RTB told landlords posting date = service date. The High Court says it doesn't. Accommodation providers set up to fail?

[stormy]

Please don't panic! If there's a problem with service of a document but there's no dispute it was sent, the RTB may be able to apply the "slip rule". It doesn't mean a document is invalid.

Thanks @Gerard0

Has something changed with regards to the slip rule? I'm aware of several cases where the NOT was deemed invalid for lack of same day service.

Example case below from 18 months ago:

E.g. https://rtb.ie/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/TR0724-007785-DR1023-89668_Tribunal_Report.pdf

In this case, the NOT was otherwise valid:

4. The Tribunal finds that the form of the Notice of Termination complies in all respects with the requirements set out in s.62 of the Act and that the notice period given by the Appellant Tenants for the Respondent Landlord to vacate was in excess of the minimum period of notice stipulated by s.66 of the Act. ​

However, due to being served on the RTB a few days before the tenant, it was deemed invalid:

It is therefore evident that the Notice of Termination was not served on the RTB on the day on which the Notice of Termination was served on the Appellant Tenants and therefore the Notice of Termination is invalid.​

10. In circumstances where the Appellant Tenants are materially prejudiced by the issues surrounding the service of the Notice of Termination, the Tribunal finds that slip rule as provided for in S64(A) of the Act or the service of a Remedial notice as provided for in S66 (2) (A) of the Act should not be applied in this instance​

Also, is it the case the slip rule only applies to NOTs and not to Rent Review / Rent Setting notices?

 

[Greenbook]

I think the slip rule is for something very minor like the house is 19 Pembroke Street and that is what it is called 19 of the 20 spaces for the address in the documents you serve, but in one space out of the 20 it's called 19 Pembroke Road by accident.

That is just a slip, and it doesn't effect the overall thing, it is quite clear that the NoT or whatever it is concerns 19 Pembroke Street.

 

[JamieB_]

I think the slip rule is for something very minor like the house is 19 Pembroke Street and that is what it is called 19 of the 20 spaces for the address in the documents you serve, but in one space out of the 20 it's called 19 Pembroke Road by accident.

That is just a slip, and it doesn't effect the overall thing, it is quite clear that the NoT or whatever it is concerns 19 Pembroke Street.

Didnt do Terry Gorry any good

 

[Sarenco]

Well, it would be surprising to me if the RTB didn’t apply the slip rule in circumstances where a notice was served in accordance with the RTB guidance at the time the notice was served.

Serving a notice on the RTB a few days before serving the tenants is hardly a “slip”.

 

[stormy]

Well, it would be surprising to me if the RTB didn’t apply the slip rule in circumstances where a notice was served in accordance with the RTB guidance at the time the notice was served.

But they don't even have the powers to apply it to rent reviews, right?

Serving a notice on the RTB a few days before serving the tenants is hardly a “slip”.

I'm really not sure of the material difference, the fact is the RTB got it. Why does it matter it was a few days early? We're talking about a case where someone got a 225-day notice period.

 

[Sarenco]

Why does it matter it was a few days early?

Because the legislation requires the notices to be served on the same day.

 

[JamieB_]

Why does it matter it was a few days early?

Because the legislation requires the notices to be served on the same day.

And it struck nobody as a very stupid detail to put into legislation.

 

[TLO]

Why does it matter it was a few days early? We're talking about a case where someone got a 225-day notice period.

It matters because of the way the law is worded. The way the law is worded is the responsibility of the Oireachtas, not the RTB. The High Court has expressed a view that the wording of the law matters, and that NOTs must be served on both parties on the same day.

 

[polecon]

Well, it would be surprising to me if the RTB didn’t apply the slip rule in circumstances where a notice was served in accordance with the RTB guidance at the time the notice was served.

They probably aren't even entitled to since it appears that assuming a notice is deemed to be served the business day following posting was a misinterpretation of the law resulting in a procedural error which affected the validity of the notice. Presumably if they tried to do so a court would rule on it.

 

[stormy]

Why does it matter it was a few days early?

Because the legislation requires the notices to be served on the same day.

It matters because of the way the law is worded. The way the law is worded is the responsibility of the Oireachtas, not the RTB. The High Court has expressed a view that the wording of the law matters, and that NOTs must be served on both parties on the same day.

Maybe I should have been more explicit - the question was in relation to the non application of the slip rule. Why does it matter to the application of the slip rule if it served to the RTB a few days early? The notice was otherwise compliant and hard to see how the Tenants were materially prejudiced by serving to the RTB early.

Well, it would be surprising to me if the RTB didn’t apply the slip rule in circumstances where a notice was served in accordance with the RTB guidance at the time the notice was served.

Put another way, I'm trying to understand why it's surprising the the slip rule was not applied in the case I flagged as an example, but it would be surprising if they didn't apply it in other cases where they don't even have the authority to do so (rent reviews).

 

[Sarenco]

Because it wasn’t a slip!

The notices were served on different days.

This isn’t a case of notices being posted on the same day and received on different days.

 

[stormy]

The notices were served on different days.

This isn’t a case of notices being posted on the same day and received on different days.

That is true, not posted same day in my example.
Will be interesting to see if the slip rule will be applied - as I say, they don't even have the authority to do so in some situations.

 

[Greenbook]

They probably aren't even entitled to since it appears that assuming a notice is deemed to be served the business day following posting was a misinterpretation of the law resulting in a procedural error which affected the validity of the notice. Presumably if they tried to do so a court would rule on it.

I think you are correct. What happened here is a misrepresentation of the law by the RTB, not a small mistake in filling in a document.

 

[Greenbook]

Also, how would serving on the same day have worked pre-March 2026?

I think that before then you had to post the documents to the tenant. I think you had the option of emailing to the RTB, but unless you sent the letter by registered post, you'd only be guessing when the tenant got it in order to email it to the RTB at the same time. Or if you posted both, you would have to hope that both arrived at the same time.

 

[LarryScott]

It is not a mechanism to enable a party to change litigation strategy or to cure an omission which was the result of a deliberate choice or a misunderstanding of the law.”

That is interesting. Effectively, the slip rule is only for an actual mistake.

If you knowing do something wrong, then it isn't a slip. Even if you did it that way due to a misunderstanding of the law.

Because it wasn’t a slip!

The notices were served on different days.

Interesting maybe you could count it as a "slip".

If the landlord posts both at the same time and they end up arriving on different days, could that count as a mistake, rather than intentionally serving them on the different days.

They didn't arrive on different days intentionally and they didn't arrive on different days due to a misunderstanding of the law. They arrived on different days due to randomness of the postal system.

 

[Greenbook]

They didn't arrive on different days intentionally and they didn't arrive on different days due to a misunderstanding of the law. They arrived on different days due to randomness of the postal system.

Yes, but per the RTB website, it is the landlord's responsibility to choose a method or methods of delivery that ensure that both arrive on the same day.

The RTB specifically warns that notices should not be posted to both the RTB and the tenant as there is no guarantee they will arrive at the same time.

I don't think that you can say it is a slip to do something the RTB told you not to do.

Of course this is all mad stuff. There is no reason why the RTB couldn't get the form within 14 days or a month.

 

[Sarenco]

That is the RTB’s current guidance.

My point is that I would be surprised if the RTB did not apply the slip rule in circumstances where notices were served in accordance with the RTB’s guidance in place at the time the notices were served.

 

[Greenbook]

My point is that I would be surprised if the RTB did not apply the slip rule in circumstances where notices were served in accordance with the RTB’s guidance in place at the time the notices were served.

I don't think they can do that.

Looking at the judgment, the previous RTB guidance is contrary to the legal rule set down in law by section 25 of the Interpretation Act 2005, so 100% wrong in law.

The slip rule is for minor mistakes. The tenant's name in Rory Hearne and you write is name as Rory Hearn once by accident in the documents. That's just a slip, it is completely clear who the tenant is.

It can't be used to ignore fundamental legal mistakes which this is.

Which ever way you cut this, it is yet another mess.

 

[polecon]

Will be interesting to see if the slip rule will be applied - as I say, they don't even have the authority to do so in some situations.

The requirement that the RTB and the tenant be served on the exact same calendar day would appear to be an absolute statutory precondition and failure to satisfy it makes the Notice invalid.

Slip Rule​

Section 30 – ‘slip rule’ | This provision introduced a new section 64A into the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (as amended) which allows an adjudicator or Tribunal to overlook minor administrative errors on the face of a notice of termination, once the error in question does not materially prejudice the notice itself which should otherwise be valid. The full extent of the application of this provision will only become clear in time, but it should mean that simple errors on a notice should not be fatal for its validity where a tenant’s rights or entitlements were clearly not prejudiced by it.​

​

https://www.fieldfisher.com/en-ie/locations/ireland/ireland-blog/free-mediations-and-a-slip-rule-further-prtb-amendments-commenced

​

Also, from early on in this discussion

Well, the Court noted the contradiction in the tribunal’s findings on when the notice was uploaded to the RTB’s site, when it was posted to the tenant and when it was actually deemed to have been served on the tenant.

But the Court didn’t invalidate the notice on those grounds and didn’t make any comment on the RTB’s guidance.

You have extrapolated from the judgment that there is a problem with the RTB’s guidance and that notices would be invalidated if the RTB’s guidance was followed.

I don’t think you are correct on either point for the reasons already stated.

No, if a notice is posted to the tenant on 20 March it will be deemed to have been served on the tenant on the date of receipt in ordinary course, ie the next working day.

Same with the service of notice on the RTB by post or by uploading it to their site.

At this stage, I think we are just going around in circles….

...I'm not sure why this idea that many solicitors, agents and landlords have apparently been relying on - that a Notice will be deemed to have been served the business day following posting - is not a misunderstanding of the law. If it is, it would appear the Slip Rule cannot assist at all.

 

[Sarenco]

A notice is deemed to have been served on the business day following its posting - that is not a misunderstanding of the law.