Issuing Notice of Termination - Any advice

It seems the key issue is how 'occupation' is defined. I had assumed it required the property to be their primary residence for a full year, but as you've correctly highlighted, the requirement is simply that they occupy it for one year.
 
faketales said:
Thats mad, I am not sure how we got to the point where giving notice of x days is fraught with potential legal pit falls.
Click to expand...
It certainly is. Another example: the warning letter issued for breach of obligations or non-payment of rent—the statutory 28-day notice period begins from the date the tenant receives the letter, not the date it’s served (like the NOTs). It’s a procedural minefield. It does seem intentionally designed to catch out accommodation providers at every turn.
 
Leo said:
Signing a false statutory declaration is a criminal offence. The RTB advise tenants to notify them if the landlord does not move in after invoking these grounds.
Click to expand...
It seems the key issue is how 'occupation' is defined. It doesn't seem to be defined in the act.


stormy said:
For reference, relevant wording in Section 34
"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..."
Click to expand...
 
stormy said:
It seems the key issue is how 'occupation' is defined. It doesn't seem to be defined in the act.
Click to expand...
This has been resolved in the courts, here's one https://borgmanearls.ie/%F0%9F%8F%A0-landlord-ordered-to-pay-e15000-in-damages-a-cautionary-tale-for-property-owners/ (example). The expectation would appear to be that it becomes the person's PPR.
 
Leo said:
expectation would appear to be that it becomes the person's PPR
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

RTB determination took a number of other items into account, including alleged intimidation & the impact on the tenant's family.

From the Irish Times article:
' tribunal said it was “not convinced by the bona fides of the landlord’s intentions” '
 
Renovating a property in advance of selling is not requiring the property for own use.

Swearing a false declaration is not to be recommended.
 
Does anyone have a link to the Tribunal Report? I searched both the LL and Tenant's names but I can't find the Tribunal report.
 
I believe there is no need or plan to renovate.

I am not even sure it would be a good investment these days. Could end up spending more than the increase in value.

There is no intention in signing a false declaration.
 
Well, what are you saying so?

Are you saying that renovating a property in advance of marketing it for sale is requiring it for own use?
 
Where you say that you would personally give notice for own use and then waffle on about renovations?

Again, the OP’s friend intends to sell the property so your proposed approach would not be legitimate in that context.
 
I was always confused about "Own use". What is the actual definition of "own use"?

For example, I have a brother who did something very silly and spent a year on my couch. He was allowed back to the house a few times but ended up getting kicked out again and back on my couch each time. Eventually after about a year he was let back into his own family home and things have been patched up.
He often asked me if he could move into our apartment but he couldnt because there was a tenant in it of course. But I wonder if he owned one and gave notice would that have counted for "own use", even though it wasnt permanent and several times he was back in his own house during that time too.

Anyway, given that there is a whole thread on how one person is trying to avoid the pitfalls when issuing notice, this is really eye opening and just shows how laughable the whole situation has become being a landlord.
 
A landlord can legitimately have the intention to occupy the property for their own use and then quite legitimately their circumstances can change.

I terminated a tenancy a few years ago to move back into the house. I did move in, and I’m still there. My tenants have sought zero confirmation of my re-occupation and I assume like 99.9% of people have just got on with their lives.
 
Leo said:
The RTB advise tenants to notify them if the landlord does not move in after invoking these grounds
Click to expand...
What if the person who moves in is a family member? How would a tenant know every member of a landlords family especially any individual named on the SD?
Say a landlord had a son or daughter living abroad who was returning, how would a tenant know what they looked like or anything about them to make such a report to the RTB? Unless the tenant started stalking an individual living in the property or spying on the property or bothering neighbours looking for information. Is that what the rtb recommends?

Also, if a family member did move in and was there for less that 12 months but then had to leave - only temporarily - for work or medical reasons, what happens then? Does the RTB advise ex-tenants to keep surveillance on the property until the 12 months is up? Sounds creepy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top