Landlord not sharing address and Tenancy Notice Period

Dav010 wrote: »

From RTB site.

t.

I prefer to look at the regulations themselves, rather than rely faqs on the RTB .

". (1) The landlord of a house to which these Regulations apply shall—

( a ) on the commencement of a tenancy, or

( b ) where a tenancy exists on the date on which these Regulations come into operation, within two months from such date,

provide the tenant of such house with a rent book or other documentation to the like effect (referred to in either case in these Regulations as "the rent book").

(2) The landlord shall, on provision of the rent book, enter therein in clearly legible writing—

( a ) the address of the house,

( b ) the name and address of the landlord and, if the landlord has duly appointed an agent, of such agent,"

Dav010 wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/12/enacted/en/html#sec12

Section (e) allows the authorised agent to act on the LLs behalf in relation to the tenancy.

What if agency say go to LL?

What if lease clause say LL is contact for any notice under lease?

Dav010 wrote: »

According to the Act, an agent authorised to act on behalf of the LL can do so in matters relating to the tenancy, that would seem to include notice. In the ops case, bare in mind the op is gone, I think the Agent passed the notice on to the LL but the op still insisted on the LLs address.

OP could not serve notice to anyone. It was a ping pong. Lease read give notice to contact in clause x. Clause X read it as LL. He never got the address.

Agent can act, if applicable is an alternative, not the ONLY RECOURSE. Lease had a specific clause and hence general rule of thumb is irrelevant.

Irrespective of above, OP had asked agency whom should he serve a notice agency or LL. Agency point OP to LL. Agency acted in a certain way which also supports point above.

Sorry, I m new into law circle and going through posts to use it as a learning experience of law readings :-). You're good and possibly a LLM?

Dav010 wrote: »

Pandas, I’ll be honest, I found this thread and the op’s line of thinking hard to follow first time around. And the PMs I have do point to a degree of misunderstanding of how notice is served, and to who, so I can’t really engage in a conversation which supports or rejects the op’s opinion.

Suffice to say, the Act does allow an Agent authorised by the LL to act on their behalf in all matters relating to the tenancy. So the tenant can give written notice to the authorised Agent.

Beyond that, Claw Hammer may have a different, and more valid viewpoint.

See I told you. You are good.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That section only mandates the landlord to tell the tenant who the agent is. It does not give powers to the agent.

“the “authorised agent”) who is authorised by the landlord to act on his or her behalf in relation to the tenancy”

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That assumes there has been an agent appointed through some other means. It is not a section giving powers to an agent. A landlord can't secretly have an agent. The agent has to be duly appointed. There are restrictions on who can act as an agent.

A secret agent?

Link to restrictions please.

That Act says it can be a “person, if any, (the “authorised agent”) who is authorised by the landlord to act on his or her behalf in relation to the tenancy”

I see no mention of restrictions on the person.

pandaa wrote: »

So, OP was right in asking for LL address. OP in his PM said that LL verbally said he did not give address because of bad expe of other in the past.

Leaving verbal part aside, OP was nt given address, was offered rent reduction which was rolled back and offered again, which he refused, due to trust issues.

So, who wins?

The crux of the op’s issue is that he/she insisted, whether rightly or wrongly, that notice be sent directly to the LL, when the Act allows for it to be sent to the Agent acting on the LLs behalf.

The op confirmed that the notice was passed by the EA to the LL, yet this was not acceptable to the op. Had the LL taken a dispute to the RTB, provided the notice was written and for the correct period, it’s fair to assume that the RTB would have concluded it was valid.

My understanding is that initially the notice was sent to the EA via email, this is not valid as it must be written. I explained this to the op, notice must always be written, again, his/her experience in another country was that it could be given via phone/email.

pandaa wrote: »

Where did OP Insisted? He asked agency for who?

OP simply asked agency, who is the contact point is it agency or LL. Agency simply gave LL's number. Agency also said offices are closed. of us.

how can OP insist when LEASE SAID, nptice should be sent to person in clause x which had name of LL.

He acted diligently by asking agency whom should I serve? No right or wrong question here at all.He shared PM with both

Seems we're in a court room. My Lord :-)

I’m sorry, the op has been removed and contained more detail.

Dav010 wrote: »

A secret agent?

Link to restrictions please.

That Act says it can be a “person, if any, (the “authorised agent”) who is authorised by the landlord to act on his or her behalf in relation to the tenancy”

I see no mention of restrictions on the person.

The property services regulatory act specifies who can act as an agent providing a property service.
The import of that section you are quoting is the landlord can't rely on the act or default of some person of whom the tenant is unaware.

Dav010 wrote: »

The RTA does not distinguish who the “person” can be, only that they are then acting as, and designated as the LLs “Agent”. Is there anything in the Act to prohibit a relative or a friend being that “person”

It has nothing to do with the RTA.
property Services Regulation Act 2011
28.— (1) A person shall not—

(a) provide a property service,

(b) hold himself or herself out as available to provide a property service, or

(c) represent himself or herself by—

(i) advertisement, or

(ii) displaying any card or other object purporting to indicate that he or she is a licensee,

as available to provide a property service,

unless the person is the holder of a licence which is in force in respect of that property service.

Dav010 wrote: »

There is nothing in the RTA that says the person authorised to act on behalf of the LL has to be a property service provider.

Interpretation:


“authorised agent” shall be construed in accordance with section 12 (1)(e);


e) notify the tenant of the name of the person, if any, (the “authorised agent”) who is authorised by the landlord to act on his or her behalf in relation to the tenancy for the time being,

The relevant legislation is not the RTA. The 2011 act delimits who can act as a service provider. The RTA presumeS whoever provides the service is doing so in accordance with law. The wheel doesn't have to be re-invented to define an agent under every piece of legislation which refers to an agent.
A property service is defined in the 2011 Act by reference to the 2009 land and conveyancing act.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The relevant legislation is not the RTA. The 2011 act delimits who can act as a service provider. The RTA presumeS whoever provides the service is doing so in accordance with law. The wheel doesn't have to be re-invented to define an agent under every piece of legislation which refers to an agent.
A property service is defined in the 2011 Act by reference to the 2009 land and conveyancing act.

Again, could you please show me where the Act stipulates that a LL can only authorise a Property Service Provider to act on their behalf. Whomever is acting on behalf of the LL is bound by the RTA regulations irrespective of who they are.

I take your point that if an EA is authorised to act on the LLs behalf, the must comply with the Proerty Service Provider regs, but you have posted nothing which requires the authorised person to be an EA.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/40/enacted/en/print

I have already posted the section which restricts the provision of services to persons holding a licence. The definition of property service is given in the definitions sections. Anybody acting as an agent must have a licence.

But it is not a requirement of the RTA that says the LL has to nominate a Property Service Provider, in fact, it limits it to a “person” not a PSP.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is not a requirement for a landlord to nominate an agent. If a landlord does nominate an agent it would be illegal for a landlord to nominate a person who is not entitled to act as such. The RTA does not attempt to define who might or might not be an agent. That is for another statutory body to deal with.

I really would like you to link to the legislation which makes it illegal for a LL to authorise anyone but a PSP to act on their behalf.

Oddly, the Property Services Act does not list the Residential Tenancies Act in its “Acts referred to” list, nor indeed does the Residential Tenancies Act list the Property Services Act. You would think if it was prohibited by the PSA for a LL to authorise anyone to Act on your behalf during a tenancy, it would be referred to in the RTA.

I do agree with you that if an EA is used to let the property, they must be licensed but that does not mean the LL cannot authorise any other person to be their authorised agent during the tenancy. If the LL let the property themselves, they do not have to authorise a PSP to act on their behalf.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Letting of property is a property service. A person who provides a property service must be licensed. If a landlord engages an unlicensed person the landlord is conspiring to commit a criminal offence. Conspiracy is a common law offence.
The property services act amended older legislation. There was no need for it to amend the RTA. When the RTA means duly appointed, it refers to an appointment to the law then in force.

The property services act would be meaningless if the RTA allowed a coach and four to be driven through it. You would have to construe the Property services act as meaning a property service is the letting of property other than property to which the RTA applies. That of course would be nonsense.

So an old granny, who gets their son to act as an agent and lets out their house on their behalf when they move in to sheltered accommodation. Both they and their son are guilty of a criminal offence?