Is this legal?

ziggy23

I had been renting a property for over 8 years. I was under the ras scheme. My landlord gave me an eviction notice last year and the correct amount of time to find a new property. He did put the house up for sale but I've only discovered that instead of selling it he has done it up and is now renting it for more than double of what I was paying. Is this legal? It was an awful upheaval having to move. My son is autistic and has not settled in the new place.

joeguevara

He is entitled to evict for the purpose of major refurbishment if he offers it back to tenant.

He seems to have done so but instead of selling is renting out again. All seems ok and he has the right to change mind. Would be an issue if no refurbishment.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Disputes/Sample%20Notice%20of%20Termination%20-%20Substantially%20Refurbish%20or%20Renovate.docx

ziggy23

joeguevara wrote: »

He is entitled to evict for the purpose of major refurbishment if he offers it back to tenant.

He seems to have done so but instead of selling is renting out again. All seems ok and he has the right to change mind. Would be an issue if no refurbishment.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Disputes/Sample%20Notice%20of%20Termination%20-%20Substantially%20Refurbish%20or%20Renovate.docx

OK so even if the reason for eviction was because he was selling but he changed his mind he doesn't have to offer it back to me if he refurbished it instead and put it back on the rental market?

joeguevara

ziggy23 wrote: »

OK so even if the reason for eviction was because he was selling but he changed his mind he doesn't have to offer it back to me if he refurbished it instead and put it back on the rental market?

He should sell within 9 months or offer it back to tenant. He is entitled to let for market rates so you would have understand if twice previous rent.

Have you stayed in contact with them. Is it possible he tried to find you but couldn’t? Are you in accommodation. I completely understand the upheaval you had especially with an autistic child (personal experience) but what is your end game? Would you have moved back at twice the rent? Would it have been upheaval for your child? Why you want to pursue this?

theteal

It needs to be a proper refurbishment, not just a lick of paint and some carpets. Do you know what was done?

Is it in the RPZ?

Did he/she give you the option to move back after refurb? How long after you moved out was it rented again?

ziggy23

joeguevara wrote: »

He should sell within 9 months or offer it back to tenant. He is entitled to let for market rates so you would have understand if twice previous rent.

Have you stayed in contact with them. Is it possible he tried to find you but couldn’t? Are you in accommodation. I completely understand the upheaval you had especially with an autistic child (personal experience) but what is your end game? Would you have moved back at twice the rent? Would it have been upheaval for your child? Why you want to pursue this?

He has my number but never heard anything. I certainly wouldn't be able to afford double but the place was falling apart and I'd asked him numerous times if he did it up a bit or modernised it I'd have no problem paying more. I would have moved back in as I will be looking to move back to the area but it's a nightmare trying to find somewhere as it's a popular place to rent. I don't know I guess I'm just a bit pissed off by it all but I know that means nothing but it would have been nice to be asked would I like to move back in.

joeguevara

theteal wrote: »

It needs to be a proper refurbishment, not just a lick of paint and some carpets. Do you know what was done?

Is it in the RPZ?

Did he/she give you the option to move back after refurb? How long after you moved out was it rented again?

Nothing to suggest it wasn’t a full refurb and twice rent suggests it was. Properties aren’t selling as quick as before. Fully possible it was up for sale and passed time and landlord couldn’t find tenant. Indeed holding on to details when no longer required may breach data protection. If OP is in new home and couldn’t afford new rent then it’s best to move on.

Did anyone think that the landlord couldn’t sell and needs to rent to pay mortgage and didn’t want to act like a d1ck contacting a parent in a vulnerable situation only to disappoint them when they couldn’t afford it. RAS probably wouldn’t cover new rent.

ziggy23

theteal wrote: »

It needs to be a proper refurbishment, not just a lick of paint and some carpets. Do you know what was done?

Is it in the RPZ?

Did he/she give you the option to move back after refurb? How long after you moved out was it rented again?

Going by pictures on daft.ie it was a complete refurbishment bathroom refitted, new kitchen etc. I moved out September and he had it up for rent by March. Sorry what's the RPZ?

joeguevara

ziggy23 wrote: »

He has my number but never heard anything. I certainly wouldn't be able to afford double but the place was falling apart and I'd asked him numerous times if he did it up a bit or modernised it I'd have no problem paying more. I would have moved back in as I will be looking to move back to the area but it's a nightmare trying to find somewhere as it's a popular place to rent. I don't know I guess I'm just a bit pissed off by it all but I know that means nothing but it would have been nice to be asked would I like to move back in.

If you couldn’t afford double rent then that’s the reason. If a certain length of time elapsed while house was for sale he was legally required to erase your personal information. Situation changed.

Don’t for one minute think I don’t have sympathy for your situation. I do as I have family experience of autism. But focus on that rather than the house you can’t afford.

ziggy23

joeguevara wrote: »

If you couldn’t afford double rent then that’s the reason. If a certain length of time elapsed while house was for sale he was legally required to erase your personal information. Situation changed.

Don’t for one minute think I don’t have sympathy for your situation. I do as I have family experience of autism. But focus on that rather than the house you can’t afford.

Aw no I totally understand and was just thinking I don't miss the nosey neighbours around there so every cloud and all that!

The_Conductor

joeguevara wrote: »

If a certain length of time elapsed while house was for sale he was legally required to erase your personal information.

6 months apparently.

davindub

ziggy23 wrote: »

theteal wrote: »

It needs to be a proper refurbishment, not just a lick of paint and some carpets. Do you know what was done?

Is it in the RPZ?

Did he/she give you the option to move back after refurb? How long after you moved out was it rented again?

Going by pictures on daft.ie it was a complete refurbishment bathroom refitted, new kitchen etc. I moved out September and he had it up for rent by March. Sorry what's the RPZ?

If he gave notice on basis of selling, he should have offered it back on the same rent or with an allowable increase.

Refurb of the property is not a reason to increase rent either, google "substantial change in nature".


Talk to threshold/ flac/ solicitor.

pc7

Davindub but if 6 months had passed I don't think it has to be re-offered to the same tenant (open to correction)

ninebeanrows

Let it go.

davindub

pc7 wrote: »

Davindub but if 6 months had passed I don't think it has to be re-offered to the same tenant (open to correction)

The 6 month rule applies to where the LL gives notice for their own use.

There is no time limit in the act for a failure to sell, but imo the property should have been offered back 3 months after the tenancy ended.

pc7

davindub wrote: »

There is no time limit in the act for a failure to sell, .

I can't find that on rtb, can you link it?

The_Conductor

pc7 wrote: »

I can't find that on rtb, can you link it?

It isn't in the Act.

beauf

After every 4yrs he could have chosen just not to renew the tenancy.

IAmTheReign

ziggy23 wrote: »

He has my number but never heard anything. I certainly wouldn't be able to afford double but the place was falling apart and I'd asked him numerous times if he did it up a bit or modernised it I'd have no problem paying more. I would have moved back in as I will be looking to move back to the area but it's a nightmare trying to find somewhere as it's a popular place to rent. I don't know I guess I'm just a bit pissed off by it all but I know that means nothing but it would have been nice to be asked would I like to move back in.

Unfortunately that's one of the problems with the rules around rent control in the RPZs and refurbishment. It doesn't matter if you would have been happy to pay more if he'd modernised it, if he doesn't follow the RTBs guidance on 'significant refurbishment' legally he's still liable for significant damages if you decided to bring it to the RTB. It's just not worth the risk.

It now makes more sense financially for landlords to do the bare minimum to keep rental property habitable and do a major refurb once the place is falling apart than to do constant upgrades as they can't reclaim the cost of any minor renovations by increasing rent. This kind of problem is pretty common when governments introduce rent controls on private rentals.

IAmTheReign

davindub wrote: »

The 6 month rule applies to where the LL gives notice for their own use.

There is no time limit in the act for a failure to sell, but imo the property should have been offered back 3 months after the tenancy ended.

I'm sorry but that's crazy. 3 months to refurb and sell a house is not even remotely realistic.

FishOnABike

The details required in a valid notice of termination for substantial renovation are quite onerous as you can see from the link
https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Disputes/Sample%20Notice%20of%20Termination%20-%20Substantially%20Refurbish%20or%20Renovate.docx
in jueguevera's post (#2 in thread). The notice should have included details of the exact nature of the renovations, start and end dates for the work, contractors to carry out the work, dates where vacant possesion was needed for the work and if planning permission was required.

As the reason given for termination was sale of the property it is also unlikely the notice conditions for termination due to substantial renovation would have been met.

Was the notice of termination you received accompanied by a valid statutory declaration of intent to sell within the required three months of the date of termination of your tenancy?

Is there anything to show the property was in fact ever put up for sale?

Whether the renovations themselves were sufficient to qualify as substantial for the purposes of increasing the rent above the RPZ annual limits is unclear without a full list of the renovations. A new fitted kitchen, bathroom suite and decorating would not be substantial, in which case the landlord still would not be legally able to increase the rent beyond the RPZ annual limits either for a new tenant or for you if you had been reoffered the property after the renovations.

When was your last rent increase there? Depending on when your last rent review was in the property, the landlord may have been able to increase the rent significantly without carrying out any renovations.

To me there seems to be significant questions about the landlords actions and whether those actions (both terminating OP's tenancy and subsequently advertising the property for rent at twice the previous rate) comply with the residential tenancy acts.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

FishOnABike

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Unfortunately that's one of the problems with the rules around rent control in the RPZs and refurbishment. It doesn't matter if you would have been happy to pay more if he'd modernised it, if he doesn't follow the RTBs guidance on 'significant refurbishment' legally he's still liable for significant damages if you decided to bring it to the RTB. It's just not worth the risk.

It now makes more sense financially for landlords to do the bare minimum to keep rental property habitable and do a major refurb once the place is falling apart than to do constant upgrades as they can't reclaim the cost of any minor renovations by increasing rent. This kind of problem is pretty common when governments introduce rent controls on private rentals.

Ongoing maintenance for repairs and replacements can be claimed as a tax deduction when incurred.

mrslancaster

FishOnABike wrote: »

The details required in a valid notice of termination for substantial renovation are quite onerous as you can see from the link
https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Disputes/Sample%20Notice%20of%20Termination%20-%20Substantially%20Refurbish%20or%20Renovate.docx
in jueguevera's post (#2 in thread). The notice should have included details of the exact nature of the renovations, start and end dates for the work, contractors to carry out the work, dates where vacant possesion was needed for the work and if planning permission was required.

As the reason given for termination was sale of the property it is also unlikely the notice conditions for termination due to substantial renovation would have been met.

Was the notice of termination you received accompanied by a valid statutory declaration of intent to sell within the required three months of the date of termination of your tenancy?

Is there anything to show the property was in fact ever put up for sale?

Whether the renovations themselves were sufficient to qualify as substantial for the purposes of increasing the rent above the RPZ annual limits is unclear without a full list of the renovations. A new fitted kitchen, bathroom suite and decorating would not be substantial, in which case the landlord still would not be legally able to increase the rent beyond the RPZ annual limits either for a new tenant or for you if you had been reoffered the property after the renovations.

When was your last rent increase there? Depending on when your last rent review was in the property, the landlord may have been able to increase the rent significantly without carrying out any renovations.

To me there seems to be significant questions about the landlords actions and whether those actions (both terminating OP's tenancy and subsequently advertising the property for rent at twice the previous rate) comply with the residential tenancy acts.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

It's possible the renovations were made in order to sell the house & then the owner couldn't sell. I know of two houses that were withdrawn from sale in the past few weeks as they were on the market since last October but did not find buyers.

How anyone thinks a house sale can be done and dusted in 3 months is unrealistic imo.

Maybe there was substantial work done that's not easily visible.

Mrs OBumble

The_Conductor wrote: »

6 months apparently.

Link for that?

Data about the income and expenditure needs to be kept for seven years for tax purposes: that would include at very least the name of the person who the income came from. Given that names are so eadily mixed up, I'd believe that other identifiers should also be kept, eg PPSN and telephone number.

The_Conductor

FishOnABike wrote: »

Ongoing maintenance for repairs and replacements can be claimed as a tax deduction when incurred.

Repairs yes, replacements, when on a like for like basis are flatlined @ 12.5% per annum over an 8 year period. Any improvements- are *not* covered (including bringing a property up to spec, putting in double glazed windows etc).

In general- other than strict maintenance- its not deductible when incurred- and if its an improvement- its not deductible, period.

Fol20

joeguevara wrote: »

He is entitled to evict for the purpose of major refurbishment if he offers it back to tenant.

He seems to have done so but instead of selling is renting out again. All seems ok and he has the right to change mind. Would be an issue if no refurbishment.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Disputes/Sample%20Notice%20of%20Termination%20-%20Substantially%20Refurbish%20or%20Renovate.docx

It depends on time frames. If there is a 6 month gap between termination date and new rent. He doesnt have to offer it back

Fol20

joeguevara wrote: »

He should sell within 9 months or offer it back to tenant. He is entitled to let for market rates so you would have understand if twice previous rent.

Have you stayed in contact with them. Is it possible he tried to find you but couldn’t? Are you in accommodation. I completely understand the upheaval you had especially with an autistic child (personal experience) but what is your end game? Would you have moved back at twice the rent? Would it have been upheaval for your child? Why you want to pursue this?

There have been discussions on this 9month window however it is not in the law at least for the moment

Fol20

davindub wrote: »

If he gave notice on basis of selling, he should have offered it back on the same rent or with an allowable increase.

Refurb of the property is not a reason to increase rent either, google "substantial change in nature".


Talk to threshold/ flac/ solicitor.

Are these not best practices rather than law?
It also mentions that if a combination of a number of these larger jobs are done - it does suffice based on what the OP said has been done

pc7

The whole thing really is a mess (rental market) for all concerned, I don't see it getting better anytime soon.

davindub

Fol20 wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

If he gave notice on basis of selling, he should have offered it back on the same rent or with an allowable increase.

Refurb of the property is not a reason to increase rent either, google "substantial change in nature".


Talk to threshold/ flac/ solicitor.

Are these not best practices rather than law?
It also mentions that if a combination of a number of these larger jobs are done - it does suffice based on what the OP said has been done

The legislation is silent on what happens if the property is not sold within the 3 months, but if a tenancy is terminated for a reason and that reason is no longer relevant....

Refurb and sub. change in nature are two seperate processes, the latter doesn't use the word refurb at all. Probably easier to think of it that way. You could be right but at what level refurbishments change the nature of accommodation is unknown.

In this case the OP's tenancy was terminated as the LL intended to sell within 3 months. This should have happened, not the refurb reason.

Fol20

davindub wrote: »

The legislation is silent on what happens if the property is not sold within the 3 months, but if a tenancy is terminated for a reason and that reason is no longer relevant....

Refurb and sub. change in nature are two seperate processes, the latter doesn't use the word refurb at all. Probably easier to think of it that way. You could be right but at what level refurbishments change the nature of accommodation is unknown.

In this case the OP's tenancy was terminated as the LL intended to sell within 3 months. This should have happened, not the refurb reason.

Houses take much longer than 3 months to sell and close. Where does it say you need to sell within that time frame?

based on Op further comments it looks like the place wasnt relet for a full 6 months so the ll does not have to offer place to previous tenant.

Yes they are however both are vague in nature at the moment.The only doc out at the moment isnt law but only best practices. take a look at https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Comms%20and%20Research/RTB_Guidelines_for_good_practice_on_the_substantial_change_exemption_in_Rent_Pressure_Zones.pdf

mrslancaster

So is this correct?

- 'll can terminate to carry out substantial refurbishment and if the works are finished within 6 months they must offer the house back to the tenant
- If refurbishment works take longer they can re-let to anyone but only at the previous rent amount (or + 4% if rpz)
- If substantial refurbishment or renovations includes a change to the accommodation then the new rent can be increased by more than the 4%

- The changes to go over the allowed 4% doesn't include things like redecorating, new carpets & flooring, new kitchen, new bathroom, new windows. (Seems like these are considered to be cosmetic updates even though they are expensive)

- To increase more than 4% it must be an alteration to the actual building e.g. adding an extension/ extra bedroom, or updating the electrics, plumbing, heating systems.

davindub

Fol20 wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

The legislation is silent on what happens if the property is not sold within the 3 months, but if a tenancy is terminated for a reason and that reason is no longer relevant....

Refurb and sub. change in nature are two seperate processes, the latter doesn't use the word refurb at all. Probably easier to think of it that way. You could be right but at what level refurbishments change the nature of accommodation is unknown.

In this case the OP's tenancy was terminated as the LL intended to sell within 3 months. This should have happened, not the refurb reason.

Houses take much longer than 3 months to sell and close. Where does it say you need to sell within that time frame?

based on Op further comments it looks like the place wasnt relet for a full 6 months so the ll does not have to offer place to previous tenant.

Yes they are however both are vague in nature at the moment.The only doc out at the moment isnt law but only best practices. take a look at https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Comms%20and%20Research/RTB_Guidelines_for_good_practice_on_the_substantial_change_exemption_in_Rent_Pressure_Zones.pdf

The reason is to enter a binding agreement for sale within 3 months of termination date. That's within section 34. Couple of HC comments on it as well.

I'd say that the gist of that guide would be applied by the RTB anyway, there may be mistakes in it, and I haven't read it, but shpuld be close enough.

Fol20

- 'll can terminate to carry out substantial refurbishment and if the works are finished within 6 months they must offer the house back to the tenant > offer it to previous tenant at new rental rate
- If refurbishment works take longer they can re-let to anyone but only at the previous rent amount (or + 4% if rpz) >incorrect
- If substantial refurbishment or renovations includes a change to the accommodation then the new rent can be increased by more than the 4% >correct

- The changes to go over the allowed 4% doesn't include things like redecorating, new carpets & flooring, new kitchen, new bathroom, new windows. (Seems like these are considered to be cosmetic updates even though they are expensive)> currently if a combination of these are performed, it can exempt you however i suspect this will change at some point.

ziggy23

Thanks for all the replies.
My notice was actually up in October but I moved out before that. He even took something out of my deposit to paint the place. The house was indeed up for sale as I seen it online. Wasn't up for very long it seems. The rent has increased by €950 so no way I could afford it. It just seems a bit greedy to me he has no mortgage on the house as he was left it in somebody's will. I suppose there's nothing I can do. It is his house after all.

JC01

ziggy23 wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies.
My notice was actually up in October but I moved out before that. He even took something out of my deposit to paint the place. The house was indeed up for sale as I seen it online. Wasn't up for very long it seems. The rent has increased by €950 so no way I could afford it. It just seems a bit greedy to me he has no mortgage on the house as he was left it in somebody's will. I suppose there's nothing I can do. It is his house after all.

You think he’s being greedy by charging market value for his property? That’s a very odd attitude and one which seems to be constantly pushed by a certain element concerned with the rental market in this country...

Fol20

ziggy23 wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies.
My notice was actually up in October but I moved out before that. He even took something out of my deposit to paint the place. The house was indeed up for sale as I seen it online. Wasn't up for very long it seems. The rent has increased by €950 so no way I could afford it. It just seems a bit greedy to me he has no mortgage on the house as he was left it in somebody's will. I suppose there's nothing I can do. It is his house after all.

It doesnt matter if he owns it outright or not, its a business transaction and he is only charging what he can achieve similar to how much you charge for your time and labour when you work. At some point rents will go down again and he will be charging only what he can achieve during that time frame also.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

The legislation is silent on what happens if the property is not sold within the 3 months, but if a tenancy is terminated for a reason and that reason is no longer relevant....

Refurb and sub. change in nature are two seperate processes, the latter doesn't use the word refurb at all. Probably easier to think of it that way. You could be right but at what level refurbishments change the nature of accommodation is unknown.

In this case the OP's tenancy was terminated as the LL intended to sell within 3 months. This should have happened, not the refurb reason.

Selling a house within 3 months is basically impossible you are in dream land if you think a house has to be offered back after 3 months while still for sale and looking for offers etc.

Fol20

Gatlin Billions Soup wrote: »

Selling a house within 3 months is basically impossible you are in dream land if you think a house has to be offered back after 3 months while still for sale and looking for offers etc.

I wonder why our system takes so long to close. In USA it takes about a month and in China a week..

Fol20

Fol20 wrote: »

I wonder why our system takes so long to close. In USA it takes about a month and in China a week..

Closing is one thing and I agree but we are talking about the full process here of advertising, viewings, bidding, possibly people pulling out and starting again etc etc and then onto the actual closing process.

davindub

Gatlin Billions Soup wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

The legislation is silent on what happens if the property is not sold within the 3 months, but if a tenancy is terminated for a reason and that reason is no longer relevant....

Refurb and sub. change in nature are two seperate processes, the latter doesn't use the word refurb at all. Probably easier to think of it that way. You could be right but at what level refurbishments change the nature of accommodation is unknown.

In this case the OP's tenancy was terminated as the LL intended to sell within 3 months. This should have happened, not the refurb reason.

Selling a house within 3 months is basically impossible you are in dream land if you think a house has to be offered back after 3 months while still for sale and looking for offers etc.

1. Its not impossible
2. The legislation states close within 3 months, not when you feel like it.
3. Intent to sell was already commented on in the HC. Basically don't give notice until you know you can close within the 3 months.

The_Conductor

davindub wrote: »

1. Its not impossible
2. The legislation states close within 3 months, not when you feel like it.
3. Intent to sell was already commented on in the HC. Basically don't give notice until you know you can close within the 3 months.

Closing within 3 months- is so implausible as to be next to impossible- esp. given how tenants are actively advised by local authorities, threshold and everyone else, to overhold.

Even if any given landlord had all his/her ducks lined up in a row- while technically its not impossible that would close inside 3 months- it just stretches credulity beyond all bounds that it'll come in on time.

davindub

The_Conductor wrote: »

Closing within 3 months- is so implausible as to be next to impossible- esp. given how tenants are actively advised by local authorities, threshold and everyone else, to overhold.

Even if any given landlord had all his/her ducks lined up in a row- while technically its not impossible that would close inside 3 months- it just stretches credulity beyond all bounds that it'll come in on time.

Well if the tenant overholds, their tenancy hasn't been terminated until they leave....

Anyway HC comments on this para 37 onwards:
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/03AD319C75E2F3C580257F9A002F232B

beauf

davindub wrote: »

1. ... Basically don't give notice until you know you can close within the 3 months.

How do you know that...

davindub

beauf wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

1. ... Basically don't give notice until you know you can close within the 3 months.

How do you know that...

Read the HC comments, the judge actually gives a fair bit of guidance.

handlemaster

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

Let it go.

Agreed. Unless the OP is trying to look for compo like alot of people these days.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

1. Its not impossible
2. The legislation states close within 3 months, not when you feel like it.
3. Intent to sell was already commented on in the HC. Basically don't give notice until you know you can close within the 3 months.

I don’t know if you have experience of selling properties, if you do, the seller often has their ducks in a row before the property goes on the market, it is often the buyer who holds up a sale while they organise finance, get a survey, raise enquires etc. Cash sales can go through very quickly, but when banks are involved on the buyers side, it takes time.

Intent to sell means you put it on the market, instruct a solicitor and if you choose, an auctioneer, it doesn’t mean that a bid is accepted day one and the sale is completed within 90 days.

I think you have been watching Glengarry Glen Ross, always be closing.

ziggy23

handlemaster wrote: »

Agreed. Unless the OP is trying to look for compo like alot of people these days.

No I'm not why would I even get compo?

beauf

davindub wrote: »

Read the HC comments, the judge actually gives a fair bit of guidance.

He really doesn't. just gives an interpretation which might be different with another judge. Still a moveable Target.

davindub

beauf wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

Read the HC comments, the judge actually gives a fair bit of guidance.

He really doesn't. just gives an interpretation which might be different with another judge. Still a moveable Target.

That "intrepretation" is now binding on the RTB nor will the HC contradict itself s soon. It was never actually that open to intrepretation, "enter into a binding contract" is pretty clear..

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

1. Its not impossible
2. The legislation states close within 3 months, not when you feel like it.
3. Intent to sell was already commented on in the HC. Basically don't give notice until you know you can close within the 3 months.

I don’t know if you have experience of selling properties, if you do, the seller often has their ducks in a row before the property goes on the market, it is often the buyer who holds up a sale while they organise finance, get a survey, raise enquires etc. Cash sales can go through very quickly, but when banks are involved on the buyers side, it takes time.

Intent to sell means you put it on the market, instruct a solicitor and if you choose, an auctioneer, it doesn’t mean that a bid is accepted day one and the sale is completed within 90 days.

I think you have been watching Glengarry Glen Ross, always be closing.

Just following the HC judgement, the judgement tells you exactly what intent means. Kind of pointless to argue with the HC on this matter...