Question about termination for Renovation

B

bipped

Registered User
Messages
174
Hope someone can help with this and apologies if any of this was answered previously.

A landlord with a 3 bed property wants to do a whole house renovation, no PP required as no structural alterations or extensions. When the renovation is finished his options are to re-let or to sell. He wants to make sure he does everything correctly, he knows the tenants will have to move out for health & safety reasons because the house and garden will be like a building site and will have no heat, no kitchen, no bathroom, days without windows, workmen and builders tools on the premises etc etc. The builder will be on site for several months. The problem is the landlord doesn't know if he should give a NoT for renovation purposes or a NoT for sale.

If it's for renovation , he can get the cert from the architect to comply with the RTB but he's not clear about offering the tenants the option to re-occupy.
The NoT for renovation has to specify the dates the works will be done and the duration. However, builders never seem to finish on time so what happens if there are delays and the renovation takes longer than the estimated time.? Is he obliged to re-let the house and is there a time limit on when that has to happen after the work is finished?

If he decides not to re-let the renovated property, can he put it for sale? In that case, should the NoT be because he is selling and not because of renovation.

Any information appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DannyBoyD said:
Simplest solution is to say you want the property for your own use.
Click to expand...
Thanks DB, that's what I thought but he already has his own house as do his adult kids. Maybe he can look at his options again, he's anxious to do everything by the book and scared of running into trouble with the RTB.
 
bipped said:
Thanks DB, that's what I thought but he already has his own house as do his adult kids. Maybe he can look at his options again, he's anxious to do everything by the book and scared of running into trouble with the RTB.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter; he can use the property to store his golf clubs if he wants.

No one can argue with 'own use' notice.
 
The point being that serving notice for own use can't be argued with.

If you serve notice for renovations, you have to add a chunk of paperwork to support it.
 
You and your golf clubs can occupy the premises for one night a month if you want to; there's nothing in the declaration to say you have to live there full time.
 
From RTB: "A landlord is entitled to terminate a Part 4 tenancy[1] where a landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for their own occupation or for occupation by a member of their family (a member of family is defined as a spouse, civil partner, child, stepchild, foster child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, step-parent, parent-in-law, brother, sister, nephew, niece of the landlord or a person adopted by the landlord under the Adoption Acts)."

Declaration template "
The reason for the termination of the tenancy is because the landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for [their own occupation / occupation by a family member] (delete as appropriate).

[Insert one of the following]:

The landlord, [insert name], expects to occupy the dwelling for / until [specify intended duration of occupation, if indefinitely, you must state this here]."

There is nothing that says you must live in the property for 365 days of the year nor that you cannot have ownership or access to any other property.
 
Putting your golf clubs in the property does not constitute occupation, giving that word its normal and commonplace meaning.

There is plenty of scope to dispute an “own use” notice.
 
Sarenco said:
Putting your golf clubs in the property does not constitute occupation, giving that word its normal and commonplace meaning.

There is plenty of scope to dispute an “own use” notice.
Click to expand...
Do you mean the previous tenant can dispute the notice - do they have a certain amount of time to raise a dispute after they have moved out? How exactly does that work please?

If the landlord is having the house renovated nobody would be living there anyway, possibly for months.

It sounds a bit creepy to be honest to think that a previous tenant would be constantly watching a house to see who was living there.
 
Again, there is no requirement to stay in the property for any fixed number of days or nights.

Taking it that the declaration & notices have been properly drawn up & signed - tell me how you do you think it can be disputed by tenant?
 
bipped said:
Do you mean the previous tenant can dispute the notice - do they have a certain amount of time to raise a dispute after they have moved out? How exactly does that work please?
Click to expand...
Tenants generally have 90 days from receipt of a notice of termination to refer a dispute over that notice of termination to the RTB.
 
DannyBoyD said:
Again, there is no requirement to stay in the property for any fixed number of days or nights.

Taking it that the declaration & notices have been properly drawn up & signed - tell me how you do you think it can be disputed by tenant?
Click to expand...
Nobody said there was any requirement to stay in the property for any specific number of days or nights - that’s a straw man argument.

If a tenant can demonstrate that the landlord does not actually intend to occupy the property, then the statutory declaration to that effect would be invalid and subject to challenge.

It’s actually a criminal offence to make a statutory declaration that is knowingly false.
 
Sarenco said:
If a tenant can demonstrate that the landlord does not actually intend to occupy the property,
Click to expand...
Tell me how the tenant can demonstrate that?

Statutory declaration says that you or a member of your family intends to occupy either indefinitely or for a fixed time period.

There is no other specificity required; there is no false declaration here.
 
DannyBoyD said:
There is no other specificity required; there is no false declaration here.
Click to expand...
You’re just repeating your previous argument.

If you swear a declaration saying you intend to occupy a property but have no intention of doing so, then that is a false declaration.

And, no, moving in your golf clubs is not occupying the property.

If you only intend to stay in the property for one night then you have to state that in the notice. And you have to offer the property back to the tenant thereafter.

Again, it’s an offence to knowingly swear a false declaration. Advising somebody to commit a crime is unwise IMO.
 
Sarenco said:
Nobody said there was any requirement to stay in the property for any specific number of days or nights - that’s a straw man argument.

If a tenant can demonstrate that the landlord does not actually intend to occupy the property, then the statutory declaration to that effect would be invalid and subject to challenge.

It’s actually a criminal offence to make a statutory declaration that is knowingly false.
Click to expand...


Thanks for all the replies so far.

Just to be clear, if the landlord issues a NOT for own use, and the tenant 'thinks' the landlord or a member of his family do not intend to occupy the property, the tenant can raise a dispute with the RTB within 90 days?

If that dispute did go before a hearing, how would a tenant prove what the landlord or his family's plans were?

Then if the house is being renovated for months, and if the landlord's family can't move in for 12 months for whatever reason, are you saying the the ex tenant has to be offered the house back before the son can move in?
 
bipped said:
Then if the house is being renovated for months, and if the landlord's family can't move in for 12 months for whatever reason, are you saying the the ex tenant has to be offered the house back before the son can move in?
Click to expand...
Hang on, there was no mention of a son moving into the property in the OP. Where did he appear from?!

This really is very simple - if the landlord intends to renovate the property and has yet to decide whether or not to sell the property following the renovation, then renovation is the appropriate ground for termination.

There is really no need to dream up hypotheticals about the landlord’s future intentions or how a tenant might prove something.

If the landlord wants to do everything correctly, as per your OP, then he should proceed accordingly.
 
Sarenco said:
Hang on, there was no mention of a son moving into the property in the OP. Where did he appear from?!

This really is very simple - if the landlord intends to renovate the property and has yet to decide whether or not to sell the property following the renovation, then renovation is the appropriate ground for termination.

There is really no need to dream up hypotheticals about the landlord’s future intentions or how a tenant might prove something.

If the landlord wants to do everything correctly, as per your OP, then he should proceed accordingly.
Click to expand...

Thank you, so the landlord should issue the NOT for renovation and get the work completed.

One last thing please - if he later decided to sell instead of re-letting, would he need to contact the RTB at that stage or is he finished with them once the tenants move out? or, does he need to issue another NOT to say he is selling?

And who would that be issued to as the tenants are gone? Its not very clear.

Would the property still be RTB registered as a current tenancy just with no tenants living there? How does that work?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top