Landlord wants to remove both lawns

An Ri rua

Hi folks,

Can anyone offer guidance towards legal links that would assist with the following:-

My uncle lives in a rented house for a number of years now.
His LL has been in contact to say that they want to make the front and back lawn maintenance free and dig both out and put down tar or concrete. Within the next week or two!

My uncle wants the property as is until he leaves (they intend a few months notice which is a third of what's required).
EDIT corrected to read:- 'They intend' but he will leave 196 days after receipt of a valid notice of termination which also validly outlines their exemption from upholding his part 4 tenancy (4 years of 7 left).

Anyone any hard fact links re substantial changes like this? It's far from a repair, not required and not consented to.

Rows Grower

An Ri rua wrote: »

Hi folks,

Can anyone offer guidance towards legal links that would assist with the following:-

My uncle lives in a rented house for a number of years now.
His LL has been in contact to say that they want to make the front and back lawn maintenance free and dig both out and put down tar or concrete. Within the next week or two!

My uncle wants the property as is until he leaves (they intend a few months notice which is a third of what's required).

Anyone any hard fact links re substantial changes like this? It's far from a repair, not required and not consented to.

I can't help you with any hard facts but it's the landlords property and he has given notice to the person renting what he intends to do so I personally don't see any cause for complaint.

An Ri rua

Rows Grower wrote: »

I can't help you with any hard facts but it's the landlords property and he has given notice to the person renting what he intends to do so I personally don't see any cause for complaint.

It doesn't sound correct to be honest. Works that are a major disturbance, and unnecessary, are classed as refurbishment.

It will be interesting to see if there are tenant rights in this regard. It would definitely not be maintaining the property to the standard it was originally rented in.

headtheball14

They are necessary at least according to the landlord. Not sure what the issue is. Is your uncle using the garden much. Are they maintaining it themselves. Can't see a huge disruption in this work really

Rows Grower

An Ri rua wrote: »

It doesn't sound correct to be honest. Works that are a major disturbance, and unnecessary, are classed as refurbishment.

It will be interesting to see if there are tenant rights in this regard. It would definitely not be maintaining the property to the standard it was originally rented in.

Your uncle or his nephew doesn't get to decide that, in my opinion.

the14thwarrior

can't see what the problem is.
a bit of disruption, landlord giving notice, his property, could argue it could be better for the property. wonder what the objections are really about? tbh can't see why they would say no

micar

An Ri rua wrote: »

It doesn't sound correct to be honest. Works that are a major disturbance, and unnecessary, are classed as refurbishment.

It will be interesting to see if there are tenant rights in this regard. It would definitely not be maintaining the property to the standard it was originally rented in.

What's the real issue here? It is the inconvenience of works being done? It will hardly take weeks/months to do.

Hardly a "major disturbance" - really only a slight inconvenience.

The landlord no longer want the hassle of cutting the grass or maintain the garden. The LL is free to do what they want.

Mike3549

Depending on a size of the gardens, All this job could be done in less than a day, 9-5, what kind of disruption are you talking about? Its an outside job, its not like your uncle wont be able to use a toilet or kitchen

triona1

Does your uncle normally maintain the gardens himself?

runawaybishop

An Ri rua wrote: »

Hi folks,

Can anyone offer guidance towards legal links that would assist with the following:-

My uncle lives in a rented house for a number of years now.
His LL has been in contact to say that they want to make the front and back lawn maintenance free and dig both out and put down tar or concrete. Within the next week or two!

My uncle wants the property as is until he leaves (they intend a few months notice which is a third of what's required).

Anyone any hard fact links re substantial changes like this? It's far from a repair, not required and not consented to.

For the duration of the tenancy it is your uncles home, ignore anyone who says otherwise. If he doesn't want to allow the gardens to be concreted over he can refuse.

Specifically the tenant is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of the property and the landlord cannot enter without permission except in certain circumstances, of which this is not one.

micar

runawaybishop wrote: »

For the duration of the tenancy it is your uncles home, ignore anyone who says otherwise. If he doesn't want to allow the gardens to be concreted over he can refuse.

The opening chapter of "the hitchhikes guide to the galaxy" come to mind .

runawaybishop

micar wrote: »

The opening chapter of "the hitchhikes guide to the galaxy" come to mind .

The op asked for specific advice, not to be told fantasies.

Rows Grower

runawaybishop wrote: »

For the duration of the tenancy it is your uncles home, ignore anyone who says otherwise. If he doesn't want to allow the gardens to be concreted over he can refuse.

Specifically the tenant is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of the property and the landlord cannot enter without permission except in certain circumstances, of which this is not one.

You're losing the run of yourself, runawaybishop.

Gumbo

runawaybishop wrote: »

The op asked for specific advice, not to be told fantasies.

What you posted is a fantasy in fairness.
It is the tenants home, it’s the landlords property.

He has given notice as required to do.
The OP is claiming it’s refurbishment, if that’s the case then count it lucky that the landlord hasn’t asked the tenants to leave during this refurbishment.

blackbox

Did the tenant offer to mow the grass?

cameramonkey

CC might want to look at it regarding SUD. They dont like lots of paved areas as it make overload the drains.

runawaybishop

kceire wrote: »

What you posted is a fantasy in fairness.
It is the tenants home, it’s the landlords property.

He has given notice as required to do.
The OP is claiming it’s refurbishment, if that’s the case then count it lucky that the landlord hasn’t asked the tenants to leave during this refurbishment.

Incorrect. The tenant does not need to grant permission for access. The landlord cannot make significant changes anyway without permission.

Notice must be agreed. There is no requirement to agree to notice unless it's a periodic inspection.

Outkast_IRE

As said above , i believe the local council will require planning permission. Plenty of chancers do it without but at a massive risk of being told to take it out.

The Student

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

As said above , i believe the local council will require planning permission. Plenty of chancers do it without but at a massive risk of being told to take it out.

Planning permission is only required if you are removing the garden wall at the front. You do not need planning permission to pave driveway or garden.

An Ri rua

the14thwarrior wrote: »

can't see what the problem is.
a bit of disruption, landlord giving notice, his property, could argue it could be better for the property. wonder what the objections are really about? tbh can't see why they would say no

He's been there 8 years, never missed a payment and saw them 4 times. He's done all the maintenance so it's not abou that. They want him out in 8-10 wks so they can move a family member in and this is preparatory work for that they say.

runawaybishop

An Ri rua wrote: »

He's been there 8 years, never missed a payment and saw them 4 times. He's done all the maintenance so it's not abou that. They want him out in 8-10 wks so they can move a family member in and this is preparatory work for that they say.

Unless he has a fixed term lease then he will have to vacate, given the correct notice, if a family member is moving in.

An Ri rua

blackbox wrote: »

Did the tenant offer to mow the grass?

Sory I should have spelled all that out. Hopefully my last post sheds light on this. They want him out in 2 months, he's entitled to 7. Great relationship in that he paid and they almost never showed up. Zero maintenance in 8 years. He even cut large boundary hedges.
It looks like sleight of hand.

An Ri rua

runawaybishop wrote: »

Unless he has a fixed term lease then he will have to vacate, given the correct notice, if a family member is moving in.

He's part 4 so I've told him 196 days as advised by Threshold.
It's the disturbance of these works. He has a classic car parked which they want moved. I think that's insane.

micar

An Ri rua wrote: »

He has a classic car parked which they want moved. I think that's insane.

Ah here......you really think moving a car is insane.

runawaybishop

micar wrote: »

Ah here......you really think moving a car is insane.

The landlord cannot dictate that a tenant cannot park a car in their driveway

Gumbo

cameramonkey wrote: »

CC might want to look at it regarding SUD. They dont like lots of paved areas as it make overload the drains.

SUDS calculations for a development occurs at planning stage or before hand. At this stage, I don’t think there’s a planning law that can be enforced u less there’s a specific condition on the planning restricting the provision of hard standing surfaces in a rear garden.

Personally, I’m 20 years of dealing with planning applications, I haven’t come across one yet.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Incorrect. The tenant does not need to grant permission for access. The landlord cannot make significant changes anyway without permission.

Notice must be agreed. There is no requirement to agree to notice unless it's a periodic inspection.

If your correct maybe you can show a piece of legislation that prohibits the LL doing this. If I’m wrong then I’m Wrong and I’ll admit that but I don’t think there’s any law there.

Peaceful enjoyment is to stop a LL turning up everyday and unannounced. Notice given to the tenancy would not be a breach of tenants peaceful enjoyment assuming it’s not an hour or 2. It would want to be a few weeks in my opinion.

The tenant doesn’t have to agree to the notice. If they purposely loose the LL then I’m sure he can just evict or turn up.

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

As said above , i believe the local council will require planning permission. Plenty of chancers do it without but at a massive risk of being told to take it out.

Not aware of any. Can you show me any planning applications to pave rear and front garden. They are on the public website if your local council if any so no data or privacy breaches to be wary of.

Gumbo

An Ri rua wrote: »

He's been there 8 years, never missed a payment and saw them 4 times. He's done all the maintenance so it's not abou that. They want him out in 8-10 wks so they can move a family member in and this is preparatory work for that they say.

If correct notice for ending the tenancy has been served and accepted then the LL should just wait to do these works.

micar

micar wrote: »

Ah here......you really think moving a car is insane.

runawaybishop wrote: »

The landlord cannot dictate that a tenant cannot park a car in their driveway

Resort to pettiness. Brilliant!!!

Or just co operate.

1hnr79jr65

Rather than fight this, perhaps your family can mention to the LL that if they intend to sell in future, that 2 paved gardens will reduce the value of the home and potential volume of buyers, specifically families who may want gardens for children, or someone who is avid gardener.

Maybe the LL would see the logic in this and at least retain the back garden and ur family member can offer to maintain it.

DubCount

This thread is everything I hate about the current Irish Rental Market. This is what years of under-supply and over-regulation have done. For whatever reason, there is a falling out between the landlord and the tenant. It happens. In stead of being able to sit down, come to an agreement, or shake hands and agree to part ways, both parties are stuck with each other. The tenant cant leave because there is nowhere else to rent, and the Landlord cant force the tenant to leave due to a constantly growing set of regulations. Its like they are caught in a bad marriage without being allowed to divorce.

As we are where we are, I don't believe there is anything stopping the Landlord doing the works. He has given reasonable notice and it does not look like a major inconvenience. The tenant can try going to the RTB to claim it is an attempt at a constructive eviction and a failure of the Landlord to allow peaceful enjoyment of the property. Ultimately though, how have we gotten to a situation where laying a pavement and moving a car should require the intervention of the RTB, or even a thread looking for advice.

An Ri rua

micar wrote: »

Ah here......you really think moving a car is insane.

It doesn't start. Why should he, immediately, for something he hasn't planned not is needed?

cameramonkey

kceire wrote: »

SUDS calculations for a development occurs at planning stage or before hand. At this stage, I don’t think there’s a planning law that can be enforced u less there’s a specific condition on the planning restricting the provision of hard standing surfaces in a rear garden.

Personally, I’m 20 years of dealing with planning applications, I haven’t come across one yet.

Is it not against planning to pave or tarmac your front garden? Some front gardens are massive and could add a huge amount of water to the drains system. I find it hard to believe that you could just do it without the council having their say.

Gumbo

cameramonkey wrote: »

Is it not against planning to pave or tarmac your front garden? Some front gardens are massive and could add a huge amount of water to the drains system. I find it hard to believe that you could just do it without the council having their say.

I’ve been involved in many enforcement cases where the complaint was for the creation of access etc

What was done inside the boundary line was ignored by the council.
But, DLR have a byelaw I believe that prohibits the conversion to hard standing greater than 50% but I believe you can get around it by using permeable paving, similar to the UK. You can completely pave your garden using permeable materials.

I am not aware of a single property that has had any form of enforcement for paving their front gardens.

An Ri rua

DubCount wrote: »

This thread is everything I hate about the current Irish Rental Market. This is what years of under-supply and over-regulation have done. For whatever reason, there is a falling out between the landlord and the tenant. It happens. In stead of being able to sit down, come to an agreement, or shake hands and agree to part ways, both parties are stuck with each other. The tenant cant leave because there is nowhere else to rent, and the Landlord cant force the tenant to leave due to a constantly growing set of regulations. Its like they are caught in a bad marriage without being allowed to divorce.

As we are where we are, I don't believe there is anything stopping the Landlord doing the works. He has given reasonable notice and it does not look like a major inconvenience. The tenant can try going to the RTB to claim it is an attempt at a constructive eviction and a failure of the Landlord to allow peaceful enjoyment of the property. Ultimately though, how have we gotten to a situation where laying a pavement and moving a car should require the intervention of the RTB, or even a thread looking for advice.

The legislation is now there to stop cowboys. How would anyone decent expect a long-term renter to up sticks and ship out within 10 weeks. And then begin construction works, the start of a slippery slope of refurbishment activities, to have the property READY for family members for early summer. That's a bit rich. And not in keeping with the law re due notice of termination. If it smells like a cowboy, it is. Why would you cooperate with one?

ted1

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot ......

An Ri rua

kceire wrote: »

I’ve been involved in many enforcement cases where the complaint was for the creation of access etc

What was done inside the boundary line was ignored by the council.
But, DLR have a byelaw I believe that prohibits the conversion to hard standing greater than 50% but I believe you can get around it by using permeable paving, similar to the UK. You can completely pave your garden using permeable materials.

I am not aware of a single property that has had any form of enforcement for paving their front gardens.

This is to be concrete or tar, lawn dug out by mini diggers and will take between 3-5 days. Very disruptive. Unnecessary and very far removed from peaceable enjoyment.

Del2005

An Ri rua wrote: »

It doesn't start. Why should he, immediately, for something he hasn't planned not is needed?

Anyone who cares about a classic will have it running or in storage, not running and parked on a driveway it's a junker.

You are fighting the wrong fight BTW. The incorrect notice period is what you should be worried about not what happens to the gardens

pwurple

It is your uncles home, until he vacates it. Why is he agreeing to leave early, are they paying him to break the term early?

Tell them to wait until he is gone, and it is back in their hands before they go digging the place up. And do not move the car unless it suits him. A classic car can get easily damaged on a roadside, no doubt that is why he has it parked in the driveway.

It's actually pretty outrageous. You don't rent something to someone and start meddling with it while they are still using it and have paid for that time.

No, not on at all.

Fccwontletmebe

Will do in future, apologies.

micar

An Ri rua wrote: »

This is to be concrete or tar, lawn dug out by mini diggers and will take between 3-5 days. Very disruptive. Unnecessary and very far removed from peaceable enjoyment.

Seriously.......get over yourself. 3-5 days is nothing

Your points you're making are absolutely ridiculous

Graham

Mod Note

Fccwontletmebe, we expect a reasonable standard of posting here in A & P.

That wasn't it.

Please read the forum charter before posting again.

Wesser

If he is going to be moving out anyway... then why is it bothering him what the garden is like for the last few weeks...

An Ri rua

Del2005 wrote: »

Anyone who cares about a classic will have it running or in storage, not running and parked on a driveway it's a junker.

You are fighting the wrong fight BTW. The incorrect notice period is what you should be worried about not what happens to the gardens

Correct, it's a 'future classic'!! It does not start either and can't.
He wants the lawns and the peace and quiet of the home until he leaves in 7 months time. He's not going anywhere before that.
But he rented the house for the lawns and garden. In my mind, a rental is supposed to be maintained in the same condition, as when first transferred, by both sides. Anything less is a con. If not consented to.

An Ri rua

Wesser wrote: »

If he is going to be moving out anyway... then why is it bothering him what the garden is like for the last few weeks...

He's not moving anywhere for at least 7 months from when he receives a valid notice of termination? Apologies if my posts didn't make that clear. What the LL wishes is not what will be happening.

An Ri rua

micar wrote: »

Seriously.......get over yourself. 3-5 days is nothing

Your points you're making are absolutely ridiculous

I wouldn't facilitate someone who trys to bulldoze someone out of their home in a third of the legal allowance. If you would, it's probably because it hasn't happened to you or yours yet.
Why would you pay full price rent for major disruption and cowboy eviction??

Ps your tone is very ignorant. Sort yourself out.

caff

Do you not need planning permission if replacing lawn with non permeable surface such as concrete or tar?

An Ri rua

Thanks for most of the posts and the spirit in which they were given.
I'm ringing Threshold in the morning for him to sé é if this breaches peaceable enjoyment. From what I've read, if no consent is given, it can't happen. I'm advising him to leave the car as is. They can't make him move it, until a valid notice of termination is served and then 196 days passes and they can't touch it.

An Ri rua

pwurple wrote: »

It is your uncles home, until he vacates it. Why is he agreeing to leave early, are they paying him to break the term early?

Tell them to wait until he is gone, and it is back in their hands before they go digging the place up. And do not move the car unless it suits him. A classic car can get easily damaged on a roadside, no doubt that is why he has it parked in the driveway.

It's actually pretty outrageous. You don't rent something to someone and start meddling with it while they are still using it and have paid for that time.

No, not on at all.

Thanks for the supportive view. Very common sense. What's paid for is his.

Apologies to all if I didn't make it clear. He's staying put, as is his earned right, for 196 days after being served with a valid notice of termination. He's 3 years into a 7 year part 4.

An Ri rua

An Ri rua wrote: »

Thanks for the supportive view. Very common sense. What's paid for is his.

Apologies to all if I didn't make it clear. He's staying put, as is his earned right, for 196 days after being served with a valid notice of termination. He's 3 years into a 7 year part 4.

There is no such thing as a 7 year part 4 and if he is 3 years into a part 4 then it’s only a 4 year one.

An Ri rua

headtheball14 wrote: »

They are necessary at least according to the landlord. Not sure what the issue is. Is your uncle using the garden much. Are they maintaining it themselves. Can't see a huge disruption in this work really

He's using the garden a lot. He's maintained everything for 6 years. The LL or a rep, has visited 4 times in 8 years I think. They've never spent a jot, in time or money or labour. He believes their story is a ruse and they want to refurbish it for multiple renters with cars. On his time. If it's only a few days disruption, then do it on their own wallet and time, when he is forced to be gone.

I would have thought that was a logical way about it all.

Akrasia

DubCount wrote: »

This thread is everything I hate about the current Irish Rental Market. This is what years of under-supply and over-regulation have done. For whatever reason, there is a falling out between the landlord and the tenant. It happens. In stead of being able to sit down, come to an agreement, or shake hands and agree to part ways, both parties are stuck with each other. The tenant cant leave because there is nowhere else to rent, and the Landlord cant force the tenant to leave due to a constantly growing set of regulations. Its like they are caught in a bad marriage without being allowed to divorce.

As we are where we are, I don't believe there is anything stopping the Landlord doing the works. He has given reasonable notice and it does not look like a major inconvenience. The tenant can try going to the RTB to claim it is an attempt at a constructive eviction and a failure of the Landlord to allow peaceful enjoyment of the property. Ultimately though, how have we gotten to a situation where laying a pavement and moving a car should require the intervention of the RTB, or even a thread looking for advice.

If a landlord wants an investment property that doesn’t involve consideration about the rights of other human beings then they should consider starting a stamp collection.

This is not just a ‘property’ it’s this persons home that they have maintained and lived in for 8 years.

But then ‘business is business’