Tribunal rules landlord's move to raise elderly Cork woman's rent from €675 to €2,000 is invalid

The landlord observed that the €675 monthly rent was a very low rent and also claimed that only a pittance had been paid in rent over the years

The tribunal of the Residential Tenancies Board heard that a claim that Ms Dowling possessed a Part 4 tenancy — which gives a tenant security of tenure after living continuously in a property for six months — and any other finding would result in a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. File picture

A rent review notice sent to an elderly tenant who had lived in the same house in Cork City for over 80 years seeking an almost threefold increase in her monthly rent to €2,000 was invalid, a rent tribunal has ruled.

A tribunal of the Residential Tenancies Board upheld an appeal by Mary Dowling, and determined her tenancy was covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 which allowed it to rule on the validity of a rent review notice served on her in May 2021.

Ms Dowling had claimed a finding of an adjudication officer from October 2021 that her occupation of the rental property on Old Youghal Road in Cork was by way of a “life interest” was incorrect.

Counsel for Ms Dowling, Ruadhán Ó Ciaráin BL, outlined how she had lived her whole life in the property and had decided to put a formal lease in place following the death of her parents.

The tribunal heard Ms Dowling has been living in the property since May 1944.

Mr Ó Ciaráin said Ms Dowling’s occupation of the dwelling could not be by way of a “life interest” as the lease contained a provision which allowed the landlord to terminate it for any breach including the non-payment of rent.

He claimed Ms Dowling possessed a Part 4 tenancy — which gives a tenant security of tenure after living continuously in a property for six months — and any other finding would result in a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.

The tribunal also heard that there was a delay in the case being held as there had been a related application to Cork Circuit Court. Mr Ó Ciaráin said Ms Dowling also had problems obtaining parking permits because she was unable to demonstrate she had a tenancy covered by the relevant legislation.

Landlord's case

The landlord, Zita Dennehy, who legally represented herself, argued that the tenancy fell outside the jurisdiction of the RTB. 

Ms Dennehy, who was not the original landlord, also claimed that only a pittance had been paid in rent over the years.

She told the RTB Tribunal that the tenant’s solicitor had drafted the tenancy agreement in 2006 and the €675 monthly rent had never been increased. 

Ms Dennehy observed that it was a very low rent and it was unfair that the agreement was not being upheld.

She also claimed that if the tribunal ruled that the tenancy came under the jurisdiction of the RTB that the six-year rule should apply for the resetting of rent to the current market rate.

RTB ruling

Tribunal chairperson, Hugh Markey, said there was no evidence to suggest the property fell outside the scope of the legislation. Mr Markey said it was the case that the landlord had relied on the perceived unfairness of the rent not reflecting the market rate.

He said the tribunal found that the lease held by Ms Dowling had all of the qualities of a lease as defined by the legislation. Mr Markey said the landlord gave more beneficial terms to the tenant in an agreement willingly entered into.

The tribunal ruled that a rent review notice which sought an increase in the monthly rent to €2,000 because “the rent has not been revised for many years” was invalid.

It pointed out that the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 requires such notices to be sent at least 90 days before the date for which the new rent is to have effect. Mr Markey said the notice sent by the landlord was not in the prescribed form.