Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

I'm being evicted in 4 weeks

Options
  • 01-06-2011 10:04pm
    #1
    WAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭


    landlord has asked me to leave in 6 weeks as he's been asked by the bank to put the house up for sale. l/lord has had no problems with me and rent has always been paid on time and house is still in perfect condition. we have been in the house for two years.

    any advice??


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    uberwolf
    Registered Users Posts: 7,580 ✭✭✭uberwolf


    ask for a good reference?

    tbh, unless there's a real shortage of quality alternatives move on. If you wanted to stay ask him to go back to the bank saying that you've refused and to see how they respond. Someone will know for certain, but I don't think they can interfere with your lease.


  • Options
    #3
    not even wrong
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭not even wrong


    6 weeks or 4 weeks? Are you currently on a fixed-term lease?


  • Options
    #4
    Slydice
    Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    sounds like some decent amount of notice giving that he's going bust...

    maybe start looking for a new place to rent?


  • Options
    #5
    bugler
    Registered Users Posts: 3,436 ✭✭✭bugler


    Slydice wrote: »
    sounds like some decent amount of notice giving that he's going bust...

    No, the OP is legally entitled to 56 days notice at a minimum as per the RTA 2004. 42 days just won't do. It does not matter if your LL is going bust/dying/desperate. Though this does not solve your bigger problem, you are quite entitled to refuse to leave within the 6 weeks. In fact, unless your landlord has served you proper written notice (and that means a letter, not an email, text etc) then you haven't received notice at all yet. And until you do, I would not move anywhere. Once you are given proper written notice of termination then add 56 days onto it to get your move out date.

    The above is founded on the assumption you are no longer under a fixed term lease, meaning you are governed solely by a Part 4 tenancy, and that you havebeen in the house 2 years. If you have been there any less then 2 years then 6 weeks is the notice period. If you are
     under a fixed term lease still, then you are entitled to remain for the duration of that lease agreement. Again, your LL's financial worries are irrelevant. You should then contact the landlord a month before the end of the lease, tell him you are availing of your right to remain under Part 4 once the lease is complete, and the LL will then have to serve you proper written notice of termination with the following notice periods applicable:
    The landlord must also give the tenant written notice of termination. The period of notice will depend on the duration of the tenancy.

    Duration of Tenancy Notice by Landlord
    Less than 6 months 28 days
    6 or more months but less than 1 year 35 days
    1 year or more but less than 2 years 42 days
    2 years or more but less than 3 years 56 days
    3 years or more but less than 4 years 84 days
    4 or more years 112 days


  • Options
    #6
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    bugler wrote: »
    No, the OP is legally entitled to 56 days notice at a minimum as per the RTA 2004. 42 days just won't do. It does not matter if your LL is going bust/dying/desperate. Though this does not solve your bigger problem, you are quite entitled to refuse to leave within the 6 weeks. In fact, unless your landlord has served you proper written notice (and that means a letter, not an email, text etc) then you haven't received notice at all yet. And until you do, I would not move anywhere. Once you are given proper written notice of termination then add 56 days onto it to get your move out date.

    The above is founded on the assumption you are no longer under a fixed term lease, meaning you are governed solely by a Part 4 tenancy, and that you havebeen in the house 2 years. If you have been there any less then 2 years then 6 weeks is the notice period. If you are
     under a fixed term lease still, then you are entitled to remain for the duration of that lease agreement. Again, your LL's financial worries are irrelevant. You should then contact the landlord a month before the end of the lease, tell him you are availing of your right to remain under Part 4 once the lease is complete, and the LL will then have to serve you proper written notice of termination with the following notice periods applicable:

    Cut the landlord a break... the bank is obviously telling him to put it up for sale because he can't afford the mortgage anymore... sometimes landlords are the good guys like, they're not always the villians


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    It might be a case of the landlord not informing the bank that he is renting out the property. I think that if the bank knew he was renting out and that there was a tenant in the property they would honour the terms of the lease. But then, banks are banks and have their own rules.

    Incidently. OP, what kind of lease do you have?


  • Options
    #8
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Its unlikely to sell quickly anyway. However the tenant is legally entitled to their correct notice period. That said I can't see the point in dragging it out.

    This is what stupid about the banks, why not let the tenant stay there and have some money coming in, they'll evict the tenant, then the house won't sell, and they'll have no rent.


  • Options
    #9
    tHE vAGGABOND
    Registered Users Posts: 6,687 ✭✭✭tHE vAGGABOND


    This is what stupid about the banks, why not let the tenant stay there and have some money coming in, they'll evict the tenant, then the house won't sell, and they'll have no rent
    Because the house will be a mess/not amazingly clean when its being viewed..

    When I was looking to buy anywhere that was rented and still had tennants or was not spotless, perfectly, operating theatre clean was an instant no - and I think many many people are the same.


  • Options
    #10
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Considering they'll be dropping the price 50k+ maybe 100+ to sell it, that would buy a lot of cleaning up.


  • Options
    #11
    Blackjack
    Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Blackjack


    BostonB wrote: »
    Its unlikely to sell quickly anyway. However the tenant is legally entitled to their correct notice period. That said I can't see the point in dragging it out.

    This is what stupid about the banks, why not let the tenant stay there and have some money coming in, they'll evict the tenant, then the house won't sell, and they'll have no rent.

    What about the Tenant that won't move, that requires a court order to shift out of the place and takes 2 years to move and thrashes the place?.

    Not the OP in this case, but the banks are taking no precautions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Rather than me just guessing perhaps you could explain how that is relevant?

    I think your suggesting they could sell a property to someone who wants to live in it faster than to someone who want to buy it to rent. I have no idea. Seems to me nothing is selling.

    However getting rent for the 2yrs it takes to sell, is a lot better than nothing for 2yrs.


  • Options
    #13
    Blackjack
    Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Blackjack


    BostonB wrote: »
    Rather than me just guessing perhaps you could explain how that is relevant?

    I think your suggesting they could sell a property to someone who wants to live in it faster than to someone who want to buy it to rent. I have no idea. Seems to me nothing is selling.

    However getting rent for the 2yrs it takes to sell, is a lot better than nothing for 2yrs.

    Would you buy a place with a sitting tenant, even if you were to buy it as an investor, or would you rather choose who lives in the place you buy?.


  • Options
    #14
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    Blackjack wrote: »
    Would you buy a place with a sitting tenant, even if you were to buy it as an investor, or would you rather choose who lives in the place you buy?.

    Plenty of buyers do. I was a sitting tenant during the sale of an apartment I was living in. Also, if buying to rent, these days it might easily viewed as a bonus due to getting rent from day 1 and no hassle with getting tenants.


  • Options
    #15
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Blackjack wrote: »
    Would you buy a place with a sitting tenant, even if you were to buy it as an investor, or would you rather choose who lives in the place you buy?.

    Yes if theres a tenant whos got good references, the place is kept well, and theres a history of rent being paid on time. What better tenant is there?


  • Options
    #16
    Blackjack
    Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Blackjack


    BostonB wrote: »
    Yes if theres a tenant whos got good references, the place is kept well, and theres a history of rent being paid on time. What better tenant is there?

    Or the Bank can sell to someone and provide them with the Mortgage, and in doing so will have a lot more access as to who's there.

    Who knows - maybe someone should ask the Bank why they're looking to sell the place without a tenant and perhaps maximise the market to which they are selling to, rather than to Investors looking for sitting tenants, Investors being few and far between.

    Regardless - we don't know that the bank has asked for the Tenant to be evicted, per the OP only the Landlord has appears to have asked the tenant to leave, not the Bank


  • Options
    #17
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    I have no doubt the bank want rid of it, its losing money all of the time. But I doubt they'll give out a mortgage either. So they'll be left with another empty property.


  • Options
    #18
    testicle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,430 ✭✭✭testicle


    tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »
    Because the house will be a mess/not amazingly clean when its being viewed..

    When I was looking to buy anywhere that was rented and still had tennants or was not spotless, perfectly, operating theatre clean was an instant no - and I think many many people are the same.

    I'm a tenant in a house that is for sale - at quite a decent asking price I must say. I've been here over a hear. If I had no arms, I could count on one hand the amount of viewings there have been by potential purchasers.


Advertisement