Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Situation with the landlord

2»

Comments

  • #52
    FelaniaMump
    Registered Users Posts: 105 ✭✭FelaniaMump


    rightmove wrote: »
    It fairer than the opposite which is the case now. The notices tell them they have 28 days to appeal


    The notice which they did not get? You're saying that a LL can not give them the document telling them they have 28 days to dispute, and then tell them that they can't dispute as they have missed the 28 days they did not know about.

    That is not fairer than anything. That is insane.


  • #53
    Subutai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 293 ✭✭Subutai


    rightmove wrote: »
    It fairer than the opposite which is the case now. The notices tell them they have 28 days to appeal

    The point being made is in the circumstance where the part telling them of their right to appeal was left out of the notice.


  • #54
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yeah, but the existence of the limit in the first place implies that it is the onus of the tenant to let the landlord know that they are contesting the validity of the notice?

    It is my understanding that the tenant has 28 days to let the landlord know that they considered the notice invalid. Thus, the landlord could, from day 29 onwards, begin the process of finding new tenants or whatever, safe in the knowledge that the time period for contesting the notice period had expired and the tenant would vacate in x number of days or weeks or months.

    The consensus here seems to be that, if you are given incorrect notice for any reason, the 28 day limit does not apply to You, which is farcical.

    Say you've lived somewhere for 10 years so you should be given 7 months notice (224 days). The notice you are handed is invalid. It is open to you to keep your mouth shut, then say on day 223 "sorry chief, invalid for x reason", and the 224 day period starts again?

    Again, it was my understanding that the tenant is obliged to let the landlord know that they are contesting the validity of the notice while there are still 196 days left in the 7 month period. After that, tough titty. Too late, shoulda said something, didn't, pack your bags and GTFO.

    No. what happens is that on day 225 the landlord begins proceedings for over-holding. He gets an arbitration date and the tenant then submits that it wasn't a valid notice in the first place so i didn't have to leave. If the notice is invalid then the landlord has to start again.


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    No. what happens is that on day 225 the landlord begins proceedings for over-holding. He gets an arbitration date and the tenant then submits that it wasn't a valid notice in the first place so i didn't have to leave. If the notice is invalid then the landlord has to start again.


    Thanks for that. My question then is......the submission that it wasn't a valid notice is now outside the 28 day period for doing so, which was day 28 (correct?). How is that allowed / acceptable?


  • #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FelaniaMump wrote: »
    The point is that if they didn't serve you the part of the notice that tells you you have 28 days to file a dispute, then obviously you can't hold them to the 28 days that they did not know about!


    That's reasonable. But what if the notice is invalid for any of the other myriad of ways that exist?


  • #57
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thanks for that. My question then is......the submission that it wasn't a valid notice is now outside the 28 day period for doing so, which was day 28 (correct?). How is that allowed / acceptable?

    The theory is that the expiry of the 28 day notice period doesn't turn an invalid notice into a valid one. A landlord complaining of over-holding must do so on foot of a valid notice. With notice period of up to 32 weeks plus the time before the notice is ruled invalid, a bad termination notice will involve a lengthy delay before the landlord even gets a determination order. The landlord may be back at the start after 50 weeks and then serving another 32 week notice with another few months to a have the notice declare valid and then an appeal taking another few months. 2 years could pass before the tenant runs out of road at the RTB, then there are the courts.


  • #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    The theory is that the expiry of the 28 day notice period doesn't turn an invalid notice into a valid one. A landlord complaining of over-holding must do so on foot of a valid notice.

    I presume you mean "dispute" period in the first sentence there that's bolded?

    This brings me back around to me first point....the provision of a 28 day period in which a tenant can dispute the validity of the notice is meaningless if that period only applies to valid notices in the heel of the hunt.

    Here is the exact text from the RTB's own sample letters:
    Any issue as to the validity of this notice or the right of the landlord to serve it, must be referred to the Residential Tenancies Board under Part 6 of the Residential Tenancies Acts 2004 to 2016 within 28 days from the date of receipt of it."

    How can the tenant open a dispute on day 225, so?


  • #59
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I presume you mean "dispute" period in the first sentence there that's bolded?

    This brings me back around to me first point....the provision of a 28 day period in which a tenant can dispute the validity of the notice is meaningless if that period only applies to valid notices in the heel of the hunt.

    Here is the exact text from the RTB's own sample letters:



    How can the tenant open a dispute on day 225, so?

    The tenant doesn't open a dispute. the landlord does for over holding. The tenant's answer is that as the notice wasn't valid in the first place, he was not obliged to leave.

    In the bolded part it should read "28 day period" not "28 day notice period."


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    The tenant doesn't open a dispute. the landlord does for over holding. The tenant's answer is that as the notice wasn't valid in the first place, he was not obliged to leave.



    Okay, cheers for the responses, I realise the difference between who opens the dispute.....but my reading of the situation is that it is now past the point where they can use that as a valid excuse. It is now too late to say "I don't consider that valid" as the time for saying that was within the first 28 days. There is an onus on the tenant to show their hand in a timely manner, hence the existence of the 28 day window in the first place.


    They should have notified the RTB that they'd received notice which they consider invalid, but seeing as they didn't, the landlord is entitled to act as if the tenant has accepted the notice as valid.


    Again, this is my interpretation of the intent of the legislation. If this is not how things are playing out in reality, I'd love to know when and how the 28 day dispute time window applies.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,453 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    It pretty simple if the notice doesn't let the tenant knows how long they have to appeal based on the letter from the landlord they aren't held to the 28 day rule.
    If the notice was invalid but included the details of appeal then they are held to the 28 day rule.


  • #62
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    It pretty simple if the notice doesn't let the tenant knows how long they have to appeal based on the letter from the landlord they aren't held to the 28 day rule.
    If the notice was invalid but included the details of appeal then they are held to the 28 day rule.

    the notice would be invalid if it didn't have the 28 day clause anyway. That might be relevant if the tenant is asking to extend the time to make a complaint of an invalid notice.
    It is different if the landlord opens a dispute. The RTB allow the tenant to challenge the validity of the notice at adjudication or tribunal. The tenant is not held to the 28 days. It is for the landlord to prove a valid notice of termination. the legislation doesn't say that after 28 days, the notice is presumed to be valid.


  • #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    So when is the tenant held to 28 days?


  • #64
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So when is the tenant held to 28 days?

    If the tenant goes to the RTB after 28 days and attempts to open a dispute. The tenant can apply for an extension of time, but the RTB rarely grant such an extension.


  • #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Or Alternatively, they can over hold and then once a case is opened by the landlord, say they found the notice invalid, thereby bypassing the 28 day requirement?

    Seems like a pretty big loophole.


  • #66
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Or Alternatively, they can over hold and then once a case is opened by the landlord, say they found the notice invalid, thereby bypassing the 28 day requirement?

    Seems like a pretty big loophole.

    It can be very harsh on a landlord to have a technical issue with the notice being used months after serving it. The moral of the story is to get the notices right first time.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Subutai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 293 ✭✭Subutai


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Or Alternatively, they can over hold and then once a case is opened by the landlord, say they found the notice invalid, thereby bypassing the 28 day requirement?

    Seems like a pretty big loophole.

    It's not a loophole. If damages arise specifically out of the invalid notice of termination, and the tenants want compensation for these, then the route to that will be cut off from them after 28 days. For example, if I leave on foot of an invalid notice of termination and rent somewhere with a higher rent, and on day 30 realise that it was invalid, I would not be entitled to compensation. If a realised on day 27 and submitted a dispute, if the RTB agree that the notice was invalid I may be compensated to the tune of the difference between my new rent and my old rent.


  • #68
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Subutai wrote: »
    It's not a loophole. If damages arise specifically out of the invalid notice of termination, and the tenants want compensation for these, then the route to that will be cut off from them after 28 days. For example, if I leave on foot of an invalid notice of termination and rent somewhere with a higher rent, and on day 30 realise that it was invalid, I would not be entitled to compensation. If a realised on day 27 and submitted a dispute, if the RTB agree that the notice was invalid I may be compensated to the tune of the difference between my new rent and my old rent.

    Thanks for that, I was talking about fighting the notice purely in terms of vacating the property as opposed to seeking damages. Hadn't thought of that.


  • #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    It can be very harsh on a landlord to have a technical issue with the notice being used months after serving it. The moral of the story is to get the notices right first time.

    The moral is, it doesn't matter if you get it right or not when the tenant a) has no obligation to confirm they find the notice valid and b) can refuse to vacate the property once the notice expires and wait for you to open a case.

    In the above scenario, even if you've done everything by the book, best case is your tenant can extend the lease by as many months as it takes for an RTB hearing to convene. That is bananas.


  • #70
    Technocentral
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    Good luck OP, absolute nightmare trying to get a place to live in Dublin, I feel your pain.


  • #71
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭rightmove


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    The moral is, it doesn't matter if you get it right or not when the tenant a) has no obligation to confirm they find the notice valid and b) can refuse to vacate the property once the notice expires and wait for you to open a case.

    In the above scenario, even if you've done everything by the book, best case is your tenant can extend the lease by as many months as it takes for an RTB hearing to convene. That is bananas.

    Banana republic


  • Advertisement
Advertisement