Tenant wont move out!

paky

Susie_Q wrote: »

Please post links to the relevant Irish legislation that you claim can be used for a court case in this situation. This should not be a problem considering how emphatic you are.

this is basic contract law.
offer
consideration
acceptance

paky

bluewolf wrote: »

as i said, it doesnt apply in this case

all OP has to do is give 28 days' notice NOW and kick them out at the end of Dec

why doesnt it apply?

MazG

Susie_Q wrote: »

It seems that you've been given lots of good and varied advice in here but you are refusing to take it.

Either take some action (preferably involving the guards kicking him or) or please stop repeating the same complaints over and over.

Good luck.

I think that's a bit harsh, considering this thread only started two and a half hours ago. I don't think it's realistic to expect the OP to have it all sorted in that kind of timeframe!

coffee_cake

paky wrote: »

why doesnt it apply?

go back and read my post again

Susie_Q

paky wrote: »

this is basic contract law.
offer
consideration
acceptance

Again, please post links to Irish legislation that you believe gives this guy legal basis for a court case.

paky

bluewolf wrote: »

go back and read my post again

so if the landlord intends on living in the mentioned property she must give at least 6 months notice? am i correct?

fullback4glin

Drop a subtle hint like, Time is moving on John, and so are you

leeroybrown

paky wrote: »

so if the landlord intends on living in the mentioned property she must give at least 6 months notice? am i correct?

No. Within the first six months of a lease the landlord can serve notice without any grounds. After six months they must provide a valid reason, one of which is to use the property them self. This is irrelevant here as the 'lease' is less than six months old. She just needs to give 28 days notice.

coffee_cake

paky wrote: »

so if the landlord intends on living in the mentioned property she must give at least 6 months notice? am i correct?

Not even remotely. It says it clearly:
"The landlord can terminate without specifying grounds during the first 6 months, but once a tenancy has lasted 6 months, the landlord will be able to terminate that tenancy (known as a "Part 4 tenancy") during the following 3 1 /2 years only if any of the following apply;"

Tenancy is < 6 months therefore LL can terminate with no reason

thenightrider

paky wrote: »

you let him move into the house without paying rent or deposit.
you were pretty generous, i'll give you that.

the terms of this agreement were that he would pay you all the money owed at the end of december?

so you tried to alter the terms of the agreement and he didnt accept them.
thats tough luck on your part.

the agreement is made and you are the one not honouring it.

he is entitled to stay there once he pays you in december.

i would forget about kicking him out on the street or you will have a very big lawsuit pending against you.

You are mouthing of crap you dont no the law plese dont listen to this guy.

paky

bluewolf wrote: »

Not even remotely. It says it clearly:
"The landlord can terminate without specifying grounds during the first 6 months, but once a tenancy has lasted 6 months, the landlord will be able to terminate that tenancy (known as a "Part 4 tenancy") during the following 3 1 /2 years only if any of the following apply;"

Tenancy is < 6 months therefore LL can terminate with no reason

If you don't get that you may have misunderstood the "basic contract law" as well

I DO GET IT. Dont get smart with me. Theres no grounds for it. I agree. If thats the case the landlord should be fine evicting the tenant.

The_Conductor

Guys- I am getting seriously annoyed here.

If you disagree with what someone else posts- refute the post factually without personalising your post.

Next person who decides they're being smart getting digs in at other posters under the radar, gets a posting holiday from the forum.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

convert

christina51 wrote: »

no i have no contract signed with him,the house was originally leased to my friend but this new tenant only moved in last week as my friend had moved out

If I've read this correctly, your last tenant moved out and she assigned the lease to this guy? Or did she have a lease signed with you? Was her tenancy registered withthe prtb? And have you registered this new tenancy with them? This may have bearing on the legalities of your problem.

lynchie

thenightrider wrote: »

You are mouthing of crap you dont no the law plese dont listen to this guy.

Residential Tenacy Act 2004 wrote:

“tenancy” includes a periodic tenancy and a tenancy for a fixed term, whether oral or in writing or implied, and, where the context so admits, includes a sub-tenancy and a tenancy or sub-tenancy that has been terminated;

Residential Tenacy Act 2004 wrote:

“tenancy agreement” includes an oral tenancy agreement;

Looks like a tenacy can be created orally ( or verbally) without a written contract according to the act above.

adamski8

christina51 wrote: »

really?but i really tought a verbal agreement wouldnt stand up in court?

i presume thats only if you deny it?!!

RedXIV wrote: »

How could it? He says it happened, you say it didn't? then what happens? thats why we need proof i.e. a physical lease.

but she says it did and never said that she would deny it!

Susie_Q wrote: »

You are completely incorrect. The guy has no written lease or contract to state he has the right to live in this property. The most he is legally entitled to (as previously mentioned in this thread) is 28 days written notice. After that time has expired he has no right to be in the property and can be legally ejected.

but he has a verbal agreement?!
and the solictor she rang even said that that is valid:

christina51 wrote: »

just rang a solictor for advice,she basically said even though there is no written agreement in place,there is still a verbal agreement and i have to give him 2 months notice to leave but if he refuses then basically ill have to get a court order to get him out,sounds ridiculous to me being honest.cant believe this is happening!

Im not saying i know much about law but can someone tell me why the verbal agreement isn't valid?
He hasnt paid rent/deposit but that was agreed upon.

christina51

convert wrote: »

If I've read this correctly, your last tenant moved out and she assigned the lease to this guy? Or did she have a lease signed with you? Was her tenancy registered withthe prtb? And have you registered this new tenancy with them? This may have bearing on the legalities of your problem.

no the last tenant i had a lease with ,the lease ended 2 weeks ago and they moved out,they recommended this guy to move in but as he had no money i agreed to let him stay rent free with no lease and we would just start at the end of december when he could afford to pay and then sign a lease etc.no i havent registered anything with the prtb concerning this new tenant.

flutered

unfortunatly tenants have more rights than landlords, as i found out last spring to my cost, the only way of getting rid of an unwelcome tenant is through unlawful means, i am in no way condoning the following, remove the main fuse on the metre, lift the manhole cover and block the pipe with an item of clothing shoved far back so as it will not show.

thenightrider

I think you should give 28 days notice today sent it by reg post so you have proof you gave the notice at least you will be going by the book.

The_Conductor

flutered wrote: »

unfortunatly tenants have more rights than landlords, as i found out last spring to my cost, the only way of getting rid of an unwelcome tenant is through unlawful means, i am in no way condoning the following, remove the main fuse on the metre, lift the manhole cover and block the pipe with an item of clothing shoved far back so as it will not show.

Do this- and regardless of whether they are squatting, unlawful tenants, purveyors of weapons of mass destruction- whatever, you will find yourself on the end of a judgement far exceeding any rent that you may be due. Yes, its unfair as hell- but unless you stick to the letter of the law- you will be the one who gets dragged up in court and will be taken for a ride.

There is a growing problem with tenants who know they can act the maggot and get away with it for protracted periods of time. Even if they don't pay a red cent in rent- it can take over a year to exhaust all their options and get them out- meanwhile you've had 12k of mortgage payments- aside from the fact that it may be your only abode and you need it for personal use.......

Yes, there was a massive problem with cowboy landlords in the past- however the pendulum has now swung firmly in the opposite direction- and we are now blighted with numerous instances of cowboy tenants......

ztoical

adamski8 wrote: »

i presume thats only if you deny it?!!


but she says it did and never said that she would deny it!


but he has a verbal agreement?!
and the solictor she rang even said that that is valid:.

A solictor who was given limited information over the phone and who may or may not have a background in tenancy law. Just because someone is a solictor does not mean they are up to date on all areas of law.

adamski8 wrote: »

Im not saying i know much about law but can someone tell me why the verbal agreement isn't valid?
He hasnt paid rent/deposit but that was agreed upon.

Because according to the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 as the guy has no signed fixed term lease the type of tenancy he has is a part 4 tenancy. That is what his verbal agreement equals to, it cannot equal a fixed term lease without something in writting. Under a part 4 he needs to be given 28 days notice in writing as he has been in the property less then 6 months for one of the following reasons. OP I assume you've a valid reason for asking him to leave.

After 3 and ½ years
If the tenant does not comply with the obligations of the tenancy
If the property is no longer suited to the tenants’ needs (e.g. overcrowded)
If the landlord needs the property for him/herself or for an immediate family member
If the landlord intends to sell the property
If the landlord intends to refurbish the property
If the landlord plans to change the business use of the property (e.g. turn it into offices).

paky

flutered wrote: »

unfortunatly tenants have more rights than landlords,

how do they?

flutered wrote: »

as i found out last spring to my cost, the only way of getting rid of an unwelcome tenant is through unlawful means, i am in no way condoning the following, remove the main fuse on the metre, lift the manhole cover and block the pipe with an item of clothing shoved far back so as it will not show.

are you siding with her because your a landlord or is it that you think shes right?

therewillbe

Take the windows out,It always works.

ztoical

paky wrote: »

how do they?

Under the the Residential Tenancies Act 2004

The_Conductor

therewillbe wrote: »

Take the windows out,It always works.

Yes- and it'll earn you a massive fine, which on non-payment will earn you a spell in prison for contempt......

Guys- no matter how strongly you feel about it- keeping to the letter of the law is the only way you'll ensure you don't open yourself to all manner of counter claims.......

odds_on

This "tenant" probably HAS a PERIODIC lease:
A periodic tenancy is not for a fixed amount of time. The period of the tenancy may be weekly or monthly depending on when the rent is paid. Usually periodic tenancies are informal oral agreements but sometimes they are in writing.
If a periodic tenancy is oral, it is covered by the law appertaining to Part 4 tenancies.

A written periodic agreement may have similar conditions to a fixed term agreement.

no i have no contract signed with him,the house was originally leased to my friend but this new tenant only moved in last week as my friend had moved out

However, OP states (can't find the post, it's too far back) that when the the original tenant moved out, he moved in. Now the question arises, did the original tenant move out at the end of his lease or was the lease "assigned" (although verbally) to this new tenant? If this is the case, the new tenant has the advantage of the "time" the original tenant had in the house i.e if original T was there for 8 months, the new tenant can claim this 8 month period - as the lease is assigned as ongoing with all its terms and conditions and does not start a new tenancy.

OP, be very, very careful about how you go about getting possession of your house; done incorrectly, it could cost you up to €5,000 (or possibly more).
You need to issue a valid Notice to Terminate with correct dates and if necessary, the reason (this is no problem as you, the owner, want to move back in yourself.
One other point - did you resister the tenancy (i.e. the original tenancy or this tenancy if it is not an assignment) with the PRTB? If not, you may have further problems.

ztoical

therewillbe wrote: »

Take the windows out,It always works.

Always works to what? Get the OP a date in court? OP get proper advice from someone with a knowledge of tenancy law like Threashold or the PRTB and make sure to follow the correct proceedure at all times. Yes it may take some time but in the long run you will be better off.

coffee_cake

paky wrote: »

I DO GET IT. Dont get smart with me. Theres no grounds for it. I agree. If thats the case the landlord should be fine evicting the tenant.

I wasnt being smart tbh, let's shake hands

odds_on wrote: »

This "tenant" probably HAS a PERIODIC lease:
A periodic tenancy is not for a fixed amount of time. The period of the tenancy may be weekly or monthly depending on when the rent is paid. Usually periodic tenancies are informal oral agreements but sometimes they are in writing.
If a periodic tenancy is oral, it is covered by the law appertaining to Part 4 tenancies.

A written periodic agreement may have similar conditions to a fixed term agreement.

However, OP states (can't find the post, it's too far back) that when the the original tenant moved out, he moved in. Now the question arises, did the original tenant move out at the end of his lease or was the lease "assigned" (although verbally) to this new tenant? If this is the case, the new tenant has the advantage of the "time" the original tenant had in the house i.e if original T was there for 8 months, the new tenant can claim this 8 month period - as the lease is assigned as ongoing with all its terms and conditions and does not start a new tenancy.

OP, be very, very careful about how you go about getting possession of your house; done incorrectly, it could cost you up to €5,000 (or possibly more).
You need to issue a valid Notice to Terminate with correct dates and if necessary, the reason (this is no problem as you, the owner, want to move back in yourself.
One other point - did you resister the tenancy (i.e. the original tenancy or this tenancy if it is not an assignment) with the PRTB? If not, you may have further problems.

Luckily OP already said the old lease was already up not re-assigned, and they haven't reg with the PRTB.
If it's really a part 4 then OP's reason of family needing the house should be fine.

Really think the OP is on firm footing here even if they haven't reg yet

bohsfan

To anyone who says 'just call the Gardai'- the tenant did not break into the house. They were allowed to take up periodic residency by means of a verbal contract. The OP could be up for unlawful eviction if the Gardai threw him out.

Also, I wouldn't be getting into any dirty tricks as mentioned earlier. You may force the tenant out in the short term, but in the long term they know where you live...

You will just have to do it by the book. 28 days written notice, get a solicitor involved. It will take much longer than the 28 days (probably months) to get the property back. The wheels of justice are often slow turning.

christina51

bohsfan wrote: »

To anyone who says 'just call the Gardai'- the tenant did not break into the house. They were allowed to take up periodic residency by means of a verbal contract. The OP could be up for unlawful eviction if the Gardai threw him out.

Also, I wouldn't be getting into any dirty tricks as mentioned earlier. You may force the tenant out in the short term, but in the long term they know where you live...

You will just have to do it by the book. 28 days written notice, get a solicitor involved. It will take much longer than the 28 days (probably months) to get the property back. The wheels of justice are often slow turning.

months to get the house back????:eek:

leeroybrown

christina51 wrote: »

months to get the house back????:eek:

If the tenant decides to stick it out they can deliberately use the inbuilt delays in the legal processes to stall an eviction for quite a while.