Termination notice

eoin2nc

Hi there, have just been informed that our landlord will be serving us notice to termination our Part 4 tenancy. We have been informed that this is due to him being in the city more due to business and not wanting to pay for hotels and so "needs the property back". My question would be is this enough to entitle him to terminate the tenancy based on him needing the property for his own personal use? I had heard before that he, or another family member, must intend to "live" in the property?

All opinions appreciated!

Fol20

eoin2nc wrote: »

Hi there, have just been informed that our landlord will be serving us notice to termination our Part 4 tenancy. We have been informed that this is due to him being in the city more due to business and not wanting to pay for hotels and so "needs the property back". My question would be is this enough to entitle him to terminate the tenancy based on him needing the property for his own personal use? I had heard before that he, or another family member, must intend to "live" in the property?

All opinions appreciated!

Yes this is one of the handful of reasons he can serve you notice.

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

Old diesel

Fol20 wrote: »

eoin2nc wrote: »

Hi there, have just been informed that our landlord will be serving us notice to termination our Part 4 tenancy. We have been informed that this is due to him being in the city more due to business and not wanting to pay for hotels and so "needs the property back". My question would be is this enough to entitle him to terminate the tenancy based on him needing the property for his own personal use? I had heard before that he, or another family member, must intend to "live" in the property?

All opinions appreciated!

Yes this is one of the handful of reasons he can serve you notice.

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

The problem the OP has though is - how do you define "live in the property".

The landlord has made a mistake in talking of being in the city more on business.

It brings in a totally unnecessary question mark in the tenants mind as to the bona fides of what he intends to do.

If it were me - I'd be inclined to take a simple I want to move back into the property as I've a new project/job in Dublin at face value.

Talk of - "oh I will be in the city on business more often and want to avoid hotels"

Makes me more likely to watch daft like a hawk for months as I would be less likely to trust the bona fides of the landlord when he uses that wording

Old diesel

Wanting a property back to LIVE in it isn't a problem. It should never be a problem as circumstances change.

But if I stay in a property 1 night a week to avoid paying for a hotel - are you truly living in it.....

That's why a legal interpretation of what "to live" in a property means in the context of taking back a property during a part 4 actually means is vital here.

Edit

I would definitely be sceptical of what the landlord is doing here.

eoin2nc

Old diesel wrote: »

Wanting a property back to LIVE in it isn't a problem. It should never be a problem as circumstances change.

But if I stay in a property 1 night a week to avoid paying for a hotel - are you truly living in it.....

That's why a legal interpretation of what "to live" in a property means in the context of taking back a property during a part 4 actually means is vital here.

Thanks Old Diesel - this was my initial thoughts on the issue! Hard to know what "to live" in the property means! Surely it has to be more than a couple of nights a month?

tretorn

Its the landlords property, he has told you he wants it back so stop splitting hairs.

If you want a say over who lives in the property you inhabit then free free to buy your own house.

How do you know its a couple of nights a month, he could need it for half the week. Start preparing to move out now.

RossieMan

Yea this is a ridiculous notion. If it's one night a week, so be it. It's his property. Once he's not pulling a fast one to rent it out for me, what's the problem?

He's going to use it for his personal use. Time to search for a new property.

Fol20

They dont specify how long. The circumstances of how he intends to use it are not relevant. He has told you he intends to use it for his own benefit so i wouls just start looking for a new place asap.

davindub

eoin2nc wrote: »

Hi there, have just been informed that our landlord will be serving us notice to termination our Part 4 tenancy. We have been informed that this is due to him being in the city more due to business and not wanting to pay for hotels and so "needs the property back". My question would be is this enough to entitle him to terminate the tenancy based on him needing the property for his own personal use? I had heard before that he, or another family member, must intend to "live" in the property?

All opinions appreciated!

OP this is the relevant part of section 34

"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 by a statutory declaration 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,"

Occupation is not really defined, but it is unlikely to mean occasional use.

4ensic15

A person can occupy a property without living in it at all. He could use it to keep his stamp collection in it and he would be in occupation.

godtabh

davindub wrote: »

OP this is the relevant part of section 34

"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 by a statutory declaration 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,"

Occupation is not really defined, but it is unlikely to mean occasional use.

but could mean regular use i.e once a week every week or enough times that he wants his property back.

tretorn

davindub wrote: »

OP this is the relevant part of section 34

"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 by a statutory declaration 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,"

Occupation is not really defined, but it is unlikely to mean occasional use.

And is an official going to patrol outside the property counting how many nights the owner and mortgage payer spends in his own house.

Occupy could mean anything, this is bordering on farcical now. Owner wants his house back so tenant needs to go.

davindub

godtabh wrote: »

but could mean regular use i.e once a week every week or enough times that he wants his property back.

Could be legit, but up to the tenant to pursue and the LL to justify if the notice is vague enough to give rise to doubt.

dudara

Make sure that the termination notice served is valid and of correct notice period.

If you do find the property later on Daft, you’ll have good evidence. If nothing turns up, at least the termination will have been by the book

mrslancaster

davindub wrote: »

OP this is the relevant part of section 34

"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 by a statutory declaration 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,"

Occupation is not really defined, but it is unlikely to mean occasional use.

Does "expected duration of that occupation" not mean the length of time they need it for, eg 9 months, two years etc?

davindub

mrslancaster wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

OP this is the relevant part of section 34

"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 by a statutory declaration 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,"

Occupation is not really defined, but it is unlikely to mean occasional use.

Does "expected duration of that occupation" not mean the length of time they need it for, eg 9 months, two years etc?

Yes it does. Point was that the notice the OP described didn't mention the statutory declaration or the highlighted point.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Yes it does. Point was that the notice the OP described didn't mention the statutory declaration or the highlighted point.

The o/p hasn't been given any notice.

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

The o/p hasn't been given any notice.

OP must be clairvoyant so

Graham

Me too

eoin2nc wrote: »

have just been informed that our landlord will be serving us notice

bingbong500

tretorn wrote: »

Its the landlords property, he has told you he wants it back so stop splitting hairs.

If you want a say over who lives in the property you inhabit then free free to buy your own house.

How do you know its a couple of nights a month, he could need it for half the week. Start preparing to move out now.

It's not splitting hairs, it's about the law.

OP he can only terminate your tenancy to actually live in the property. This means it must be his principal private residence. This has been tested in RTB cases previously and the landlord has only won the case when they can prove it is their PPR. If they live elsewhere it is not grounds for terminating your tenancy.

4ensic15

bingbong500 wrote: »

It's not splitting hairs, it's about the law.

OP he can only terminate your tenancy to actually live in the property. This means it must be his principal private residence. This has been tested in RTB cases previously and the landlord has only won the case when they can prove it is their PPR. If they live elsewhere it is not grounds for terminating your tenancy.

Where was it tested. The law says for his own occupation not as his principal private residence.

Old diesel

bingbong500 wrote: »

tretorn wrote: »

Its the landlords property, he has told you he wants it back so stop splitting hairs.

If you want a say over who lives in the property you inhabit then free free to buy your own house.

How do you know its a couple of nights a month, he could need it for half the week. Start preparing to move out now.

It's not splitting hairs, it's about the law.

OP he can only terminate your tenancy to actually live in the property. This means it must be his principal private residence. This has been tested in RTB cases previously and the landlord has only won the case when they can prove it is their PPR. If they live elsewhere it is not grounds for terminating your tenancy.

What happens if.....

Current PPR - Killarney Co Kerry.

Rental property in Dublin.

Landlord starts new job in Dublin shortly - so need to make the Dublin rental the new PPR.

Fol20

bingbong500 wrote: »

It's not splitting hairs, it's about the law.

OP he can only terminate your tenancy to actually live in the property. This means it must be his principal private residence. This has been tested in RTB cases previously and the landlord has only won the case when they can prove it is their PPR. If they live elsewhere it is not grounds for terminating your tenancy.

Yes i would also like to know where its tested. Please quote a link so i can read the dispute

davindub

Fol20 wrote: »

Yes i would also like to know where its tested. Please quote a link so i can read the dispute

https://www.rtb.ie/documents/TR0217-002177/TR0217-002177-DR1216-30645%20Report.pdf

Not really relevant to the reason given to the OP, but the LL was asked directly if he knew the consequences if the grandson didn't move in (referring to the stat. declaration).

mrslancaster

bingbong500 wrote: »

It's not splitting hairs, it's about the law.

OP he can only terminate your tenancy to actually live in the property. This means it must be his principal private residence. This has been tested in RTB cases previously and the landlord has only won the case when they can prove it is their PPR. If they live elsewhere it is not grounds for terminating your tenancy.

Not about the OP's situation but now could this statement be true? If the owner wants the property for their son of daughter for instance then it will not be the PPR of the landlord.

Graham

mrslancaster wrote: »

Not about the OP's situation but now could this statement be true? If the owner wants the property for their son of daughter for instance then it will not be the PPR of the landlord.

I would guess the poster is referring to this specific discussion where the landlord has informed the tenant the property is required for their own occupation.