Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Tenant won't move after notice given

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,299 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    djimi wrote: »
    Even if you do not notify the landlord of your intention to remain on a part 4 they cannot deny you part 4 rights.
    So the tenant has part 4 rights even though they are on a 6 month fixed term lease? So what comes into force; fixed term rights, or part 4 rights?


  • Options
    #63
    the world wonders
    Registered Users Posts: 489 ✭✭the world wonders


    the_syco wrote: »
    So the tenant has part 4 rights even though they are on a 6 month fixed term lease? So what comes into force; fixed term rights, or part 4 rights?
    Both. The tenant gets the best of both worlds:
    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.


  • Options
    #64
    Chiorino
    Registered Users Posts: 621 ✭✭✭Chiorino


    miss no stars wrote: »
    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?

    I have given them the full 42 days (actually a few days more) in writing. I sent off a letter to them today outlining both our and their positions as I reckon someone has been feeding them incorrect information. I did offer to help them out if I could (not exactly what you have mentioned but similar) and yes, I would very much like to remain on good terms with them.

    I have no doubt they will eventually move but they seem to be holding out until they find another property they really like and while I sympathise with them in this regard, I have my own situation to worry about too.

    We spent three months moving staying with family members when we first let this house out as we were being picky about where we went. If that's what they have to do in the end, well thats the nature of renting I suppose.


  • Options
    #65
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    the world wonders wrote: »
    Both. The tenant gets the best of both worlds:

    Not quite. The tenant does not acquire part 4 rights until they have been in the property for 6 months, so technically with a 6 month lease they would not have part 4 rights until the lease expires.


  • Options
    #66
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,299 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    So why would a landlord give a tenant a rent reduction as part of a new lease (after the 1st year lease expired), if the tenant automatically got Part 4 rights? How does it benefit the landlord?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    the_syco wrote: »
    So why would a landlord give a tenant a rent reduction as part of a new lease (after the 1st year lease expired), if the tenant automatically got Part 4 rights? How does it benefit the landlord?

    Not sure where the rent reduction comes into it, but a fixed term lease gives a landlord more security (in theory anyway) as the tenant cannot just give notice and leave a fixed term lease.


  • Options
    #68
    Saab Ed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,374 ✭✭✭Saab Ed


    the_syco wrote: »
    Bullsh|t. Serve an eviction notice on them the moment the lease expires.

    The humanity! Thanks for the profit, now piss off. Whats that? Nowhere to live you say? Eat Sh!t.

    I only hope you get to see the out of control bus before it hits you, you absolute low life of a sub human species.


  • Options
    #69
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Saab Ed wrote: »
    The humanity! Thanks for the profit, now piss off. Whats that? Nowhere to live you say? Eat Sh!t.

    I only hope you get to see the out of control bus before it hits you, you absolute low life of a sub human species.

    Christ almighty :eek:

    Its a business, not a charity. The landlord is entitled in this instance to serve a notice of termination the moment the lease ends. Dont like it? Dont rent.


  • Options
    #70
    monkey8
    Registered Users Posts: 386 ✭✭monkey8


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

    I don't condone overholding but skylops has a very valid point.

    All the know-it-alls who talk about the property collapse always witter on saying that Irish people have an obsession with owning their own property.

    Well if I decided to be more like the Scandinavians for example and chose to rent a house with my wife and kids, made the house a home, settled the kids in a good school and then out of nowhere I'm given 42 days to move!!!
    Well then of course people will have an obsession with owning their own home where this cannot happen!

    Now, I don't blame the op for what he/she is doing for a second but it does highlight advantages of owning rather than renting and if we want to change the mentality in this country we would have to change the laws too.


  • Options
    #71
    sunnysoutheast
    Registered Users Posts: 2,072 ✭✭✭sunnysoutheast


    djimi wrote: »
    Not sure where the rent reduction comes into it, but a fixed term lease gives a landlord more security (in theory anyway) as the tenant cannot just give notice and leave a fixed term lease.

    The fixed term element of a lease is of no benefit to the landlord, all the tenant has to do is say that they want to reassign or sublet and it's an automatic 28 day or 35 day notice get-out clause.

    In fact, a fixed term lease of 6 months plus can be a disbenefit for the landlord because it effectively guarantees the tenant a part 4 tenancy and the option to terminate within the first six months (for potentially troublesome tenants) is gone.

    Edit just to say that the rent reduction might be to keep hold of good tenants and avoid void periods.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    sunnysoutheast wrote: »
    The fixed term element of a lease is of no benefit to the landlord, all the tenant has to do is say that they want to reassign or sublet and it's an automatic 28 day or 35 day notice get-out clause.

    If a tenant chooses to sublet/reassign the lease then the landlord is guaranteed a tenant and rental income for the duration of the lease, with no effort required on the part of the landlord other than to vet potential tenants that are brought to them. On a part 4 if the tenant decides they want to leave then its up to the landlord to replace them, and there is always the risk of the property having a period of vacancy. A fixed term lease definitely offers more protection to the landlord.


  • Options
    #73
    Saab Ed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,374 ✭✭✭Saab Ed


    djimi wrote: »
    Christ almighty :eek:

    Its a business, not a charity. The landlord is entitled in this instance to serve a notice of termination the moment the lease ends. Dont like it? Dont rent.

    Its not, its somones home. Don't forget that. Its someone's life. Give the guy a fair shot at finding somewhere else to live. The "it's a business" remark just makes me sick. Hospitals are a business too. Be lovely if your mother was on deaths dooorstep and they slung her out cause you ran outta money.


  • Options
    #74
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Saab Ed wrote: »
    Its not, its somones home. Don't forget that. Its someone's life. Give the guy a fair shot at finding somewhere else to live. The "it's a business" remark just makes me sick. Hospitals are a business too. Be lovely if your mother was on deaths dooorstep and they slung her out cause you ran outta money.

    Its a business. Paint it any way you like; it doesnt change that fact. The laws are there; the OP is simply following the law as they are entitled to do. Im aware I sound heartless, but as a tenant you have to be aware of potential lack of security it brings (I say that as a tenant myself). If you find that sickening then dont get involved in renting.


  • Options
    #75
    discodavie
    Registered Users Posts: 341 ✭✭discodavie


    Saab Ed wrote: »
    Its not, its somones home. Don't forget that. Its someone's life. Give the guy a fair shot at finding somewhere else to live. The "it's a business" remark just makes me sick. Hospitals are a business too. Be lovely if your mother was on deaths dooorstep and they slung her out cause you ran outta money.

    It may be someone's home , but its a LL's property , business , and money pit ....

    If a tenant can't find a place to rent in 40 something days then they're not really trying .....

    Or are being too fussy as its up to them what standards they expect and if they really wanted to stay could try to put a bid in on it ???


  • Options
    #76
    sunnysoutheast
    Registered Users Posts: 2,072 ✭✭✭sunnysoutheast


    djimi wrote: »
    If a tenant chooses to sublet/reassign the lease then the landlord is guaranteed a tenant and rental income for the duration of the lease, with no effort required on the part of the landlord other than to vet potential tenants that are brought to them. On a part 4 if the tenant decides they want to leave then its up to the landlord to replace them, and there is always the risk of the property having a period of vacancy. A fixed term lease definitely offers more protection to the landlord.

    Would you trust a tenant who wants out at any cost to find you a new tenant? I know I wouldn't. In my opinion you are better off letting them go with a promise that they can leave early if you find someone else.

    I don't believe the landlord gets to "vet" the prospective new tenants as closely as you might think in practice.


  • Options
    #77
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    sunnysoutheast wrote: »
    Would you trust a tenant who wants out at any cost to find you a new tenant? I know I wouldn't. In my opinion you are better off letting them go with a promise that they can leave early if you find someone else.

    I don't believe the landlord gets to "vet" the prospective new tenants as closely as you might think in practice.

    Its your call whether or not you want to trust who the tenant brings, but the law states that until they find someone who is suitable to take over the lease, they remain in the tenancy and are liable for the rent to be paid as per the lease agreement.

    I dont see why its any harder to vet a new tenant in this situation than it would be had the person responded to your ad on Daft?


  • Options
    #78
    Chiorino
    Registered Users Posts: 621 ✭✭✭Chiorino


    Saab Ed wrote: »
    Its not, its somones home. Don't forget that. Its someone's life. Give the guy a fair shot at finding somewhere else to live. The "it's a business" remark just makes me sick. Hospitals are a business too. Be lovely if your mother was on deaths dooorstep and they slung her out cause you ran outta money.

    As I've mentioned already, I'm currently renting myself at the moment so I accept that my landlord could serve me with a notice to terminate at any time, just as I am doing at the moment. It's part and parcel of being a tenant.


  • Options
    #79
    sunnysoutheast
    Registered Users Posts: 2,072 ✭✭✭sunnysoutheast


    Saab Ed wrote: »
    Its not, its somones home. Don't forget that. Its someone's life. Give the guy a fair shot at finding somewhere else to live. The "it's a business" remark just makes me sick. Hospitals are a business too. Be lovely if your mother was on deaths dooorstep and they slung her out cause you ran outta money.

    It's someone's previous family home, that they want to sell to start afresh somewhere else. It's someone's inheritance, that they want to sell to set their kids up at university. It's someone's home from before they were married, that they want to sell to buy a bigger home. It's someone's investment which has gone sour and they have a chance to get rid. Who knows.

    Whatever it is, it is theirs to do what they want with, as long as they act within the law. The law in this case states 42 days notice. There you go.


  • Options
    #80
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,299 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Saab Ed wrote: »
    you absolute low life of a sub human species.
    It's a business. The place is rented out for X amount for Y length of time.
    sunnysoutheast wrote: »
    Edit just to say that the rent reduction might be to keep hold of good tenants and avoid void periods.
    The rent reduction is when the tenant, instead of claiming Part4, says that they'll sign another year for a reduction in rent. My point was if they get Part4 rights anyway, what benefit is it to the landlord to expect a slight reduction in rent if the tenant can still have Part4 rights assigned to them.
    Saab Ed wrote: »
    Its not, its somones home. Don't forget that.
    I'm not. But if the person wants to sell their home, you think that someone who doesn't own it has more rights to it?

    How long should the landlord wait for the tenant to find a new place? If not 42 days, would 10 years be enough? Totally extreme, but you don't seem to have an amount of time that you think is reasonable.


  • Options
    #81
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    Saab Ed wrote: »
    Its not, its somones home. Don't forget that. Its someone's life. Give the guy a fair shot at finding somewhere else to live. The "it's a business" remark just makes me sick. Hospitals are a business too. Be lovely if your mother was on deaths dooorstep and they slung her out cause you ran outta money.

    Public hospitals aren't a business. If your going to come up with a smart arsed rebuttle at lease have one with some substance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,368 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Saab Ed wrote: »
    The humanity! Thanks for the profit, now piss off. Whats that? Nowhere to live you say? Eat Sh!t.

    I only hope you get to see the out of control bus before it hits you, you absolute low life of a sub human species.
    On-topic, constructive posts only please.

    Moderator


  • Options
    #83
    dustyie
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭dustyie


    Chiorino wrote: »
    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?


    Had a similar problem , the legal route is very slow . I did a number of things which i think encourage the tenants to leave quicker .
    Call to the house every week to ask on a update of finding another house .
    Update them what legal action i was taking .
    Stop all maintenance and repairs of house .
    Also never raised you voice when speaking to the tenants .
    And remind them that you following legal route and they may have to pay your legal expense if it goes to court
    this work for me as they got tired of me calling every week .
    This tenant had cause similar problems to other landlords i heard afterwards

    P.S. I found Irish property association very helpful at the time .


  • Options
    #84
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    dustyie wrote: »
    Had a similar problem , the legal route is very slow . I did a number of things which i think encourage the tenants to leave quicker .
    Call to the house every week to ask on a update of finding another house . - Harrasment could cost you a lot of money in damages if they take a PRTB claim against you. They are by law entitled to peaceable enjoyment of their home

    Update them what legal action i was taking .

    Stop all maintenance and repairs of house . Illegal your obligations as a landlord remain in place overholding or not. Doint this can be considered as forcing tenants to leave a property and determined an illegal eviction and again in a PRTB dispute could cost you thousands in damages.

    Also never raised you voice when speaking to the tenants .

    And remind them that you following legal route and they may have to pay your legal expense if it goes to court Completely untrue they would not have costs awarded against them in the case you went legal.

    this work for me as they got tired of me calling every week .
    This tenant had cause similar problems to other landlords i heard afterwards

    Rubbish and very bad advise. OP do not follow this


  • Options
    #85
    Kosseegan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 987 ✭✭✭Kosseegan


    Chiorino wrote: »
    I have given them the full 42 days (actually a few days more) in writing.

    You did it during the currency of a fixed term lease. You will have problems establishing that your notice is valid.


  • Options
    #86
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    Kosseegan wrote: »
    You did it during the currency of a fixed term lease. You will have problems establishing that your notice is valid.

    You don't know that. Its been discussed many times that this is a grey area and there is no definitive answer as to weather this is seen as valid or invalid. Until it is legally challenged then it is valid.


  • Options
    #87
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    D3PO wrote: »
    You don't know that. Its been discussed many times that this is a grey area and there is no definitive answer as to weather this is seen as valid or invalid. Until it is legally challenged then it is valid.

    I would love to see a legal interpretation of this. Its seems ridiculous to me that something that is seemingly so basic is such a grey area.


  • Options
    #88
    valleyoftheunos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭valleyoftheunos


    djimi wrote: »
    I would love to see a legal interpretation of this. Its seems ridiculous to me that something that is seemingly so basic is such a grey area.

    Its well noted as a gray area, it's not clear from the Act and there has been no judicial determination on it, until there is no on knows. Its not likely to be decided anytime soon as it's usually easier and a lot safer to issue a new notice to quit rather than try and depend on one that might be defective so that's what most people will do.


  • Options
    #89
    Chiorino
    Registered Users Posts: 621 ✭✭✭Chiorino


    Kosseegan wrote: »
    You did it during the currency of a fixed term lease. You will have problems establishing that your notice is valid.

    So basically what you are saying is that even though I gave the required notice under a part 4 along with the fact that I had a break clause in the fixed term lease that it might not be valid??


  • Options
    #90
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    Chiorino wrote: »
    So basically what you are saying is that even though I gave the required notice under a part 4 along with the fact that I had a break clause in the fixed term lease that it might not be valid??

    Ignore what he has said because its untrue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Kosseegan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 987 ✭✭✭Kosseegan


    D3PO wrote: »
    Ignore what he has said because its untrue.


    What is untrue? have you any back up for what you are saying?
    I have seen termination notices ruled as defective because they were issued during a fixed term lease. I don't agree with that interpretation of the Act but the o/p would be an idiot to assume that all is well. It will do a fat lot of good to
    losr an adjudication over this in 6 months time and then run the risk of an appeal with a potential costs order and no certainty of a favourable result.
    The RTA is a badly drafted piece of legislation and has led to ridiculous situations. A landlord has to be very careful to avoid being hit with expensive delays and costs.


Advertisement