Rights to take back Property that I rented out

bmwguy

I'm wondering if anyone can help me, I rented out my main (and only) property earlier this year 4 months ago but my circumstances have changed and I would like to move back into it ASAP. The tenants have been fine, but I read that they get security of tenure after 6 months in that they can stay for 4 years. Am I within my rights to demand the property back and what obligations do I have to them? They signed a 1 year lease and I used a letting agent, so guess I have obligation to them too. We're all on pretty good terms at the moment and I dont want to turf them out, but there are plenty of similar properties in the area with the same letting agent.

maddog

Under the tencencies residential act you have the right to end the lease and move back in to your property, you agent should know about and how to do this!

Bren

OwaynOTT

if they are there less than 6 months, I think you only need to give 30 days notice.

nibtrix

If they signed a one year lease then you have no right to ask them to leave until it is up (unless they are not paying their rent or are breaking the terms of their lease).

A fixed term lease supersedes the part 4 tenancy and wanting to move back in is not a valid reason to break the lease.

Your best option is to ask them if they are willing to leave, and if you're decent you will offer them some compensation such as a month rent free while they look for somewhere.

If they choose not to leave there is nothing you can do about it.

bmwguy

Thanks for the replies thats pretty much what I thought, I will get in touch with agent on Monday to get the ball rolling on it.

nibtrix

bmwguy wrote: »

Thanks for the replies thats pretty much what I thought, I will get in touch with agent on Monday to get the ball rolling on it.

Did you read my reply? The other posters are incorrect. A fixed term lease is just that, fixed term. You will be depending on the kindness of your tenants in this situation.

bmwguy

nibtrix wrote: »

Did you read my reply? The other posters are incorrect. A fixed term lease is just that, fixed term. You will be depending on the kindness of your tenants in this situation.

No sorry I posted before I saw your reply. This does change things. I will contact agent anyway to see what can be worked out and have a read of the lease. There are clauses in some leases for extenuating circumstances such as needing property back for personal or family use. Not sure about my own lease with them. I would be prepared to offer compensation for hardship incurred such as a months free rent if necessary.

djimi

There is absolutely nothing that you can write into a lease that changes the fact that the tenants are there for the duration of the fixed term and there is nothing that you can do to ask them to vacate. Even if you have such a clause written into the lease it has no legal standing whatsoever.

The only hope that you have is to offer compenstation to the tenants if they vacate. To be honest a months free rent is probably not going to cut the mustard; this has come up on here before and the general consensus from most tenants is that they would be looking for something in the region of 2-3 months rent back and full deposit without question before they would consider moving out during a fixed term lease. See what you can negotiate with your tenants, but remember they hold all the cards here and if they say that they are not moving then they are not moving, end of story.

bmwguy

Ok this gets interesting now! I'm seeing contadictory evidence online, but does a fixed term lease overrule the residential properties act? Can anyone link to this? I might have a look in legal forum too

D3PO

djimi is right. You cannot force them to leave, if your all on good terms Im sure you can work out something but if I were the tennant id be looking for 2 months rent free and deposit back on echanging of keys to consider it.

Marcusm

Tbh, no one here can be as explicit as they are implying. As the tenant has not yet reached 6 months tenure, they have not acquired part 4 rights so the governing document as regards tenure is the lease. As none of us has had sight of it, we cannot be definitive as to its terms; even "fixed" term leases may include provisions for early termination in specified circumstances. Accordingly, you should review the lease. If no such provision is included, seek to come o terms with your tenants. If they are uk accommodating, you will need to wait util the expiry of the fixed term as you can usurp their part 4 rights if you intend to reoccupy the property.

bmwguy

One more thing comes to mind. And before I sound like I'm being harsh I will deal with this compassionately, nobody will be on the street and I will give them time. I employed the services of an agent, but I never saw or signed the lease myself. Nor did I sign any agreement with the agent. Amateur I know!! But should I have been given the lease to sign?

djimi

As far as Im aware if the agent is employed to act on your behalf then they can sign the lease on your behalf, but on that point I am not 100% certain.

bmwguy

Ok thanks for the help everyone I will see what can be done. At the end of the day I want to do this amicably, after all there is more to life than sticking rigidly to law! We're all nice people and we'll settle something between us, if its not to be its not to be

jd83

The letting agent will have signed the lease as an agent acting on your behalf, if its a fixed term lease, your only option is to make an offer to them to leave e.g a few months free rent and deposit back.

odds_on

bmwguy wrote: »

One more thing comes to mind. And before I sound like I'm being harsh I will deal with this compassionately, nobody will be on the street and I will give them time. I employed the services of an agent, but I never saw or signed the lease myself. Nor did I sign any agreement with the agent. Amateur I know!! But should I have been given the lease to sign?

A verbal agreement for a fixed term has as much right as a written agreement - however, a verbal agreement is more difficult to prove - your word against theirs. As the majority of first leases are for fixed terms, I think you may have difficulty proving otherwise and I'm sure the agent will not want to commit perjury.

As most posters are suggesting, your only option is to buy out the lease by offering a financial inducement - but it is up to the tenant to accept or refuse your terms - the tenant is in the driving seat.

djimi

bmwguy wrote: »

Ok thanks for the help everyone I will see what can be done. At the end of the day I want to do this amicably, after all there is more to life than sticking rigidly to law! We're all nice people and we'll settle something between us, if its not to be its not to be

You might think that there is more to life than sticking rigidly to the law, but i doubt youre tenant will agree once they find out that youre trying to kick them out of their home!

odds_on

Perhaps the OP should read some of the PRTB adjudication and tribunal decisions as regards illegal eviction:

Some in brief:

R59/2011/DR1751/2010
Appellant Landlords shall pay the sum of €9,000 to the Respondent Tenants within 21 days being damages for unlawful termination of their fixed term tenancy of the dwelling

TR10/DR1463/2009
€6,250 in general damages for illegal eviction for the pain and upset that the unlawful eviction would have caused to the tenant and her family and return of €1,250 Deposit less the sum of €420 for the repairs

DR1267/2008
Landlords shall pay the total sum of €3,000 for illegal eviction, deposit retention and breach of landlord obligations

DR1573/2008
The Respondent Landlord shall pay €3,000 for illegally and unlawfully evicting the Applicant Tenant from the above premises; €450 retained security deposit and €240 for damage caused to Applicant Tenants belongings

The OP should also be aware that persistent attempts to try to get the tenant to vacate (even with a buy-out option) could be harassment of the tenant and disruption of the tenant's peaceful enjoyment of the dwelling which if proved in a claim with the PRTB could also be very costly.

Milk & Honey

There is usually a clause in the mortgage deed stating that the property cannot be leased without the consent of the bank. Show this to the tenants and explain that the bank has not consented to the lease and it is now void.

leeomurchu

Afaik.

If it's your sole residence and you have nowhere else to live you do have a right to end the tennancy agreement and move back into the property.

Ask at your local citizens advice centre they'll set you straight.

Bigcheeze

leeomurchu wrote: »

Afaik.

If it's your sole residence and you have nowhere else to live you do have a right to end the tennancy agreement and move back into the property.

Ask at your local citizens advice centre they'll set you straight.

You're wrong. The tenant has a lease. At the end of the lease the OP may give the tenant notice because he wants to move back in.

leeomurchu

Bigcheeze wrote: »

You're wrong. The tenant has a lease. At the end of the lease the OP may give the tenant notice because he wants to move back in.

What experience are you basing this on that you're so definite?

Bigcheeze

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There is usually a clause in the mortgage deed stating that the property cannot be leased without the consent of the bank. Show this to the tenants and explain that the bank has not consented to the lease and it is now void.

That's really a matter for the OP and his bank. The tenant is protected by legislation. The legislation overrides whatever a mortgage agreement between a bank and individual might say.

Bigcheeze

leeomurchu wrote: »

What experience are you basing this on that you're so definite?

It's clear from the law, citizens information ,threshold, this thread and the dozens of other threads on boards on this very subject.

Bigcheeze

djimi wrote: »

You might think that there is more to life than sticking rigidly to the law, but i doubt youre tenant will agree once they find out that youre trying to kick them out of their home!

In fairness to the OP, he came here looking for information and nowhere does he suggest that he's going to attempt to do anything illegal. There's nothing wrong with asking the tenant if he's willing to terminate the lease by mutual consent. It may suit both of them.

leeomurchu

Bigcheeze wrote: »

It's clear from the law, citizens information ,threshold, this thread and the dozens of other threads on boards on this very subject.

So you have no professional qualification to clarify this so you might possibly be wrong is what you're saying.

Best get some proper legal advice OP I think you'll only find opinions on here and as we all now the law is interpreted differently by different parties.

Maybe ring the PRTB and ask them directly might be your best bet.

djimi

Bigcheeze wrote: »

In fairness to the OP, he came here looking for information and nowhere does he suggest that he's going to attempt to do anything illegal. There's nothing wrong with asking the tenant if he's willing to terminate the lease by mutual consent. It may suit both of them.

Dont get me wrong; I agree, by all means test the waters and ask the question. But the OP saying things like "there is more to life than sticking rigidly to law" suggets a somewhat flippant attitude to the situation, and it is important that they understand that they have absolutely no legal standing here whatsoever. Its entirely up to the tenant and if they say no from the off then there is nothing that the OP can do about it.

Its entirely possible (extremely likely I would have said) that the tenant will tell the OP where to go with themselves, and the OP needs to be prepared for this. Best case scenario it is most likely going to cost them several months rent to get the tenant to agree to move out early.

djimi

leeomurchu wrote: »

So you have no professional qualification to clarify this so you might possibly be wrong is what you're saying.

Best get some proper legal advice OP I think you'll only find opinions on here and as we all now the law is interpreted differently by different parties.

Maybe ring the PRTB and ask them directly might be your best bet.

The OP is free to seek all the legal advise they like, but in this case you are wrong; they have no legal right to insist that the tenant moves out of the property before the lease is up, irrespective of whether the OP needs the property for themselves or not.

djimi

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There is usually a clause in the mortgage deed stating that the property cannot be leased without the consent of the bank. Show this to the tenants and explain that the bank has not consented to the lease and it is now void.

I would love to see something legal to back this up, because I would be utterly amazed if the OP could use this as a way of voiding a fixed term lease with a tenant. Of couse, I could be wrong about that, but I would doubt very much that the landlords standing with the bank overrides tenancy laws.

leeomurchu

djimi wrote: »

The OP is free to seek all the legal advise they like, but in this case you are wrong; they have no legal right to insist that the tenant moves out of the property before the lease is up, irrespective of whether the OP needs the property for themselves or not.

Again what is your qualification to prove this.

Ye are all just saying I'm wrong where I didn't state anything of fact I clearly expressed an opinion.

Would either of ye like to provide a link to back up your statement of fact seeing as ye both appear to be so definite on it.

djimi

leeomurchu wrote: »

Again what is you qualification to prove this.

Ye are all just saying I'm wrong where I didn't state anything of fact I clearly expressed and opinion.

Would either of ye like to provide a link to back up your statement of fact seeing as ye both appear to be so definite on it.

Go read up on citizens information of the tenancy act if you want to see the legal proof.