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

Is this legal?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,782 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    So is this correct?

    - 'll can terminate to carry out substantial refurbishment and if the works are finished within 6 months they must offer the house back to the tenant
    - If refurbishment works take longer they can re-let to anyone but only at the previous rent amount (or + 4% if rpz)
    - If substantial refurbishment or renovations includes a change to the accommodation then the new rent can be increased by more than the 4%

    - The changes to go over the allowed 4% doesn't include things like redecorating, new carpets & flooring, new kitchen, new bathroom, new windows. (Seems like these are considered to be cosmetic updates even though they are expensive)

    - To increase more than 4% it must be an alteration to the actual building e.g. adding an extension/ extra bedroom, or updating the electrics, plumbing, heating systems.


  • Options
    #33
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Fol20 wrote: »
    davindub wrote: »
    The legislation is silent on what happens if the property is not sold within the 3 months, but if a tenancy is terminated for a reason and that reason is no longer relevant....

    Refurb and sub. change in nature are two seperate processes, the latter doesn't use the word refurb at all. Probably easier to think of it that way. You could be right but at what level refurbishments change the nature of accommodation is unknown.

    In this case the OP's tenancy was terminated as the LL intended to sell within 3 months. This should have happened, not the refurb reason.

    Houses take much longer than 3 months to sell and close. Where does it say you need to sell within that time frame?

    based on Op further comments it looks like the place wasnt relet for a full 6 months so the ll does not have to offer place to previous tenant.

    Yes they are however both are vague in nature at the moment.The only doc out at the moment isnt law but only best practices. take a look at https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Comms%20and%20Research/RTB_Guidelines_for_good_practice_on_the_substantial_change_exemption_in_Rent_Pressure_Zones.pdf

    The reason is to enter a binding agreement for sale within 3 months of termination date. That's within section 34. Couple of HC comments on it as well.

    I'd say that the gist of that guide would be applied by the RTB anyway, there may be mistakes in it, and I haven't read it, but shpuld be close enough.


  • Options
    #34
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    - 'll can terminate to carry out substantial refurbishment and if the works are finished within 6 months they must offer the house back to the tenant > offer it to previous tenant at new rental rate
    - If refurbishment works take longer they can re-let to anyone but only at the previous rent amount (or + 4% if rpz) >incorrect
    - If substantial refurbishment or renovations includes a change to the accommodation then the new rent can be increased by more than the 4% >correct

    - The changes to go over the allowed 4% doesn't include things like redecorating, new carpets & flooring, new kitchen, new bathroom, new windows. (Seems like these are considered to be cosmetic updates even though they are expensive)> currently if a combination of these are performed, it can exempt you however i suspect this will change at some point.


  • Options
    #35
    ziggy23
    Registered Users Posts: 1,919 ✭✭✭ziggy23


    Thanks for all the replies.
    My notice was actually up in October but I moved out before that. He even took something out of my deposit to paint the place. The house was indeed up for sale as I seen it online. Wasn't up for very long it seems. The rent has increased by €950 so no way I could afford it. It just seems a bit greedy to me he has no mortgage on the house as he was left it in somebody's will. I suppose there's nothing I can do. It is his house after all.


  • Options
    #36
    JC01
    Registered Users Posts: 591 ✭✭✭JC01


    ziggy23 wrote: »
    Thanks for all the replies.
    My notice was actually up in October but I moved out before that. He even took something out of my deposit to paint the place. The house was indeed up for sale as I seen it online. Wasn't up for very long it seems. The rent has increased by €950 so no way I could afford it. It just seems a bit greedy to me he has no mortgage on the house as he was left it in somebody's will. I suppose there's nothing I can do. It is his house after all.

    You think he’s being greedy by charging market value for his property? That’s a very odd attitude and one which seems to be constantly pushed by a certain element concerned with the rental market in this country...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    ziggy23 wrote: »
    Thanks for all the replies.
    My notice was actually up in October but I moved out before that. He even took something out of my deposit to paint the place. The house was indeed up for sale as I seen it online. Wasn't up for very long it seems. The rent has increased by €950 so no way I could afford it. It just seems a bit greedy to me he has no mortgage on the house as he was left it in somebody's will. I suppose there's nothing I can do. It is his house after all.

    It doesnt matter if he owns it outright or not, its a business transaction and he is only charging what he can achieve similar to how much you charge for your time and labour when you work. At some point rents will go down again and he will be charging only what he can achieve during that time frame also.


  • Options
    #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davindub wrote: »
    The legislation is silent on what happens if the property is not sold within the 3 months, but if a tenancy is terminated for a reason and that reason is no longer relevant....

    Refurb and sub. change in nature are two seperate processes, the latter doesn't use the word refurb at all. Probably easier to think of it that way. You could be right but at what level refurbishments change the nature of accommodation is unknown.

    In this case the OP's tenancy was terminated as the LL intended to sell within 3 months. This should have happened, not the refurb reason.

    Selling a house within 3 months is basically impossible you are in dream land if you think a house has to be offered back after 3 months while still for sale and looking for offers etc.


  • Options
    #39
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    Gatlin Billions Soup wrote: »
    Selling a house within 3 months is basically impossible you are in dream land if you think a house has to be offered back after 3 months while still for sale and looking for offers etc.

    I wonder why our system takes so long to close. In USA it takes about a month and in China a week..


  • Options
    #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Fol20 wrote: »
    I wonder why our system takes so long to close. In USA it takes about a month and in China a week..

    Closing is one thing and I agree but we are talking about the full process here of advertising, viewings, bidding, possibly people pulling out and starting again etc etc and then onto the actual closing process.


  • Options
    #41
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Gatlin Billions Soup wrote: »
    davindub wrote: »
    The legislation is silent on what happens if the property is not sold within the 3 months, but if a tenancy is terminated for a reason and that reason is no longer relevant....

    Refurb and sub. change in nature are two seperate processes, the latter doesn't use the word refurb at all. Probably easier to think of it that way. You could be right but at what level refurbishments change the nature of accommodation is unknown.

    In this case the OP's tenancy was terminated as the LL intended to sell within 3 months. This should have happened, not the refurb reason.

    Selling a house within 3 months is basically impossible you are in dream land if you think a house has to be offered back after 3 months while still for sale and looking for offers etc.

    1. Its not impossible
    2. The legislation states close within 3 months, not when you feel like it.
    3. Intent to sell was already commented on in the HC. Basically don't give notice until you know you can close within the 3 months.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    davindub wrote: »
    1. Its not impossible
    2. The legislation states close within 3 months, not when you feel like it.
    3. Intent to sell was already commented on in the HC. Basically don't give notice until you know you can close within the 3 months.

    Closing within 3 months- is so implausible as to be next to impossible- esp. given how tenants are actively advised by local authorities, threshold and everyone else, to overhold.

    Even if any given landlord had all his/her ducks lined up in a row- while technically its not impossible that would close inside 3 months- it just stretches credulity beyond all bounds that it'll come in on time.


  • Options
    #43
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Closing within 3 months- is so implausible as to be next to impossible- esp. given how tenants are actively advised by local authorities, threshold and everyone else, to overhold.

    Even if any given landlord had all his/her ducks lined up in a row- while technically its not impossible that would close inside 3 months- it just stretches credulity beyond all bounds that it'll come in on time.

    Well if the tenant overholds, their tenancy hasn't been terminated until they leave....

    Anyway HC comments on this para 37 onwards:
    http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/03AD319C75E2F3C580257F9A002F232B


  • Options
    #44
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    davindub wrote: »
    1. ... Basically don't give notice until you know you can close within the 3 months.

    How do you know that...


  • Options
    #45
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    beauf wrote: »
    davindub wrote: »
    1. ... Basically don't give notice until you know you can close within the 3 months.

    How do you know that...

    Read the HC comments, the judge actually gives a fair bit of guidance.


  • Options
    #46
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Sleety_Rain wrote: »
    Let it go.


    Agreed. Unless the OP is trying to look for compo like alot of people these days.


  • Options
    #47
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,073 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    davindub wrote: »
    1. Its not impossible
    2. The legislation states close within 3 months, not when you feel like it.
    3. Intent to sell was already commented on in the HC. Basically don't give notice until you know you can close within the 3 months.

    I don’t know if you have experience of selling properties, if you do, the seller often has their ducks in a row before the property goes on the market, it is often the buyer who holds up a sale while they organise finance, get a survey, raise enquires etc. Cash sales can go through very quickly, but when banks are involved on the buyers side, it takes time.

    Intent to sell means you put it on the market, instruct a solicitor and if you choose, an auctioneer, it doesn’t mean that a bid is accepted day one and the sale is completed within 90 days.

    I think you have been watching Glengarry Glen Ross, always be closing.


  • Options
    #48
    ziggy23
    Registered Users Posts: 1,919 ✭✭✭ziggy23


    handlemaster wrote: »
    Agreed. Unless the OP is trying to look for compo like alot of people these days.

    No I'm not why would I even get compo?


  • Options
    #49
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    davindub wrote: »
    Read the HC comments, the judge actually gives a fair bit of guidance.

    He really doesn't. just gives an interpretation which might be different with another judge. Still a moveable Target.


  • Options
    #50
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    beauf wrote: »
    davindub wrote: »
    Read the HC comments, the judge actually gives a fair bit of guidance.

    He really doesn't. just gives an interpretation which might be different with another judge. Still a moveable Target.

    That "intrepretation" is now binding on the RTB nor will the HC contradict itself s soon. It was never actually that open to intrepretation, "enter into a binding contract" is pretty clear..


  • Options
    #51
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Dav010 wrote: »
    davindub wrote: »
    1. Its not impossible
    2. The legislation states close within 3 months, not when you feel like it.
    3. Intent to sell was already commented on in the HC. Basically don't give notice until you know you can close within the 3 months.

    I don’t know if you have experience of selling properties, if you do, the seller often has their ducks in a row before the property goes on the market, it is often the buyer who holds up a sale while they organise finance, get a survey, raise enquires etc. Cash sales can go through very quickly, but when banks are involved on the buyers side, it takes time.

    Intent to sell means you put it on the market, instruct a solicitor and if you choose, an auctioneer, it doesn’t mean that a bid is accepted day one and the sale is completed within 90 days.

    I think you have been watching Glengarry Glen Ross, always be closing.

    Just following the HC judgement, the judgement tells you exactly what intent means. Kind of pointless to argue with the HC on this matter...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    davindub wrote: »
    That "intrepretation" is now binding on the RTB nor will the HC contradict itself s soon. It was never actually that open to intrepretation, "enter into a binding contract" is pretty clear..

    What's a binding contract in terms of buying a house in your opinion. Because even signed contracts can fall through.


  • Options
    #53
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    beauf wrote: »
    davindub wrote: »
    That "intrepretation" is now binding on the RTB nor will the HC contradict itself s soon. It was never actually that open to intrepretation, "enter into a binding contract" is pretty clear..

    What's a binding contract in terms of buying a house in your opinion. Because even signed contracts can fall through.

    Contracts signed stage would probably suffice, but anyway between the time delay between taking a case and the case being heard, it would be pretty clear if the agreement was binding at the time. I don't think the LL would be in breach of the legislation if the buyer pulled out etc.


  • Options
    #54
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    davindub wrote: »
    Contracts signed stage would probably suffice, but anyway between the time delay between taking a case and the case being heard, it would be pretty clear if the agreement was binding at the time. I don't think the LL would be in breach of the legislation if the buyer pulled out etc.

    Where in the legislation that you need to sell within 90 days?


  • Options
    #55
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    ziggy23 wrote: »
    handlemaster wrote: »
    Agreed. Unless the OP is trying to look for compo like alot of people these days.

    No I'm not why would I even get compo?


    What's the point in all this then . Move one with your life


  • Options
    #56
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    davindub wrote: »
    Contracts signed stage would probably suffice, but anyway between the time delay between taking a case and the case being heard, it would be pretty clear if the agreement was binding at the time. I don't think the LL would be in breach of the legislation if the buyer pulled out etc.

    You think.... lot riding on think...

    If I need to sell a house and it takes a year that doesn't mean the reason to sell disappeared after 3 months.


  • Options
    #57
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    beauf wrote: »
    You think.... lot riding on think...

    If I need to sell a house and it takes a year that doesn't mean the reason to sell disappeared after 3 months.

    You'll have to wait for a few more cases for a more definite answer.


  • Options
    #58
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Fol20 wrote: »
    Where in the legislation that you need to sell within 90 days?

    3 months is within the legislation (s34).
    "3. The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.....stat declaration here..."

    If you feel it is impossible for you to do so within that timeframe, don't give notice/ sign a statutory declaration until you are more confident.

    If you still can't sell within the timeframe, give notice at the end of the part 4 (assuming you can) and then sell.


  • Options
    #59
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,073 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    davindub wrote: »
    3 months is within the legislation (s34).
    "3. The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.....stat declaration here..."

    If you feel it is impossible for you to do so within that timeframe, don't give notice/ sign a statutory declaration until you are more confident.

    If you still can't sell within the timeframe, give notice at the end of the part 4 (assuming you can) and then sell.

    “Intends” being the important word. I might intend to enter a contract, that does not mean I will enter the contract within 3 months. No HC judge is going to find against a seller who can’t enter a contract due to delays caused by bidding/surveys/buyers mortgage provider/legal enquires etc.


  • Options
    #60
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    davindub wrote: »
    1. Its not impossible
    2. The legislation states close within 3 months, not when you feel like it.
    3. Intent to sell was already commented on in the HC. Basically don't give notice until you know you can close within the 3 months.

    The legislation says have the intyention to enter a contract within 3 months, not close the sale within 3 months. The HC says don't give notice unless you intend to selkl. That comment was obiter as the case turned on the wording requirements of the Notice of termination.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Dav010 wrote: »
    davindub wrote: »
    3 months is within the legislation (s34).
    "3. The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.....stat declaration here..."

    If you feel it is impossible for you to do so within that timeframe, don't give notice/ sign a statutory declaration until you are more confident.

    If you still can't sell within the timeframe, give notice at the end of the part 4 (assuming you can) and then sell.

    “Intends” being the important word. I might intend to enter a contract, that does not mean I will enter the contract within 3 months. No HC judge is going to find against a seller who can’t enter a contract due to delays caused by bidding/surveys/buyers mortgage provider/legal enquires etc.

    That sounds reasonable...as long as they are unexpected delays and on the buyers side.

    But put it like this if you tell someone you intend to sell a house in 1 month but the average time to complete is 6 weeks, you couldn't have intended to sell within 1 month.


Advertisement