Does LL have to offer tenancy back at same rental rate?

Megwepz

Quick Question -

Landlord issued notice stating his son was moving into the property and tenant had to vacate. Whole thing was very stressful, LL first said tenant had a month to vacate (had been model tenant for 5 years), then refused to issue correct documents until tenant got legal advice.

Surprise, surprise (definitely not) - the son has not moved in and the house has been listed again 6 months later at €300.00 per month above what the tenant was paying.

Tenant is legally entitled to have the tenancy offered to her again as the LL did not follow through with the reasoning outlined in the notice documents. BUT is he only obligated to offer the tenancy back with the increase of €300 per month or at the original rental the tenant was paying?

Dial Hard

Is the house in an RPZ?

Megwepz

No - not in RPZ

aidan364

Megwepz wrote: »

Quick Question -

Landlord issued notice stating his son was moving into the property and tenant had to vacate. Whole thing was very stressful, LL first said tenant had a month to vacate (had been model tenant for 5 years), then refused to issue correct documents until tenant got legal advice.

Surprise, surprise (definitely not) - the son has not moved in and the house has been listed again 6 months later at €300.00 per month above what the tenant was paying.

Tenant is legally entitled to have the tenancy offered to her again as the LL did not follow through with the reasoning outlined in the notice documents. BUT is he only obligated to offer the tenancy back with the increase of €300 per month or at the original rental the tenant was paying?

If there was no work carried out on the house as far as I know it should be offered back to the tenant at the rate in which they were renting. I'm sure there is some loophole that will get them out of it though. It is definitely worth fighting it with either the RTB or WRC.

HeidiHeidi

But if it's not in a RPZ, does it matter?

Landlord can increase the rent at will, no?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but even if the tenant was offered it back at the old rent, it could just be increased the next month anyhow.

The_Conductor

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

But if it's not in a RPZ, does it matter?

Landlord can increase the rent at will, no?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but even if the tenant was offered it back at the old rent, it could just be increased the next month anyhow.

They'd just have to show that the new rent level was in keeping with rents in the general area- and supply a list of comparable local properties and what are being let for.

Megwepz

To be honest, the tenant doesn't want the property back. The LL hit the tenant when she was really down. She had signed a new contract with long term partner (10 yrs+) and 2 months later they split. Tenant asked LL to reissue the contract in her name only and then this is when the LL announced that his son was moving in. It was just very callous of them to hit the tenant when she was vulnerable and it caused huge upheaval in her life.

Just wondering where she stands now that the inevitable happened and the son did not move in - I know its a bit callous but the tenant does not want the house back but does want to make life difficult for the greedy LL.

Ray Palmer

Megwepz wrote: »

To be honest, the tenant doesn't want the property back. The LL hit the tenant when she was really down. She had signed a new contract with long term partner (10 yrs+) and 2 months later they split. Tenant asked LL to reissue the contract in her name only and then this is when the LL announced that his son was moving in. It was just very callous of them to hit the tenant when she was vulnerable and it caused huge upheaval in her life.

Just wondering where she stands now that the inevitable happened and the son did not move in - I know its a bit callous but the tenant does not want the house back but does want to make life difficult for the greedy LL.

If she had a contract he couldn't kick her out for the son. It sounds like you might be mixing up certain details. Was it a contract or the tenancy she wanted updated?

Megwepz

The couple had signed a new tenancy agreement 2 months prior and as far as I am aware they were well within their rights to issue notice for the son moving in as long as the correct documents were issued along with the correct notice period relevant to the 5+ years they had been there?

Ray Palmer

Megwepz wrote: »

The couple had signed a new tenancy agreement 2 months prior and as far as I am aware they were well within their rights to issue notice for the son moving in as long as the correct documents were issued along with the correct notice period relevant to the 5+ years they had been there?

That doesn't make sense. They either signed a contract lease or just provided updated details. They couldn't signed a contract and it be legal for the landlord to move his son in. The lease would be for a set time and cannot be broken for regulations relating being a tenant.

Megwepz

The signed a new contract/tenancy agreement (really not sure which or what the difference is?) for another year at the premises.

It is definitely legal for the LL to issue notice to the tenant during the term of the agreement if they want it for their own or family use, intends to sell the property or needs to do renovations etc.

Ray Palmer

Megwepz wrote: »

The signed a new contract/tenancy agreement (really not sure which or what the difference is?) for another year at the premises.

It is definitely legal for the LL to issue notice to the tenant during the term of the agreement if they want it for their own or family use, intends to sell the property or needs to do renovations etc.

Not if they signed a lease. If they were legally advised it was legal then they didn't have a lease.

Megwepz

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not if they signed a lease. If they were legally advised it was legal then they didn't have a lease.

No, that’s not strictly true. There are certain circumstances where the LL can issue notice within the term of the lease (like selling/moving in etc). Info here https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

runawaybishop

Megwepz wrote: »

No, that’s not strictly true. There are certain circumstances where the LL can issue notice within the term of the lease (like selling/moving in etc). Info here https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

That's for part 4, not a lease. A fixed term lease cannot be broken early unless the lease specifically has break clauses.

You friend should speak to the RTB.

The_Conductor

Megwepz wrote: »

No, that’s not strictly true. There are certain circumstances where the LL can issue notice within the term of the lease (like selling/moving in etc). Info here https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

It has to be specifically stated within the lease, and even then- it cannot detract in any manner from the rights a tenant has under the amended Residential Tenancies Act. A tenant cannot sign away rights they have under the Act in their lease- while a landlord can........

Megwepz

runawaybishop wrote: »

You friend should speak to the RTB.

Sorry, I’m not clear on the difference between part 4 and a lease, apologies if I’m coming across a bit dim. All I know is they signed a new contract/lease/agreement for another 1 year term but I really don’t know what the exact document was. She is going to call the RTB tomorrow.

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. They either signed a contract lease or just provided updated details. They couldn't signed a contract and it be legal for the landlord to move his son in. The lease would be for a set time and cannot be broken for regulations relating being a tenant.

The lease could have any number of break clauses, I’d see it as a major oversight by any LL who stupidly gives fixed term leases not to have multiple break clauses such as family moving in.

whisky_galore

He is obliged to give first refusal of the back on the rental market property. I didn't get first refusal from my LL after my 'renoviction', only found out it was back on the market by accident, fought it and got a months rent off the agency as a parting F.U. from me.

Megwepz

whisky_galore wrote: »

He is obliged to give first refusal of the back on the rental market property. I didn't get first refusal from my LL after my 'renoviction', only found out it was back on the market by accident, fought it and got a months rent off the agency as a parting F.U. from me.

Did you go through the RTB or resolve directly through the letting agency? This was a private landlord. I’m glad you didn’t just take the ‘renoviction’ lying down, people can be so unfair

whisky_galore

Megwepz wrote: »

Did you go through the RTB or resolve directly through the letting agency? This was a private landlord. I’m glad you didn’t just take the ‘renoviction’ lying down, people can be so unfair

Through the RTB, I told them my issue and they said I had a viable case. They are worth their weight in gold.
Rep from the agency (a massive well known property giant) and LL's missus were there at the hearing with their small violins, sure God love us. The hearing found in my favour, they appealed and they were compelled to comply at the second hearing.
The agency/ LL tried pulling fast ones on me in the past and I remembered their bullcrap. It was a small win but change under the couch for the likes of them.