Tenant won't move after notice given

D3PO

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.

You have a screwed up mentality. You think its ok for the tenant to overhold, to force a landlord who is going by the book to march to the tenants tune.

That alone should explain how ridiculous your previous posts are. Its a pity that there isn't a mechanism for landlords to sue over holders for losses as a result.

The tenant has had plenty of time to find new accomadation (assuming correct notice of 44 days plus was provided) notice periods are there for a reason. Its not the OP's issue that the tenant hasn't pulled their lazy arse finger out of their hole to find new accomadation.

khards

djimi wrote: »

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.

By default everyone is a tenant unless they are in a position to buy a property.
Essentially you are saying that everyone (as some stage) should learn the law around renting property, given the confusion ion this thread I do not believe that is practical.

listermint

khards wrote: »

By default everyone is a tenant unless they are in a position to buy a property.
Essentially you are saying that everyone (as some stage) should learn the law around renting property, given the confusion ion this thread I do not believe that is practical.

Its very practical. The rules are as outlined by previous posters. Its up to you the tenant to inform yourself.

And you would be amazed how quickly tenants become extremely knowledgeable on the system should the need arise.

As a tenant myself, tenants are treated very fairly in this country in terms of legislation tbh.

syklops

listermint wrote: »

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...

You totally missed my point.

djimi

khards wrote: »

By default everyone is a tenant unless they are in a position to buy a property.
Essentially you are saying that everyone (as some stage) should learn the law around renting property, given the confusion ion this thread I do not believe that is practical.

Im saying if you are renting (or if you are a landlord for that matter) then yes, you should have some basic knowledge of tenancy law. A quick trip to citizensinformation.ie (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/) would give all the basics in plain English. Its not rocket science.

khards

D3PO wrote: »

The tenant has had plenty of time to find new accomadation (assuming correct notice of 44 days plus was provided) notice periods are there for a reason. Its not the OP's issue that the tenant hasn't pulled their lazy arse finger out of their hole to find new accomadation.

If the tenant had been given a reasonable amount of time (as long as it takes) then the landlord would not find himself in this position.
Clearly the tenant has not been able to find themselves alternative accommodation within the short 44day period, what you are proposing is to turn up with the sheriff and dump the onto the street for no other reason than the landlord decides that he wants to sell.

Clearly you can see that this situation is unfair and ridiculous, especially compared to the situation where a bank (also a landlord) wants to evict a non paying mortgagee (tenant).

Any Judge would put a stay on the eviction to give the tenant more time to find suitable accommodation. They would not allow them to be turfed out into the street, which is what you are suggesting.

djimi

khards wrote: »

If the tenant had been given a reasonable amount of time (as long as it takes) then the landlord would not find himself in this position.
Clearly the tenant has not been able to find themselves alternative accommodation within the short 44day period, what you are proposing is to turn up with the sheriff and dump the onto the street for no other reason than the landlord decides that he wants to sell.

Clearly you can see that this situation is unfair and ridiculous, especially compared to the situation where a bank (also a landlord) wants to evict a non paying mortgagee (tenant).

Any Judge would put a stay on the eviction to give the tenant more time to find suitable accommodation. They would not allow them to be turfed out into the street, which is what you are suggesting.

Its the law; fair and reasonable do not come into it. If the landlord so chooses then they can extend the notice of termination, however they are under no obligation to do so.

Provided the landlord has done everything by the book then a judge (or the PRTB initially) would side with them. It doesnt matter if you dont like that or dont think that its fair; provided the law has not been broken then the tenant has no cause for complaint. 42 days might not seem like a lot of time to find altenative accomodation, but it is what the law has deemed to be sufficient.

Chiorino

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).

I certainly dont want to have to go down the route of evicting tenants eho otherwise have been great. I currently rent the house I live in now so I know the situation and accept that as a tenant I simply dont have the same security as a homeowner.

As for "cashing in", the house is in neg equity and I've been offered enough (with savings added) to clear the mortgage so I'm certainly not making money out of it. I'm more concerned about the deal falling through because of the tenant dragging their heels.

D3PO

khards wrote: »

If the tenant had been given a reasonable amount of time (as long as it takes) then the landlord would not find himself in this position.

A reasonable amount of time as defined by law is 44 days. So therefore they have given a reasonable amount of time. If there weren't set times what would prevent the tenant staying forever under the guise they haven't had a reasonable amount of tim e ...

Clearly the tenant has not been able to find themselves alternative accommodation within the short 44day period,

Then quite frankly they have been lazy. If you cant find accommodation in 44 days your an idiot.

what you are proposing is to turn up with the sheriff and dump the onto the street for no other reason than the landlord decides that he wants to sell.

I never said turn up with a sheriff and dump them onto the street, That would be an illegal eviction ... But the landlord wanting to sell is a LEAGALLY ACCEPTABLE reason to ask them to levae in the LEGALLY agreed notice period.

Clearly you can see that this situation is unfair and ridiculous, especially compared to the situation where a bank (also a landlord) wants to evict a non paying mortgagee (tenant).

Are you for real ? It is neither unfair or ridiculous. What is ridiculous is what the tenant is doing. If the tenant doesn't want to go then they should buy the house ....

Any Judge would put a stay on the eviction to give the tenant more time to find suitable accommodation. They would not allow them to be turfed out into the street, which is what you are suggesting.

Your miseducation is very obvious here. If the landlord has to go to the PRTB and gets a determination order a judge will create an order for eviction they will not put a stay on it. You have no idea what your talking about.

I cant believe you actually believe a single word your saying. Its beyond the limitations of rational thinking to actually accept your not winding us up for enjoyment

khards

It is also perfectly legal for the tenant to say on past his 42 day notice period and for the Landlord to get an eviction order.
As long at the tenant complies with any orders that a court makes then he is not breaking any law.

D3PO

khards wrote: »

It is also perfectly legal for the tenant to say on past his 42 day notice period and for the Landlord to get an eviction order.
As long at the tenant complies with any orders that a court makes then he is not breaking any law.

True its legal but that doesn't make it morally acceptable. Its reprehensible behavior, nobody said what the tenant is doing is illegal.

Like I said already if financial penalties for loss of earnings could be attributed to those who overhold the system would be much better. Everything is weighted towards the tenant right now.

The whole system needs an overhaul both in regards to tenant & landlords rights and also to the deposit situation.

khards

D3PO wrote: »

I cant believe you actually believe a single word your saying. Its beyond the limitations of rational thinking to actually accept your not winding us up for enjoyment

Fair cop I am a troll, but there is a serious side to what I have been saying. think before you turf someone out on the street as they can make your (the landlords) life hell.
For some people they may have a huge problem in finding suitable accommodation, they may not have the deposit, they may not be able to find anywhere within 5 miles of their child's school etc.

People need to drop the 'I am the landlord, do as I say' attitude and have some respect for other people.
We don't know any of the details of the tenants situation, I also suspect the landlord does no know the full story either. You might find that there is no where for them to go, then what?

Potatoeman

syklops wrote: »

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

It really does. Moving is a major inconvenience. I hope the op made their plans clear when leasing.

seamus

khards wrote: »

If the tenant had been given a reasonable amount of time (as long as it takes) then the landlord would not find himself in this position.

Reasonable amount of time and "as long as it takes" are not compatible.

What if it takes a year? Two years? Five years? Is that a reasonable amount of time?

You paint this idea that people are reasonable. Many are, many aren't. If a tenant is asked to move out, "But sure whenever you find somewhere, no rush like", then they won't go anywhere. It is reasonable that when a tenant is asked to leave, they are given a reasonable timeframe in which to leave so that both tenant and landlord understand what is expected of them.

What is not reasonable is for the tenant to take as long as they like to find somewhere else.

Clearly the tenant has not been able to find themselves alternative accommodation within the short 44day period, what you are proposing is to turn up with the sheriff and dump the onto the street for no other reason than the landlord decides that he wants to sell.

The notice period the landlord is required to give is reflective of the length of tenancy. The longer a tenant has been in situ, the more settled they are and therefore harder it may be to find a suitable property and arrange the move.

These tenants have only been there a year. A month and a half seems like plenty of time to find alternative suitable accommodation. It's the nature of tenancy that you don't get to sit around and wait for the perfect property to come up. If you have to move, then you have to choose the best property from what's available. That's how it works.

What you're proposing is that any tenant should be permitted to stay in a property indefinitely so long as they can say, "Ah there's nothing else out there". That pure ridiculous.

Zaph

The OP has a property that he wants to sell. He's perfectly entitled to do so after the notice expires, and that's all there is to it really. He's not a housing charity, he's just an ordinary guy who's trying to get out of negative equity and is lucky enough to have an opportunity to do so. Why should the tenant hold all the cards and be able to prevent this? As long as the OP has done everything by the book then he really shouldn't have to jump through hoops just to be able to sell his house. And while it's unfortunate for the tenant, that really isn't the OP's problem.

D3PO

khards wrote: »

People need to drop the 'I am the landlord, do as I say' attitude and have some respect for other people.
We don't know any of the details of the tenants situation, I also suspect the landlord does no know the full story either. You might find that there is no where for them to go, then what?

That isn't the attitude anybody is taking here. However your advocating an "Im the tenant everything is stacked in my favour do as I say or I will screw you attitude."

Cold perhaps but being a landlord is being a business, there is no room for sentiment. As for the tenant having nowhere to go that's bull, there is always somewhere for them to go, your making it out as if they wouldn't have other rental options.

Unless this is a house on one of the Aran islands or the likes there will be other accomadation available locally. If its not up to the tenants liking that's a different story but not a concern of the outgoing landlord.

Stereomaniac

Couldn't agree with you more. It's within the OP's rights to just force them out of the house, I would have thought, to just evict them. However, it is a very difficult situation. We hear people on the Moan-In radio shows saying they haven't found alternative accommodation all the time and my heart just goes out to them. Some understanding is needed.

Victor

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.

Do not personalise posts. Keep it on topic and constructive.

Moderator

Chiorino

Thanks for all the advice folks. From the info I've gotten here I'm happy that I've done everything by the book so far. I'll send the tenant a letter today and see what the response is.

the_syco

Chiorino wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice folks. From the info I've gotten here I'm happy that I've done everything by the book so far. I'll send the tenant a letter today and see what the response is.

Ensure you send it by registered post so that you get confirmation that he received the letter. Handing the note over by yourself won't stand up in court.

Kosseegan

Chiorino wrote: »

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

They entered Part 4 when they had been six months in occupation. They cannot contract out of the rights acquired so renewing a lease makes no difference. The Part 4 rights are in addition to any rights they have under the fixed term lease. IT seems to me you have problems. There is a view amongst adjudicators that you cannot serve a termination notice during a fixed term lease. I have seen termination notices rejected because of this. It seem that you might have to break the fixed term lease first so it become part 4 only and then go ahead with a notice of termination.
That tenant will be there forever if you keep up this messing.

Ray Palmer

Kosseegan wrote: »

They entered Part 4 when they had been six months in occupation. They cannot contract out of the rights acquired so renewing a lease makes no difference. The Part 4 rights are in addition to any rights they have under the fixed term lease. IT seems to me you have problems. There is a view amongst adjudicators that you cannot serve a termination notice during a fixed term lease. I have seen termination notices rejected because of this. It seem that you might have to break the fixed term lease first so it become part 4 only and then go ahead with a notice of termination.
That tenant will be there forever if you keep up this messing.

That is not true.

"
Claiming a Part 4 tenancy at the end of a lease
If you have a fixed-term contract or lease (for example of 1 year) and you wish to remain in the property under the rights acquired under Part 4, you must notify your landlord of your intention to stay in the property between 3 months and 1 month before the expiry of your fixed–term tenancy or lease agreement. You can use this sample letter of notification to remain in the property under Part 4.
If you do not notify your landlord you cannot be refused coverage under Part 4 but you may have to compensate the landlord for any financial loss she/he has incurred because you did not notify him/her of your intention to remain in the tenancy. "

Note you have to notify the LL you want to go Part 4. The can request remuneration for any stalled plans due to them requesting part 4. They do have to request it if they are on a lease. It isn't quite automatic especially when you have a lease and after the LL has given the notice. No letter no part 4 as notice has been given it is too late. The tenants aren't part 4 tenants.

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

the world wonders

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Note you have to notify the LL you want to go Part 4.

No you do not. Read it more closely.

If you do not notify your landlord you cannot be refused coverage under Part 4

carpejugulum

Chiorino wrote: »

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

So are they on a fixed-term lease now? If they are, you cannot terminate it because you want to sell the house.

D3PO

carpejugulum wrote: »

So are they on a fixed-term lease now? If they are, you cannot terminate it because you want to sell the house.

read the thread .....

Ray Palmer

the world wonders wrote: »

No you do not. Read it more closely.

Yes read it in context. You have to say you are going part 4. You aren't part 4 until you do that. So if you have been given notice you can't say I want part 4 now. The tenant has to request it. If the tenant hasn't done it by the time notice has been given it is too late. Notice has been given the tenant hasn't requested part 4 in this case. It is double of how it is not applicable.

The LL can request compensation also. I don't get why anybody wants to stay in a place when the LL doesn't want them.

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yes read it in context. You have to say you are going part 4. You aren't part 4 until you do that. So if you have been given notice you can't say I want part 4 now. The tenant has to request it. If the tenant hasn't done it by the time notice has been given it is too late. Notice has been given the tenant hasn't requested part 4 in this case. It is double of how it is not applicable.

The LL can request compensation also. I don't get why anybody wants to stay in a place when the LL doesn't want them.

You dont have to request a part 4 Ray; its automatically acquired after 6 months in the tenancy regardless of the type of lease. The only thing that paragraph references if the need to notify the landlord of your intention to remain on a part 4 in order to avoid being liable for the landlords costs should they readvertise the property on the assumption that you are leaving at the end of the lease. Even if you do not notify the landlord of your intention to remain on a part 4 they cannot deny you part 4 rights.

the world wonders

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yes read it in context. You have to say you are going part 4. You aren't part 4 until you do that. So if you have been given notice you can't say I want part 4 now. The tenant has to request it. If the tenant hasn't done it by the time notice has been given it is too late. Notice has been given the tenant hasn't requested part 4 in this case. It is double of how it is not applicable.

You are making the mistake of over-interpreting the legally meaningless explanatory text and not reading the Act itself:

28.—(1) Where a person has, under a tenancy, been in occupation of a dwelling for a continuous period of 6 months then, if the condition specified in subsection (3) is satisfied, the following protection applies for the benefit of that person.

(2) That protection is that, subject to Chapter 3, the tenancy mentioned in subsection (1) shall (if it would not or might not do so otherwise) continue in being—

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies, for the period of 4 years from—

(i) the commencement of the tenancy, or


(ii) the relevant date,


whichever is the later,


or


(b) if a notice of termination under section 34 (b) is served in respect of the tenancy giving a period of notice that expires after the period of 4 years mentioned in paragraph (a), until the expiry of that period of notice.

No mention that the tenant must give notice in order to have Part 4 rights.

Here's the part of the act that talks about the tenant giving notice to the landlord:

195.—(1) In this section “relevant dwelling” means a dwelling, the subject of a tenancy that is for a fixed period of at least 6 months.


(2) The tenant of a relevant dwelling, if he or she intends to remain (on whatever basis, if any, that is open to him or her to do so) in occupation of the dwelling after the expiry of the period of the tenancy concerned, shall notify the landlord of that intention.


(3) That notification shall not be made to the landlord—


(a) any later than 1 month before, nor


(b) any sooner than 3 months before,


the expiry of the period of that tenancy.


(4) If a tenant fails to comply with subsection (2) and the landlord suffers loss or damage in consequence of that failure the landlord may make a complaint to the Board under Part 6 that he or she has suffered such loss or damage.


(5) An adjudicator or the Tribunal, on the hearing of such a complaint, may make a determination, if the adjudicator or the Tribunal considers it proper to do so, that the tenant shall pay to the complainant an amount by way of damages for that loss or damage.

Again, the act does not say that the tenant does not have Part 4 protection or is liable to have their tenancy terminated if they fail to give the notice, just that they may be liable for the landlord's costs due to that failure.

The LL can request compensation also. I don't get why anybody wants to stay in a place when the LL doesn't want them.

Because it's their home?

Ray Palmer

fair enough my bad

miss no stars

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yes read it in context. You have to say you are going part 4. You aren't part 4 until you do that. So if you have been given notice you can't say I want part 4 now.

You've picked it up wrong. After 6 months, you have part 4 rights, end of. If you don't notify the LL of your intention to remain on those part 4 rights and the LL incurrs costs, you're liable for those costs.

Maybe these tenants would be liable to pay the costs of the sale falling through due to failing to notify the LL of their intention to claim part 4 rights :eek:

But seriously, OP, I hope you gave them 42 days in writing. If you didn't, you could just appeal to them as being reasonable people. That you gave them a month in writing, had a verbal agreement for an extra 2 weeks, just want to get yourself out of a financial hole and really would like to leave things on good terms with them, have no intention on screwing them on the deposit etc etc. Maybe offer them half their deposit in advance (cos obviously if you're selling you've seen the place is in okay condition recently) if it helps them with the financial end of finding a new place?