Student lease getting messy, please help!

jaffa20

Write a letter to the landlord explaining that you are leaving because you are not able to find new tenants because the place is overpriced. Tell him he can keep the deposit.

Keep your phone off for a few weeks and just leave.

Simple as.

What can he do?

Track you down to carry out legal proceedings against students?

He won't even know where you live. All he will have is your name so unlikely he will bother going down the legal route against people with no money.

Merch

jaffa20 wrote: »

Write a letter to the landlord explaining that you are leaving because you are not able to find new tenants because the place is overpriced. Tell him he can keep the deposit.

Keep your phone off for a few weeks and just leave.

Simple as.

What can he do?

Track you down to carry out legal proceedings against students?

He won't even know where you live. All he will have is your name so unlikely he will bother going down the legal route against people with no money.

I would advocate the legal route,
I.E they don't have to do a runner or lose their deposit.
If it is all above board they are liable, if not then they need to look into that. Their landlord is putting the onus on them to let it when it doesnt sound up to scratch and that cannot realistically be expected to sublet it if its not up to scratch.

The_Conductor

We do not know how the lease is worded, what it contains, who signed it or whether there is a guarantor (or multiple) involved. From the (limited) information given- the OP is party to a fixed term lease, not a Part 4 tenancy, and has is party to a legally binding agreement- wholly outside of the remit of the PRTB or the 2006 Residential Tenancies Act. Whether or not the Landlord is tax compliant, compliant with PRTB requirements, and compliant with the multiple conditions of the Act- is both irrelevant and also subservient to the legally binding lease.

Certainly its possible that the Landlord may not be compliant in all matters- however putting him in a position where he may face a sizeable fine (if applicable) is hardly going to put him/her in the frame of mind where they are going to let the other agreement slide.

I do not in any manner suggest that breaking the law is to be condoned in any manner- what I am saying is simply- two wrongs do not make a right......

quietsailor

1st the prtb states that deposits can be held against rent so your going to loose that unless the rent is paid to the end of lease.

2nd your entitled to one rent review per year; this is quoted from the prtb website
Rents (Part 3)
Rent may not be greater than the open market rate and may be
reviewed (upward or downward) once a year only unless there has
been a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation that
warrants a review. Tenants are to be given 28 days notice of new
rents.Tenant may ask their landlord to review the rent if they feel it
exceeds the market rate for the property - if more than a year has
elapsed since the last rent review, tenants may seek a review.
Disputes about any aspect of rent may be referred to the PTRB.
Ask your landlord for a rent review downwards. If he refuses to bring it down to current market prices contact the PRTB and ask if your entitled to terminate the lease

Tenancy Terminations (Part 5)
Tenancies will be terminated by means of a notice of termination,
regardless of why the termination is happening. If the termination
is by the landlord and the tenancy has lasted more than 6 months,
one of the 6 reasons on the previous page must be cited. Tenants
do not need to give a reason for terminating.
The notice period to be given depends on the length of the
tenancy as follows:
Shorter notice periods apply where termination is for noncompliance
with tenancy obligations (7 days for serious anti-social
behaviour, 28 days for other breaches) and the parties may also
agree a shorter notice period at the time of termination (but not
earlier). Longer notice may be given, but not more than 70 days
where the tenancy has lasted less than 6 months.
I've been told that the tenant doesn't have to have a reason to give a notice of termination of tenancy, just the landlord. Have you given a notice of termination of tenancy yet?

Merch

smccarrick wrote: »

We do not know how the lease is worded, what it contains, who signed it or whether there is a guarantor (or multiple) involved. From the (limited) information given- the OP is party to a fixed term lease, not a Part 4 tenancy, and has is party to a legally binding agreement- wholly outside of the remit of the PRTB or the 2006 Residential Tenancies Act. Whether or not the Landlord is tax compliant, compliant with PRTB requirements, and compliant with the multiple conditions of the Act- is both irrelevant and also subservient to the legally binding lease.

Certainly its possible that the Landlord may not be compliant in all matters- however putting him in a position where he may face a sizeable fine (if applicable) is hardly going to put him/her in the frame of mind where they are going to let the other agreement slide.

I do not in any manner suggest that breaking the law is to be condoned in any manner- what I am saying is simply- two wrongs do not make a right......

It sounds like you are suggesting that fixed term agreements are outside the scope of the PRTB and the PRTB is subservient to fixed term agreements. That's not the case, if they were, all a landlord would have to do to circumvent PRTB would be to demand fixed term agreements. landlords are required by the residential tenancies Act 2004, regardless of the lease type to register.
The existence of a fixed term lease does not preclude the operation of Part 4 and the rights afforded to a tenant and landlord.
If a landlord refuses to sign PRTB form, thats a breach of the law, wether we agree with it or like it or not.
I agree with D3PO one doesn't trump the other, thats not how it works.
I would say the landlord seems to be on more tenouous ground than the tenant, if he's not PRTB reg then he/she are likely evading tax also but you're saying that not being compliant with tax law and tenancy law is subservient to a fixed term agreement.

I wouldn prefer not to go down the PRTB route myself and I'd really advise not reporting someone for spite, instead request a meeting, talk to the person about all the issues, if they are contactable and reasonable,(if the furniture is in a bad way and the rent is over market value that's not reasonable to expect them to rent it/find someone to sublet)
I'd tell him he has to replace furniture or no one will take it at all and that he needs to drop the rent to comparable places nearby to make it attractive, If he/she declines to do any of this then they are unreasonable and I would then suggest to landlord about contacting threshold and then PRTB, if he's legit he wont have a concern.
Any tenant has the right to go to the PRTB wether you or I agree, if subsequently it is found the landlord is not reg'd then the tenant is not putting the landlord in a position where they might get a serious fine, the landlord or their agent is putting themself in that position.
It wont matter what their frame of mind is. If they are not compliant with PRTB they cannot claim tax relief on investment mortgage interest, if they arent claiming tax relief that would appear to me if they are not paying tax, which is stealing money from you, me, hospitals etc (if they claimed their allowances they probably wouldn't pay much anyway)
In my opinion the landlord not pissing these people off by failing to return their deposit could be the least of his potential worries. If I were him, if he isn't stubborn, would terminate the tenancy if the circumstances are as above..
If he is not compliant the tenant has landlord over a barrel, which is why landlords should be compliant.He or she may be the most decent nice landlord ever and could end up shafted by a tenant.
If landlord is compliant then the tenants still have a case regarding furniture if it is a shoddy state, as in particularily bad, not that someones girlfriend doesn't like it.

The_Conductor

I am stating that the tax compliance of the landlord is a wholly different matter and will be dealt with seperately from all other issues. There are many landlords out there (even now) who are not PRTB registered- but who *are* fully tax compliant. In a case like that- there is an automatic fine for not registering with the PRTB- but that is the extent of sanctions against the landlord.

A lease is a legal instrument which is legally enforceable between the two parties- however the enforcement of the lease is a civil matter (as evidenced from the multiple cases at District Court level currently).

There are many laws governing the renting of property (including the Residential Tenancies Act), the lease is a seperate legal agreement- which can be enforced by court order over and above the provisions of those laws- as by signing it- a tenant can be said to have signed away other rights afforded to them in law.

It really is a case of- you need to read a document carefully, if you disagree with it- don't sign it. I've been held to contracts I signed in the past- solely on the basis of my signature- I've regretted it, and its cost me money- I learnt my lesson the hard way.....

Merch

I don't see a landlord going the court route or getting very much sympathy against student tenants especially if the Landlord is not compliant with the PRTB which is included in the Residential Tenancy Act 2004.
I don't think it would be viewed well to say, I am coming to court to enforce a fixed term lease and recover the costs, but I haven't registered with the PRTB as is required by law, I'll choose what laws suit me your honour.
Thats like pulling up to a Garda checkpoint and saying oh I have car insurance but I dont get motor tax as I dont agree with it, I'd much prefer choosing the laws I have to comply with.

By not registering with PRTB you are contravening an act of law.

I agree that tenants or anyone signing any contract needs to read it and I would never in the past have signed a fixed term agreement. But I know people who know nothing about renting and are just given a lease to sign and are in essence conned into signing it as the only option.

I am not against landlords, not someone with 2 or maybe even 3 properties. I do believe they should be tax and PRTB compliant. If they are not, then they have helped increase the cost of housing by speculating on property helping keep it out of the reach of other people who might otherwise have been able to afford their own home (while I am not against Investment in property and certainly it was effectively encouraged by banks and Govt) however
If Landlords shirk their responsibility to pay tax, then they are greedy, willing to reap the rewards of being able to have more than their own home and have their investment paid for by someone else but not pay their tax due to society.

I have heard about tenants that are a nightmare and have come across people that are the same, but equally I have personally come across landlords that are milking it and have no intention of complying with tax and therefore have no interest in signing something that highlights them as renting a property.
Not only are these people refusing to pay a legal obligation of tax, but more than likely these are the people I have found will not provide suitable accommodation (furniture) or infringe on the rights of tenants
It is good tenants (and they exist)that suffer these arseh**es.

If anything tenants have very few rights, but if a landlord wants to ensure their own rights they need to sign up to the PRTB to protect themselves.

The_Conductor

Merch-

Tenants actually have far more rights than you seem to realise. It can take between 6 months and a year for due process to take its course in an eviction situation. Students are well aware of this- and do regularly exploit it- as per the current FLAC mess in NUIG. My own sister let her apartment in Galway out while she was an intern in London, when she eventually got it back 9 months later- all she had was the first months rent and a months deposit, 22k worth of damage including structural damage that had to be notified to a commercial premises next door (it backed onto Jury's from Bridge Street), and 8 months of bank and Revenue hassle- over mortgage and tax issues (which had been sorted prior to her leaving the country.

There are many many tenants from hell out there- just as there are cowboy landlords.

My point about the lease is that any action which may be taken concerning non tax compliance or non compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act- are totally seperate matters, the lease being a civil agreement between a landlord and tenant. It would actually be considered prejudicial to even mention other matters in court, as they would not be considered to have a bearing on the case at hand. It may seem unfair- but thats how it goes.

Potentially- there could be 3 or 4 seperate court actions by different parties arising from non-compliance with different aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship and the laws pertaining to it. These are all freestanding cases- a judgement or ruling in one will not impact on another.

We are getting off topic though.

The OP is probably fine- if there are no guarantors on the lease- as there would be no assets on which to place a judgement. If one or more of the parents agreed to act as guarantor on the lease- it is a wholly different situation- and the OP and all named on the lease (including guarantors), need professional advice and possibly representation, to sort out the mess.

The OP has not clarified this.

Merch

smccarrick wrote: »

Merch-

Tenants actually have far more rights than you seem to realise. It can take between 6 months and a year for due process to take its course in an eviction situation. Students are well aware of this- and do regularly exploit it- as per the current FLAC mess in NUIG. My own sister let her apartment in Galway out while she was an intern in London, when she eventually got it back 9 months later- all she had was the first months rent and a months deposit, 22k worth of damage including structural damage that had to be notified to a commercial premises next door (it backed onto Jury's from Bridge Street), and 8 months of bank and Revenue hassle- over mortgage and tax issues (which had been sorted prior to her leaving the country.

There are many many tenants from hell out there- just as there are cowboy landlords.

My point about the lease is that any action which may be taken concerning non tax compliance or non compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act- are totally seperate matters, the lease being a civil agreement between a landlord and tenant. It would actually be considered prejudicial to even mention other matters in court, as they would not be considered to have a bearing on the case at hand. It may seem unfair- but thats how it goes.

Potentially- there could be 3 or 4 seperate court actions by different parties arising from non-compliance with different aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship and the laws pertaining to it. These are all freestanding cases- a judgement or ruling in one will not impact on another.

We are getting off topic though.

The OP is probably fine- if there are no guarantors on the lease- as there would be no assets on which to place a judgement. If one or more of the parents agreed to act as guarantor on the lease- it is a wholly different situation- and the OP and all named on the lease (including guarantors), need professional advice and possibly representation, to sort out the mess.

The OP has not clarified this.

I would have thought it unecessary to get a guaruntor on a lease but thinking about it, I believe it would be a good idea in the case of students, I'd have each student put a parent on so no-one could shirk a share of the responsibility.
Re your post, It is why I am saying a landlord should have PRTB reg to protect themselves, its not some be all cure for them but without it they cannot even enter into a dispute resolution with a tenant/s.
Was your sister paying tax and reg with PRTB?
If she was, she has the law on her side and can sue these people, even if she cannot extract money she can get a judgement against them so they will not be able to get a loan until that judgement has been dealt with.
She could then be able to write off costs against tax (not something someone wants to do or maybe extremely difficult and costly and unpleasant) and carry that forward until the loss is mitigated.

I am aware that there as many tenants from hell as there are landlords that are non compliant. I understand it can take a long time to process that kind of thing and I sympathise with any legit landlord that has had to deal with that.
I disagree that they are separate issues and if a tenant knows or guesses that you are not legit then they can screw you around, if a landlord is not legit then they are asking for trouble.
If she let it through an agent then it comes across as more professional (although i am sure they do little for their money, it can also be written off against tax) if she let it herself then maybe they knew she was away and decided without contact or with distance that they could do with it what they wanted.
If you get good tenants they should be appreciated, in the case of the OP I believe they said they were there for years, if they were bad tenants then the landlord wouild have tried to get rid of them by now, as it seems they have been paying, thats a good thing, it doesnt seem like they have caused damage, so if this is the case wether that landlord is legit, tax or PRTb the landlord should be thanking their lucky stars they didnt have the misfortune your sister had and that they had some people paying for years that sublet during the summers, unfortunately they now want to go, he/she should be trying to renegotiate with them to have them come back in the future or reccomend potential good tenants.