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

Deposit paid, no contract signed

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    djimi wrote: »
    Correct me if Im wrong, but in tenancy law is it not enough to be able to show that money has changed hands for a rental property in order for a tenancy to be official? It is entirely possible to have a fully legal tenancy without signature ever being put to paper (or, at least, that is my understanding).

    That is wrong. Payment of money alone does not prove an agreement for a tenancy (it is not an act of part performance). That is the whole point of the High Court case quoted above.
    The need for writing is avoided by the doctrine of part performance. What proves the tenancy is the act of moving in. If a person is living in a property and paying rent an oral tenancy is presumed. In this case the o/p has not moved in thus there has been no act of part performance.


  • Options
    #33
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    D3PO wrote: »
    absolutely it is. Otherwise many illegal evictions wouldn't be illegal at all, as no contract signed no tenancy.

    It cant work both ways.

    Not the case. See above.


  • Options
    #34
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Bluegrass1 wrote: »
    That is wrong. Payment of money alone does not prove an agreement for a tenancy (it is not an act of part performance). That is the whole point of the High Court case quoted above.
    The need for writing is avoided by the doctrine of part performance. What proves the tenancy is the act of moving in. If a person is living in a property and paying rent an oral tenancy is presumed. In this case the o/p has not moved in thus there has been no act of part performance.

    What level of writing is required exactly? For instance, if a written receipt is issued for the deposit, or a rent book is filled in with the first rent payment?


  • Options
    #35
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    djimi wrote: »
    What level of writing is required exactly? For instance, if a written receipt is issued for the deposit, or a rent book is filled in with the first rent payment?

    It must identify the property, the price, the parties, any other essential terms and be signed by the party to be charged.


  • Options
    #36
    StillWaters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    D3PO wrote: »
    absolutely it is. Otherwise many illegal evictions wouldn't be illegal at all, as no contract signed no tenancy.

    It cant work both ways.

    Exactly, or the LL could turn around after deposit was handed over and say, sorry folks, I got a higher offer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Bluegrass1 wrote: »
    It must identify the property, the price, the parties, any other essential terms and be signed by the party to be charged.

    So a lease in other words?


  • Options
    #38
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    StillWaters wrote: »
    Exactly, or the LL could turn around after deposit was handed over and say, sorry folks, I got a higher offer.

    Which they can, and some do!

    http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rGazumping.htm


  • Options
    #39
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    djimi wrote: »
    So a lease in other words?

    It need not be as detailed as a typical lease but it would be sufficient evidence of a lease.


  • Options
    #40
    StillWaters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    Bluegrass1 wrote: »
    Which they can, and some do!

    http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rGazumping.htm

    That report refers to buying a property not tenancy law.


  • Options
    #41
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    StillWaters wrote: »
    That report refers to buying a property not tenancy law.

    The acquisition of an interest in property whether buying or leasing works the same way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    Bluegrass1 wrote: »
    The acquisition of an interest in property whether buying or leasing works the same way.
    Therefore, if a landlord does not have a written signed lease agreement, after 4 months he can just evict a tenant as the tenant doesn't have a valid lease?

    Somehow, I don't think that would wash with the PRTB.


  • Options
    #43
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    odds_on wrote: »
    Therefore, if a landlord does not have a written signed lease agreement, after 4 months he can just evict a tenant as the tenant doesn't have a valid lease?

    Wrong. It is obvious you haven't read the thread.

    Somehow, I don't think that would wash with the PRTB.

    Who said it would?


  • Options
    #44
    valleyoftheunos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭valleyoftheunos


    Bluegrass1 wrote: »
    There may have been an oral agreement for a lease but in order to be enforceable it must be evidenced in writing under the Statute of Frauds. That is the case for "the sale of land or any interest therein" (Which includes leases). If the place wasn't ready on X day the landlord is in breach and the o/p would be entitled to repudiate.

    The o/p says he signed a form. It would be interesting to see it.

    I don't believe you are correct here, the 2004 act differntiates between leases and tenancies and explicitly defines tenancies and tenancy agreements as including oral tenancy agreements. Its entirely arguable that what is detailed here amounts to an oral tenancy agreement and for that reason is enforceable under the 2004 act not withstanding the provisions of the Statute of frauds.


  • Options
    #45
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    valleyoftheunos wrote: »
    I don't believe you are correct here, the 2004 act differntiates between leases and tenancies and explicitly defines tenancies and tenancy agreements as including oral tenancy agreements. Its entirely arguable that what is detailed here amounts to an oral tenancy agreement and for that reason is enforceable under the 2004 act not withstanding the provisions of the Statute of frauds.
    While I agree with valleyoftheunos, if a tenancy exists when the deposit is paid, then surely that tenancy is liable to be registered with the PRTB forthwith - i.e. before the first month's rent is paid or, does the tenancy not exist (and therefore registrable) until:
    a) the first month's rent is paid
    b) the tenant moves in
    c) when the lease is signed (assuming that it is not an oral agreement)

    A written lease agreement will state the date of the start of the tenancy whether the tenant has moved in or not.

    However, with an oral agreement the tenant must, by law, be provided with a rent book which would give the basic details of the rental agreement. This, also, would have the starting date of the tenancy.


  • Options
    #46
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    valleyoftheunos wrote: »
    I don't believe you are correct here, the 2004 act differntiates between leases and tenancies and explicitly defines tenancies and tenancy agreements as including oral tenancy agreements. Its entirely arguable that what is detailed here amounts to an oral tenancy agreement and for that reason is enforceable under the 2004 act not withstanding the provisions of the Statute of frauds.

    The 2004 Act simply comprehends the existing means of creating tenancies. It did not repeal or purport to repeal the statute of frauds. The issue here is the status of the letting between the payment of a provisional deposit and moving in. The 2004 Act offers no guidance on an agreement for a lease. The 2004 act protects a person who has moved in because there must be an oral agreement for a tenancy. The PRTB does not deem a person who has not moved in to be a tenant.


Advertisement