough to get money directly off the tenant let alone a third party.

martyoo

Fair enough if they decline but what if it's their first time renting or they only have one previous LL?

That's not the LL's problem. They can be fussy in this market and should be too considering how hard it can be to get bad tenants out.

mrslancaster

martyoo wrote: »

That's not the LL's problem. They can be fussy in this market and should be too considering how hard it can be to get bad tenants out.

Fair point but we all have to start somewhere.

agree that both LL's and tenants need to protect their interests and if the rules are pro tenant as many think then LL's need to stick exactly to the rules to reduce their risk.

for instance in the OP both were at fault - the LL didn't give the required statutory declaration & the tenant didnt dispute it within the allowed time.

of course they can agree between themselves that the 196 days NOT is ok but if that can be challenged later on then the 'LL has a risk and has to decide. everyone needs to stick exactly to the rules to cover themselves.

Renting was very different years & everyone has to adapt. iirc, it was more relaxed and there was a bit of trust on both sides. Or maybe we were just lucky.