Termination Letter from landlord with multiple properties

29-11-2019 7:21pm

fash wrote: »

Good point: goes to the genuineness of the need notified.

Surely the “need” will be satisfied by the daughter moving in? If she had a place to live, she wouldn’t occupy the ops apartment. I really don’t get why you/op are using this as a pillar of your dispute, it is easy for the LL to prove the accommodation was needed, he just shows proof that she took up occupancy.

She may need the apartment at the time the ops notice expires, other apartments may not be available then. Surely the op is not going to argue an apartment available now should be held empty for 6 months or that the LL should discount his daughters need until one becomes vacant after that?

fash · 29-11-2019 7:33pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Surely the “need” will be satisfied by the daughter moving in? If she had a place to live, she wouldn’t occupy the ops apartment. I really don’t get why you/op are using this as a pillar of your dispute, it is easy for the LL to prove the accommodation was needed, he just shows proof that she took up occupancy.

She may need the apartment at the time the ops notice expires, other apartments may not be available then. Surely the op is not going to argue an apartment available now should be held empty for 6 months or that the LL should discount his daughters need until one becomes vacant after that?

No it wouldn't. The issue is not whether factually a person moves in, it is whether it is genuine or not. Considering the LL sought to illegally increase rent, then sought to remove tenant based on renovations, then sought to remove tenant based on family member- while having multiple properties available- many of which are far more suitable for the actual requirements of the daughter versus a small studio and where the LL has had various adverse findings at the RTB based on mistreatment of tenants - I think you will agree that only someone quite gullible would believe that there was a genuine need on this particular occasion.

29-11-2019 8:18pm

fash wrote: »

No it wouldn't. The issue is not whether factually a person moves in, it is whether it is genuine or not. Considering the LL sought to illegally increase rent, then sought to remove tenant based on renovations, then sought to remove tenant based on family member- while having multiple properties available- many of which are far more suitable for the actual requirements of the daughter versus a small studio and where the LL has had various adverse findings at the RTB based on mistreatment of tenants - I think you will agree that only someone quite gullible would believe that there was a genuine need on this particular occasion.

Need will be genuine if the daughter moves in, if she doesn’t, then the op has a slam dunk.

Sought, yes, did he give notice of rent increase? No.

You say multiple properties available, they might be available now, they may not be in when the daughter needs it in 6 months time.

I agree with you, this seems obvious that the op is being forced out because the LL wants higher rent. But the fact is that there is a clear avenue to remove a Part 4 tenant if a family member needs the property, irrespective of the number of properties owned. The ops tenancy relates to this property and I’m not convinced that the RTB can dictate that another property that is vacant now should be used in 6 months time, or that another tenancy should be effected to give the daughter a place to stay.

davindub · 29-11-2019 8:32pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Need will be genuine if the daughter moves in, if she doesn’t, then the op has a slam dunk.

Sought, yes, did he give notice of rent increase? No.

You say multiple properties available, they might be available now, they may not be in when the daughter needs it in 6 months time.

I agree with you, this seems obvious that the op is being forced out because the LL wants higher rent. But the fact is that there is a clear avenue to remove a Part 4 tenant if a family member needs the property, irrespective of the number of properties owned. The ops tenancy relates to this property and I’m not convinced that the RTB can dictate that another property that is vacant now should be used in 6 months time, or that another tenancy should be effected to give the daughter a place to stay.

Whether or not the daugther moves in would be irrelevant I believe. You could have a situation where 2 identical apartments are owned by the same landlord, one is subject to a tenancy, one is vacant. Would you say the landlord needs to terminate the tenancy to house the family member where they can just move them into the vacant unit?

It's not a loophole that landlords can use to their advantage, it is genuinely part of the legislation but the wording is vague enough to allow the RTB decide on a case by case basis. And I think the LL's behaviour to date will be entirely relevant to the determination on the matter.

Curious1002 · 29-11-2019 8:44pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Sought, yes, did he give notice of rent increase? No.

You say multiple properties available, they might be available now, they may not be in when the daughter needs it in 6 months time.

The ops tenancy relates to this property and I’m not convinced that the RTB can dictate that another property that is vacant now should be used in 6 months time, or that another tenancy should be effected to give the daughter a place to stay.

Just to explain.
1. No formal notice of increase was given to me. Can you imagine LL with 25 year + experience in the property business issuing me a formal letter asking 75% of increase? It would be a laugh. He is not that naive.
It was done verbally, but I recorded it when things started to get heated. So I do have evidence to prove the conversation took place, date and the content.

2. Apts in here become vacant every month. My neighbour confided in me that his apt. will be vacant in April 2020, perfectly the time I become homeless. Isn't that a fantastic coincidence to satisfy all parties? Not, if the LL's motive is to get rid of me for good from the entire development, though. I will suggest to LL my April's move to the neighbour's apt to see his response.
There are only 2 possibilities:
1. If he says yes - happy days. I will keep an eye on the daughter though, which if it's a sham will be hard to swallow by my LL.
2. If he says no - it will clearly show the motive. Why would he say no if his reasons were genuine? The Tribunal will see that I had tried to resolve this problem in the most efficient and easy way for both sides but was met with the LL's unwillingness. I would plant a seed in the judges' heads as to why someone would refuse such arrangements if they benefited both sides. It will show the ingenuity of the LL's actions and that's my aim.

29-11-2019 8:45pm

davindub wrote: »

Whether or not the daugther moves in would be irrelevant I believe. You could have a situation where 2 identical apartments are owned by the same landlord, one is subject to a tenancy, one is vacant. Would you say the landlord needs to terminate the tenancy to house the family member where they can just move them into the vacant unit?

It's not a loophole that landlords can use to their advantage, it is genuinely part of the legislation but the wording is vague enough to allow the RTB decide on a case by case basis. And I think the LL's behaviour to date will be entirely relevant to the determination on the matter.

On the contrary, it is precisely designed to be used by a landlord to use to their advantage to house a family member. You, me, the op and every else here knows what is going on here. But an apartment vacant now is not the same as an apartment vacant in 6 months. A LL can’t just move a family member in today, they have to give notice and plan for when the property is needed, the daughter may not need it today, she may need it in 6 months, as is the norm as far as the RTB is concerned.

I’ll ask you the same question as I asked the op, do you think an apartment vacant today should be kept vacant for 6 months if the LLs daughter needs it in May? All the LL has to do is show that, if she moves in then, need is satisfied.

Curious1002 · 29-11-2019 8:47pm

davindub wrote: »

Whether or not the daugther moves in would be irrelevant I believe. You could have a situation where 2 identical apartments are owned by the same landlord, one is subject to a tenancy, one is vacant. Would you say the landlord needs to terminate the tenancy to house the family member where they can just move them into the vacant unit?

It's not a loophole that landlords can use to their advantage, it is genuinely part of the legislation but the wording is vague enough to allow the RTB decide on a case by case basis. And I think the LL's behaviour to date will be entirely relevant to the determination on the matter.

Very good point, explained in a crystal clear way. I am going to use that analogy in my dispute. Big thanks!

29-11-2019 8:55pm

Based on the fact that a dispute is based on an individual tenancy, does the RTB have the scope to consider other properties when dealing with a dispute on a particular registered tenancy?

davindub · 29-11-2019 8:55pm

Dav010 wrote: »

On the contrary, it is precisely designed to be used by a landlord to use to their advantage to house a family member. You, me, the op and every else here knows what is going on here. But an apartment vacant now is not the same as an apartment vacant in 6 months. A LL can’t just move a family member in today, they have to give notice and plan for when the property is needed, the daughter may not need it today, she may need it in 6 months, as is the norm as far as the RTB is concerned.

I’ll ask you the same question as I asked the op, do you think an apartment vacant today should be kept vacant for 6 months if the LLs daughter needs it in May? All the LL has to do is show that, if she moves in then, need is satisfied.

Oh perhaps? But more likely a decision will be made depending on the circumstances of the case. It would be just easier for the LL to do a short term let and use the vacant apartment rather than terminating a part 4 tenancy?

Any number of arguments really for either side, but one thing that the RTB is known for is protecting tenancies. I'd recommend you read the duniyva case, it does give some guidance we can use.

29-11-2019 8:57pm

davindub wrote: »

Oh perhaps? But more likely a decision will be made depending on the circumstances of the case. It would be just easier for the LL to do a short term let and use the vacant apartment rather than terminating a part 4 tenancy?

Any number of arguments really for either side, but one thing that the RTB is known for is protecting tenancies. I'd recommend you read the duniyva case, it does give some guidance we can use.

I did, as you said it was comment, nothing more, the tenant was unsuccessful.

Curious1002 · 29-11-2019 8:59pm

Dav010 wrote: »

I’ll ask you the same question as I asked the op, do you think an apartment vacant today should be kept vacant for 6 months if the LLs daughter needs it in May? All the LL has to do is show that, if she moves in then, need is satisfied.

I am sorry but I dont get it. I have to be out in mid March. She moves in then. My neighbour apt. is vacant on 1 April. I will jump in to his apt. in April. All parties win.

I am not sure if i understand what apts stay empty for 6 months? I wouldnt want any place to stay empty and wait that long. Every month at least 1 apt. becomes empty here cos old people move out, new move in. Let's imagine that Neighbour 1 moves out on 1 March and Neighbour B on 1 April. My LL can rent out the apt. 1 to someone who wants it but Apt. 2 would be taken by me in April.

The Student · 29-11-2019 9:15pm

Curious1002 wrote: »

I am sorry but I dont get it. I have to be out in mid March. She moves in then. My neighbour apt. is vacant on 1 April. I will jump in to his apt. in April. All parties win.

I am not sure if i understand what apts stay empty for 6 months? I wouldnt want any place to stay empty and wait that long. Every month at least 1 apt. becomes empty here cos old people move out, new move in. Let's imagine that Neighbour 1 moves out on 1 March and Neighbour B on 1 April. My LL can rent out the apt. 1 to someone who wants it but Apt. 2 would be taken by me in April.

What if he wants to sell the apartment that is becoming vacant and also wants an apartment for his daughter.

Curious1002 · 29-11-2019 9:26pm

The Student wrote: »

What if he wants to sell the apartment that is becoming vacant and also wants an apartment for his daughter.

He would have to prove that he is taking steps to sell it, even harder than a "daughter" reason to prove. I dont see it coming any time soon. Imagine, he would have 29 apts and 1 "foreign" within the same building. If he planned to sell anything, he would have used this excuse on me.

No, this is absolutely a no-go option.

Curious1002 · 29-11-2019 9:48pm

Curious1002 wrote: »

No, this is absolutely a no-go option.

Actually, now I think he would indeed use the "sell" option if the "daughter" case collapses

It would have been the last available alternative he has left.
I think media would love to get involved at that stage too. My LL and I would be famous!

Curious1002 · 29-11-2019 9:58pm

I have 2 questions.

Let's imagine this.

My termination date is Mid March 2020. The daughter is ready to move in in April 2020. I move out in mid December 2019 though cos I found an alternative accommodation elsewhere.

1. Can my LL rent my apt out to someone else for a short term until April 2020 until the daughter is ready to move in?

2. If the daughter changes her plans after i move out and instead of April 2020 she moves in in October 2020. Should my LL offer the apt back to me for the time being or he doesnt have to? Can he rent it out to somebody else until October 2020 when she is finally ready to move in?

fash · 29-11-2019 10:53pm

Dav010 wrote: »

On the contrary, it is precisely designed to be used by a landlord to use to their advantage to house a family member. You, me, the op and every else here knows what is going on here. But an apartment vacant now is not the same as an apartment vacant in 6 months. A LL can’t just move a family member in today, they have to give notice and plan for when the property is needed, the daughter may not need it today, she may need it in 6 months, as is the norm as far as the RTB is concerned.

I’ll ask you the same question as I asked the op, do you think an apartment vacant today should be kept vacant for 6 months if the LLs daughter needs it in May? All the LL has to do is show that, if she moves in then, need is satisfied.

It is an exceptionally conveniently timed daughter if it were even remotely plausible. It is not- hence it is not genuine. The LL will need to do significant work to rebut the amount of evidence stacked against him.

29-11-2019 10:57pm

fash wrote: »

It is an exceptionally conveniently timed daughter if it were even remotely plausible. It is not- hence it is not genuine. The LL will need to do significant work to rebut the amount of evidence stacked against him.

It is always “exceptionally timed” as far as a tenant is concerned when a LL needs a property for a family member, but it not always changes the fact.

Marcusm · 30-11-2019 2:29am

Curious1002 wrote: »

He would have to prove that he is taking steps to sell it, even harder than a "daughter" reason to prove. I dont see it coming any time soon. Imagine, he would have 29 apts and 1 "foreign" within the same building. If he planned to sell anything, he would have used this excuse on me.

No, this is absolutely a no-go option.

He can simply choose not to let to you.

30-11-2019 9:47am

Curious1002 wrote: »

I have 2 questions.

Let's imagine this.

My termination date is Mid March 2020. The daughter is ready to move in in April 2020. I move out in mid December 2019 though cos I found an alternative accommodation elsewhere.

1. Can my LL rent my apt out to someone else for a short term until April 2020 until the daughter is ready to move in?

2. If the daughter changes her plans after i move out and instead of April 2020 she moves in in October 2020. Should my LL offer the apt back to me for the time being or he doesnt have to? Can he rent it out to somebody else until October 2020 when she is finally ready to move in?

I see no reason why you could not leave early with the agreement of the LL, that would be your choice. If the LL states on his declaration that daughter needs it at the end of notice period, why would you here be an issue with a short term let up to that date, given that you decided to leave early? You could of course assign the remainder of your tenancy if you wanted to, with the LLs agreement, he might appreciate the income until his daughter moves in. Nor do I see a reason why he could not continue to rent it to you until October if that is when his daughter moves in. As long as she moves in, hard to see an issue with a valid notice of termination.

fash · 30-11-2019 10:29am

Dav010 wrote: »

It is always “exceptionally timed” as far as a tenant is concerned when a LL needs a property for a family member, but it not always changes the fact.

The tenant's perspective is irrelevant. The landlord's perspective is what matters. The LL sought to illegally increase the rent - that failed. The LL sought to illegally evict the tenant - that failed. Immediately following that the LL (who has a recorded history of illegal evictions) found a family member who have an immediate and pressing need for this particular dwelling which appears to be unsuitable for the needs of that person and while said LL appears to have a large number of available and more suitable properties.
It is those facts that the LL will now have to fight against to show good faith in his notification.

30-11-2019 10:47am

fash wrote: »

The tenant's perspective is irrelevant. The landlord's perspective is what matters. The LL sought to illegally increase the rent - that failed. The LL sought to illegally evict the tenant - that failed. Immediately following that the LL (who has a recorded history of illegal evictions) found a family member who have an immediate and pressing need for this particular dwelling which appears to be unsuitable for the needs of that person and while said LL appears to have a large number of available and more suitable properties.
It is those facts that the LL will now have to fight against to show good faith in his notification.

What are you basing all this on.

The LL did not illegally raise rent, there was no notice of rent increase, the op clearly states it was verbal, and the rent was not raised. There was no attempt to illegally evict the op, the LL issued an invalid notice for renovations, that is not illegal, acting on it is.

I am not going back to read the whole thread, I missed the recorded history of illegal evictions, what record is this? Previous RTB rulings?

Again, what has other properties got to do with the ops case? Does the RTB have scope to consider other properties/tenancies when considering a dispute on one registered tenancy? I would like to see a link to that because that would have huge implications for all LLs with more than one property, you would effectively have to bring details of all properties owned to an RTB hearing.

Can a state body rule on which property best serves a private citizen who is not party to the dispute and is not present/represented? Again, if you have a link to that, throw it up.

I’m not arguing with you about the overall picture, the LL wants the op out, the RTB are not stupid, though some rulings give that impression, they may well see what is going on, but making things up to suit your cause won’t help.

beauf · 30-11-2019 11:06am

Dav010 wrote: »

....
Again, what has other properties got to do with the ops case? Does the RTB have scope to consider other properties/tenancies when considering a dispute on one registered tenancy? .. .

That was implied earlier in the thread with a quote and link.

30-11-2019 11:22am

beauf wrote: »

That was implied earlier in the thread with a quote and link.

Sorry, I can’t find the quote/link you are saying would give the RTB scope to consider other properties/tenancies beyond the one the dispute relates to. Is it a previous RTB/Court ruling?

beauf · 30-11-2019 11:36am

meijin wrote: »

it's explained here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/14/enacted/en/html

(3) Such action may constitute penalisation even though it consists of steps taken by the landlord in the exercise of any rights conferred on him or her by or under this Act, any other enactment or the lease or tenancy agreement concerned

Like I said it was implied. It's not a perfect match. In a case referred to separately the tenant lost. There was more about it. I'm on my phone so can't find or quote easily. If be very surprised if a landlord of this size isn't very experienced at dealing with the ptb though.

It's certainly the more interesting part of this thread. But it's impossible to discuss it here.

fash · 30-11-2019 2:31pm

Dav010 wrote: »

What are you basing all this on.

The LL did not illegally raise rent, there was no notice of rent increase, the op clearly states it was verbal, and the rent was not raised.

"SOUGHT" to illegally raise.
There was notice (provided orally) - however said notice was invalid under the statute. I understand that said invalid notice was recorded by the tenant.

Dav010 wrote: »

There was no attempt to illegally evict the op, the LL issued an invalid notice for renovations, that is not illegal, acting on it is.

Since it is quite obvious-as evidenced by the fact that the LL did not simply correct said invalid notice- that the proposed works (if they were even to be undertaken which is unlikely) were intended for the illegal purpose of terminating the tenancy as punishment. In this context it is of note that the LL proposed such works for the benefit of third parties occupying the apartment (and please note that from the circumstances and current law, it is effectively impossible for such works to constitute such a substantial change to the nature of the accommodation that it would entitle the LL to a rent increase- hence such work can only realistically have been to return the accommodation to reasonably habitable condition) - but given that the LL has not corrected this notification, it appears the LL does not believe such works to be necessary for the benefit of his daughter's occupation of the accommodation.
You understand that an "attempt" to carry out an illegal activity need not go all the way to constitute an "attempt"? (Google inchoate offenses for example).

I sincerely hope you are not a landlord given the extent to which you refuse to acknowledge the duties under the law.

I am not going back to read the whole thread, I missed the recorded history of illegal evictions, what record is this? Previous RTB rulings?

Again, what has other properties got to do with the ops case? Does the RTB have scope to consider other properties/tenancies when considering a dispute on one registered tenancy?

A substantial track record of previous bad behaviour indicates that such bad behaviour is very possible and potentially probable in this instance.

Can a state body rule on which property best serves a private citizen who is not party to the dispute and is not present/represented? Again, if you have a link to that, throw it up.

Yes of course- and here is a link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)

The Student · 30-11-2019 8:11pm

fash wrote: »

"SOUGHT" to illegally raise.

Yes of course- and here is a link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)

All the above shows is a definition of what constitutes evidence for a court case be it civil or criminal. The judiciary can not over ride the property rights in the constitution regarding the rights of the owner of a property, while the RTA has gone some way to limit the rights of the property owner the judiciary can't hold the tenants rights above those of the property owned. If the property owner wants a particular property for the family member and the proper procedures have been followed as set down by the RTA 2004 (as amended) then it is legally enforceable.

If however this is a ploy to get the tenant out and replace them with someone else and is proven in the eyes of the court this then becomes a criminal matter which upon conviction risks a fine and or imprisonment.

01-12-2019 12:30pm

Curious1002 wrote: »

sure, but thanks to these recorded conversations i have a proof of his clear motive and 8 months long campaign of pushing me out.

Had you permission to record those conversations? If not then maybe he'll set his lawyers on you! Tread carefully!

Curious1002 · 01-12-2019 12:35pm

171170 wrote: »

Had you permission to record those conversations? If not then maybe he'll set his lawyers on you! Tread carefully!

Of course I did not. The conversation would not have sounded like it sounded if I told him "hey, careful man, I am recording you".

I will not disclose the recordings at first, I want them to dig a hole at the first adjudicator hearing and admit that such conversation never took place. I will then most likely lose and will appeal by adding the recording as evidence to expose his lies.

I dont know, I think I watch too much action movies!

Curious1002 · 01-12-2019 12:53pm

Here is my problem re Threshold.

When I got the invalid "substantial refurbishment" notice I listened to the Threshold advice that told me to TELL my landlord that his notice is invalid. Now I know that I shouldnt have told him that but simply open a dispute instead.
By opening a dispute I would have not only saved a lot of time to my advantage (the case would be heard probably in 7-10 weeks) but I would have also had an official PRTB ruling against him which would add a weight to any of my future dealings with him.

But i listened to Threshold, told my LL that his notice is invalid and it took him the whole TWO days to hit me with another notice - the "daughter", which is harder to dispute.

I am disappointed that Threshold didnt explain the consequences to me - telling LL v filing an official RTB dispute.

If anyone is/will be in similar situation - always open a dispute. ALWAYS! Don't give a present to your LL by saving him the time, embarrassment at the hearing and publishing his name. I kicked my own butt by listening to Threshold and doing the soft nice thing.

01-12-2019 12:55pm

171170 wrote: »

Had you permission to record those conversations? If not then maybe he'll set his lawyers on you! Tread carefully!

You only need single party permission to record a conversation in Ireland. As long as the op was one of the parties in the conversation, there is no problem recording it. Whether it can be used in an RTB dispute is really up to the RTB’s rules on audio recordings and whether they have any merit in this case as the LL did not act on the verbal communication to increase rent.

Curious1002 · 01-12-2019 1:04pm

Dav010 wrote: »

as the LL did not act on the verbal communication to increase rent.

The LL did act on the conversation. The random chats outside the building when he saw me in the summer "Hey, how is the new apt hunt going?" and "did you find a new place?" followed by 2 notices of termination is the action.

I am being kicked out. Can you advise what other "action" you would expect LL to take to validate my point?

01-12-2019 1:28pm

Curious1002 wrote: »

The LL did act on the conversation. The random chats outside the building when he saw me in the summer "Hey, how is the new apt hunt going?" and "did you find a new place?" followed by 2 notices of termination is the action.

I am being kicked out. Can you advise what other "action" you would expect LL to take to validate my point?

It is not an offence to serve an invalid notice, it is an offence to act on one. So yes, he could have increased your rent on foot of that invalid verbal notice, that would have been the offence and validated your point. But he didn’t, nor indeed did he act on the invalid notice of refurbishment, he is however acting on a valid notice to end a part 4 tenancy because of family needs. If the daughter does move in, notice was valid, action was valid.

The earlier link provided by Beauf outlines the offence of punishing a tenant for making/going to make a complaint to RTB, but have you made it yet?

Just as a matter of interest, what is the date on the valid notice? Was it more than 28 days ago?

Curious1002 · 01-12-2019 1:57pm

Dav010 wrote: »

It is not an offence to serve an invalid notice, it is an offence to act on one. ........

he is however acting on a valid notice to end a part 4 tenancy because of family needs. If the daughter does move in, notice was valid, action was valid.

But think about it - you only have 28 days to open a dispute on the "daughter's" termination notice. The daughter is moving in in 4 months.
Following your understanding - the family member's excuse is untouchable from a simple fact that a tenant can NOT prove that a daughter will not move in.

A simple fact of an inability of proving something that has not yet taken place can not put a tenant in a disadvantaged position and prevent him from opening a dispute.
I dispute the conduct and a series of actions the LL took to get to the point of handing me the final daughter's notice and finally - his genuine need of kicking Part 4 tenant while having other empty apartments to choose from.

Ps. I still have 2.5 weeks to file a dispute before the deadline expires. Plenty of time

01-12-2019 2:00pm

Curious1002 wrote: »

But think about it - you only have 28 days to open a dispute on the "daughter's" termination notice. The daughter is moving in in 4 months.
Following your understanding - the family member's excuse is untouchable from a simple fact that a tenant can NOT prove that a daughter will not move in.

A simple fact of an inability of proving something that has not yet taken place can not put a tenant in a disadvantage position and prevent him from opening a dispute.
I dispute the conduct and a series of the actions the LL took to get to the point of handing me the final daughter's notice and finally - his genuine need of kicking Part 4 tenant while having other empty apartments to choose from.

Op, you have 28 days from date of receipt of a notice to contest it’s validity, has that passed?

01-12-2019 2:01pm

Dav010 wrote: »

You only need single party permission to record a conversation in Ireland. As long as the op was one of the parties in the conversation, there is no problem recording it. Whether it can be used in an RTB dispute is really up to the RTB’s rules on audio recordings and whether they have any merit in this case as the LL did not act on the verbal communication to increase rent.

That's not what I read online before I posted my comment. But, even if it is correct, the second part of your reply suggests that if used at the hearing the LL might still be able to take legal action.

Curious1002 · 01-12-2019 2:09pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Op, you have 28 days from date of receipt of a notice to contest it’s validity, has that passed?

I got the notice exactly 10 calendar days ago. I am careful about those things and will most likely file a dispute by next Friday, after I see the FLAC solicitors.

01-12-2019 2:26pm

171170 wrote: »

That's not what I read online before I posted my comment. But, even if it is correct, the second part of your reply suggests that if used at the hearing the LL might still be able to take legal action.

The poster is 100% correct, in Ireland only one party needs to consent to a recording.

Curious1002 · 01-12-2019 2:34pm

171170 wrote: »

That's not what I read online before I posted my comment. But, even if it is correct, the second part of your reply suggests that if used at the hearing the LL might still be able to take legal action.

If LL lies at the hearing under oath and will claim that such conversation never took place then I have a full right to disprove his statement by revealing the recordings. It was not a set up, I started to record after he started to shout at me in my own apt, kept saying the new rent amount starts next month and told me to F*ck off if I see a problem. And you tell me that I can not reveal this recording just because I didnt ask him for permission?

Of course, there are other things I will use - Threshold's call I placed right after LL left and my 4% rent increase I started to pay the following month and a text message i sent him right after he left telling him that it was first and last time I allowed anyone to shout at me in my own place.
He can't get out from this conversation, there is no way. I only hope he won't try to claim it never took place otherwise I will have to pull everything i have.

It will be a weird story to read on RTB website, probably (and sadly) very entertaining with many twists in the middle. I hope that if I can't help myself then at least based on my example I will help other tenants cos judges will have to explain their decision and give proper reasoning.

01-12-2019 2:56pm

Curious1002 wrote: »

If LL lies at the hearing under oath and will claim that such conversation never took place then I have a full right to disprove his statement by revealing the recordings. It was not a set up, I started to record after he started to shout at me in my own apt, kept saying the new rent amount starts next month and told me to F*ck off if I see a problem. And you tell me that I can not reveal this recording just because I didnt ask him for permission?

Of course, there are other things I will use - Threshold's call I placed right after LL left and my 4% rent increase I started to pay the following month and a text message i sent him right after he left telling him that it was first and last time I allowed anyone to shout at me in my own place.
He can't get out from this conversation, there is no way. I only hope he won't try to claim it never took place otherwise I will have to pull everything i have.

It will be a weird story to read on RTB website, probably (and sadly) very entertaining with many twists in the middle. I hope that if I can't help myself then at least based on my example I will help other tenants cos judges will have to explain their decision and give proper reasoning.

Why did you start paying the 4% increase if you knew the notice was invalid? Just curious.

Curious1002 · 01-12-2019 3:08pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Why did you start paying the 4% increase if you knew the notice was invalid? Just curious.

Believe it or not but i wanted to show him my good intentions and that I am ok with an increase in general, just not for the amount he demanded.
At the time of his demand I was living there for approx. 1.5 year and thought that he is entitled to an increase. I waived my right to wait for an official letter or to get 90 days notice not to piss him off even more.
I thought that it will show him that I am a good lad afterall. It was just E40 extra and if this would bring peace to both of us then I was ready to pay for the sake of restoring the good relationship.

py · 02-12-2019 1:03pm

Curious1002 wrote: »

I am ready to have my name published but at least my LL's "operations" will be exposed too. I will not be shy from disclosing all evidence at the hearing and it will be rather embarrassing for LL.

If your landlord is even half the vindictive person/landlord you're making him out to be, none of it will be embarrassing for him. He won't give a toss as that's how he wants to run his business. You're assuming it will be embarrassing for him as it would probably embarrass you.

If you do lose and your name is published then any future landlord has the possibility of finding your name and potentially holding it against you (rightly or wrongly).

By all means take your case but I think you should reevaluate what you're hoping to gain by doing so.

Curious1002 · 02-12-2019 2:17pm

py wrote: »

If your landlord is even half the vindictive person/landlord you're making him out to be, none of it will be embarrassing for him. He won't give a toss as that's how he wants to run his business. You're assuming it will be embarrassing for him as it would probably embarrass you.

If you do lose and your name is published then any future landlord has the possibility of finding your name and potentially holding it against you (rightly or wrongly).

By all means take your case but I think you should reevaluate what you're hoping to gain by doing so.

Thank you. I have thought it over very carefully. I am proceeding further, all the way to the Tribunal, if needed.

Varik · 04-12-2019 7:59pm

listermint wrote: »

Sorry just spotted this part of the post and was highly amused by it.

A landlord with multiple properties like this would have his daughter paying any rent.

lolcopter.

'If' and i mean if the daughter exists i doubt she will be placed in the cheapest apartment he has.

Do you really believe this ... ? like genuinely without a smile.

We've no idea if it's the cheapest or anything such, just that it's ~75% odd below market.

Mic 1972 · 04-12-2019 8:37pm

Reading this will put off any potential LL from leasing an apartment!

jimmycrackcorm · 05-12-2019 2:32am

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Reading this will put off any potential LL from leasing an apartment!

Not really. Most landlords are genuine and follow things by the book.

FishOnABike · 05-12-2019 10:50am

Dav010 wrote: »

You only need single party permission to record a conversation in Ireland. As long as the op was one of the parties in the conversation, there is no problem recording it. Whether it can be used in an RTB dispute is really up to the RTB’s rules on audio recordings and whether they have any merit in this case as the LL did not act on the verbal communication to increase rent.

Even if it was not possible to use the recording itself it may be possible to use a transcript of the recording.

Vita nova · 05-12-2019 3:06pm

I don't know if it has or hasn't been mentioned but given the landlord owns so many properties in the same or other buildings there's a good chance another tenant is having the same problems, so why not check and if so, combine your resources to fight the landlord. Also, if he was using the same excuse about the daughter for multiple properties then it would totally invalidate it.

Curious1002 · 06-12-2019 11:12pm

Vita nova wrote: »

I don't know if it has or hasn't been mentioned but given the landlord owns so many properties in the same or other buildings there's a good chance another tenant is having the same problems, so why not check and if so, combine your resources to fight the landlord. Also, if he was using the same excuse about the daughter for multiple properties then it would totally invalidate it.

Great minds think alike, Vita! I did that earlier this week. Got 2 statements already and will have 1 witness at hand.
...and here is a real beauty - "the daughter is moving in" excuse has been used more than once this year. The solicitor is in serious trouble for knowingly participating in this sh*t and signing on statutory declarations for multiple tenants using the very same excuse. I will make sure the Law Library and The Bar of Ireland are aware of this. Of course, Revenue too, Dublin City Council and any other body that is suggested to me.

I think I accidentally uncovered a huge property scam that has been operating for years and Media will hear about it soon.

I wish LL didn't play dirty with me (and others) and treat people fair.

... and finally - the RTB dispute has been now filed!

FishOnABike · 07-12-2019 10:59am

It's worth noting that making a false statutory declaration is also a criminal offense. The landlord could be liable for a fine of up to €3000 on each count.

How many daughters needing accommodation does the landlord have? It might be worth checking if the same daughter was used in each statutory declaration of if the names are different checking if they really exist.

Any solicitor knowingly enabling a client to make a false statutory declaration is not only liable to disciplinary action by the law society but is also engaging in a criminal offense.

JJJackal · 07-12-2019 12:32pm

Curious1002 wrote: »

Great minds think alike, Vita! I did that earlier this week. Got 2 statements already and will have 1 witness at hand.
...and here is a real beauty - "the daughter is moving in" excuse has been used more than once this year. The solicitor is in serious trouble for knowingly participating in this sh*t and signing on statutory declarations for multiple tenants using the very same excuse. I will make sure the Law Library and The Bar of Ireland are aware of this. Of course, Revenue too, Dublin City Council and any other body that is suggested to me.

I think I accidentally uncovered a huge property scam that has been operating for years and Media will hear about it soon.

I wish LL didn't play dirty with me (and others) and treat people fair.

... and finally - the RTB dispute has been now filed!

My thoughts, I have read a fair bit of the thread

1) you probably need 2 party permission to use a recording of a conversation
2) if the landlord has used the daughter is moving in excuse before and you prove this you will not be evicted. Does he actually have a daughter btw? Also those who he used it against will be entitled to compensation
3) he is definitely not obliged to offer you another apartment; just cause he owns more
4) the LL, LL son and solicitor sound like they are running a scam - I hope you win your case

Termination Letter from landlord with multiple properties

Comments