JoeRoberts
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,276
It leaves the dept of housing in a tricky position based on the letter that was sent out if the excellent summary from Patfert1 proves to be true in time.
It leaves the dept of housing in a tricky position based on the letter that was sent out if the excellent summary from Patfert1 proves to be true in time.Landlords with pre-22 tenancies need to have some idea of what the likely outcomes are.
If I was betting who'd turn out to be correct, my money would be on @patfert1. I don't think that whoever came up with this has given it too much thought, hence all the traps for landlords that we are seeingIt leaves the dept of housing in a tricky position based on the letter that was sent out if the excellent summary from Patfert1 proves to be true in time.
My understanding also. Regarding the second question, if a landlord terminates a "part 4" pre-June-2022 lease on the 6th anniversary, any relet to a new tenant would retain RPZ compliance.@Limerick17 I think that the answer to your first question is yes, but the answer to the second question is no. The Department has stated that there is no re-set to 'market' after a no-fault eviction.
The main communication being the Dept of Housing letter to landlords which sells the positives - such as they are - of the new legislation and doesn't mention the downsides. The fact that they sent this letter at all is significant, since its basis is legislation which is not yet published, never mind debated and voted on in the Dail. (One could question the legality of such a letter, setting out as "fact" legislation which is only proposed.)Unfortunately, they have said very little
The letter just rehashes in a long winded way what is in the press release and on the Department of Housing website. It certainly doesn't address any of the complications that we are trying to work out here.The main communication being the Dept of Housing letter to landlords
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that with the housing anyway, the Department decides the rules and the Dail after a Punch and Judy style debate rubber stamps it. That's why the direction of this, ever more restrictions, won't change.The fact that they sent this letter at all is significant, since its basis is legislation which is not yet published, never mind debated and voted on in the Dail.
Conversely, in the 2nd scenario I outlined above, if the landlord did NOT wish to evict at the end of the 6 year part-4 tenancy, would there be a benefit to convert the lease immediately to a tenancy of unlimited duration, to avoid falling under the post-march-2026 legislation at the end of the 6 years?
| Tenancy Type | Termination Grounds |
| Part 4 Tenancy (pre-June-2022) | - Tenant breach of obligations - Property sale (within 9 months) - Landlord/family use - Substantial refurbishment - Unsuitability for tenant needs - Change of use Plus: No-fault termination at end of 4/6-year cycle with notice expiring on/after cycle end |
| Unlimited Duration (TUD, post June 2022) | - Tenant breach (with prior warning for minor issues) - Sale within 3 months - Landlord/immediate family use - Substantial refurbishment - Unsuitability - Hardship (small landlords) - Property no longer viable No cycle-end no-fault |
| Minimum Duration (TMD, from Mar 1, 2026) | - Breach of obligations - Sale (after 6 years only) - Refurbishment (after 6 years only) - Family use (at any time) - Sell due to Hardship (at any time) No most no-fault evictions from day one |
First part 4 ran for 4 years and ended Sept 2019. Next part 4 ran for 6 years and ended Sept 25. So it's now a tenancy of indefinite duration and you can't issue a NOT on grounds of terminating before a further part 4 commences.What is the situation with a tenancy granted in September 2015
So this tenancy cannot be terminated until September 2031? But can be ended for refurbishment / family reasons?First part 4 ran for 4 years and ended Sept 2019. Next part 4 ran for 6 years and ended Sept 25. So it's now a tenancy of indefinite duration and you can't issue a NOT on grounds of terminating before a further part 4 commences.
It's a tenancy of unlimited duration and can only be terminated for reasons such as refurbishment or family moving in as PPR (see my table a few posts earlier). It cannot be terminated for "no reason" in Sept 2031, or any any time.So this tenancy cannot be terminated until September 2031? But can be ended for refurbishment / family reasons?
If I understand the whole thing clearly, a further part 4 will not commence, because it's now a tenancy of unlimited duration.you can't issue a NOT on grounds of terminating before a further part 4 commences.
The tenancy can't be terminated except for extensive refurbishment, family use or to be sold. There is no other timeframe. If none of the reasons above applies, the tenant can stay indefinitely. (Same as above)So this tenancy cannot be terminated until September 2031? But can be ended for refurbishment / family reasons?
As mentioned by the others, it's a tenancy of indefinite duration now. It cannot be ended unless on the prescribed termination grounds. Anything that rolled into a new tenancy since Jun22 is of unlimited duration.So this tenancy cannot be terminated until September 2031? But can be ended for refurbishment / family reasons?
I think it's still referred to a part-4 tenancy, but with indefinite duration now. Any tenancy of 6 months or more is referred to as a part 4 tenancy.If I understand the whole thing clearly, a further part 4 will not commence, because it's now a tenancy of unlimited duration.
How many landlords currently evict "for no reason" (aka at the end of a 6 year cycle)?I have a pre-June-22 tenancy, and my understanding is that on the 6th anniversary, which will fall post-Mar-26, a new tenancy will start under the post-Mar-26 rules. This is not stated in the letter landlords are getting from RTB, if I recall correctly - I'm sure a deliberate omission. So you will lose the right to evict for "no reason". All this is based on the available information, subject to the actual legislation being published.
Is that not currently the case? Technically under the current rules if a tenant ups and leaves of their own accord, the new tenant starts afresh in terms of tenure but the rent cannot be increased outside of the previous cycle and only with the same cap.My understanding also. Regarding the second question, if a landlord terminates a "part 4" pre-June-2022 lease on the 6th anniversary, any relet to a new tenant would retain RPZ compliance.