Can I force eviction after 1 year fixed-term contract?

johnny.bill

Hi,

I'm a landlord and I moved away from my own single property for 1 year for business reasons.

One family with 1 kid rented this property with a 1-year fixed-term tenancy contract (all registered with PRTB, all properly done according to Tenancy Acts and law).

I need now, at the end of the year, to leave the house back to me (otherwise I have to stay in hotel or rent somewhere else, something I can't afford).

Can I evict them just by entering the property they're have no right to rent anymore?

Thanks for your help

ABajaninCork

Can you not tell them you don't wish to renew the lease?

johnny.bill

I told them, and in advance (more than 35 days before the termination contract). My question is: can I just change locks and get in the house or ask for help to Garda, or do I need to go through the eviction process (that from what I heard may take years) even though the contract already terminated?

fasttalkerchat

I assume you have stopped taking rent from them?

Joe Hart

johnny.bill wrote: »

I told them, and in advance (more than 35 days before the termination contract). My question is: can I just change locks and get in the house or ask for help to Garda, or do I need to go through the eviction process (that from what I heard may take years) even though the contract already terminated?

You cannot just change the locks. You need to serve notice and do it legally. If they refuse then you will have to take a case to the PRTB for overholding. It shouldn't take years and should be heard within 6 months.

ABajaninCork

If they don't move, then AFAIK you'll have to go the legal route to evict I'm afraid.

Are the tenants refusing to leave?

D3PO

another amateur landlord on the loose. Fantastic.

No you cant just change the locks.

If you want to gain posession of the house the go learn the correct process in terms of notice and if they then refuse to move out then go through the correct eviction procedure.

fasttalkerchat

Would I be right that accepting rent after ending the lease would invalidate the notice?

johnny.bill

Yes, I have stopped taking rent as I just need my home back for my own living.

I'll hear a lawyer next week, but then, in the worst case scenario, I have to pay mortgage for my property and rent another place for 6 months up - is that correct?

fussyonion

OP I don't mean to sound harsh, but how come you don't know the procedures?
A Landlord should know exactly what to do in this case and if not, then why did you sign up to be a Landlord?
I wouldn't have any faith in you, if I were your tenant, as you don't seem to know what being a LL entails!

johnny.bill

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to annoy anybody, I didn't expect to be in such a situation and of course I'll be revisiting all legal obligation and get a lawyer's consultation - I'm just really worried about this tenancy situation and could have used some quick direction from lads that are way more experienced than me.

Why did I decide to become a landlord? Not for money, not for investing, but because if I didn't rent the place, I couldn't pay the mortage. And I couldn't sell the place, with an high negative equity.

djimi

You are being rather unclear about your situation, at what stage you are at and where you currently stand, so in a nutshell here is what you need to know:

After 6 months a tenant (be it on a fixed term lease or otherwise) aquires what are known as part 4 tenancy rights. When a fixed term lease expires, the part 4 rights automatically come into force (this is where they are at now). Under part 4 tenancy rights, a landlord can issue an termination notice for several reasons; one of which is where they require the property for themselves. As the tenant has been in the property for more than a year but less than two they are entitled to 6 weeks (42 days) notice of termination. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to whether or not this notice can be issued before a fixed term lease expires, so as to coincide the termination with the expirary of the lease. Your best bet now would be to issue them with a written 42 day notice of termination, stating that you require the property for your own use.

If after the 42 days they refuse to vacate then you must persue them through the PRTB so that you can formally evict them. At this point I would seek full legal advice, because the procedures must be followed to the letter, otherwise the tenant can and almost certainly will persue you for illegal eviction.

Forget all this talk of changing locks; try anything of that nature and you will end up getting screwed by the PRTB when the tenant takes a case against you.

Best of luck with this. Im not sure if it is just how you are coming across on here, but my biggest suggestion to you is to calm down a little, read up fully on the procedures required and follow them to the letter. Chances are when you issue the termination notice it will all run smoothly. If it does not then do not allow emotion to take over; get legal help and do everything properly.

fussyonion

I understand and like I say, despite my previous post, I genuinely don't mean to be harsh. It can't be easy trying to find out how to go about doing the right thing.

I think a lot of people have been or are tenants and are looking at this from the tenant's side, so are just trying to make sure you know your rights and that you don't do anything illegal.

Whatever happens, do everything the legal way or you'll have a major headache on your hands.

The PRTB not only have your interests at heart but also the tenant's.

Best of luck OP

whippet

D3PO wrote: »

another amateur landlord on the loose. Fantastic.

.

There are many landlords who are accidental landlords (I wouldn't call them amateurs) myself included.

However, the system is now so weighted in favour of tenants that will force landlords to do stupid things.

The guy has done everything by the book and is perfectly entitled to his own property back, however, many renters seem to think that they don't have to deal with the practicalities of renting (as opposed to owning) and in situations like this the system is absolutely stupid.

The landlord funded PRTB is painfully slow, tenant centric and as it's the only course of action for a landlord the reality is that any tenant can get up to a year's free accommodation by simply not moving out.

The sooner renters realise that they compromise the benefits of owning a house with the expense etc of owning the better.

I had my own ordeal where by I had a tenant break many standard conditions of my lease including bringing in a boyfriend who was a convicted dangerous criminal in to the house to live (just out of prison) .. tore up the back garden to use as a scrap yard and 'redecorated' the inside (all within the first 6 months) ... plus didn't pay a penny in rent after the first month.

My only recourse was via the PRTB ... was advised that it would take up to a year to follow everything through all the while not getting a penny.

Eventually I had to use contacts within a certain profession to encourage them to move and hand over 'compensation' to get them out. It was such a sucker punch and probably cost me about 10k to get them out and get the house back to a decent standard.

The nett effect is that I now treat the house as a business and my tenants get the business treatment with respect to deposits, notice periods etc and I have zero sympathy for sob stories or special requests from tenants.

There are far more bad tenants out there than bad landlords ... but yet the landlord has to finance the only mechanism of dispute and are the only people who hold any risk.

The system is a shambles and is an expensive game, one reason why I don't believe rents will fall much any time soon.

djimi

whippet wrote: »

The guy has done everything by the book and is perfectly entitled to his own property back, however, many renters seem to think that they don't have to deal with the practicalities of renting (as opposed to owning) and in situations like this the system is absolutely stupid.

What practicalities are you on about?

You are quite right; the OP is fully entitled to reclaim their property for their own use from a tenant on a part 4 tenancy. There is however a procedure that needs to be adhered to, and talking about entering the property and changing the locks is very much not doing things by the book.

Jo King

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Would I be right that accepting rent after ending the lease would invalidate the notice?

No. Thed tenant is obliged to pay rent while the termination procedure is in place. This is now a part 4 tenancy but it does not appear that the tenant has claimed it.
It is possible if notice is given to the tenant that he will be charged hotel bills if he now insists on his part 4 rights he may leave of his own accord.
Some adjudicators in the RTP believe that a valid notice of termination cannot be served during a fixed term. In that case the o/p has to wait for the term to expire and then issue a termination notice. Anything he has served up to now cannot be relied upon.

odds_on

johnny.bill wrote: »

Hi,

I'm a landlord and I moved away from my own single property for 1 year for business reasons.

One family with 1 kid rented this property with a 1-year fixed-term tenancy contract (all registered with PRTB, all properly done according to Tenancy Acts and law).

I need now, at the end of the year, to leave the house back to me (otherwise I have to stay in hotel or rent somewhere else, something I can't afford).

Can I evict them just by entering the property they're have no right to rent anymore?

Thanks for your help

Once a tenant has been residing in a property for 6 months irrespective of the type of lease (provided he has not been issued with a Notice of Termination) then he has the right to remain in the property for a total of 4 years.

At the end of a fixed term lease, if no new fixed term agreement is made, then the tenant has a less secure tenancy, called a Part 4 tenancy.

Under one of the Part 4 laws, a landlord may regain repossession of his property if he requires the property for his own use. This, therefore would apply to you.

Obviously, you cannot break the fixed term lease. But you can serve the tenant with a Notice of Termination. Unfortunately, there is a difference of opinion as to when a valid notice may be served.

Some say that once the tenant has acquired Part 4 rights (and therefore the landlord also) then a valid NoT may be served during the fixed term but which cannot take effect (i.e. eviction) until after the end of the fixed term.

Others deem that for the NoT to be valid, it may only be served on the tenant once the fixed term has expired.

A poster has said that you cannot change the locks. You can change the locks but be aware that you will probably be taken to the PRTB for damages for illegal eviction and those damages could well be in excess of 10k.

If you have refuse to accept rent, that is your problem, not the tenant's, as they have the right to remain for up to 4 years.

whippet

djimi wrote: »

What practicalities are you on about?

.

The practicality of actually owning the house you are living in and not being subject to the terms of the lease as the fact that your home belongs to someone else.

In the OPs case he has requested the property back for valid reasons and yet the tenants are failing to honour their side of the bargain. All the while the only person who has anything on the line is the asset owner. The tenants can cause all sort of grief, hassle, damage and only be on the hook for a deposit while will mean nothing if they refuse to pay rent.

There are huge benifets to renting but there in theory is a downside which can be and is easily exploited

djimi

How is any of that helping the OP with their situation? Are you just looking to have a rant about bad tenants or something?

Fact is the OP has issued notice that has questionable validity. They have been given good advice by several posters how they can set about issuing valid notice and looking to recover their property. There is every chance that now that the fixed term lease has expired the tenants will honor the termination period (if they asked about the validity of the notice period issued during the FTL there is a good chance they were told to ignore it; as far as I know even Threshold are unsure as to how valid notice period is when issued during a FTL). If it turns out that the tenants dig their heals in and refuse to leave then so be it, the OP will just have to deal with that if it happens.

whippet

djimi wrote: »

How is any of that helping the OP with their situation? Are you just looking to have a rant about bad tenants or something?

.

I was reacting to an earlier post ranting about 'amateur' landlords

djimi

whippet wrote: »

I was reacting to an earlier post ranting about 'amateur' landlords

It was a fair comment; I dont think its asking that much of a landlord to know how to legally handle a termination notice, nor is it expecting a lot of one to know that you cant just walk into a house and change the locks because you want the tenants out.

A landlord is running a business; they should take the time to read up on and understand tenancy laws before renting out their property. Perhaps Im being harsh on the OP here, but there are an awful lot of landlords out there who havent got the first notion of what they are doing; they dont know even the basics of tenancy law and have no idea of tenant rights (or their own rights for that matter). As a tenant its extremely frustrating to deal with peope like this, especially when its not exactly hard to find out this information online or from places like Threshold.

D3PO

whippet wrote: »

I was reacting to an earlier post ranting about 'amateur' landlords

it wasnt a rant and weather you are a LL by accident or design its makes no difference in regards to you having an excuse not knowing what is entailed legally in renting out a house.

and i certainly wont be taking lectures form somebody who by their own admission took dubious action to encourage somebody it was in their best interest to move out of their property not withstanding your tenants were obviously little toerags.

whippet

D3PO wrote: »

it wasnt a rant and weather you are a LL by accident or design its makes no difference in regards to you having an excuse not knowing what is entailed legally in renting out a house.

and i certainly wont be taking lectures form somebody who by their own admission took dubious action to encourage somebody it was in their best interest to move out of their property not withstanding your tenants were obviously little toerags.

I didn't do anything dubious, I just enlisted the help of some friendly members of a certain profession; they acted totally above board and due to the tenant's main source of income they were not too happy with my friends taking an interest in their lifestyles.

I am all to aware of my obligations and requirements as a LL; it is processes that gets my goat up. The reality is there will be more and more accidental landlords in the coming years who have to become a LL as they have no other way of moving to a bigger house.

The system as it stands forces some LLs to make rash decisions out of pure frustration. Landlords who are not in the game for profit can not suck it up when a tenant does not fulfil their side of the contract and yet in reality have no method of clawing back any money owed.

It would be worth looking in to setting up an online database of tenants who have had judgments against them by the PRTB to be used as another form of reference for landlords; it would encourage more and more LLs to refer all disputes (no matter how trivial) to the PRTB.

johnny.bill

Hi guys,

Thanks everybody (really!) for all your feedback.

That's right, I am an amateur tenant and @djimi is right calling my "changing lock" proposal very stupid. It was indeed and probably driven by emotion more than anything else.

The notice I sent the tenant was legal (at least, as stated by a lawyer I just consulted) and in the right time. The tenant simply didn't have a chance to find another accomodation and didn't take the time to search for it apparently, so he pushed to stay in the house.

As everything is registered in the PRTB, would this kind of behavior mark the tenant with some kind of black spot that would make it more difficult for them to get a tenancy in the future?

If this is the case, then I was thinking to offer the tenant, other than the deposit back of course, an extra 15 day free "rent" on any property nearby, in cash, as long as they move out of my property. This is not the legal way, I know, but it's a super-gentle way of asking them to leave. Hopefully it will work - does it make sense?

If it needs to go for the harsh ways, then I'll use the law as much as I can, from going through proper procedures via PRTB to trying to visit the house as much as possible and eventually sueing them for damages to property if that's the case.

It just seems that, if you don't get the right tenant and you're tight for money, there is a chance you may get really screwed here with the system.

fasttalkerchat

johnny.bill wrote: »

Hi guys,

Thanks everybody (really!) for all your feedback.

That's right, I am an amateur tenant and @djimi is right calling my "changing lock" proposal very stupid. It was indeed and probably driven by emotion more than anything else.

The notice I sent the tenant was legal (at least, as stated by a lawyer I just consulted) and in the right time. The tenant simply didn't have a chance to find another accomodation and didn't take the time to search for it apparently, so he pushed to stay in the house.

As everything is registered in the PRTB, would this kind of behavior mark the tenant with some kind of black spot that would make it more difficult for them to get a tenancy in the future?

If this is the case, then I was thinking to offer the tenant, other than the deposit back of course, an extra 15 day free "rent" on any property nearby, in cash, as long as they move out of my property. This is not the legal way, I know, but it's a super-gentle way of asking them to leave. Hopefully it will work - does it make sense?

If it needs to go for the harsh ways, then I'll use the law as much as I can, from going through proper procedures via PRTB to trying to visit the house as much as possible and eventually sueing them for damages to property if that's the case.

It just seems that, if you don't get the right tenant and you're tight for money, there is a chance you may get really screwed here with the system.

You could offer to buy furnishings off them. That way it would reduce the cost of having to furnish a new house.

Jo King

johnny.bill wrote: »

Hi guys,

Thanks everybody (really!) for all your feedback.

That's right, I am an amateur tenant and @djimi is right calling my "changing lock" proposal very stupid. It was indeed and probably driven by emotion more than anything else.

The notice I sent the tenant was legal (at least, as stated by a lawyer I just consulted) and in the right time. The tenant simply didn't have a chance to find another accomodation and didn't take the time to search for it apparently, so he pushed to stay in the house.

As everything is registered in the PRTB, would this kind of behavior mark the tenant with some kind of black spot that would make it more difficult for them to get a tenancy in the future?

If this is the case, then I was thinking to offer the tenant, other than the deposit back of course, an extra 15 day free "rent" on any property nearby, in cash, as long as they move out of my property. This is not the legal way, I know, but it's a super-gentle way of asking them to leave. Hopefully it will work - does it make sense?

If it needs to go for the harsh ways, then I'll use the law as much as I can, from going through proper procedures via PRTB to trying to visit the house as much as possible and eventually sueing them for damages to property if that's the case.

It just seems that, if you don't get the right tenant and you're tight for money, there is a chance you may get really screwed here with the system.

No matter what the PRTB does to the tenant it will not stop him getting another letting. Time and again tenants get around references by producing fakes or saying they have just moved out from their parents or have just immigrated.

You should play up big time the fact that the tenant did not give you the Section 195 notice. Let him know that you will be seeking substantial compensation on account of this neglect.

I would be most surprised if your notice is legal. A notice of termination is very difficult to draft and given your admitted lack of knowledge it would be a miracle if you got it right.

StillWaters

Jo King wrote: »

I would be most surprised if your notice is legal. A notice of termination is very difficult to draft and given your admitted lack of knowledge it would be a miracle if you got it right.

Huh? His solicitor said it was legal, and you are saying it's not when you haven't even seen it!!!

OP, the 15 days sweetener will probably work. Sticks in the throat a bit I know, but cheaper than the PRTB process.

Good luck.

djimi

Jo King wrote: »

You should play up big time the fact that the tenant did not give you the Section 195 notice. Let him know that you will be seeking substantial compensation on account of this neglect.

Idle threats are not going to help here. The OP will not be getting "substantial compentation" for a tenant not notifying them of their intention to remain on a part 4, and it would take a tenant all of five minutes to realize that.

djimi

johnny.bill wrote: »

The notice I sent the tenant was legal (at least, as stated by a lawyer I just consulted) and in the right time. The tenant simply didn't have a chance to find another accomodation and didn't take the time to search for it apparently, so he pushed to stay in the house.

Id love to see a proper ruling on this, as everyone you talk to (Threshold included) seems to have a different interpretation of it and nobody seems to be able to give a solid answer.

johnny.bill wrote: »

As everything is registered in the PRTB, would this kind of behavior mark the tenant with some kind of black spot that would make it more difficult for them to get a tenancy in the future?

There would only be a record against the tenant if you were to take a case against them with the PRTB and win. And even then, Id say the chance of any landlord trawling through the archive of PRTB adjudications to find the tenants name is going to be pretty slim.

Jo King

StillWaters wrote: »

Huh? His solicitor said it was legal, and you are saying it's not when you haven't even seen it!!!

OP, the 15 days sweetener will probably work. Sticks in the throat a bit I know, but cheaper than the PRTB process.

Good luck.

What solicitor? He never used the word solicitor. He said lawyer. Not every lawyer is a solicitor. I said I would be very surprised if it was right. If I saw it I could say for certain.
The o/p doesn't have a clue about his obligations and yet was able to draft a proper notice of termination. It makes no sense. To draft it himself he would have had to have read the Residential Tenancies Act carefully. Had he done that he wouldn't have asked the damn fool question he did at the start.
Many members of the legal profession are ignorant of the requirements notice of of a valid notice of termination, as indeed are many estate agents. Most were qualified before the Act came into force. I recently challenged a notice of termination at the PRTB which was drafted by a solicitor. He was adamant it was correct, even after the hearing at which the adjudicator gave a very strong hint against him. The determination went against him on two grounds, both substantial.

the_syco

johnny.bill wrote: »

Yes, I have stopped taking rent as I just need my home back for my own living.

Maybe do the opposite, and hint that you'll be increasing the rent by €500 - enough to pay your renting of another place, and enough to get him to maybe consider to move out. Check with your lawyer/solicitor first.