Issued NoT forgot return form

U

usefulrancher

Registered User
Messages
13
Hello all, I sent a NoT -intend to to sell by registered post to RTB and tenant on Tuesday. Had it all checked over by solicitor and thought I had done everything right, but I just realised after reading this forum that I have forgotten to send the return form. There's very little mention of the form on the website so it's quite easy to miss. I messaged rtb but of course they were no help, they suggested opening a dispute to check the validity of it!
To further complicate matters, I received an ES 1 equal status act notification act form on wednesday, accusing me of discrimination! Currently trying to get in contact with my solicitor again for advice on this.

Anyone know if it will be declared invalid because of this lack of return form, or should I go ahead with the dispute? I don't want the dispute to delay matters unnecessarily.
 
Your solicitor will advise what to do.

Is the equal status matter due to you serving notice?
 
This is from the RTB website. There’s bits of information in different places so things can be missed.

To be valid, a NoT must:​


  • Be in writing (not by email).
  • Be signed by the landlord or their authorised agent.
  • Include the date the notice is sent. This is the date the notice is posted or hand delivered.
  • Give the date the tenancy will end (the tenant has the full 24 hours on that day to leave the property).
  • Give the reason you are ending the tenancy (if the tenancy is over 6 months).
  • Tell the tenant they have 28 days from the date of receipt of the notice to refer their case to the RTB if they believe the notice is not valid where there has been a breach of obligation by the tenant. New laws have increased this notice period to 90 days where there has been no breach of obligation by the tenant.
  • Be sent to the RTB on the same day it is sent to the tenant. Failure to do so makes the NoT invalid.
 
Last edited:
No, My solicitor sent them a letter for breaching terms of the lease by sub-letting and changing the sittingroom into a bedroom back in October. A few weeks later I decided the best thing to do was to sell the place. During this time the tenant went to Threshold who have now sent me this ES1
 
usefulrancher said:
Anyone know if it will be declared invalid because of this lack of return form, or should I go ahead with the dispute?
Click to expand...
Did you send the RTB the notice of termination on the same day that you served the notice? I.e. is it just the return form you didn't send in?

To be honest if it was me, I would probably serve it again. But you'll have to get another statutory declaration as you must serve the original version (so you can't just send with a copy of the one you already sent)


usefulrancher said:
No, My solicitor sent them a letter for breaching terms of the lease by sub-letting and changing the sittingroom into a bedroom back in October
Click to expand...
Just to flag, if you end the tenancy due to a breach like this, the next purchaser can rent it out at market rate. If you end due to sale, the rent for new purchaser will be tied to the current rent amount. If you think next purchaser is going to be an owner occupier, this point is moot.
 
stormy said:
Just to flag, if you end the tenancy due to a breach like this, the next purchaser can rent it out at market rate. If you end due to sale, the rent for new purchaser will be tied to the current rent amount. If you think next purchaser is going to be an owner occupier, this point is moot
Click to expand...
But would have to have use a different statutory declaration form for each scenario. Seems OP has chosen the sell option.
 
usefulrancher said:
breaching terms of the lease by sub-letting
Click to expand...
If the tenant is still living there it’s not subletting per the rtb. Sounds like a licensee situation. Lots of threads with useful information on AAM about that.

Never heard that before - a tenant turning a sitting room into a bedroom. Would that be overcrowding if the bedrooms didn’t suit the needs of the tenant?
 
Last edited:
That was my thought too on the NOT. Did your solicitor advise NOT for breach of tenant obligations/breach of lease?

Threshold serve a good purpose for tenants but they should not be supporting a tenant where they are in breach of their lease.

When 'entitled' tenants are supported to do/when doing whatever they want with your property, you know it's definitely time to exit the PRS.
 
Last edited:
JoeRoberts said:
But would have to have use a different statutory declaration form for each scenario. Seems OP has chosen the sell option.
Click to expand...
No statutory declaration needed for breach. He can still sell with vacant possession if tenancy ended due to breach of obligations. Just flagging it would be worth more to future landlord if ended due to breach.
 
I am thinking a NOT for a breach of lease is more likely to be contentious and possibly unsuccessful? A tenant can only challenge validity of NOT for sale, not the reason.

The OP may have a long road to travel to secure vacant possession.
 
Last edited:
@bipped yes there is no mention of the return form, so I don't think they can declare it invalid. Will wait and see I think

@Luetnau Only one of the tenants on the lease is living there, she told me that she has trouble with her hip getting up and down the stairs and that's why she has to sleep in the sitting room. The rent is about 1k per month below the going rate so she's not only living there rent free but she's making about 300 euro per month. two of the tenants must have moved out after I sent the letter in October because she's back on fb advertising rooms again.
 
It must be a disability claim so that she is taking to the WRC. She is disabled, can't use the stairs and you are discriminating against her by taking a case against her for using the sittingroom as a bedroom. She must also be planning on arguing that the sale is a fake one. I can't see how it is discriminatory to genuinely decide to sell up. I'd imagine that is the argument your solicitor will take in the WRC

Just shows though. When a landlord gets into this type of hot water for providing a sub cost rental priced tenancy to an abusive tenant, it is time to get out of the PRS. The whole thing is completely stacked against us.
 
bipped said:
Wow, some people are just brazen.
Click to expand...
Just shows the attitude which is now taking hold among some tenants thanks to Threshold and the other 'charities' - tenants know that they can largely do anything with no adverse consequences to themselves. In fact, they may benefit via compensation even though they are the ones misbehaving.
 
@usefulrancher
You will need to be very careful. The issue with the hip seems very convenient to to justify the downstairs bedroom. Has she previously advised of a medical issue affecting mobility? To claim a disability or mobility issue won't be sufficient. If it goes further, she will have to prove she has these to claim discrimination on these grounds.
 
Greenbook said:
I can't see how it is discriminatory to genuinely decide to sell
Click to expand...
They don't appear to be related. NOT to sell was just served, while the ES complaint refers to the warning/ communication about subletting and downstairs bedroom from a few weeks ago.

It is brazen and entitlement behaviour. She may have a need to live downstairs, but she has no entitlement to sub-let without securing the consent of the owner.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top