Termination of Tenancy by Tenant. What are my rights as a Landlord?

bucajack

Hi guys. Hope you can help me. I've been reading the information online but I'm a little confused by some of the legal jargon.

Basically I have tenants in my house. They have been there for 1 year and have signed another lease for 1 more year. However they have told me that they wish to terminate the tenancy. This isn't really a problem as I should be able to find a new tenant soon.

I'm wondering what my rights are in thus situation and what their obligations are. So far I've only had a verbal notification but I believe they must give me a written one. How much rent am I entitled to receive (August rent has just been paid)?

miami2007

hi, im in a similar situation myself. i found the guides on the PRTB website very helpful - it states your rights in plain english with no jargon!

this writen notice of ending a tenancy is a wierd one, i didnt get writen notice - and dont think i will - but im not sure the relevance. maybe in case of disputes/deposit returns?

Ciara22

Hi guys,

Its depends on whether your tenants signed a 'Fixed Term Lease' or not. If so, then they must honour the entire term of the lease unless the landlord is in breach of his/her obligations (which are detailed in the lease agreement). If they decide to leave before the entire term has expired, the landlord is entitled to keep the deposit in place of lost rent and also to pursue them legally for the remaining rent for the rest of the term.

If they have not signed a fixed term lease, then they are only required to give a standard period of notice which relates to the amount of time that they have been tenants. I think its 42 days in your case. This notice of termination must be given in writing and must contain the exact wording given in example on the PRTB website.

In reality, most tenants will just up and leave anyway and its rare that any landlord will get anywhere to retrieve any future rent payments but at least you will have the deposit. There is another clause in the lease that states that the tenants can find someone to take over their lease and in that case, they are no longer responsible.

Hope this helps!

bucajack

Yes it is a fixed term lease. So I tell them that as long as I am looking for another tenant they must pay the rent regardless of the fact that they have moved out? I can also give them the option of finding a tenant for me? What happens if they find a tenant for me but I don't want to take them?

BTW ignore my location! The house is in Ireland.

bugler

If they decide to leave before the entire term has expired, the landlord is entitled to keep the deposit in place of lost rent and also to pursue them legally for the remaining rent for the rest of the term.

This isn't unconditional. The LL can't get new tenants in right away and then pursue the old tenant for unpaid rent which he in effect has not lost.

OP: The tenants are not entitled to break the lease on a whim. So you are under no obligation to accept their termination (which should be written, and give you a month's notice). They are however entitled to find someone else to take over the lease, and if you refuse this new "assignee" then the tenants can terminate the tenancy. There is no guidance on your rights to vet this new assignee...the legislation just doesn't mention it.

The end result of this should be that any loss or damage is minimised. With that in mind, personally I wouldn't force tenants down the route of trying to find someone themselves. I would advertise the dwelling yourself, make yourself happy with any new tenants and deduct the cost of advertising from the tenant's deposit.

Hopefully you get new tenants, there is no vacant period, you don't lose out and everyone parts on decent terms.

You could alternatively retain the deposit, but if you get new tenants and don't lose out should you do this? Should you actually profit from the lease being broken?

If things get messy you may have to deal with a PRTB hearing and it will be heard on its merits and a decision issued, which from all of them I've read means they'll seek to mitigate everyone's loss in a manner similar to what I outline above.

HardyEustace

bugler wrote: »

This isn't unconditional. The LL can't get new tenants in right away and then pursue the old tenant for unpaid rent which he in effect has not lost.

OP: The tenants are not entitled to break the lease on a whim. So you are under no obligation to accept their termination (which should be written, and give you a month's notice). They are however entitled to find someone else to take over the lease, and if you refuse this new "assignee" then the tenants can terminate the tenancy. There is no guidance on your rights to vet this new assignee...the legislation just doesn't mention it.

The end result of this should be that any loss or damage is minimised. With that in mind, personally I wouldn't force tenants down the route of trying to find someone themselves. I would advertise the dwelling yourself, make yourself happy with any new tenants and deduct the cost of advertising from the tenant's deposit.

Hopefully you get new tenants, there is no vacant period, you don't lose out and everyone parts on decent terms.

You could alternatively retain the deposit, but if you get new tenants and don't lose out should you do this? Should you actually profit from the lease being broken?

If things get messy you may have to deal with a PRTB hearing and it will be heard on its merits and a decision issued, which from all of them I've read means they'll seek to mitigate everyone's loss in a manner similar to what I outline above.

Just out of interest what would happen if tenants found new tenants but you weren't happy with them (if you felt that they were not suitable)?

miami2007

feeling a bit dumb today - actually my 1st baby is due today so i have total baby brain so please excuse me!

when you say a fixed term lease do you mean a lease agreement stating say 1 year tenancy?

Thats what i have with my tenants, they signed a lease from june 2010 to end may 2011 - so as they have broken this i can potentially keep the deposit until i get new tenants?

its such a mess as they are social welfare tenants and get their rent in arrears so when they move out on the 29th sept i should be getting a months rent on that day - but what is stoppng them doing a runner.....

the deposit doesnt even cover it as my agent messed up at the begining only taking 45% of the first months rent as a deposit (the tenant agreed to pay the remainder but will be leaving before he does this)

variety

miami2007 wrote: »

feeling a bit dumb today - actually my 1st baby is due today so i have total baby brain so please excuse me!

Oooh, exciting! Best of luck...

miami2007 wrote: »

when you say a fixed term lease do you mean a lease agreement stating say 1 year tenancy?

Somewhere on the lease (usually on the page where it sums up all the nitty gritty such as address, rent, date rent due etc..) is should specifically state "Fixed Term Lease" from x date to x date.

If it doesn't have the words "Fixed Term" in it, then it's not a fixed term lease and they can go according to the Part 4 terms, which requires written notice of 28 days (for less than a year in residence).

bucajack

bugler wrote: »

This isn't unconditional. The LL can't get new tenants in right away and then pursue the old tenant for unpaid rent which he in effect has not lost.

OP: The tenants are not entitled to break the lease on a whim. So you are under no obligation to accept their termination (which should be written, and give you a month's notice). They are however entitled to find someone else to take over the lease, and if you refuse this new "assignee" then the tenants can terminate the tenancy. There is no guidance on your rights to vet this new assignee...the legislation just doesn't mention it.

The end result of this should be that any loss or damage is minimised. With that in mind, personally I wouldn't force tenants down the route of trying to find someone themselves. I would advertise the dwelling yourself, make yourself happy with any new tenants and deduct the cost of advertising from the tenant's deposit.

Hopefully you get new tenants, there is no vacant period, you don't lose out and everyone parts on decent terms.

You could alternatively retain the deposit, but if you get new tenants and don't lose out should you do this? Should you actually profit from the lease being broken?

If things get messy you may have to deal with a PRTB hearing and it will be heard on its merits and a decision issued, which from all of them I've read means they'll seek to mitigate everyone's loss in a manner similar to what I outline above.

Thanks for the advice. I'm only concerned about not being out of pocket by this. I would not withhold the deposit for no reason and I would only be pursuing any rent when the property is vacant. I don't want to get into a messy situation.

The advertising it myself and deducting any costs from the deposit seems like the best solution. Hopefull I could find someone quick which would make it easier on all parties.

variety

bucajack wrote: »

[...]I would only be pursuing any rent when the property is vacant. I don't want to get into a messy situation.

The advertising it myself and deducting any costs from the deposit seems like the best solution. Hopefull I could find someone quick which would make it easier on all parties.

Don't forget if the new tenant pays less rent you can also claim back for that.

eg old tenant paid 1,000 p/m
new tenant pays 900 p/m, you can claim back the 100 p/m for the remaining months on the term of the lease with the original tenant.

With any luck, though, you'll let it again at the same rent, and not have to worry about any of that.

bucajack

Thanks guys. It's hard to get clear information on what your options are and there are so many misconceptions out there about what you can and can't do.