New Residential Tenancies Bill

Dermot said:
Just received an email update from the IPOA as follows
Click to expand...
This was the IPOA correcting wrong guidance they sent in April. They said on 24th April via email "The recent legislation amended the mandatory periods for this notice, now requiring no less than 90 days and no more than 120 days. "

Even the IPOA, with several members of full time staff and looking at this day in day out, can't keep up with all the changes.

Worth reminding people that a property owner who acts on foot of an invalid notice of termination (even due to a technicality) is committing of a criminal offence.
 
Last edited:
Just a thought... isn't all this going to very much affect holiday home rentals? I note that the article wrote
"Those in areas with populations of under 20,000 will have a two-year grace period."

In the west there are loads of homes which are rented out in summer but the owners use them too, so these will never go on long-term rentals. I know many in the area I hail from. Won't this remove such properties entirely from the summer rental market? Who wins?
 
stormy said:
This was the IPOA correcting wrong guidance they sent in April. They said on 24th April via email "The recent legislation amended the mandatory periods for this notice, now requiring no less than 90 days and no more than 120 days. "
Click to expand...
That is an improvement, if true.

The new rules allow any delay from 90 to 120 days. This means you can aim for 105 days and have a +/- 15 day window in case you miscount.

This is similar to the new rule that will allow a few days difference between notifying the RTB and the tenant for NoTs.

It is possible that the government are starting to realize that they need to defuse at least some of the landmines.
 
LarryScott said:
It is possible that the government are starting to realize that they need to defuse at least some of the landmines.
Click to expand...
I think they are just moving the landmines around. Since 1st March a rent review must be served on tenant and RTB same day, and legislation expressly says it's invalid otherwise.


"22.—(1) The setting of a rent (the “new rent”) pursuant to a review of the rent under a tenancy of a dwelling and which is otherwise lawful under this Part shall not have effect unless and until the condition specified in subsection (2) is satisfied.

.......


and a copy of that notice is served on the Board on the same day on which the notice is served on the tenant]]. "

And of course, it's a criminal offence also if the accommodation provider doesn't serve it the same day:

F109[(4) It shall be an offence for a landlord to set a rent pursuant to a review of the rent under a tenancy by serving notice of the rent on the tenant other than in accordance with the condition specified in subsection (2).]




The requirement to serve the rent review to the RTB same day is a new one since 1March
 
LarryScott said:
I thought the new bill was going to change that (by giving seven days). I misremembered, or at least can't find the change.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not. The only change to section 22 is the new fines / penalties. Rent reviews will still need to be served on tenant and RTB same day.

They introduced some leniency for the rent setting documents, but they left the rent reviews the same.

So as I say, just moving the minefields around.
 
stormy said:
So as I say, just moving the minefields around.
Click to expand...
Yes, if you didn't carefully read legislation in advance a landlord would reasonably assume that if it was 7 days for one type of rent review, it was 7 days for all types.

Another landmine carefully set to blow up in the landlord's face.
 
stormy said:
So as I say, just moving the minefields around.
Click to expand...
Thinking about it more, this is worse than shuffling the minefields. They've actually multiplied. The same day rent review rule is now a recurring trap - every review over the life of a tenancy is invalid or an offence if you miss same day service. A tenancy might see several reviews but only one termination. So the same day service for rent reviews gives the RTB far more recurring opportunities to call foul than on a one off NoT. The Bill eases the rent setting notice while leaving that recurring rent review notice trap fully armed.
 
DannyBoyD said:
So you put a copy in the post every day for five days Mon - Fri & that way at least one of the days will match between RTB & tenant! :)
Click to expand...
That seems to be where it's at if it's posted. Just make sure the min 90 days are adhered to, those are counted from date of service (not the rent setting date). It's all very tricky.


2) That condition is that, at least F92[90 days] before the date from which the new rent is to have effect, a notice F93[in the prescribed form] is served by the landlord on the tenant stating the amount of the new rent and the date from which it is to have effect F94[and the matters specified in subsection (2A) F95[, and a copy of that notice is served on the Board on the same day on which the notice is served on the tenant]].

 
stormy said:
It's all very tricky.
Click to expand...
It's incredibly complex alright. Is there any logical reason for these different service rules? I doubt it very much other than landmines and traps for the landlord.

You'd really need to get a solicitor with expertise in the area to advise you every time, especially as they keep making fiddly changes to these procedural rules.
 
LarryScott said:
I thought the new bill was going to change that (by giving seven days). I misremembered, or at least can't find the change.
Click to expand...
Was the below what you were thinking of? I think it’s just a proposal at this stage, but would be a welcome change.
Greenbook said:
John Cummins is introducing the latest Residential Tenancies Bill today.

Interesting development, more to get the RTB out of the mess they have made, rather than making procedures more sensible overall.

They will also include providing that landlords must serve a notice of rent review or notice of termination on the RTB within seven days of the date on which the notice is served on the tenant rather than on the same day on which the notice is served on the tenant. The purpose of this is to facilitate compliance as the postal service may not deliver such notices to both the RTB and the tenant on the same day.
Click to expand...
 
Greenbook said:
They will also include providing that landlords must serve a notice of rent review or notice of termination on the RTB within seven days of the date on which the notice is served on the tenant rather than on the same day on which the notice is served on the tenant.
Click to expand...
This is a typo about the rent reviews. The proposals make no changes to the same day service requirement for rent rent reviews. They've proposed allowing grace for sending the RTB the rent setting documentation, but not for rent reviews.
 
stormy said:
This was the IPOA correcting wrong guidance they sent in April. They said on 24th April via email "The recent legislation amended the mandatory periods for this notice, now requiring no less than 90 days and no more than 120 days. "

Even the IPOA, with several members of full time staff and looking at this day in day out, can't keep up with all the changes.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the RTB gave the IPOA the wrong guidance ...

Here is the IPOA email:

Following additional clarification from the RTB regarding the termination of tenancies during their probationary period (the first six months), please note that the information we shared in April, highlighted in red, is false:



Termination During Probationary Period

The Residential Tenancies Act still allows for a probationary period in the first six months of a tenancy. To terminate a tenancy in the first six months a valid notice of termination must be served. The recent legislation amended the mandatory periods for this notice, now requiring no less than 90 days and no more than 120 days. Please note this will disqualify you from resetting your rent at the beginning of the next tenancy in this property.



Instead, landlords looking to terminate a tenancy in the first six months should follow the information below:



Termination During Probationary Period

The Residential Tenancies Act still allows for a probationary period in the first six months of a tenancy. To terminate a tenancy in the first six months a valid notice of termination must be served. The recent legislation amended the mandatory periods for this notice, now requiring no more and no less than 90 days – it must be EXACTLY 90 days; starting from the day after the notice was served to the tenant. Please note this will disqualify you from resetting your rent at the beginning of the next tenancy in this property.
 
So did the RTB change something in their guidance/rules/website. We know they are doing so. I've no idea in relation to this matter as I wasn't following it ....
 
Again, no reason why the notice period has to be exactly 90 days. In fact it would be beneficial to a tenant if it could be longer. Just another way of trapping landlords because if you make a mistake there, you've missed the window entirely and now have a 6 year tenancy or, even worse, a life long one. And this will very likely to be with a tenant who has proved unsatisfactory within the first couple of months so you've a disaster on your hands.

Imagine, your tenant turns out to be very difficult, you mess up the forms in some slight way and your now stuck with the guy possibly for life. It doesn't bear thinking about.

And the rules involved are so complicated even the RTB, which must be full of lawyers by now, can't fully get to grips with them.
 
How is any of this constitutional?

Making laws unnecessarily complex, mind boggling, crazy requirements etc, how does the government not see this as a farce and gone way too far now. They need to stop this, madness...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top