Mess with the landlord

The Hound Gone Wild

So my FiL has run into a bit of mess with his LL of 15 years and I just wanted some opinions.

-FIL has been renting from LL since 2005.
-LL issued a notice of termination with intention to sell ; wasn't legally valid, tried to give 90 days notice instead of statutory 228 days, didn't include statutory declaration of intent to sell.
-LL solicitor issues a letter of the LLs intent to sell. Still not a statutory declaration of intent to sell and not legal.
-Another notice of termination issued by LL, still not legally valid & tried to backdate notice
-LL issued verbal intention of rent increase by 20% in a RPZ with no written notice.

All my FiL wants is his correct notice period. Best course of action to go to the RTB or seek legal advice?

Tenancy was never registered with RTB... Rent has always been paid in cash.

Del2005

What does your FIL want to be the outcome? The longer he leaves it the more time he has in the home. If you FIL goes to the RTB then the LL will most likely issue a correct eviction notice, if he does nothing then as he's never received a proper notification then he can stay till the landlord or his solicitor get their act together and give the required notices.

Baby01032012

As above poster says your FIL best course of action is to sit back and relax.

All these invalid notices and from a solicitor as well is laughable.

Hold on to the notices. As when a valid notice does come in he may have grounds to challenge it. As if he tried to terminate for sale then simply tried to increased rent that will just support his case that the landlord has no intention of selling no matter how valid notice is.

I’m a landlord by the way.

GreeBo

Can a LL increase the rent during an eviction notice period?

If not, then relying on the notice to be invalid may be opening up your FiL to increased rent?

Wabbit Ears

GreeBo wrote: »

Can a LL increase the rent during an eviction notice period?

If not, then relying on the notice to be invalid may be opening up your FiL to increased rent?

No one in their right mind would pay a rent increase once a landlord has indicated a intention to sell. Like, whats the landlord gonna do, kick you out?

OP's FIL should be looking for a new place as there may not be one when he absolutely has to move but he also can be safe knowing that that date is still at least over a half year away.

Wabbit Ears

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

No one in their right mind would pay a rent increase once a landlord has indicated a intention to sell. Like, whats the landlord gonna do, kick you out?
.

Possibly. It does throw up an interesting situation. I assume there is nothing to stop a LL increasing the rent if he/she is entitled to, giving correct notice and amount, during the notice period. If the tenant refuses and goes into arrears, then a shorter notice of eviction could occur for non payment of rent.

Wabbit Ears

Dav010 wrote: »

Possibly. It does throw up an interesting situation. I assume there is nothing to stop a LL increasing the rent if he/she is entitled to, giving correct notice and amount, during the notice period. If the tenant refuses and goes into arrears, then a shorter notice of eviction could occur for non payment of rent.

it doesn't go into arrears if the tenant pays the previously agreed rent. The tenant would file a dispute with the RTB on the increase amount and this would drag out beyond the intended sell by date. Even if the ruling went against the tenant and he owed the money, the arrears process would only then begin, pushing it out further. That even without the timeframes of overholding, etc.

Sooner or later he is going to have to move out so for the sake of saving himself hassle would he not be as well off to start looking straight away for a new place. The place he is is not going to be his much longer so might as well move and start getting settled into a new place.

Wabbit Ears

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

it doesn't go into arrears if the tenant pays the previously agreed rent. The tenant would file a dispute with the RTB on the increase amount and this would drag out beyond the intended sell by date. Even if the ruling went against the tenant and he owed the money, the arrears process would only then begin, pushing it out further. That even without the timeframes of overholding, etc.

See that is one of the major problems with the RTB, if the increase is within the RPZ limit, or in non RPZs , is in line with similar properties locally, and notice is valid, the tenant should not be given an avenue to dispute it. The LL will have done everything as prescribed by the RTB, yet the tenant can act the b*****s and delay/frustrate the increase taking effect even though they have no grounds to do so.

Who would be a landlord?

GreeBo

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

it doesn't go into arrears if the tenant pays the previously agreed rent. The tenant would file a dispute with the RTB on the increase amount and this would drag out beyond the intended sell by date. Even if the ruling went against the tenant and he owed the money, the arrears process would only then begin, pushing it out further. That even without the timeframes of overholding, etc.

What is the dispute based on if the LL is increasing it within the rules?

Wabbit Ears

GreeBo wrote: »

What is the dispute based on if the LL is increasing it within the rules?

the op said "LL issued verbal intention of rent increase by 20% in a RPZ with no written notice." so its not within the rules and should be disputed.

The_Conductor

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

the op said "LL issued verbal intention of rent increase by 20% in a RPZ with no written notice." so its not within the rules and should be disputed.

A formal notice of rent review has to issue- however, the actual amount of rent increase depends entirely on when the rent was last increased. Keep in mind the OP's Father-in-law was there 15 years. If the rent has not been increased in the 15 years- the landlord can actually increase the rent by 30%.......

OP- you would have to plug in your FIL's rent, when it was last reviewed, when the tenancy commenced etc- into the RTB calculator and it will tell you what the maximum rent can be increased to. If he has been there for 15 years without a rent review- the landlord could legitimately increase the rent by fully 30% in an RPZ.........

terrydel

Dav010 wrote: »

See that is one of the major problems with the RTB, if the increase is within the RPZ limit, or in non RPZs , is in line with similar properties locally, and notice is valid, the tenant should not be given an avenue to dispute it. The LL will have done everything as prescribed by the RTB, yet the tenant can act the b*****s and delay/frustrate the increase taking effect even though they have no grounds to do so.

Who would be a landlord?

Amazing stuff there, given the ll in question here is acting the complete t**t. But as usual, blame the tenant.

kennethsmyth

The_Conductor wrote: »

A formal notice of rent review has to issue- however, the actual amount of rent increase depends entirely on when the rent was last increased. Keep in mind the OP's Father-in-law was there 15 years. If the rent has not been increased in the 15 years- the landlord can actually increase the rent by 30%.......

OP- you would have to plug in your FIL's rent, when it was last reviewed, when the tenancy commenced etc- into the RTB calculator and it will tell you what the maximum rent can be increased to. If he has been there for 15 years without a rent review- the landlord could legitimately increase the rent by fully 30% in an RPZ.........

As above its possible the 20% (if a valid notice) could be correct based on % increase allowed per year.

terrydel

terrydel wrote: »

Amazing stuff there, given the ll in question here is acting the complete t**t. But as usual, blame the tenant.

Have you something constructive to add? My post was in response to another poster.

If a notice of rent increase is correct and valid, why should a tenant’s dispute be considered by the RTB? . The tenant is to blame if they try to delay/frustrate a legal rent increase, do you disagree with this, and on what grounds? If they refuse to pay a valid increase, are you arguing that notice of rent arrears and eventually notice to terminate is not an avenue open to a LL, even during an extended notice period to end a tenancy?

Would you like to argue that is wrong?

The ops fil’s LL needs to issue correct notice of termination, but I don’t think there is anything to prevent him also increasing the rent if a Review is due, and, if the tenant refuses to pay a valid increase, notice to terminate can be issued which may be a lot shorter than the notice required to legally terminate a Part 4 tenancy by giving 228 days statutory notice.

terrydel

Dav010 wrote: »

Have you something constructive to add? My post was in response to another poster.

If a notice of rent increase is correct and valid, why should a tenant’s dispute be considered by the RTB? . The tenant is to blame if they try to delay/frustrate a legal rent increase, do you disagree with this, and on what grounds? If they refuse to pay a valid increase, are you arguing that notice of rent arrears and eventually notice to terminate is not an avenue open to a LL, even during an extended notice period to end a tenancy?

Would you like to argue that is wrong?

The ops fil’s LL needs to issue correct notice of termination, but I don’t think there is anything to prevent him also increasing the rent if a Review is due, and, if the tenant refuses to pay a valid increase, notice to terminate can be issued which may be a lot shorter than the notice required to legally terminate a Part 4 tenancy by giving 228 days statutory notice.

Thats not what the thread is about, stay on topic wont ya?
Can I mention that the ll here receiving cash (presumably for the entire 15 years of the tenancy) is very likely not being very truthful to the overlords in revenue, as thats off topic too? Im making sure I have your permission before I post.