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

Renting a family home

Options
  • 19-03-2012 1:48pm
    #1
    goodies
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭


    hello all, just wondering does anybody have any thoughts on our situation. We recently moved into a house that is family home of people who wanted to move abroad due to economic circumtances. We understand that it has not worked out and they are returning back to ireland. To-date we have not been asked to vacate but suspect it is coming down the line. we are just wondering what are our options in this situation. Our lease was for one year. We are a family also with small children.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Check your lease. If you have a fixed term lease and it doenst have a clause about them being able to ask you to move if they need the place for themselves then they cannot ask you to vacate until the lease is up. If there is such a clause in place, and provided you have been there for more than 6 months, then they may be able to ask you to leave (Im not actually sure about this; there was some discussion about it on here recently but Im not sure we got a difinitive answer), but at the very least they must give the required notice period, which is a month at least, or more if you are there over a year.

    Of course, the lease can be broken by mutual consent, if an agreement can be found between you.


  • Options
    #3
    ProudDUB
    Registered Users Posts: 11,569 ✭✭✭✭ProudDUB


    A fixed term lease can not be broken, unless (as djmi says) there is a mutually agreed to clause in it that gives the landlord an break clause after a fixed period of time. If that is not there, you can not be forced to vacate the property. If you decide not to move, any threats to with hold your deposit, turn off your gas or ESB, change the locks etc etc, should be countered with a claim with the PTRB, and the land lord will be hit with a massive fine. If you do decide to do move out to accommodate them, negotiate terms before hand (such as a reduction in your rent) that benefit you best and compensate you for the financial, logistical and emotional consequences of having to move again. Don't feel bad for doing so. You have to do anything for them if you don't want to.


  • Options
    #4
    goodies
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭goodies


    thank you so much for your responses. Especially your thougths prouddub. We of course would hate to see people out of their home but we entered into this arrangement in good faith too...there is no clause in the lease about this issue. It will be such a pain trying to find someplace else suitable but will start the process anyway to keep our options open


  • Options
    #5
    ProudDUB
    Registered Users Posts: 11,569 ✭✭✭✭ProudDUB


    No probs. :)

    Btw, did your land lord register your tenancy with the PRTB? (You would have gotten a copy of the registration details from the PRTB if they did.) If they did not, they may be hiding their rental income from the tax man. Your bringing your tenancy to the attention of the the PRTB (and thereby the Dept of Revenue) further strengthens your bargaining position with them.

    Best of luck to you.


  • Options
    #6
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    goodies wrote: »
    thank you so much for your responses. Especially your thougths prouddub. We of course would hate to see people out of their home but we entered into this arrangement in good faith too...there is no clause in the lease about this issue. It will be such a pain trying to find someplace else suitable but will start the process anyway to keep our options open

    If there is no break clause in the contract then you are free to stay there for the duration.

    Of course, they could offer you a financial incentive to move early; say full deposit back plus 2-3 months rent... ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    mdebets
    Registered Users Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭mdebets


    Did your landlord actually left Ireland? If they have, I hope that you have withhold the part of the rent (I think 20%) that you have to hand-over to Revenue. If you have not, Revenue will come after you, not the landlord.


  • Options
    #8
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    djimi wrote: »
    If there is no break clause in the contract then you are free to stay there for the duration.

    Of course, they could offer you a financial incentive to move early; say full deposit back plus 2-3 months rent... ;)

    If there is no break clause you cannot be forced out or evicted. It is highly unlikely that there is a break clause as to the best of my knowledge very very few leases have one.

    Furthermore, after 6 months in the house, you automatically acquire Part 4 rights which include the right to stay there for up to 4 years without signing a new lease.

    If you definitely want to stay for a period of time get another fixed term lease.

    If you want to stay but are not sure how long, go for a Part 4 lease - but with a Part 4, the landlord can legally ask you to move out if he wants the house for his own use, which in this case seems likely.

    As djimi says, if the landlord wants to buy-out the lease, it could be financially beneficial to you. - depost returned plus the equivalent of 2-3 months in cash ........


  • Options
    #9
    goodies
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭goodies


    dJimi that idea could take the painful sting out of the process of packing up again!


  • Options
    #10
    goodies
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭goodies


    mdebets wrote: »
    Did your landlord actually left Ireland? If they have, I hope that you have withhold the part of the rent (I think 20%) that you have to hand-over to Revenue. If you have not, Revenue will come after you, not the landlord.

    I sincerely hope this is not true! Property being managed by an agent who knows about as much as us regarding the people's plan


  • Options
    #11
    hohojojo
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭hohojojo


    goodies wrote: »
    I sincerely hope this is not true! Property being managed by an agent who knows about as much as us regarding the people's plan


    i am nearly sure if it is been managed for by someone within ireland like property company they organise the tax not the tenent out of the rent before passing on the remainder


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    It depends who the agent is. Our landlord lives in the US but the property is managed by a letting agent (actual company in the town) who look after the tax situation as we pay the rent to them.

    If you pay your rent direct to the landlord then you should be holding 20% of the rent to be paid as tax. Unless they have an arrangement with the agent to pay the tax, but its unlikely if you pay them the rent direct.


  • Options
    #13
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    goodies wrote: »
    dJimi that idea could take the painful sting out of the process of packing up again!

    Zero chance of the landlord offering that I would think :)


  • Options
    #14
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    RoverJames wrote: »
    Zero chance of the landlord offering that I would think :)

    Depends how desperate they are to get their house back. At the moment they have zero chance of moving back in and their only option is to rent for the remainder of the lease. Giving the current tenants a financial incentive of a couple of months rent to get them out could work out cheaper in the long run.


  • Options
    #15
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    djimi wrote: »
    Depends how desperate they are to get their house back. At the moment they have zero chance of moving back in and their only option is to rent for the remainder of the lease. Giving the current tenants a financial incentive of a couple of months rent to get them out could work out cheaper in the long run.

    And at the end of the fixed term period the tenant has the option of remaining in the house for another 3 years under his Part 4 rights.

    If he requests another fixed term lease, there is nothing the landlord/owner can do. If the tenant opts for a Part 4 lease then the landlord can evict the tenant on the grounds that he wants the house for his use.

    The above information is incorrect - a landlord is not compelled to make a tenancy agreement according to what the tenant wants. A complete misunderstanding of something I found but did not digest correctly.


  • Options
    #16
    Kosseegan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 987 ✭✭✭Kosseegan


    odds_on wrote: »
    And at the end of the fixed term period the tenant has the option of remaining in the house for another 3 years under his Part 4 rights.

    If he requests another fixed term lease, there is nothing the landlord/owner can do. If the tenant opts for a Part 4 lease then the landlord can evict the tenant on the grounds that he wants the house for his use.


    The landlord is not obliged to enter another fixed term lease. It would be part 4 only if the landlord does not enter another fixed term lease.


  • Options
    #17
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    odds_on wrote: »
    And at the end of the fixed term period the tenant has the option of remaining in the house for another 3 years under his Part 4 rights.

    If he requests another fixed term lease, there is nothing the landlord/owner can do. If the tenant opts for a Part 4 lease then the landlord can evict the tenant on the grounds that he wants the house for his use.

    In the case of the OP a part 4 is absolutely no use to them whatsoever as the landlord will just say they need them out within 42 days as they need the house for themselves.

    I dont think its true that the landlord has to sign another fixed term? Its a legal contract; there is no obligation for either party to sign and enter it if they do not wish to.


  • Options
    #18
    goodies
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭goodies


    thank you all for your contributions....basically we knew at the outset it was a fixed term tenancy for one year and that is fine with us we have no intention of trying to extend it but we don't want to move again after a few weeks as we have not identified anywhere suitable near schools etc and we needed removers due to our vast quantity of kids paraphernalia.


  • Options
    #19
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    The landlord is not obliged to enter another fixed term lease. It would be part 4 only if the landlord does not enter another fixed term lease.
    djimi wrote: »
    In the case of the OP a part 4 is absolutely no use to them whatsoever as the landlord will just say they need them out within 42 days as they need the house for themselves.

    I dont think its true that the landlord has to sign another fixed term? Its a legal contract; there is no obligation for either party to sign and enter it if they do not wish to.

    Sorry for the error, the landlord, although the tenant has acquired Part 4 rights to remain in the property for a 4 year period, if the landlord does not want to have/sign a new fixed term lease, he just does nothing. Therefore, the lease becomes a Part 4 tenancy and after due process, the tenant can be evicted (subject to S.34 grounds for termination by the landlord).

    In this way, a landlord wanting to live in his own house may do so on the expiry of a fixed term lease plus the time to complete the Notice of Termination process.


Advertisement