Part 4 Problems

labradoodlelady

Some help would be appreciated. Recently came to the end of a 12 month lease and notified landlord of Part 4. Last week they came back to say they can insist on a fixed term lease of the duration they request..... (seems to totally defeat the purpose of a part 4).

I cannot find detail for this anywhere and am planning to trawl through the prtb site and 2004 Act over lunch. I have been in touch with the prtb who have indicated a 14 day response time.

Would appreciate a response if anyone knows of this?

P_1

That's a new one.

Sounds like the agents possibly bluffing to earn themselves a fresh contract commission.

Edit, that's assuming you are dealing with the landlord through an agent and not directly

labradoodlelady

That's my line of thought. It is an agency.
They are insisting on "their right to request a new lease be signed".

I suppose my question is, firstly where are they coming up with this from, and secondly if I don't sign the lease am I not protected anyway under the PART IV? In occupation of a f/t already for one year, so it's over 6 months.

Captain Chaos

You are covered by Part 4 after 6 months of tenancy for up to 4 years. Under the last 6 months of your lease you were under Part 4 too and still are if you want to carry on under that.

labradoodlelady

Thanks folks.

This is my line of thought myself; but they have thrown me on this and have said they were advised by the PRTB that they can insist on a fixed term lease and I am bound to the full term of such a lease.

Now, I myself spoke with a PRTB agent who hadn't a clue and recited paragraphs about notice when terminating a lease, which I think is where their confusion is coming from.

My instinct is you can ask for a f/t all you want, but I have no obligations to agree to it and am already covered under Part 4, BUT, I'm trying to find something somewhere that essentially back me up.

Oh well, time to brush up on landlord & tenant law!

Thanks again!

odds_on

If at the end of a fixed term lease, the tenant wishes to remain, he can either:

1. sign a new fixed term lease for best security of tenure - i.e. it is very difficult to remove a tenant with a fixed term lease except for breach of obligations. It is also somewhat more difficult for a tenant to break a fix term agreement but he is entitled to assign his lease to a suitable new tenant.

2. Either don't sign any new lease or sign a Part 4 lease (very unusual) giving the tenant a retaliative easy way to vacate (written notice of termination with the correct amount of notice). Because the tenant has acquired Part 4 rights after 6 months in occupancy, there is no need to sign any contract as all the laws are set out in the RTA 2004, but any special conditions that existed in the fixed term lease will continue to apply (e.g. no pets or no smoking in the property).
However, under Part 4 laws a tenant is does not have such a secure tenure as a landlord can also evict the tenant (in addition to breach of obligations) under certain grounds two of which are if the landlord requires the property for himself or a family member or if the landlord is selling the property.

However, the choice is in the hands of the tenant. There are far too many agents (estate agents and letting agents) who do not know the RTA 2004. Never take their word as infallible.

labradoodlelady

Thanks once again for all your replies. It has certainly put my mind at ease.

P_1

labradoodlelady wrote: »

That's my line of thought. It is an agency.
They are insisting on "their right to request a new lease be signed".

I suppose my question is, firstly where are they coming up with this from, and secondly if I don't sign the lease am I not protected anyway under the PART IV? In occupation of a f/t already for one year, so it's over 6 months.

They're right there alright. They do have the right to request a new lease be signed. You also have the right to decline said request under your Part 4 rights.

xper

Hi,
First, just to reiterate what others have said, the agency is bull****ting you. They might even genuinely believe what they are saying themselves as the level of ignorance of tenancy law among those working directly in the industry is staggering. Or they might be deliberately lying to you, hoping you'll cave in. Either way they are dead wrong.

You don't have to go to great lengths to prove your case, just refer them to the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. If you or they find that a little hard reading, visit the Citizen's Information website for a explanation of what a Part 4 Tenancy is and how its is entirely up to you as tenant as to whether you elect to avail of it or not instead of signing a new fixed-term lease. Then try asking them to cite the legislation that backs up their claim and see what nonsense they come out with.

labradoodlelady wrote: »

Now, I myself spoke with a PRTB agent who hadn't a clue ...

You would probably be better off talking to Threshold in a situation like this if you want someone to have your back. The PRTB will be a bit more stand-off-ish and just cite legalese at you, Threshold will give you advice.

quietsailor

Just as a word of warning, I think that you have to inform the landlord, in writing, of your intent to continue your tenancy under Part 4 rules a certain minimum time before the end of your fixed term tenancy.

As to what happens if you don't do this, well I'm afraid I don't know for certain but I think it might negate your right to a continuing Part 4 lease tenancy though.

quietsailor

xper wrote: »

You would probably be better off talking to Threshold in a situation like this if you want someone to have your back. The PRTB will be a bit more stand-off-ish and just cite legalese at you, Threshold will give you advice.

I would double check what they tell you. While they have the best of intentions and are usually on the side of the tenant there are threads on here with people writing about Threshold getting Part 4 and fixed term tenancy rights mixed up

odds_on

quietsailor wrote: »

I would double check what they tell you. While they have the best of intentions and are usually on the side of the tenant there are threads on here with people writing about Threshold getting Part 4 and fixed term tenancy rights mixed up

This is usually in their written information where they are trying to condense and simplify the law for the knowledgeable.

quietsailor wrote:

Just as a word of warning, I think that you have to inform the landlord, in writing, of your intent to continue your tenancy under Part 4 rules a certain minimum time before the end of your fixed term tenancy.

As to what happens if you don't do this, well I'm afraid I don't know for certain but I think it might negate your right to a continuing Part 4 lease tenancy though.

Part 4 rights always exist for the tenant whether the tenant informs the landlord or not. However, if the landlord incurs any expenses (advertising for a new occupant), the tenant could be liable for these expenses. Not advising the landlord that the tenant will remain does not preclude him from doing so

djimi

Threshold seem to give advice based on guesswork sometimes. Last couple of times I rang them I got "in our opinion" answers, which is not what I wanted to hear. If I wanted an opinion on could have listened to my own or asked on here. They seem to bit reluctant/unable to give solid definite answers.

miss no stars

djimi wrote: »

Threshold seem to give advice based on guesswork sometimes. Last couple of times I rang them I got "in our opinion" answers, which is not what I wanted to hear. If I wanted an opinion on could have listened to my own or asked on here. They seem to bit reluctant/unable to give solid definite answers.

I thought that when interpreting the law (rather than reciting it, say) that phrase "In my/our opinion...." had to be used unless there have been directly comparable cases that have gone before a court and received a judgement on the law, as opposed to on liability, say. The only way to test a law is to go before court, isn't it? So if there's no knowledge of, or access to, cases that are directly comparable, it is opinion based interpretation of the law...

djimi

miss no stars wrote: »

I thought that when interpreting the law (rather than reciting it, say) that phrase "In my/our opinion...." had to be used unless there have been directly comparable cases that have gone before a court and received a judgement on the law, as opposed to on liability, say. The only way to test a law is to go before court, isn't it? So if there's no knowledge of, or access to, cases that are directly comparable, it is opinion based interpretation of the law...

The stuff I asked I would be amazed if it had never come up as an issue for tenants in the past, and if the PRTB had never heard cases of such matters. It just seemed that while they meant well, they werent able to offer me anything more than I could have gotten myself from reading the tenancy act and the various websites regarding tenants rights.

miss no stars

djimi wrote: »

The stuff I asked I would be amazed if it had never come up as an issue for tenants in the past, and if the PRTB had never heard cases of such matters. It just seemed that while they meant well, they werent able to offer me anything more than I could have gotten myself from reading the tenancy act and the various websites regarding tenants rights.

Fair enough if the stuff is commonplace. That said, most private tenancies stuff is not heard in court!