Tenant won't move after notice given

Chiorino

We are selling our old family home and gave our tenants notice recently. It was a fixed term lease with a one month break contract. I know there isn't tons of stuff out there at the moment so I tried to help by giving them an extra two weeks. The notice period expires at the end of this month but the tenant is now saying they might not be gone as they cannot find anything and that they cannot, by law, be forced to leave if they have not found alternative accommodation (news to me if true) by then. Any ideas on where to go from here?

the_syco

Chiorino wrote: »

but the tenant is now saying they might not be gone as they cannot find anything and that they cannot, by law, be forced to leave if they have not found alternative accommodation (news to me if true) by then. Any ideas on where to go from here?

Bullsh|t. Serve an eviction notice on them the moment the lease expires.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Boot their squatting ass out. Get on it immediately and keep all correspondence with them in a file. It may come in useful later.

the world wonders

Chiorino wrote: »

It was a fixed term lease with a one month break contract.

How long have they been there?

Also did you send them a proper notice of termination?

In order to be valid, a notice of termination must:

• Be in writing.
• Be signed by the landlord or his or her authorised agent or, as appropriate, the tenant.
• Specify the date of service.
• State the reason for termination (where the tenancy has lasted for more than 6 months or is a fixed term tenancy).
• Specify the termination date and also that the tenant has the whole of the 24 hours of this date to vacate possession.
• State that any issue as to the validity of the notice or the right of the landlord to serve it must be referred to the Private Residential Tenancies Board within 28 days from the receipt of the notice.

Chiorino

The tenants were there a year in March so 14 months so far. I gave the notice (in writing) on 14th April.

murphaph

Chiorino wrote: »

The tenants were there a year in March so 14 months so far. I gave the notice (in writing) on 14th April.

Then they have acquired Part IV tenancy rights regardless of the lease ending now. They don't have to leave because of the lease expiring.

They do have to leave if you want to sell the property.

You need to read the Residential Tenancies Act and work within its constraints from here on in. Tread carefully but know that your tenants could make this difficult four you.

djimi

The tenants are entitled to 42 days notice under the part 4 tenancy. If you issued them with a months written notice then it is invalid and they are within their rights to ignore/challenge it. The months break clause is the lease means nothing in this regard; you cannot seek to reduce a tenants legal rights even if they sign a lease with such a clause contained within.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

The tenants are entitled to 42 days notice under the part 4 tenancy. If you issued them with a months written notice then it is invalid and they are within their rights to ignore/challenge it. The months break clause is the lease means nothing in this regard; you cannot seek to reduce a tenants legal rights even if they sign a lease with such a clause contained within.

exactly right. In essence the OP has not served valid notice and must do so again. Meaning that they will get another 42 days notice from that point.

OP needs to do this by the book but Id expect they will be gone the second they find somewhere suitable TBH.

Chiorino

They arent on a Part 4, they renewed a six month fixed term lease in February. How does this affect things?

Chiorino

And yes, I am selling the property.

Doom

I think they they can aquire a part 4 after 1st six months, regardless of what you put on a lease

Chiorino

Doom wrote: »

I think they they can aquire a part 4 after 1st six months, regardless of what you put on a lease

So does that mean a tenant is automatically on a part 4 after six months no matter what? I was under the impression that this happened only if another fixed term lease wasn't signed.

the_syco

djimi wrote: »

The tenants are entitled to 42 days notice under the part 4 tenancy.

Chiorino wrote: »

I know there isn't tons of stuff out there at the moment so I tried to help by giving them an extra two weeks.

Would've thought month + 2 weeks = about 44 days?

Chiorino wrote: »

So does that mean a tenant is automatically on a part 4 after six months no matter what? I was under the impression that this happened only if another fixed term lease wasn't signed.

Open to correction, but I'm pretty sure the "Part 4" only applies when they don't sign another lease after their previous lease ends.

D3PO

Chiorino wrote: »

So does that mean a tenant is automatically on a part 4 after six months no matter what? I was under the impression that this happened only if another fixed term lease wasn't signed.

they automatically acquire part 4 rights after 6 months regardless of the lease. These rights can only enhance their rights provided under the lease. They are supposed to write to you advising they are claiming part 4 rights they haven't so you would have been entitled to costs as a result of this however you didn't incur costs for reletting etc.

Anyway back on topic yes they have part 4 rights, you are absolutely entitled to give them notice for the reason you have but it must be the correct notice in the correct manner or the letter of notice is invalid, which it would appear to be given previous posts in this thread.

djimi

the_syco wrote: »

Would've thought month + 2 weeks = about 44 days?

If the original notice was only for a month then a verbal "ah sure you can stay for another two weeks" does not suddenly make an invalid notice to be valid. If the original notice was invalid then whatever happened afterwards is pretty much irrelevant.

the_syco wrote: »

Open to correction, but I'm pretty sure the "Part 4" only applies when they don't sign another lease after their previous lease ends.

You automatically acquire part 4 tenancy rights after 6 months in a tenancy, regardless of the type of lease. It is my understanding that a break clause can allow either party to break a fixed term lease at a set point, but that relevant notice must be served as outlined in the part 4 tenancy (where applicable).

It is also my understanding that there is no validity in writing into a lease a clause that allows the landlord to break said lease with less notice than the tenant is entitled to under part 4 rights.

The OP would be well advised to seek futher clarification on this (Threshold would be worth a call), because you can be sure that your tenants most likely have done already.

Chiorino

So after serving them written notice on 14th April giving them until the end of this month, where do I stand now then?

I think I've done everything right but there seems to be a huge amount of overlap and contradiction.

djimi

Im sorry, I may have taken you up wrong. I thought initially that you said you gave them one months written notice, but you are now saying that you gave them notice on the 14/4 to vacate on the 31/5? That being the case, 47 days notice is more than sufficient for a tenant who has been in the property between 1 and 2 years (42 days is the required notice).

Villa05

The quicker the banks start repossesing the better. The playing field needs to be levelled between renters and mortgage holders in default

gaius c

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Boot their squatting ass out. Get on it immediately and keep all correspondence with them in a file. It may come in useful later.

Unhelpful post. There's no indication that the tenants are in arrears on their rent.

djimi

Villa05 wrote: »

The quicker the banks start repossesing the better. The playing field needs to be levelled between renters and mortgage holders in default

And that has what to do with the OP's situation exactly...?

seamus

If you've served the correct notice and the renters refuse to leave at the end of the notice period, then your next step is the PRTB. If the tenant continues to pay rent during this time, this is known as overholding.

The PRTB will hear the dispute from both sides, decide on whether or not the eviction is valid and make a ruling. The PRTB have no powers to enforce rulings, only to make them. If they still refuse to move, then your next step is the courts to get an eviction order. Which can be enforced by the Gardai if they ignore it.

However it probably won't go that far. If it does end up in the PRTB, chances are they will leave once a ruling is made against them. Keep a record of everything, I've heard stories of tenants trying to come up with all sorts of bull**** about the landlord and the property during a PRTB hearing.

the_syco

If the tenants don't move, shouldn't the OP go down the eviction route? All above board to ensure the tenant has no come-back.

D3PO

the_syco wrote: »

If the tenants don't move, shouldn't the OP go down the eviction route? All above board to ensure the tenant has no come-back.

yes they should. Seamus has outlines the action the OP needs to take perfectly.

This is on the assumption that notice of 44 days plus was served and not just 4 weeks notice plus a verbal you can stay the extra few weeks. (The OP still hasn't clarified what was in the original letter of notice)

khards

the_syco wrote: »

Bullsh|t. Serve an eviction notice on them the moment the lease expires.

Kora Lively Squalor wrote: »

Boot their squatting ass out. Get on it immediately and keep all correspondence with them in a file. It may come in useful later.

@the_syco and Kora Lively Squalor

What are your thought on banks evicting families from their family home because they have not paid the mortgage for years?

The courts should put a stay on cases where tenants are paying the rent and genuinely have nowhere else to move to because the landlord decided that they want to cash in on the tenants family home.

Perhaps I should start a protest group to stop landlords evicting tenants, just like banks evicting mortgagees (aka bank renters).

khards

@Chiorino

I think you should question you morals.

Let the tenant stay until they can find another suitable property to move into.

I hope you sleep well tonight whilst thinking about the situation you have put the tenant in.

listermint

khards wrote: »

@the_syco and donkeyoaty0099

What are your thought on banks evicting families from their family home because they have not paid the mortgage for years?

The courts should put a stay on cases where tenants are paying the rent and genuinely have nowhere else to move to because the landlord decided that they want to cash in on the tenants family home.

Perhaps I should start a protest group to stop landlords evicting tenants, just like banks evicting mortgagees (aka bank renters).

khards wrote: »

@Chiorino

I think you should question you morals.

Let the tenant stay until they can find another suitable property to move into.

I hope you sleep well tonight whilst thinking about the situation you have put the tenant in.

Take your campaign elsewhere the OP has every right to sell his property

Frankly both your posts are ridiculous.

syklops

Threads like this is why Irish people have such a desire to own their own homes.

listermint

syklops wrote: »

Threads like this is why Irish people have such a desire to own their own homes.

Irish people have such desire to own their own property because alot of us are idiots. Its a left over relic from plantation, which is strange for a supposedly dynamic small little island like ourselves...

djimi

khards wrote: »

The courts should put a stay on cases where tenants are paying the rent and genuinely have nowhere else to move to because the landlord decided that they want to cash in on the tenants family home.

Perhaps I should start a protest group to stop landlords evicting tenants, just like banks evicting mortgagees (aka bank renters).

Its in law that a landlord can serve notice to a tenant to vacate when they wish to sell the property (once there is no fixed term lease protecting the tenant). Its clear as day on many websites and other sources for any tenant who wishes to educate themselves before entering the world of tenancy in Ireland. Anyone wishing to rent in this country should do so with their eyes open and know their legal rights and where they stand as a tenant. In this case the OP has done nothing wrong morally (and by the sounds of it legally either assuming the notice to vacate was in order).

khards

listermint wrote: »

Frankly both your posts are ridiculous.

As you offer no explanation, please explain why the poses are ridiculous.

Frankly if he is reasonable with the tenant and lets him stay until they have found an alternative then it will save the landlord lots of time and effort in taking him to court, a process which may not even be successful even if the tenant is paying his rent.

Essentially the landlord will not be selling this year if the tenant dosent want him to.

listermint

khards wrote: »

As you offer no explanation, please explain why the poses are ridiculous.

Frankly if he is reasonable with the tenant and lets him stay until they have found an alternative then it will save the landlord lots of time and effort in taking him to court, a process which may not even be successful even if the tenant is paying his rent.

Essentially the landlord will not be selling this year if the tenant dosent want him to.

It has been perfectly outlined above I dont need to add to that comment. Pretty much sums up how silly your posts on the particular case are.