Notice 196 days

Personally, i would not bring a dispute against the ll. Your being given plenty of notice to vacate and you want to dispute it on a technicality. You have more than likely been with the ll for a number of years and if you do something like this, as others have mentioned, your name will be publicly viewable on RTB site(i check this every time i have a new tenant) and you may also fail to get a reference.

sacamano wrote: »

Great the know that renters are protected in this country where if they have a valid complaint to make (not saying the above is/isn't valid), they're reminded of the fact that their name appears on the PRTB site and will most likely go against you down the line.

Maybe the landlord in this case just wants to bump up the rent but is using the old rennovating/moving back in line.

Legally the customer is within their rights to dispute this and its completely their choice.

The ll here is clearly not trying to abuse the system and is mistakingly giving a notice without one technicality. If the tenant was given a months notice and lived there for 10 years, that would be a completely different story and i would telling them to dispute this.

Im just pointing out the obvious and the reality of the repercussions if they do decide to dispute it especially for a frivolous dispute like this.

I as a ll would read this if i saw their name on the RTB site would read this as BE CAREFUL with what you say to the tenant as they will most certainly use it against me while most tenants and ll alike will be decent and give lea-way. Its a too way street as well and you dont see many ll disputing notices when say a tenant informs the ll by text or by talking to them they want to leave when officially it should be all written on paper. Most people though accept this from both sides especially if you have a good relationship.

A lot of landlords have never had it so good. They have record high rents, combined with record low interest rates allied with intense demand keeping vacancy rates at the bare minimum.

Dav010 wrote: »

Strange that so many are leaving the market then, I wonder why that is?

They are mostly Johnny Come-Latelys who bought into a story.

info13 wrote: »

Why wouldn’t raise/ at least question it?

Yes I’m finding it very difficult to get a place.

As others have said, it's past the point of raising with the RTB, so the only options you have is to go back to the landlord, or overhold.

Depending on your relationship with the landlord, maybe ask for an extension. The worst he can do is say no.

If that doesn't work out, I'd ask for the declaration. You still have a right to first refusal if he moves out within 6 months, and if nothing else the declaration will remind him of that. At least then, you have the possibility of a place in 6 months time, even if it is a very remote possibility. (I'm assuming he hasn't already covered these rights in the termination notice.)

I wouldn't suggest overholding, if for no other reason than you'll likely need a reference from him for your new place. And in this market, new landlords will easily, and understandably, pick someone with good references over someone without.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A lot of landlords have never had it so good. They have record high rents, combined with record low interest rates allied with intense demand keeping vacancy rates at the bare minimum.

Oh yeh I had it so brilliantly I am getting out!!!!!!!

kceire wrote: »

Nonsense.
Either back up this rubbish or withdraw it.

Most of the people complaining bought from 2003 on. People who ought in the 80's and 90's paid very small money for their properties. Apartments in Mountjoy Square from 50k in the mid 90's with S23 allowances meaning the real price was about 35k. They now have their loans paid off, are sittig on considerable capital gain and have record breaking rents. The have never had it so ggod!

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Property is a long term investment. There has been very little buy to let since 2008. The years between 2003 and 2008 are the pweriod when the Johnny come Lately's appeared. At the end of the party. Buying when interest rates were 7% now means that the landlords are paying little or nothing in repayments against which there are much higher rents. 500 per month is now then is now 1500. when has it been better?
Who said anything about €64K.

What is wrong with wanting to earn money? It doesnt matter what they paid for them x years ago. All that matters is that right now, you have an asset worth y and generating z. Is it worth your time,money and hearth ache to continue down this path. When you invest, you will loose and win at different points in your life. If you idle on the past, you will never move forward and your not a good investor as a result. Some people could have a 100k in a loss of a house/share and they hold on hoping to break even instead of just realising that loss and then reinvesting elsewhere.

If they have a house that is now fully paid off, yes they should be earning some money, whats honestly wrong with that? They have put blood sweat and tears into it for the bulk of 2-3 decades and you reap what you sow. A lot of people begrudge others doing better than them or people who make sacrifices and dont spend all their money on drink, holidays abroad or a new car every 3 years.

You seem to be dodging the question that davo ask earlier.. If they have it so good why is there a total declining market of available rentals?

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Who said there was?

You appear to be complaining that their rent has gone from 500 to 1500 etc

Dav010 wrote: »

The average investment mortgage term is 25 years, how could someone who bought 16 years ago, nearly 2 thirds the average length of a mortgage be a “JCL”? It’s nonsense.

In 1995 you were buying in punts, £50k would be over €64k including fees. Simples.

Someone who bought in 2003 bought into a story that the only way is up. Investors who bought in 1995 bought in at a ;ow point. They are not complaining
now. They have never had it so good. I have looked at the Allsop/Bidx1 online auctions for a few years. Most of the sales are receiver sales and the mortgages were taken out or were remortgages in 2007 in a vast percentage of the properties listed.

pc7 wrote: »

Some are now asking for references from last two landlords to overcome this.

Thats exactly what i do if im up in the air about a new tenant. If they decline, its one other way to remove them from the list.

mrslancaster wrote: »

Fair enough if they decline but what if it's their first time renting or they only have one previous LL?

Do LL's here ever ask for guarantors, say from parents? Afaik that happens in other countries.

Well if i have multiple people interested, i need to separate them if they are close relative to other aspects of their cv. Yes its basically tough luck if its their first time renting.

College accommodation sometimes looks for guarantors. Id be ok with a guarantor if it actually meant anything in the legislation. Its difficult enough to get money directly off the tenant let alone a third party.

martyoo wrote: »

That's not the LL's problem. They can be fussy in this market and should be too considering how hard it can be to get bad tenants out.

Fair point but we all have to start somewhere.

agree that both LL's and tenants need to protect their interests and if the rules are pro tenant as many think then LL's need to stick exactly to the rules to reduce their risk.

for instance in the OP both were at fault - the LL didn't give the required statutory declaration & the tenant didnt dispute it within the allowed time.

of course they can agree between themselves that the 196 days NOT is ok but if that can be challenged later on then the 'LL has a risk and has to decide. everyone needs to stick exactly to the rules to cover themselves.

Renting was very different years & everyone has to adapt. iirc, it was more relaxed and there was a bit of trust on both sides. Or maybe we were just lucky.