Termination Letter from landlord with multiple properties

beauf

You are factually incorrect and you keep deliberately misrepresenting what I've said.

beauf wrote: »

The LL has to give you valid notice. Then follow through.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/ending-a-tenancy/sample-notices-of-termination

The rest really isn't relevant as far as I know. Ask the RTB.

I never even said I was right and directed to where to get proper clarification.

More so I suggested you could win such a case.

beauf wrote: »

None of that will invalidate a valid notice. As far as I'm aware.

But if he doesn't follow though and just puts another tenant in there you might win a payout and the LL will have to offer you the place back.

But someone with that much property had probably been through that many times, and really the fine is small change to him.

How that is anti tenant and angry I have no idea.

beauf

ec18 wrote: »

Is there any actual legal restriction on this? I understand the point you are making but as far as I'm aware there is no onus on him to occupy another apartment, for example would his daughter saying the apartment in question was her favourite suffice as a reason?

From other posters its seems the RTB can look at the situation in its entirety and make a determination from that is its primary objective of the termination was to penalize the tenant.

ec18

Curious1002 wrote: »

Yes, I do. An official doc with stamps, signatures, owner's name, number of apts , dates and...here is a nice one - a price he purchase the building for!

you seem to have a bit of a vendetta against the LL, given the research and digging you have done on their personal/business affairs. Which could all be declared invalid or inadmissible as the dispute centres on the notice issued to you to quit to allow his daughter to move in? As the last notice to quit was invalid and not acted as well as the rent review never being in writing?

Or am I missing something?

Curious1002

ec18 wrote: »

you seem to have a bit of a vendetta against the LL, given the research and digging you have done on their personal/business affairs. Which could all be declared invalid or inadmissible as the dispute centres on the notice issued to you to quit to allow his daughter to move in? As the last notice to quit was invalid and not acted as well as the rent review never being in writing?

Or am I missing something?

Just to be clear - the reading and research i have been doing has started when i was handed the first notice of termination. It's a simple and wise reaction to the action taken against me. Wouldnt you agree? Wouldnt you do the same?

The doc that my own LL forwarded to me back in Feb was probably done by his own error. I never did anything with it other than reading
Now it's super helpful.

Vendetta? Not really. I call it a defense mechanism and preparation to get all the facts together, drafting a cover note and finally filing a dispute. Hardly vendetta. But a point taken, thank you.

MacDanger

Good luck with it OP.

No harm in contacting Revenue, if he's legit then he'll have nothing to fear and if he's not then it's time he got his comeuppance, he sounds like a scumbag with the way he's behaving.

Curious1002

beauf wrote: »

You are factually incorrect and you keep deliberately misrepresenting what I've said.

I never even said I was right and directed to where to get proper clarification.

More so I suggested you could win such a case.

How that is anti tenant and angry I have no idea.

I see your point. I got that nagging feeling for a while now that you are here to challenge my story, which is also a good thing. This is exactly what I would get at the hearing so I better get ready to answer all the questions, the uncomfortable ones too.
In my above statement I referred rather to you questioning the rent amount I pay, if my LL or I am a sublet or where i got the evidence from - no matter what i answered you came up with more questions.

But the truth is that my story is really very simple here which in a nutshell is presented in my opening post.
It does sound weird that a good tenant is being pushed out for no obvious reasons but that's the sad part of this story and thats why i came here for some advice and support, which i am getting both. Super thanks to all!

If it was a situation of me never getting any previous notices or warnings, but only one notice stating that his daughter is moving in - that's fine and it's called tough love, I would suck it up and move on. But I wanted to show you all the subtle pre-action the LL took to gradually push me out, which i bet worked on many of his current / previous tenants.

Curious1002

beauf wrote: »

From other posters its seems the RTB can look at the situation in its entirety and make a determination from that is its primary objective of the termination was to penalize the tenant.

Thats a tough one because every of my evidence can be easily explained by my LL's solicitor e.g.
1. Ohh we just made a little harmless error here.
2. Ohh we didn't mean this letter to be read as "threatening" or a "warning", it was just to let the guy know that we will be writing to him again soon.
3- Ohh, this conversation never took place.
4. Ohh there is a recording? We didnt know we were recorded - the evidence can not be admitted then if we were not aware of being recorded.
5. Ohh, the legal jargon can be difficult to understand sometimes, he probably misread / misinterpreted my and my client's intention wrong. English is not the tenant's first language after-all. :rolleyes:
Etc.

The RTB does not provide me with any advice. They only explain the process which i can read about myself. They would appoint an adjudicator who is a barrister and entirely independent to RTB. I couldnt even find out about similar to mine cases from the PRTB / Threshold representatives. Apparently neither RTB or Threshold provide support on the hearing day, not as witnesses.

I learnt more about the Legislation from this post and quotes of the Act than RTB and Threshold could ever tell me.

The_Fitz

Good luck with this OP.

beauf

Curious1002 wrote: »

I see your point. I got that nagging feeling for a while now that you are here to challenge my story,....

No reason to. Its a very common situation. Lot of other peoples in the same situation. Should be straight foward in the RTB. You are entirely over thinking it in my opinion. But its only natural since its where you live.

I'd be more curious about the LL, but I think you are taking any question personally, so I won't

fash

listermint wrote: »

Sorry just spotted this part of the post and was highly amused by it.

A landlord with multiple properties like this would have his daughter paying any rent.

lolcopter.

'If' and i mean if the daughter exists i doubt she will be placed in the cheapest apartment he has.

Do you really believe this ... ? like genuinely without a smile.

Good point: goes to the genuineness of the need notified.

Dav010

fash wrote: »

Good point: goes to the genuineness of the need notified.

Surely the “need” will be satisfied by the daughter moving in? If she had a place to live, she wouldn’t occupy the ops apartment. I really don’t get why you/op are using this as a pillar of your dispute, it is easy for the LL to prove the accommodation was needed, he just shows proof that she took up occupancy.

She may need the apartment at the time the ops notice expires, other apartments may not be available then. Surely the op is not going to argue an apartment available now should be held empty for 6 months or that the LL should discount his daughters need until one becomes vacant after that?

fash

Dav010 wrote: »

Surely the “need” will be satisfied by the daughter moving in? If she had a place to live, she wouldn’t occupy the ops apartment. I really don’t get why you/op are using this as a pillar of your dispute, it is easy for the LL to prove the accommodation was needed, he just shows proof that she took up occupancy.

She may need the apartment at the time the ops notice expires, other apartments may not be available then. Surely the op is not going to argue an apartment available now should be held empty for 6 months or that the LL should discount his daughters need until one becomes vacant after that?

No it wouldn't. The issue is not whether factually a person moves in, it is whether it is genuine or not. Considering the LL sought to illegally increase rent, then sought to remove tenant based on renovations, then sought to remove tenant based on family member- while having multiple properties available- many of which are far more suitable for the actual requirements of the daughter versus a small studio and where the LL has had various adverse findings at the RTB based on mistreatment of tenants - I think you will agree that only someone quite gullible would believe that there was a genuine need on this particular occasion.

Dav010

fash wrote: »

No it wouldn't. The issue is not whether factually a person moves in, it is whether it is genuine or not. Considering the LL sought to illegally increase rent, then sought to remove tenant based on renovations, then sought to remove tenant based on family member- while having multiple properties available- many of which are far more suitable for the actual requirements of the daughter versus a small studio and where the LL has had various adverse findings at the RTB based on mistreatment of tenants - I think you will agree that only someone quite gullible would believe that there was a genuine need on this particular occasion.

Need will be genuine if the daughter moves in, if she doesn’t, then the op has a slam dunk.

Sought, yes, did he give notice of rent increase? No.

You say multiple properties available, they might be available now, they may not be in when the daughter needs it in 6 months time.

I agree with you, this seems obvious that the op is being forced out because the LL wants higher rent. But the fact is that there is a clear avenue to remove a Part 4 tenant if a family member needs the property, irrespective of the number of properties owned. The ops tenancy relates to this property and I’m not convinced that the RTB can dictate that another property that is vacant now should be used in 6 months time, or that another tenancy should be effected to give the daughter a place to stay.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

Need will be genuine if the daughter moves in, if she doesn’t, then the op has a slam dunk.

Sought, yes, did he give notice of rent increase? No.

You say multiple properties available, they might be available now, they may not be in when the daughter needs it in 6 months time.

I agree with you, this seems obvious that the op is being forced out because the LL wants higher rent. But the fact is that there is a clear avenue to remove a Part 4 tenant if a family member needs the property, irrespective of the number of properties owned. The ops tenancy relates to this property and I’m not convinced that the RTB can dictate that another property that is vacant now should be used in 6 months time, or that another tenancy should be effected to give the daughter a place to stay.

Whether or not the daugther moves in would be irrelevant I believe. You could have a situation where 2 identical apartments are owned by the same landlord, one is subject to a tenancy, one is vacant. Would you say the landlord needs to terminate the tenancy to house the family member where they can just move them into the vacant unit?

It's not a loophole that landlords can use to their advantage, it is genuinely part of the legislation but the wording is vague enough to allow the RTB decide on a case by case basis. And I think the LL's behaviour to date will be entirely relevant to the determination on the matter.

Curious1002

Dav010 wrote: »

Sought, yes, did he give notice of rent increase? No.

You say multiple properties available, they might be available now, they may not be in when the daughter needs it in 6 months time.

The ops tenancy relates to this property and I’m not convinced that the RTB can dictate that another property that is vacant now should be used in 6 months time, or that another tenancy should be effected to give the daughter a place to stay.

Just to explain.
1. No formal notice of increase was given to me. Can you imagine LL with 25 year + experience in the property business issuing me a formal letter asking 75% of increase? It would be a laugh. He is not that naive.
It was done verbally, but I recorded it when things started to get heated. So I do have evidence to prove the conversation took place, date and the content.

2. Apts in here become vacant every month. My neighbour confided in me that his apt. will be vacant in April 2020, perfectly the time I become homeless. Isn't that a fantastic coincidence to satisfy all parties? Not, if the LL's motive is to get rid of me for good from the entire development, though. I will suggest to LL my April's move to the neighbour's apt to see his response.
There are only 2 possibilities:
1. If he says yes - happy days. I will keep an eye on the daughter though, which if it's a sham will be hard to swallow by my LL.
2. If he says no - it will clearly show the motive. Why would he say no if his reasons were genuine? The Tribunal will see that I had tried to resolve this problem in the most efficient and easy way for both sides but was met with the LL's unwillingness. I would plant a seed in the judges' heads as to why someone would refuse such arrangements if they benefited both sides. It will show the ingenuity of the LL's actions and that's my aim.

Dav010

davindub wrote: »

Whether or not the daugther moves in would be irrelevant I believe. You could have a situation where 2 identical apartments are owned by the same landlord, one is subject to a tenancy, one is vacant. Would you say the landlord needs to terminate the tenancy to house the family member where they can just move them into the vacant unit?

It's not a loophole that landlords can use to their advantage, it is genuinely part of the legislation but the wording is vague enough to allow the RTB decide on a case by case basis. And I think the LL's behaviour to date will be entirely relevant to the determination on the matter.

On the contrary, it is precisely designed to be used by a landlord to use to their advantage to house a family member. You, me, the op and every else here knows what is going on here. But an apartment vacant now is not the same as an apartment vacant in 6 months. A LL can’t just move a family member in today, they have to give notice and plan for when the property is needed, the daughter may not need it today, she may need it in 6 months, as is the norm as far as the RTB is concerned.

I’ll ask you the same question as I asked the op, do you think an apartment vacant today should be kept vacant for 6 months if the LLs daughter needs it in May? All the LL has to do is show that, if she moves in then, need is satisfied.

Curious1002

davindub wrote: »

Whether or not the daugther moves in would be irrelevant I believe. You could have a situation where 2 identical apartments are owned by the same landlord, one is subject to a tenancy, one is vacant. Would you say the landlord needs to terminate the tenancy to house the family member where they can just move them into the vacant unit?

It's not a loophole that landlords can use to their advantage, it is genuinely part of the legislation but the wording is vague enough to allow the RTB decide on a case by case basis. And I think the LL's behaviour to date will be entirely relevant to the determination on the matter.

Very good point, explained in a crystal clear way. I am going to use that analogy in my dispute. Big thanks!

Dav010

Based on the fact that a dispute is based on an individual tenancy, does the RTB have the scope to consider other properties when dealing with a dispute on a particular registered tenancy?

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

On the contrary, it is precisely designed to be used by a landlord to use to their advantage to house a family member. You, me, the op and every else here knows what is going on here. But an apartment vacant now is not the same as an apartment vacant in 6 months. A LL can’t just move a family member in today, they have to give notice and plan for when the property is needed, the daughter may not need it today, she may need it in 6 months, as is the norm as far as the RTB is concerned.

I’ll ask you the same question as I asked the op, do you think an apartment vacant today should be kept vacant for 6 months if the LLs daughter needs it in May? All the LL has to do is show that, if she moves in then, need is satisfied.

Oh perhaps? But more likely a decision will be made depending on the circumstances of the case. It would be just easier for the LL to do a short term let and use the vacant apartment rather than terminating a part 4 tenancy?

Any number of arguments really for either side, but one thing that the RTB is known for is protecting tenancies. I'd recommend you read the duniyva case, it does give some guidance we can use.

Dav010

davindub wrote: »

Oh perhaps? But more likely a decision will be made depending on the circumstances of the case. It would be just easier for the LL to do a short term let and use the vacant apartment rather than terminating a part 4 tenancy?

Any number of arguments really for either side, but one thing that the RTB is known for is protecting tenancies. I'd recommend you read the duniyva case, it does give some guidance we can use.

I did, as you said it was comment, nothing more, the tenant was unsuccessful.

Curious1002

Dav010 wrote: »

I’ll ask you the same question as I asked the op, do you think an apartment vacant today should be kept vacant for 6 months if the LLs daughter needs it in May? All the LL has to do is show that, if she moves in then, need is satisfied.

I am sorry but I dont get it. I have to be out in mid March. She moves in then. My neighbour apt. is vacant on 1 April. I will jump in to his apt. in April. All parties win.

I am not sure if i understand what apts stay empty for 6 months? I wouldnt want any place to stay empty and wait that long. Every month at least 1 apt. becomes empty here cos old people move out, new move in. Let's imagine that Neighbour 1 moves out on 1 March and Neighbour B on 1 April. My LL can rent out the apt. 1 to someone who wants it but Apt. 2 would be taken by me in April.

The Student

Curious1002 wrote: »

I am sorry but I dont get it. I have to be out in mid March. She moves in then. My neighbour apt. is vacant on 1 April. I will jump in to his apt. in April. All parties win.

I am not sure if i understand what apts stay empty for 6 months? I wouldnt want any place to stay empty and wait that long. Every month at least 1 apt. becomes empty here cos old people move out, new move in. Let's imagine that Neighbour 1 moves out on 1 March and Neighbour B on 1 April. My LL can rent out the apt. 1 to someone who wants it but Apt. 2 would be taken by me in April.

What if he wants to sell the apartment that is becoming vacant and also wants an apartment for his daughter.

Curious1002

The Student wrote: »

What if he wants to sell the apartment that is becoming vacant and also wants an apartment for his daughter.

He would have to prove that he is taking steps to sell it, even harder than a "daughter" reason to prove. I dont see it coming any time soon. Imagine, he would have 29 apts and 1 "foreign" within the same building. If he planned to sell anything, he would have used this excuse on me.

No, this is absolutely a no-go option.

Curious1002

Curious1002 wrote: »

No, this is absolutely a no-go option.

Actually, now I think he would indeed use the "sell" option if the "daughter" case collapses It would have been the last available alternative he has left.
I think media would love to get involved at that stage too. My LL and I would be famous!

Curious1002

I have 2 questions.

Let's imagine this.

My termination date is Mid March 2020. The daughter is ready to move in in April 2020. I move out in mid December 2019 though cos I found an alternative accommodation elsewhere.

1. Can my LL rent my apt out to someone else for a short term until April 2020 until the daughter is ready to move in?

2. If the daughter changes her plans after i move out and instead of April 2020 she moves in in October 2020. Should my LL offer the apt back to me for the time being or he doesnt have to? Can he rent it out to somebody else until October 2020 when she is finally ready to move in?

fash

Dav010 wrote: »

On the contrary, it is precisely designed to be used by a landlord to use to their advantage to house a family member. You, me, the op and every else here knows what is going on here. But an apartment vacant now is not the same as an apartment vacant in 6 months. A LL can’t just move a family member in today, they have to give notice and plan for when the property is needed, the daughter may not need it today, she may need it in 6 months, as is the norm as far as the RTB is concerned.

I’ll ask you the same question as I asked the op, do you think an apartment vacant today should be kept vacant for 6 months if the LLs daughter needs it in May? All the LL has to do is show that, if she moves in then, need is satisfied.

It is an exceptionally conveniently timed daughter if it were even remotely plausible. It is not- hence it is not genuine. The LL will need to do significant work to rebut the amount of evidence stacked against him.

Dav010

fash wrote: »

It is an exceptionally conveniently timed daughter if it were even remotely plausible. It is not- hence it is not genuine. The LL will need to do significant work to rebut the amount of evidence stacked against him.

It is always “exceptionally timed” as far as a tenant is concerned when a LL needs a property for a family member, but it not always changes the fact.

Marcusm

Curious1002 wrote: »

He would have to prove that he is taking steps to sell it, even harder than a "daughter" reason to prove. I dont see it coming any time soon. Imagine, he would have 29 apts and 1 "foreign" within the same building. If he planned to sell anything, he would have used this excuse on me.

No, this is absolutely a no-go option.

He can simply choose not to let to you.

Dav010

Curious1002 wrote: »

I have 2 questions.

Let's imagine this.

My termination date is Mid March 2020. The daughter is ready to move in in April 2020. I move out in mid December 2019 though cos I found an alternative accommodation elsewhere.

1. Can my LL rent my apt out to someone else for a short term until April 2020 until the daughter is ready to move in?

2. If the daughter changes her plans after i move out and instead of April 2020 she moves in in October 2020. Should my LL offer the apt back to me for the time being or he doesnt have to? Can he rent it out to somebody else until October 2020 when she is finally ready to move in?

I see no reason why you could not leave early with the agreement of the LL, that would be your choice. If the LL states on his declaration that daughter needs it at the end of notice period, why would you here be an issue with a short term let up to that date, given that you decided to leave early? You could of course assign the remainder of your tenancy if you wanted to, with the LLs agreement, he might appreciate the income until his daughter moves in. Nor do I see a reason why he could not continue to rent it to you until October if that is when his daughter moves in. As long as she moves in, hard to see an issue with a valid notice of termination.

fash

Dav010 wrote: »

It is always “exceptionally timed” as far as a tenant is concerned when a LL needs a property for a family member, but it not always changes the fact.

The tenant's perspective is irrelevant. The landlord's perspective is what matters. The LL sought to illegally increase the rent - that failed. The LL sought to illegally evict the tenant - that failed. Immediately following that the LL (who has a recorded history of illegal evictions) found a family member who have an immediate and pressing need for this particular dwelling which appears to be unsuitable for the needs of that person and while said LL appears to have a large number of available and more suitable properties.
It is those facts that the LL will now have to fight against to show good faith in his notification.