Issuing Notice of Termination - Any advice

bipped said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think it's more a case of if the property isn't being occupied at all the RTB will act, I doubt they would go as far as looking to see who was living there though the landlord must provide the person's name in the declaration. If the landlord was just using the family needs as an excuse and re-let the property, a new tenant with a different name claiming Rent Tax Credit could trigger an investigation.

bipped said:
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?
Click to expand...
The landlord is obliged to offer it back to the former tenants.

The challenge with the RTB is the unpredictability, in this case they upheld the eviction .
 
Leo said:
The landlord is obliged to offer it back to the former tenants.
Click to expand...
Surely that’s only if the house is available for letting again? If it’s the family member’s PPR they can come and go as they please. I’m sure they enjoy the same entitlement to peaceful occupation of their home as a tenant does.
Imagine how the rtb would react if a tenant moved abroad for a few months work and the landlord had to offer the property back to a previous occupant.

Leo said:
If the landlord was just using the family needs as an excuse and re-let the property,
Click to expand...
Yes that would appear dodgy but also a very real possibility. Family circumstances can change quickly and a property could become available again. A dodgy landlord might just wait thirteen months.
 
It's a sellers market out there and most half-decent properties will usually sell for north of an EA guide price without the need for much sprucing up (unless left in a bad way) so if it was me (and it was 18 months ago) I would go to the market and let the current tenant bid with everyone else.
 
faketales said:
Does the tenant find out. Basically the relationship is generally good so I don't want it to start in an overly confrontational way.
Click to expand...

If there is a hearing, they are allowed to be there. They might skip it if they weren't planning to challenge the NoT anyway.

It might make them realize that they can though.

I think, in principle, doing it is only necessary if you think they will overstay.

The risk is that everything takes longer.

For a tenant where there is goodwill, having the hearing might cause them to dig their heels in, when they wouldn't have otherwise.

On the other hand, if they were going to dig their heels in anyway, then this removes one way they can delay things.

If they get advice, they will be told that they can fight it and likely delay things.

You wouldn't even be increasing the RTB's workload, since it is still one hearing for them, just sooner rather than later.

DannyBoyD said:
Personally, I would give notice that you require the property for your own use.
Click to expand...

I think you should only give a reason if you have to. If there is a reason, then it can be shown to be false. That could be used to say that the NoT was invalid, even if you didn't need to give a reason.

For you own use means that you (or your family member) has to live there for at least 12 months.

At this point, I think the only time you can evict for no reason is for pre-22 tenancies (and less than 6 month ones).
 
DannyBoyD said:
Show me where it says you (or family) must live at the property.
Click to expand...
Best I can find is at the rtb site.

The rest of the URL is "/renting/ending-a-tenancy/how-a-landlord-can-end-a-tenancy/"

RTB said:
Use by landlord or family: If you or your family lived in the property but you put it up for rent again within 12 months of the end of the notice period.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, that means you can just leave it empty. Technically, the person must live there somewhat but doesn't require that they do it for the full 12 months, or is their PPR.

The key event is trying to rent it again. It might just be a practical matter. The RTB will be notified of a new tenancy.

I though the new rules included "PPR" in their statement for evicting anytime, and then not for evicting every 6 years, but I can't find it on any of them.

I should have saved all the various letters. I think there was at least 2 different ones.

It makes the new rules even less clear.

Evict Anytime said:
The landlord needs the property for themselves or an immediate family member to live in, for example, their parent, child or spouse
Click to expand...

Evict end of 6 year cycle said:
They need the property for themselves or a family member to use
Click to expand...

Why are there 2 rules? It possibly means you can evict for landlord/child/spouse anytime, but you can evict for more family members (out to nieces/nephews) every 6 years.

Also, the word "need" is unclear. Does that mean if the landlord already has a house, they don't "need" to move in, even if they want to/
 
DannyBoyD said:
Show me where it says you (or family) must live at the property.
Click to expand...
The sample termination notice and statutory declaration provided by the RTB would indicate very clearly to me that if it is not occupied for 12 months by the nominated people that you would lose a case if there was a complaint. You can argue what occupied actually means but a commonsense answer would be living there.
 
JoeRoberts said:
The sample termination notice and statutory declaration provided by the RTB would indicate very clearly to me that if it is not occupied for 12 months by the nominated people that you would lose a case if there was a complaint. You can argue what occupied actually means but a commonsense answer would be living there.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a case recently where a man evicted to move his daughter in. The house was essentially vacant and she only stayed there occasional weekends. He had to compensate the tenants.

Article is here
 
Last edited:
JoeRoberts said:
what occupied actually means
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean it has to be your PPR.
Greenbook said:
man evicted to move his daughter in.
Click to expand...
Family member failed to attend hearing, which went against property owner in the end. There was also egregious behaviour which didn't help.

The interesting point is that the property owner did not have to relet to previous tenant.

Many property owners have been burned for more than 15k with overholding tenants.
 
JoeRoberts said:
True and may be worth risking it but the rules are not as you have been suggesting so important that people are aware.
Click to expand...

The NoT for own use is quite clear. I'm not "suggesting" anything else.

It is others who are proposing that the property must be lived in full time or as a PPR & this is not what the legislation says.

JoeRoberts said:
Did the RTB say this? If not then there is no basis for this absolute assertion.
Click to expand...
You'll need to explain what you are trying to say here; it makes no sense to me.
 
DannyBoyD said:
is others who are proposing that the property must be lived in full time or as a PPR & this is not what the legislation says.
Click to expand...
Its a very reasonable interpretation of the statutory declaration. And the safest way to proceed to avoid problems.
 
I know someone who set up a desk worked from their apartment a couple of days a week instead of in their hall at home. That was their own use.
 
JamieB_ said:
know someone who set up a desk worked from their apartment a couple of days a week instead of in their hall at home. That was their own use
Click to expand...
Not sure what your point is.
Have you read the statutory declaration ? It does not even use the term "own use".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top