Thoughts on this letting.

If he committed to doing the work to meet the HAP requirements and didn't, the risk is to HAP won't continue to be paid for that property.

Tbh letting the issue run 4.5 years might work against the tenant in terms of any potential compensation. I wouldn't be counting on it.

Is there a lease?

I wont comment on the likelihood of getting a partial rent refund or not because I've no experience in those matters.

But I'm amazed they let the HAP begin in the first place in any house that doesn't meet their requirements?

Yes but you mentioned that it was promised at the very start, so was it not in breach of HAP requirements at the beginning of the lease?

I don't understand why they would allow HAP lease to begin in a property that didn't meet standards from Day 1?

If the HAP inspection found things not in compliance, and the landlord didnt sort them, the council can fine him afaik. If he cant afford to get the work done then he probably has to sell or ask tenants to leave as it's probably illegal to rent as it is.

What happens then, can tenants stay in a non-compliant/unsafe property or does the landlord get a certain amount of time to do the repairs?

What were the works to the garden that weren't done? Is it a front or back garden or both? If it was general maintenance and tidy-up and the lease says it's the landlord responsibility then he should have organised regular maintenance. The RTB website says a tenant can organise repairs / maintenance that are the landlords responsibility and get a refund of the cost from the landlord. Presume tenant would agree to deduct it from the rent and send a receipt.

Otoh, if LL said something vague at the start about hoping to do landscaping works at some stage and didn't do it, that might be different as it may have been a 'nice to have' but not a specific term of the contract.

As regards the notice to quit, it must be on the official form plus a statutory declaration when selling or its not valid. RTB now need a copy also. The LL sounds like he doesnt understand his legal obligations if he gave 160 days notice then tried to change it.

No, because of the one sided rights and the effort and cost involved for landlords to exercise their own rights.

Simpler example.

Say you had a business where you made €100 per day and did 8 hours amount of work for that every day.

That business is going fine for a few years. You do your 8 hours and you get €100 every day.

So imagine one day the law changed that you cant increase your prices by more than €2, but suddenly you had people not paying for the goods you made and your costs went up.

You would try and get over the hump for a while, but you are on a loser.

Then add into it that you now have to put in loads of effort and cost to chase people who wont pay, but still you can only increase your prices by €2.

Then add into the mix that you have had enough and want to sell your business. but one of your customers decides they want you to keep your business open for them because they can get what you produce cheaper than the shop next door.

So now you have to go to court and jump through hoops for years to just sell your business. Its no longer the 8 hours for €100 simple business model anymore. you want out.

Can you see how the hassle and the potential minefield of RTB, courts, sheriffs etc, might make your once attractive business unattractive.

Well thats whats happened to landlords. Its also happening to Doctors and nurses too, but thats beside the point.

Myself and my family are in receipt of HAP.

First rule of HAP - maintain VERY good relations with the LL.

HAP is very tenous - we are dependant on both the CC AND the LL for a home. When we moved in, the CC had a survey of the house done and a load of improvements were necessary to bring it up to spec, however the house has always been perfectly livable for us, so I ignored the list.

If internal maintenance needs to be done - I do it.

Whenever we needed anything comfort based - mattress, hoover, sofa - we bought it ourselves (having told the LL first of course).

Of course the LL has done things like replace the dishwasher and bring in plumbers, fix the roof flashing etc.

It's utterly critical to keep the LL sweet.

This tenant has rocked the boat and pissed the LL off.

The tenant will end up evicted.

Asking for money for an unused portion of the garden? That is taking the piss and throwing it on the fire.

Agree the tenant should have got 180 days notice if they're in the house 4.5 years so the LL can't change the NoT to 60 days because he feels like it. Was the problem about the lack of garden work only raised because of the termination notice as it wasn't such a major problem up to now if tenants were still living there? Either way, LL should have got it sorted if it was in the council report.

Tbf, the tenant has a valid grievance about the 60 days, but the LL will probably want them gone after an RTB case and will make sure every notice is correct in future.