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.

Covid tenant issues.

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    beauf wrote: »
    Does it matter? Half the country went on staycation all over the country once restrictions lifted. They didn't seem to have a problem finding places. But that's not the issue.

    What's interesting is the wider repercussions.

    I think it does matter. By all accounts rental properties are plentiful in Dublin, less so in other parts of the country. Without knowing where the house is located, it would be wrong to assume the tenants have loads of choice for alternative accommodation.

    The repercussion here is that the LL now knows the relevant tenancy law, is likely to have a frustrating time while getting there holiday home back, and will not make the same mistake again. To be honest, I have little sympathy for the owner, they rented a property for longer than the period necessary for the tenant to obtain Part 4 rights, and the tenant is exercising their rights. Yes, you could say they are acting in bad faith, but they are not breaking any laws.


  • Options
    #63
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,264 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    The RTB are never going to accept that it is "needed for family use" when its for use as a holiday home. That is not a need. It's not comparable to living in it to go to college, at all.

    Nobody "needs" a holiday home, when they already have a home. You don't get to turf a tenant out of their legal home so you can go on holiday.

    Absolutely they will.

    The term used is “ The landlord requires the property for personal or family use”
    No where does it differentiate between need or want and no where does it put a limit on duration, only that the tenant must be offered it again


  • Options
    #64
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    ted1 wrote: »
    Absolutely they will.

    The term used is “ The landlord requires the property for personal or family use”
    No where does it differentiate between need or want and no where does it put a limit on duration, only that the tenant must be offered it again

    Has there been an RTB adjudication about something like this? I certainly would be interested to see one where a solicitor signed a statutory declaration saying his client needed their holiday home back for 3 months “holiday”.


  • Options
    #65
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    Or, to follow to a conclusion, to come up to the Shmoke to see a week's worth of Garth Brooks concerts...


  • Options
    #66
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Dav010 wrote: »
    I think it does matter. By all accounts rental properties are plentiful in Dublin, less so in other parts of the country. Without knowing where the house is located, it would be wrong to assume the tenants have loads of choice for alternative accommodation.

    The repercussion here is that the LL now knows the relevant tenancy law, is likely to have a frustrating time while getting there holiday home back, and will not make the same mistake again. To be honest, I have little sympathy for the owner, they rented a property for longer than the period necessary for the tenant to obtain Part 4 rights, and the tenant is exercising their rights. Yes, you could say they are acting in bad faith, but they are not breaking any laws.

    Not many holiday homes in Dublin. Does really matter. Once a tenancy over the 6 months, it not really a holiday home. So by extensions all holiday home are just rentals. Just depends how long you rent them for, or overstay. Once you are in there for over 6 months, you are in there for 6 years. The country has holiday homes all over. Many are simply family homes, that are empty. Tourism has disappeared. Most of these have to be empty.

    Even all that doesn't matter. Doesn't even matter if this story is true. The repercussions for one LL are not significant. How it effects supply in general is a different story. We are in recession. If you are stuck with a holiday that you can't rent or use. You will sell it. Sell high buy low.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    The LL should have seen which way the wind was blowing when they changed the regulations for the short term rental sector. That was the time to get out.


  • Options
    #68
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    beauf wrote: »
    The LL should have seen which way the wind was blowing when they changed the regulations for the short term rental sector. That was the time to get out.

    The letter said it is a holiday home in a sea side development, there is a good chance it has planning for short lets. I can’t see the connection here between short term rental regs and the owner’s predicament.


  • Options
    #69
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,264 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Has there been an RTB adjudication about something like this? I certainly would be interested to see one where a solicitor signed a statutory declaration saying his client needed their holiday home back for 3 months “holiday”.

    Required. Not needed. My wife and kids use our holiday home 3 months of the year. They absolutely require it. As is Demonstrated by a 9 month fixed let


  • Options
    #70
    Countryboy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭Countryboy2018


    ted1 wrote: »
    Absolutely they will.

    The term used is “ The landlord requires the property for personal or family use”
    No where does it differentiate between need or want and no where does it put a limit on duration, only that the tenant must be offered it again

    This notice would definitely be deemed invalid if it comes to an RTB hearing,
    As this landlord ‘desires’ the property in this case and does not ‘need’ it.


  • Options
    #71
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    or see how the wind is blowing
    to understand or realize how a situation is developing and use this in deciding what to do

    The idea of the legislation is to drive short lets into long term lettings. If you've turned your holiday home into a long term rental, the writing is on the wall for that as a holiday home.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,264 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Countryboy2018 wrote: »
    This notice would definitely be deemed invalid if it comes to an RTB hearing,
    As this landlord ‘desires’ the property in this case and does not ‘need’ it.

    No he required it for his family


  • Options
    #73
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    ted1 wrote: »
    Required. Not needed. My wife and kids use our holiday home 3 months of the year. They absolutely require it. As is Demonstrated by a 9 month fixed let

    You could be right, seems so simple, what could possibly go wrong. Do adjudicators ever question the validity of requirement?


  • Options
    #74
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,264 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Dav010 wrote: »
    You could be right, seems so simple, what could possibly go wrong. Do adjudicators ever question the validity of requirement?

    As you are implying that they do , you should provide reference. Otherwise you’re spoofing

    Otherwise it states required and doesn’t specify a minimum term.

    If the family rock up to spiddal or similar for three Months they require somewhere to stay


  • Options
    #75
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    ted1 wrote: »
    As you are implying that they do , you should provide reference. Otherwise you’re spoofing

    Otherwise it states required and doesn’t specify a minimum term.

    If the family rock up to spiddal or similar for three Months they require somewhere to stay

    What about three weeks?

    What about three days?


  • Options
    #76
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    ted1 wrote: »
    As you are implying that they do , you should provide reference. Otherwise you’re spoofing

    Otherwise it states required and doesn’t specify a minimum term.

    If the family rock up to spiddal or similar for three Months they require somewhere to stay

    I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m just not sure there would be a reference to cover something like this, to be honest, this is the first time I have ever heard a poster say the LL require their property for a holiday.

    Considering how partisan the RTB seem to be, saying you are ending a tenancy because you “require” your house for a holiday seems, well, a bit too simple to be realistic. As another poster said, could the owner say I require to move in for a week, or a weekend if there is no defined duration of occupancy attached to “require”?

    It certainly would set an interesting precedent if the adjudicator ruled in the LLs favour, a lot of LLs would “require” their properties for holidays I suspect.


  • Options
    #77
    3DataModem
    Registered Users Posts: 3,944 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    ted1 wrote: »
    No he does not have a right as it’s needed for family use

    "Family use" does not apply here. Nobody is going to be using it as a main residence. For the family use clause in Part 4 to be used someone has to move in (and not leave after 3 months).


  • Options
    #78
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    beauf wrote: »
    No mention of lost jobs.

    Based the facts given. The only reason given is unable to "Find" anything else. Which seems unlikely.

    You're only looking at this from a narrow view point. It has wider repercussions across the entire market.

    Like in Berlin RPZ fixed one problem but causes a load of other ones. Arguably worse.


    Do you think the tenant either does or should care about the wider repercussions? Do you think they should make themselves and possibly their family homeless because of it?
    "Come on kids, lets go sleep in the car from now on because of the Berlin rental pressure zones and the landlords desire for a holiday! It's the right thing to do"

    I don't know what planet some people are on. This is not an abstract theory, this is a persons real life. They have the right not to be homeless , and they did nothing that the law didn't let them do.


  • Options
    #79
    Countryboy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭Countryboy2018


    ted1 wrote: »
    No he required it for his family

    I am speaking from experience.

    The landlord ‘desires’ the property in this case and does not ‘require’ it.
    Even when a perfect notice of termination is given and with the statutory declaration, you would have to give the adjudicators in an RTB hearing a good valid reason, along with proof ,as to why you require the property for family use.
    In this case a holiday for 3 months stay would not be a valid reason.

    Unfortunately this is the way it is.


  • Options
    #80
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    an absolute sham of a rental market. We need to reform laws, after 9 months and 1 day the landlord should have been able to come in the door, change the locks and remove this grifter and their belongings immediately.

    Its no surprise landlords are leaving the markets in droves with so many grifters as tenants.


  • Options
    #81
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    an absolute sham of a rental market. We need to reform laws, after 9 months and 1 day the landlord should have been able to come in the door, change the locks and remove this grifter and their belongings immediately.

    Its no surprise landlords are leaving the markets in droves with so many grifters as tenants.

    Is that not how it works?
    You sign a lease and move in.
    Once the lease expires you re sign or gather up your stuff and leave. The tenant doesn't own the property. Once the lease is up out they go.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    Is that not how it works?
    You sign a lease and move in.
    Once the lease expires you re sign or gather up your stuff and leave. The tenant doesn't own the property. Once the lease is up out they go.

    Except, no, it isn't how it works. Tenants actually have rights, they don't exist simply to make a profit for landlords and then **** off again when convenient.


  • Options
    #83
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    an absolute sham of a rental market. We need to reform laws, after 9 months and 1 day the landlord should have been able to come in the door, change the locks and remove this grifter and their belongings immediately.

    Its no surprise landlords are leaving the markets in droves with so many grifters as tenants.

    Luckily, the law is not on your side, and civilised societies don't act in such an appalling way.


  • Options
    #84
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    Except, no, it isn't how it works. Tenants actually have rights, they don't exist simply to make a profit for landlords and then **** off again when convenient.

    I don't understand your point.

    What happens when the lease expires?


  • Options
    #85
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    I don't understand your point.

    What happens when the lease expires?

    What lease?

    https://www.rtb.ie/ending-a-tenancy/how-a-landlord-can-end-a-tenancy/landlords-grounds-for-ending-a-tenancy

    "6. The use of the property is changing*"


  • Options
    #86
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    Do you think the tenant either does or should care about the wider repercussions? Do you think they should make themselves and possibly their family homeless because of it?
    "Come on kids, lets go sleep in the car from now on because of the Berlin rental pressure zones and the landlords desire for a holiday! It's the right thing to do"

    I don't know what planet some people are on. This is not an abstract theory, this is a persons real life. They have the right not to be homeless , and they did nothing that the law didn't let them do.

    Its a forum we can discuss any aspect we like. You want to only solely focus on the tenant. (ironically while complaining about others of only looking at one very basic angle).

    The tenant is in, there is no way of getting them out for 6 yrs and maybe not even then. There nothing more to say about the tenant. Someone else suggested this may not even be a true story more a hypothetical scenario to prompt a wider discussion. But if you want to expand on what may be an imaginary tenant. Go right ahead.


  • Options
    #87
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Lesson here is if you have a vacant property, or holiday home etc. and may not be using at the moment, but might want to use it in the future, it would be unwise to rent it out for any period.
    Its very likely in the future they will remove any of the reason to end the tenancy that currently exist. Only the tenant will be able to terminate it. There was a lot of talk about that in recent years.
    We are very close to that now.


  • Options
    #88
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    beauf wrote: »
    Lesson here is if you have a vacant property, or holiday home etc. and may not be using at the moment, but might want to use it in the future, it would be unwise to rent it out for any period.
    Its very likely in the future they will remove any of the reason to end the tenancy that currently exist. Only the tenant will be able to terminate it. There was a lot of talk about that in recent years.
    We are very close to that now.

    That is absolute madness. I was ignorant of the reality until I searched for part 4 tenant rights. Up to 5 and a half years and the owner of the property powerless! I'm used to renting abroad and didn't know this was the situation here. I'm slightly in shock truth be told. Who would want to be a landlord


  • Options
    #89
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    Who would want to be a landlord

    only those (REITS) who pay no tax and control the market. But hey this is what tenants asked for. We fixed our rogue LL's by encouraging rogue tenants backed by the PRTB and threshold


  • Options
    #90
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Dav010 wrote: »
    I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m just not sure there would be a reference to cover something like this, to be honest, this is the first time I have ever heard a poster say the LL require their property for a holiday.

    Considering how partisan the RTB seem to be, saying you are ending a tenancy because you “require” your house for a holiday seems, well, a bit too simple to be realistic. As another poster said, could the owner say I require to move in for a week, or a weekend if there is no defined duration of occupancy attached to “require”?

    It certainly would set an interesting precedent if the adjudicator ruled in the LLs favour, a lot of LLs would “require” their properties for holidays I suspect.
    There is nothing to stop the landlord issuing a notice stating that he requires the dwelling for a short period for example 3 weeks. The only stipulation is that at the end of the three weeks he would have to offer the tenancy back to the original tenant.
    Section 34 Table 4

    The landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or her own occupation or for occupation by a member of his or her family and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied F71 [ by a statutory declaration ]—

    ( a) specifying—

    (i) the intended occupant’s identity and (if not the landlord) his or her relationship to the landlord, and

    (ii) the expected duration of that occupation,

    and

    ( b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—

    (i) the dwelling is vacated by the person referred to in subparagraph (a) within the period of F70 [ 12 months ] from expiry of the period of notice required to be given by the notice or, if a dispute in relation to the validity of the notice was referred to the Board under Part 6 for resolution, the final determination of the dispute, and

    (ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    stinkbomb wrote:
    I don't know what planet some people are on. This is not an abstract theory, this is a persons real life. They have the right not to be homeless , and they did nothing that the law didn't let them do.
    The law is there to protect people in genuine situations of being bullied etc. It should not be abused where a genuine agreement is in place, as in the case described.
    An agreement between tenant and LL for 9 months (in this case) means they have 9 months notice in effect to find their next place. Not being able to find a place is not a reason to stay under any circumstance. If they weren't sure they could move by the end of the 9 months, they should not have agreed to it.


Advertisement