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 not who they said they were.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    sunnysoutheast wrote: »
    I would expect that a landlord can issue a perfectly valid NoT if they genuinely intend to offer the property for sale, not that they have already sold it. There are a multitude of reasons why a sale will fall through.

    The NoT in this case does not have to include the provision to offer to the original tenant if re-let.

    The point that I was making was more to do with the comment made above, where it is very obvious that there is no intent to sell (put the house for sale at an overly high price, remove tenants, take house off market and re-let within a month). Its pretty clear that this is just a move to invoke a termination of the tenancy, and it would want to be a pretty gullible adjudicator to not see through such a play.

    The actual wording from the RTA is
    The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/sec0034.html

    so it is quite specific on the time frame. The market in question might come into play with this one; for example if a landlord in Dublin puts a house up for sale at a realistic price then its very likely that they could find a buyer within three months, however if its somewhere like Carrick on Shannon that we are talking about then there probably isnt a snowballs chance in hell of the house being sold in three months unless its priced to be virtually given away (and even then its optimistic), so the chances of the part 4 clause coming into play are very slim.


  • Options
    #33
    sarkozy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭sarkozy


    Surely if the tenancy is allowed to go beyond 6 months that, invalid lease or not, the tenancy falls under Part 4 giving this person rights?

    Absolutely tread carefully, get legal advice to be clear about your rights, and discretely seek advice from the local Garda station (or station to which this person is 'known') on options.

    I'm also mindful of the fact that decent housing is a right and there's serious issues with the 'unhousable' (waiting lists, inadequate rent supplement budgets, etc.). It's also the case, from what I understand, that the tenant has not yet done anything to warrant action beyond falsely signing the lease.

    It may even end up that this person commits a crime and is forced to leave anyway?


  • Options
    #34
    TheBoffin
    Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭TheBoffin


    In the case of my friend, he issued a standard notice of termination which he gave 1 month as notice. The tenants were in the house for 5 months, the tenants do not need to be provided with a reason when they are in lease for less than 6 months. My friend mentioned the house being sold purely to avoid hassle and confrontation.

    djimi wrote: »
    The point that I was making was more to do with the comment made above, where it is very obvious that there is no intent to sell (put the house for sale at an overly high price, remove tenants, take house off market and re-let within a month). Its pretty clear that this is just a move to invoke a termination of the tenancy, and it would want to be a pretty gullible adjudicator to not see through such a play.

    The actual wording from the RTA is



    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/sec0034.html

    so it is quite specific on the time frame. The market in question might come into play with this one; for example if a landlord in Dublin puts a house up for sale at a realistic price then its very likely that they could find a buyer within three months, however if its somewhere like Carrick on Shannon that we are talking about then there probably isnt a snowballs chance in hell of the house being sold in three months unless its priced to be virtually given away (and even then its optimistic), so the chances of the part 4 clause coming into play are very slim.


  • Options
    #35
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Its funny to see the comments written saying the landlord can't pretend to sell etc. Its obvious the posters don't let out themselves. If they did the attitude would be different it doesn't take alot to cause tens of thousands worth of damage to a house. The comment maybe the guy has turned over a new leaf... its easy to say when its not your pocket been hit


  • Options
    #36
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Its funny to see the comments written saying the landlord can't pretend to sell etc. Its obvious the posters don't let out themselves. If they did the attitude would be different it doesn't take alot to cause tens of thousands worth of damage to a house. The comment maybe the guy has turned over a new leaf... its easy to say when its not your pocket been hit


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


    handlemaster wrote: »
    Its funny to see the comments written saying the landlord can't pretend to sell etc. Its obvious the posters don't let out themselves. If they did the attitude would be different it doesn't take alot to cause tens of thousands worth of damage to a house. The comment maybe the guy has turned over a new leaf... its easy to say when its not your pocket been hit

    Im talking from a tenants point of view; if I was told to vacate because a property was up for sale then I would more than likely keep an eye out to see what the story is. If I saw the property go up for sale at an inflated price then go back on the rental market a month later after I had left then I would not be in the slightest bit impressed and would consider taking a case against the landlord. And thats coming from me as a tenant who is not inclinded to look for trouble (as opposed to the type of tenant that the OP suspects that they have).

    I get where you are coming from, and in reality you do what it takes, but you have to look at it from both sides; what might seem like a clever trick to fool the system and sort a problem short term might end up being painfully transparent to both tenant and anyone else who scrutinises it (as in the example above) and could well come back to bite you in the ass.


  • Options
    #38
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    TheBoffin wrote: »
    In the case of my friend, he issued a standard notice of termination which he gave 1 month as notice. The tenants were in the house for 5 months, the tenants do not need to be provided with a reason when they are in lease for less than 6 months. My friend mentioned the house being sold purely to avoid hassle and confrontation.

    Did the tenants have a fixed term lease? If not then there was no need to go through such a convoluted rigamarole just to get rid of them; 28 days notice for any reason was all that was needed.

    If they were on a fixed term lease then none of what they did was legal anyway.


Advertisement