Rights to take back Property that I rented out

leeomurchu

Sure why would I want to that and waste my time.

Ye are making statements on fact I'm just asking for proof seeing as how ye were so quick to dismiss my opinion.

I would've thought someone making such a definite answer would have the information to hand.

I'm not doubting either of ye by the way but I'm yet to see any evidence to prove your point.

djimi

To be honest Im not bothered digging through the tenancy act/citizens information website on a Sunday morning. Youre the one who made the original statement; if you want it proved right or wrong go dig up the proof yourself.

Milk & Honey

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/print.html
PART 4

Security of Tenure

Chapter 1

Preliminary


26.—Nothing in this Part operates to derogate from any rights the tenant enjoys for the time being (by reason of the tenancy concerned) that are more beneficial for the tenant than those created by this Part.

PART 5

Tenancy Terminations — Notice Periods and other Procedural Requirements

Chapter 1

Scope of Part and interpretation provisions
58.—(1) From the relevant date, a tenancy of a dwelling may not be terminated by the landlord or the tenant by means of a notice of forfeiture, a re-entry or any other process or procedure not provided by this Part.

(2) Accordingly, the termination by the landlord or the tenant of—

(a) more beneficial rights referred to in section 26 that the tenant enjoys under a tenancy than those created by Part 4, or

(b) a tenancy to which section 25 applies,

must be effected by means of a notice of termination that complies with this Part.

(3) Each of the following—

(a) a tenancy referred to in subsection (2)(a) (unless it expressly excludes this means of termination),

(b) a tenancy referred to in subsection (2)(b), and

(c) a tenancy of a dwelling created before or after the relevant date in so far as its operation is not affected by Part 4,

shall be construed as including a term enabling its termination by means of a notice of termination that complies with this Part (but, in the case of a tenancy that is for a fixed period, unless it provides otherwise, only where there has been a failure by the party in relation to whom the notice is served to comply with any obligations of the tenancy).

leeomurchu

djimi wrote: »

To be honest Im not bothered digging through the tenancy act/citizens information website on a Sunday morning. Youre the one who made the original statement; if you want it proved right or wrong go dig up the proof yourself.

I didn't make any statement nor did I disagree with your statement.

I meerly passed an opinion which I clearly pointed out.

You jumped up and dismissed it I'm just curious to see if you had something to back up your definite unqualified response, which apparently you dont.

I'm beginning to find boards full of these professionals who rehash other unqualified posts from other threads and cast them off as their own. I was just wondering if you could provide some accurate information or were you just another of these posters.

If you're no more qualfied than someone else too pass an opinion don't be so quick to dismiss a post.

leeomurchu

Thanks Milk & Honey. I wonder is there a case for exceptional circumstances?

hdowney

I thought section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act had a provision for when the Landlord needed to move back in themselves/move family members in etc? I think that something about Sec 34 has to have been written into the lease from the beginning mind you, and since the OP hasn't even seen the lease goodness knows if there is anything in it about Sec 34.

leeomurchu

hdowney wrote: »

I thought section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act had a provision for when the Landlord needed to move back in themselves/move family members in etc? I think that something about Sec 34 has to have been written into the lease from the beginning mind you, and since the OP hasn't even seen the lease goodness knows if there is anything in it about Sec 34.

I think a standard agents lease would have this included or a reference to the resedential tenancies act.

I wasn't sure if this applied to a one off house to let or an investment property but I've been told I'm wrong more than once

Yawns

But doesn't section 34 only apply to a part 4 tenancy? So if I understand it, a landlord can write that provision into a lease in an attempt to have a way out, but if it came to court it would mean nothing with regards to the fixed term lease. It's more of a chance that the tenant will just see it and believe it. Afaik the only way to break a fixed term lease is by mutual consent of both tenant & landlord. If a tenant breaks early without agreement, he can be liable for the remaining amount of the fixed lease. If a landlord breaks early without agreement, he can find himself liable for damages to the tenant.

Agent J

Just to clarify this for people.

The 2004 Act sets out the minimum level of rights.

A lease can only add to that.

So a one year fixed term is on top of those rights. Unless the tenant is in violation of the lease itself then the 1 year term is solid.

djimi is pretty much bang on with their posts.

Milk & Honey - There isn't a hope of being able to use a mortgage clause to get out of a lease. The tenant signed in good faith. That could potentially leave the Landlord open to being sued for signing an agreement they knew to be in bad faith. Igornance or using an agent would be no defence for that.

I would stand corrected if there is any reference to that happening in recent times with reguard to residential property but i doubt it

Agent J

leeomurchu wrote: »

Sure why would I want to that and waste my time.

Wow. Seriously? You make a statement, have it challeneged & you consider checking it out yourself for it's own validity a waste of time?

That's speaks volumes of anything you have to say.

Btw this is your original statement. Couching it in "Afaik" & calling it an opinion still doesn't remove the fact that it is a statement.

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.

leeomurchu

Agent J wrote: »

Wow. Seriously? You make a statement, have it challeneged & you consider checking it out yourself for it's own validity a waste of time?

That's speaks volumes of anything you have to say.

Btw this is your original statement. Couching it in "Afaik" & calling it an opinion still doesn't remove the fact that it is a statement.

No it is called passing an informal opinion. where as a statement would be more formal.

My opinion wasn't challenged. I was firmly told I was in the wrong.

Why would the onus be on me to prove I am in the wrong. where's the logic in that :eek: This speaks volumes about yourself.

Couching Seriously!!

So to surmise your post atacking me is both pointless and inane.

Perhaps you might take a look at yourself before passing opinion on others and might I ask what are you qualifications to be posting such knowledgeable information?

hdowney

Ah here lads/lassies whatever yiz are. I am no mod but seriously the sniping does no-one any favours. This forum is just about asking advice and the like, but obviously when doing something in relation to a lease - which is a legal document - it is obviously best to seek legal advice from someone in the know, which I am sorry but none of us on here is. We are just people, some who may have been in similar circumstances to the various people asking the question, but that doesn't make us qualified. The OP can ask advice, and we can give advice as we know it - which may or may not be right - the onus is on the OP to check that they are doing everything by the book.

But yea, attacking each other over differences of opinions - and that is all it is from either side, an opinion, possibly based on something that you have read but an opinion none the less - is pointless and completely de-rails the thread.

OP I think your best bet is to start with the agent who handled the lease for you, if they are in the business they should have an idea of what your options are, and also what the tenants may be likely to say to being asked would they vacate early. Also you say that the agents have other properties, so if the agents can go in with an offer of another property in the same location it might help.

Milk & Honey

hdowney wrote: »

I thought section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act had a provision for when the Landlord needed to move back in themselves/move family members in etc? I think that something about Sec 34 has to have been written into the lease from the beginning mind you, and since the OP hasn't even seen the lease goodness knows if there is anything in it about Sec 34.

Section 34 cant apply when the tenant has more beneficial terms under the lease. All the leases usually say is that the Residential tenancies Acts applies to the letting. Very few tenants would take a lease that leaves them open to being given notice after a few months.

Agent J

leeomurchu wrote: »

No it is called passing an informal opinion. where as a statement would be more formal.

It's a statement.

See Merriam Webster & Oxford below for definitions

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statement
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/statement



The rest is semantics

The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the statement in the first place. You will save yourself an awful lot of hassle if you bear this in mind.

You either defend it or give up on it. Nothing wrong with giving up on it.

The reason i zero'd in on this because you were quite dismissive of other people without anything to back up your own position.You were giving out bad information. You weren't even bothered to check if you were right or wrong. It's not up for others to disprove you. You should at least be willing to do a little checking yourself before asking anyone else for proof/backup.

Anyway. I appear to have dragged this off topic enough. Apologies to everyone.

leeomurchu

Agent J wrote: »

It's a statement.

See Merriam Webster & Oxford below for definitions

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statement
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/statement



The rest is semantics

The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the statement in the first place. You will save yourself an awful lot of hassle if you bear this in mind.

You either defend it or give up on it. Nothing wrong with giving up on it.

The reason i zero'd in on this because you were quite dismissive of other people without anything to back up your own position.You were giving out bad information. You weren't even bothered to check if you were right or wrong. It's not up for others to disprove you. You should at least be willing to do a little checking yourself before asking anyone else for proof/backup.

Anyway. I appear to have dragged this off topic enough. Apologies to everyone.

I also googled the definition and found the contrary but figured why be childish and post definitions.

I wasn't dismissive if you actually read my posts you will notice I point out that I don't disagree with the posters but that I was looking for information regarding the issue.

As yet you haven't made me aware of you position to be casting such expert opinion.

This has gone on long enough and you are taking it to a childish level in attacking me which I've made reference of.

By all means continue with your tirade as it is amusing in it's oddity. :pac:

Milk & Honey

leeomurchu wrote: »

Thanks Milk & Honey. I wonder is there a case for exceptional circumstances?

There is no provision in the legislation for it. Both parties enter into a contract, and give rights to each other. Even if there was a case for exceptional circumstances it would be meaningless in the context of a 1 year lease. The tenant would be entitled to reasonable notice, to dispute the notice and wait for enforcement. the 1 year would be long gone.

bmwguy

Hi OP here, this caused serious rows that I didnt expect about morality and legality! I am not going to harrass them out if their home and I'm not going to push it if I have no rights, they are 2 single women and a daughter who are keeping my house well and pay their rent. I do know there are landlords from hell out there but I'm not 1 of them. What I will probably do is explain that I will be moving back in the summer after the 12 months and they wont be there for much longer, so if they want to move out early if they see somewhere they like they should take it. I would be prepared to compensate

Agent J

bmwguy wrote: »

. What I will probably do is explain that I will be moving back in the summer after the 12 months and they wont be there for much longer, so if they want to move out early if they see somewhere they like they should take it. I would be prepared to compensate

That's actually a good idea. Let them know that the lease won't be renewed beyond the one year so they know where they stand. And you also let them know if they want to break the lease themselves you will be more than happy to let them.

bmwguy

Thats what I will do so. There are plenty of rentals available and I do think this is fair. From reading up I agree with posters that have said there is no way of legally breaking a fixed term lease, (well there prob is but that would potentially leave the solicitors as the only winners) so I'll try the mutual agreement approach.

Victor

Agent J and leeomurchu, less of the bickering and rules lawyering please.

Moderator

StillWaters

Why would you compensate if they move out early? I think giving them ample notice that you are moving in after the 12 months, and consent to break the lease early is perfectly fair.

bmwguy

I might put a date on it, if they move within 60 days I'll refund a months rent, if they wish to stay for the 12 months duration. I'll see their response first

djimi

I think thats a pretty fair approach. Youre right to try and keep it civil; you gain nothing from getting their backs up.

One thing to bear in mind is that at the end of their fixed term lease you will have to give them the required 35 notice to vacate, so it will be after the 13th month (and a bit) that you can move back in, not immediately after the 12 months are up.

(At least, Im almost certain that this is the way; that you cannot give notice to vacate during a fixed term lease. It might be worth a quick call to Threshold to confirm that one though as I could be wrong).

Agent J

djimi wrote: »

One thing to bear in mind is that at the end of their fixed term lease you will have to give them the required 35 notice to vacate, so it will be after the 13th month (and a bit) that you can move back in, not immediately after the 12 months are up.

(At least, Im almost certain that this is the way; that you cannot give notice to vacate during a fixed term lease. It might be worth a quick call to Threshold to confirm that one though as I could be wrong).

I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. A fixed term lease ends on the date given on the lease. No notice is needed.

(Assuming no one has applied for a part 4 tenancy

See here under "Claiming a Part 4 tenancy at the end of a lease "

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html )

There isn't any obligation for any notice to be given by either side in a fixed term lease. However it is polite & benifical all around if people do so.

http://www.threshold.ie/advice/seeking-private-rented-accommodation/advice-on-signing-a-lease/

djimi

I know a tenant doesnt have to give notice at the end of a fixed term lease but does the same apply to a landlord? As in, can they show up on the last day of the lease and demand that the tenant be out in 24 hours? I didnt think that they can.

nibtrix

djimi wrote: »

I know a tenant doesnt have to give notice at the end of a fixed term lease but does the same apply to a landlord? As in, can they show up on the last day of the lease and demand that the tenant be out in 24 hours? I didnt think that they can.

Well, I would assume most landlords would contact the tenant a month or so before the end of the lease to find out if they are going to stay or not. As the part 4 tenancy and the fixed term lease run concurrently (with the fixed term conditions superseding the part 4) surely giving notice 35 days before the end of the lease should satisfy both conditions.

Milk & Honey

The only way the tenant can be got out is by using the termination methods specified in the Act. If a fixed term lease is longer than 6 months it will have become a part 4 by the end of it.
There is a view within the PRTB that a valid notice of termination cannot be served during the course of a fixed term. There has been no court decision on this and it will be expensive for any landlord to try and find out what the court's attitude is.

odds_on

bmwguy wrote: »

I might put a date on it, if they move within 60 days I'll refund a months rent, if they wish to stay for the 12 months duration. I'll see their response first

Just remember that once the tenants have been in the property for six months, they acquire Part 4 rights. part of which allows the tenant to legally remain in the property for a total of 4 years.

Just to be on the safe side, you should issue a valid notice of termination (on the grounds that you require the property for your own use). The required notice period is, if they have been in the property for more than 6 months and 1ess than 1 year is 35 days.

There is a difference of opinion as to when a valid notice can be issued:
1. during the fixed term
2. Not until the fixed term has expired (in which case, 42 days notice is required as the tenants will have been in the property for more than 1 year).

My own belief is that it can be issued before the end of the fixed term as Part 4 rights have been acquired in the tenancy to both tenant and landlord. Thus, it can be issued to expire on the same date as the fixed term expires. However, I do not know of any test cases in Adjudication or tribunal decisions that have tested this.

Agent J

djimi wrote: »

I know a tenant doesnt have to give notice at the end of a fixed term lease but does the same apply to a landlord? As in, can they show up on the last day of the lease and demand that the tenant be out in 24 hours? I didnt think that they can.

Honestly I'm really not sure anymore. I would have thought it would have been implied with the fact it's fixed term and supposed to end on a particular date. However i can only find stuff that supports what you say. Perhaps it's assumed as obvious that a tenancy ends on the fixed date but i wouldn't think so.

It's really not clear. As others have pointed out there doesn't seem to be any test cases or clarity on this. I imagine because if it was really relevant a Landlord could do exactly what you said in your other post(Valid notice after expiry of Fixed term) which would be well before the PRTB would even look at the paperwork

Best i could dig up is this which really doesn't clarify it from the Landlords point of view.

http://public.prtb.ie/DownloadDocs/Termination%20of%20FT.pdf

Spindle

I haven't seen it mentioned in the thread, but if the OP needs his property back after the end of the fixed term lease he can take it back if he needs to live in it himself (or other family member's need to live in it). Of course he will have to follow the standard notice periods to terminate the tenancy once outside of the fixed term contract.

In the case where the tenants fail to write to him between 1 to 3 months before the end of the fixed term lease with their intentions of staying in the property under Part 4 tenancy then the OP would be within his rights to claim compensation for any loss he may incur (how this is decided I do not know??). However the tenants still are protected under Part 4 Tenancy even if they don't apply for it, so a notice period of 6 weeks would apply with them living there for 1 year.

In short just talk to the tenants tell them the situation and try and agree how to end the tenancy earlier. From the sounds of it you both seem reasonable parties, but if they are unwilling to budge, then after the 1 year is up, serve the 6 week notice and you will have the house back.