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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Is this legal?
Comments
-
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.
Nonsense. You don't appear to understand the meaning of "average".0 -
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.
When the contract is entered the sale is closed.
A case report is not verbatim, and this was a point of law case, the comments are in there to clarify the legislation. It's not exactly a test but I can guarentee you the next HC case to deal with this will reference the same case.0 -
It's seems people want to make it impossible to sell a rental property. That will end well....0
-
Have you ever bought or sold a property? You enter a binding contract for sale and the sale closes sometime later. The law society standard is 28 days but that is entirely negotiable.When the contract is entered the sale is closed.A case report is not verbatim, and this was a point of law case, the comments are in there to clarify the legislation. It's not exactly a test but I can guarentee you the next HC case to deal with this will reference the same case.
What is on Courts.i is the judgement delivered by the judge. It has been approved by the judge.
This is waht the Judge sain in response to the point of law.
"Therefore, I will allow the appeal and answer the question therein raised as follows: A notice of termination served by a landlord who intends to sell the premises the subject matter of a Part 4 tenancy must contain a statement of the grounds contained in the s.34, namely, that the landlord intends to enter into a binding contract for sale within three months of the termination of the tenancy and to enter into a enforceable agreement for the transfer for full consideration of his or her interest in the premises."
In another comment
"I would not go so far as to say that the intention was that a notice of termination could be served only in the context of an identified sale, but the legislation in my view envisages more that a mere intention to sell, and requires a landlord to have as a matter of fact, and to state, that he intends to bind himself to a sale within three months of termination."0 -
Have you ever bought or sold a property? You enter a binding contract for sale and the sale closes sometime later. The law society standard is 28 days but that is entirely negotiable.When the contract is entered the sale is closed.A case report is not verbatim, and this was a point of law case, the comments are in there to clarify the legislation. It's not exactly a test but I can guarentee you the next HC case to deal with this will reference the same case.
What is on Courts.i is the judgement delivered by the judge. It has been approved by the judge.
This is waht the Judge sain in response to the point of law.
"Therefore, I will allow the appeal and answer the question therein raised as follows: A notice of termination served by a landlord who intends to sell the premises the subject matter of a Part 4 tenancy must contain a statement of the grounds contained in the s.34, namely, that the landlord intends to enter into a binding contract for sale within three months of the termination of the tenancy and to enter into a enforceable agreement for the transfer for full consideration of his or her interest in the premises."
In another comment
"I would not go so far as to say that the intention was that a notice of termination could be served only in the context of an identified sale, but the legislation in my view envisages more that a mere intention to sell, and requires a landlord to have as a matter of fact, and to state, that he intends to bind himself to a sale within three months of termination."
If you want to argue the semantics of the word closed, I don't have the patience for it. In my vocab, a sale is closed when terms are enforceable. If you want to call completion closing go ahead. I had already mentioned contracts signed as the stage you must intend to complete.
What exactly are you quoting? The 2nd comment is supporting what I said?0 -
Advertisement
-
The_Conductor wrote: »Repairs yes, replacements, when on a like for like basis are flatlined @ 12.5% per annum over an 8 year period. Any improvements- are *not* covered (including bringing a property up to spec, putting in double glazed windows etc).
In general- other than strict maintenance- its not deductible when incurred- and if its an improvement- its not deductible, period.
Windows are part of the fabric and not “plant & machinery” which is why they are not permitted. Improvements undertaken during or between lettings do qualify go capital allowances where the underlying items qualify.0 -
If you want to argue the semantics of the word closed, I don't have the patience for it. In my vocab, a sale is closed when terms are enforceable. If you want to call completion closing go ahead. I had already mentioned contracts signed as the stage you must intend to complete.
What exactly are you quoting? The 2nd comment is supporting what I said?
A closing is the final completion and handover, what you call it is irrelevant, that is is what all conveyancers call it. It does not have to be done within 3 months.All that matters is that there is an intention to enter the contract at the time the notice is given. There is no requiremnent to actually enter the contract within 3 months.
The second comment is a quote from the judgement. I don't know how you claim it supports anything you said.0 -
If you want to argue the semantics of the word closed, I don't have the patience for it. In my vocab, a sale is closed when terms are enforceable. If you want to call completion closing go ahead. I had already mentioned contracts signed as the stage you must intend to complete.
What exactly are you quoting? The 2nd comment is supporting what I said?
A closing is the final completion and handover, what you call it is irrelevant, that is is what all conveyancers call it. It does not have to be done within 3 months.All that matters is that there is an intention to enter the contract at the time the notice is given. There is no requiremnent to actually enter the contract within 3 months.
The second comment is a quote from the judgement. I don't know how you claim it supports anything you said.
A "closing" is not a legal term for anything....2 things you should know here, solicitors don't refer to themselves as the "conveyencer" & conveyencing happens after the contract negiotiations have concluded or closed...hence the term.
I have already said that something extra-ordinary may happen to frustrate the sale, so the only reason I can think of for your comment is that the LL can change their mind?0 -
Once the house is on the market that’s “intending to sell” as far as I’m concerned and I wouldn’t have any heed in claims to the contrary.0
-
A "closing" is not a legal term for anything....2 things you should know here, solicitors don't refer to themselves as the "conveyencer" & conveyencing happens after the contract negiotiations have concluded or closed...hence the term.
I have already said that something extra-ordinary may happen to frustrate the sale, so the only reason I can think of for your comment is that the LL can change their mind?
Closing is a term of art in conveyancing, not what you think it is. Come solititors and barristers refer to themselves as conveyancers in the same way as some footballers refer to themselves as strikers or goalkeepers. Agreement is reached, there are pre contract enquiries, contracts are signed and some time later there is a closing when keys are handed over and deeds are entered into. The requirement in the RTA is to reach the stage of signing, not closing.
I do not understand you point about the LL changing his mind.0 -
Advertisement
-
The requirement in the RTA is to reach the stage of signing, not closing.There is no requiremnent to actually enter the contract within 3 months.
It's not a legal term at all....anyway immaterial as I have already referred to contracts signing. The some solicitors you refer to should have more respect for themselves and the barristers should stick to their own profession.
Anyway you appear to have contradicted yourself as shown above.
"The purpose of the legislation is to permit a landlord to re-take possession only if he can show an immediate intention to bind himself to a sale within three months."
"That in many cases will involve the requirement that the landlord has identified a potential purchaser, or commenced negotiations towards an eventual sale. Because of the short time frame of three months, it does not seem to me that the Oireachtas intended permitting termination of a Part 4 tenancy merely in anticipation of the commencement of the sale or advertising process. I would not go so far as to say that the intention was that a notice of termination could be served only in the context of an identified sale, but the legislation in my view envisages more that a mere intention to sell, and requires a landlord to have as a matter of fact, and to state, that he intends to bind himself to a sale within three months of termination. "
I'll explain one last time, if you intend to do something specifically in a timeframe and sign a stat. declar. to that effect, the linked case explains that you must have reasons to base that intention on.
Therefore the intention to sell can be evidenced by the sale of the property unless something extraordinary happens, or the buyer causes issues. The LL cannot just change their mind, they have already stated they intended to sell within that timeframe. As I mentioned previously, "enforceable agreement for the transfer" is what is in the legislation.
Now having explained the above:
if you are stating the LL does not need to enter a contract to evidence intent, for reasons other than extraordinary or buyers issues, you must be stating that the landlord can change their mind?
Or alternatively, if you are stating that the contracts signed stage should be reached, you seem to be in agreement with what I've said?0 -
Most ll want vacant possession first before they start the selling process. The crucial word here is intend as others have pointed out. If this wasnt there, it is much more black and white of their obligations. I as a ll intend to have the place sold for example within 3 months however my intentions could change a month later if im not receiving the money i want, change of heart, change in situation. You make it appear so rigid in your description but why do you think they left in intend. As long as the ll can prove he intended to sell it, this is enough in court. All ll want to close quick but most people know that selling property is long drawn out process.0
-
Most ll want vacant possession first before they start the selling process. The crucial word here is intend as others have pointed out. If this wasnt there, it is much more black and white of their obligations. I as a ll intend to have the place sold for example within 3 months however my intentions could change a month later if im not receiving the money i want, change of heart, change in situation. You make it appear so rigid in your description but why do you think they left in intend. As long as the ll can prove he intended to sell it, this is enough in court. All ll want to close quick but most people know that selling property is long drawn out process.
Enough in what court? It won't be enough at the RTB as per the HC judgement.
See "testing the marke"t comment in the linked case.0 -
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.
So you want the tenants to stay in the house during viewings?
Not a chance. Vacant possession full stop.
Just search the countless threads on her from tenants complaining that their landlord wants to let viewings occur while they are still in the house.0 -
Enough in what court? It won't be enough at the RTB as per the HC judgement.
See "testing the marke"t comment in the linked case.
You are occupying a different reality to everyone else in the country if you think the agenda you are pushing is correct (i.e. trying to cause trouble for LLs).
Get the tenants out is the first step in selling a house. Some may have started viewings but in many cases as you see on this forum tenants won’t allow it.
Getting the house ready for sale after the tenants move out could take 3 months never mind the actual process of advertising, bidding etc. This is what happens in every case you have your head in the sand if you think otherwise or that this is not well within the rules.0 -
Gatlin Billions Soup wrote: »You are occupying a different reality to everyone else in the country if you think the agenda you are pushing is correct (i.e. trying to cause trouble for LLs).
Get the tenants out is the first step in selling a house. Some may have started viewings but in many cases as you see on this forum tenants won’t allow it.
Getting the house ready for sale after the tenants move out could take 3 months never mind the actual process of advertising, bidding etc. This is what happens in every case you have your head in the sand if you think otherwise or that this is not well within the rules.
It's not my agenda and I am actually a LL so I am effected by this as well.
Personally, I think LL's would be better to wait until the current part 4 finish's to regain vacant possession and if I want to use s34, I had better comply rather than getting a judgement against me. Some posters here are bizarre, they give out about the level of legislation and how the RTB is biased and then think it's easy to comply.....
Anyway, I've linked the HC judgement, pretty much all I can do for you, but thank you for the suggestion that I occupy a different reality, the next case that comes up will prove you or I correct, and I will be happy to continue the discussion at that stage with "the rest of the country"0 -
It's not my agenda and I am actually a LL so I am effected by this as well.
Personally, I think LL's would be better to wait until the current part 4 finish's to regain vacant possession and if I want to use s34, I had better comply rather than getting a judgement against me. Some posters here are bizarre, they give out about the level of legislation and how the RTB is biased and then think it's easy to comply.....
Anyway, I've linked the HC judgement, pretty much all I can do for you, but thank you for the suggestion that I occupy a different reality, the next case that comes up will prove you or I correct, and I will be happy to continue the discussion at that stage with "the rest of the country"
All the posters in here disagree with your interpretation of how its phrased. In reality, landlords start termination proceedings first so they can have vacant possession. Clean up the property if necessary, Then sell.
In your situation, they need to advertise while tenants are in situ, potentially blocking viewing, purposefully making the place look worse. Detract from the property as both buyers and sellers alike might be worried tenants may refuse to leave. This is not how it works and rightly so.
As i said already, why is "intending"left in your reference. Without this we cant argue what you are saying. With this it changes the whole dynamic of what you are trying to debate but you seem to disregard it and just do black or white situations.0 -
It's not my agenda and I am actually a LL so I am effected by this as well.
Personally, I think LL's would be better to wait until the current part 4 finish's to regain vacant possession and if I want to use s34, I had better comply rather than getting a judgement against me. Some posters here are bizarre, they give out about the level of legislation and how the RTB is biased and then think it's easy to comply.....
Anyway, I've linked the HC judgement, pretty much all I can do for you, but thank you for the suggestion that I occupy a different reality, the next case that comes up will prove you or I correct, and I will be happy to continue the discussion at that stage with "the rest of the country"
All the posters in here disagree with your interpretation of how its phrased. In reality, landlords start termination proceedings first so they can have vacant possession. Clean up the property if necessary, Then sell.
In your situation, they need to advertise while tenants are in situ, potentially blocking viewing, purposefully making the place look worse. Detract from the property as both buyers and sellers alike might be worried tenants may refuse to leave. This is not how it works and rightly so.
As i said already, why is "intending"left in your reference. Without this we cant argue what you are saying. With this it changes the whole dynamic of what you are trying to debate but you seem to disregard it and just do black or white situations.
Your argument is based on "intends to enter an enforceable contract for transfer of the property for full consideration within 3 months" as meaning intention to sell in general with no time limit as evidenced by putting on the market within 3 months.
The HC intrepretation is actually what will be applied by the RTB, so if you want to make an argument, you will have to compare to the HC judgement. Anything in there support your version?0 -
Your argument is based on "intends to enter an enforceable contract for transfer of the property for full consideration within 3 months" as meaning intention to sell in general with no time limit as evidenced by putting on the market within 3 months.
The HC intrepretation is actually what will be applied by the RTB, so if you want to make an argument, you will have to compare to the HC judgement. Anything in there support your version?
Intending is not a guarantee, I intend to do a lot of things most of which don’t get done.
Intending is making an attempt to do it, I would wager there isn’t situation in the county since the legalization came in that a contract of sale was entered within 3 months
Also it’s never even going to come to light in the vast majority of cases. Who is going to police your interperation of the rules?? No one is the answer.0 -
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 are sure the house wasn't sold and it's a new owner letting it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Gatlin Billions Soup wrote: »Your argument is based on "intends to enter an enforceable contract for transfer of the property for full consideration within 3 months" as meaning intention to sell in general with no time limit as evidenced by putting on the market within 3 months.
The HC intrepretation is actually what will be applied by the RTB, so if you want to make an argument, you will have to compare to the HC judgement. Anything in there support your version?
Intending is not a guarantee, I intend to do a lot of things most of which don’t get done.
Intending is making an attempt to do it, I would wager there isn’t situation in the county since the legalization came in that a contract of sale was entered within 3 months
Also it’s never even going to come to light in the vast majority of cases. Who is going to police your interperation of the rules?? No one is the answer.
Police? You do realise it's the tenants perogative to take a case if they feel that their tenancy has been terminated contra the RTA, the op for instance can take a case for what 40 euros? What is the average unlawful eviction settlement? A few thousand?
I'd take that wager btw, how much is it?0 -
Police? You do realise it's the tenants perogative to take a case if they feel that their tenancy has been terminated contra the RTA, the op for instance can take a case for what 40 euros? What is the average unlawful eviction settlement? A few thousand?
I'd take that wager btw, how much is it?
Your taking this too literally. He meant who is going to monitor the alleged illegal activity. Right now there id virtually no monitoring of ll illegally increasing rents in rpz unless a new tenant finds our, you want to increase the workload of the rtb who cant maintain their existing workload?
Again it shows signs of inexperience here as its not just the 25e your using to raise a case. You will need to take a day off work, you will have stress and worry coming up to the meeting, your name will be on a public forum for everyone to view.
Its very difficult to prove intent to sell was not there. Literally all the ll needs to do is advertise the property for a few weeks at 50k above market rate, receive no offers in that amount and then back out and let it again.0 -
The 3 months is being changed to 9 in the new bill that's gone through the dail & is now in the seanad.
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2018/140/0 -
Your taking this too literally. He meant who is going to monitor the alleged illegal activity. Right now there id virtually no monitoring of ll illegally increasing rents in rpz unless a new tenant finds our, you want to increase the workload of the rtb who cant maintain their existing workload?
Again it shows signs of inexperience here as its not just the 25e your using to raise a case. You will need to take a day off work, you will have stress and worry coming up to the meeting, your name will be on a public forum for everyone to view.
Its very difficult to prove intent to sell was not there. Literally all the ll needs to do is advertise the property for a few weeks at 50k above market rate, receive no offers in that amount and then back out and let it again.
The RTB is recruiting inspectors who are going to monitor compliance in a pro- active manner. tenants have secured substantial damages for unlawful termination.0 -
Your taking this too literally. He meant who is going to monitor the alleged illegal activity. Right now there id virtually no monitoring of ll illegally increasing rents in rpz unless a new tenant finds our, you want to increase the workload of the rtb who cant maintain their existing workload?
Again it shows signs of inexperience here as its not just the 25e your using to raise a case. You will need to take a day off work, you will have stress and worry coming up to the meeting, your name will be on a public forum for everyone to view.
Its very difficult to prove intent to sell was not there. Literally all the ll needs to do is advertise the property for a few weeks at 50k above market rate, receive no offers in that amount and then back out and let it again.
Let me be blunt, no. Even if that were the true intention of the LL, the HC says no. So sorry about that.0 -
Let me be blunt, no. Even if that were the true intention of the LL, the HC says no. So sorry about that.
The only thing that linked case tells us is the tenant taking the cause was an unbelievable b*llocks who you would hope will struggle badly to get a rental again.
I would have no heed whatsoever into any thing else as Intend to sell means “Intending” nothing more. The fact no one is agreeing with you should be a sign.
If you are a LL as you claim I’ve no idea why you are pushing this agenda, you should be heavily supporting the opposite and ensuing people interpret the would “intend” the way I and others do.0 -
At the moment. If you give the correct notice for intention to sell with statutory declaration you can take 3months do up the property and if you cannot sell within the 3months you can put it back on the market for rent. You do not have to offer it back to the xtenant. I have an email from rtb to confirm personally I would not want to hand the house back to that tenant.
You should have a choice.
For substantial refurbishment.
you complete the correct form from the rtb website with information of builder work to be done. Reason why the house is not inhabitable e.g. no water while the work is carried out. If it takes 6months you don't have to offer back to x tenant. At that stage the tenant will have the right of tenure if they ask for it in new place. Confirmed by rtb.
The new law is terrible for both landlords And tenants.
Banks will not give mortgages to small time landlords. You will see cash buyers only. If the landlord cannot pay the mortgage due to a tenant not paying their share the bank will have to sell with a sitting tenant. Not good for the bank or landlord.
In the cases where landlords are trying to evict tenants for non payment of rent. Can rtb not recruit staff to make sure tenants pay their rent?.
I read the conversation for the amendment of the residential tenancies act and all I could hear was the opposition putting more restrictions for landlords. There was not one senator putting in protection for landlords.0 -
The RTB is recruiting inspectors who are going to monitor compliance in a pro- active manner. tenants have secured substantial damages for unlawful termination.
They do not CURRENTLY have enough man power. This may change in the future as you mentioned. If your a ll and not following the rules, your playing russian roulette with your money. Not worth the risk imo. I was just pointing out they are not fit for purpose right now0 -
At the moment. If you give the correct notice for intention to sell with statutory declaration you can take 3months do up the property and if you cannot sell within the 3months you can put it back on the market for rent. You do not have to offer it back to the xtenant. I have an email from rtb to confirm personally I would not want to hand the house back to that tenant.
You should have a choice.
For substantial refurbishment.
you complete the correct form from the rtb website with information of builder work to be done. Reason why the house is not inhabitable e.g. no water while the work is carried out. If it takes 6months you don't have to offer back to x tenant. At that stage the tenant will have the right of tenure if they ask for it in new place. Confirmed by rtb.
The new law is terrible for both landlords And tenants.
Banks will not give mortgages to small time landlords. You will see cash buyers only. If the landlord cannot pay the mortgage due to a tenant not paying their share the bank will have to sell with a sitting tenant. Not good for the bank or landlord.
In the cases where landlords are trying to evict tenants for non payment of rent. Can rtb not recruit staff to make sure tenants pay their rent?.
I read the conversation for the amendment of the residential tenancies act and all I could hear was the opposition putting more restrictions for landlords. There was not one senator putting in protection for landlords.
You need to wait 6 months or you will need to offer the place to the previous tenant. More than likely they wont take it since they will more than likely have a new place however its something to bear in mind.0 -
Advertisement
-
They do not CURRENTLY have enough man power. This may change in the future as you mentioned. If your a ll and not following the rules, your playing russian roulette with your money. Not worth the risk imo. I was just pointing out they are not fit for purpose right now
The RTB have advertised for inspectors and are going through the selection process. The RTB's legal powers have changed. The current situation will not persist for much longer.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement