Early termination of lease, not registered with PRTB

jumpstart6

Hi all,

I had a 6 months lease for a studio/apartment that terminated in september. The tenancy was not registered with PRTB, when I found out the LL said that it wasn't necessary (is it true?). I renewed for another 6 months but now I will probably need to move to another place. In the contract is stated that:
"Should the apartment be occupied by the tenant for a period of less than 6 months or one Months notice not given, then the security deposit will not be repaid."
Does it mean that giving a 1 month notice I will be able to get my deposit back?
Also, if this is not the case (which is ok), can the LL ask for the remaining months payments?

djimi

It would appear that you can give a months notice and expect to have your deposit returned, but you would need to clarify with the landlord.

foggy_lad

It is illegal for the LL not to register with the PRTB but it does not affect tenants who can still make a complaint to them and they will proceed with whatever action is deemed necessary and then deal with the "slumlords" non compliance with the law.

jumpstart6

djimi wrote: »

It would appear that you can give a months notice and expect to have your deposit returned, but you would need to clarify with the landlord.

Ok, I'll check with the LL as soon as possible.

foggy_lad wrote: »

It is illegal for the LL not to register with the PRTB but it does not affect tenants who can still make a complaint to them and they will proceed with whatever action is deemed necessary and then deal with the "slumlords" non compliance with the law.

So is it illegal not to register with the PRTB? The LL said something like "there's no point in registering".

Thanks for the answers.

the world wonders

jumpstart6 wrote: »

So is it illegal not to register with the PRTB?

Yes, there is a fine of up to €3000 or six months in jail.

25 landlords have been convicted so far this year

Santa Cruz

Time and time again we have this nonsense about landlords not registering with PRTB. When will the PRTB get out and make a public campaign via the media to highlight the rights and responsibilities of landlords AND tenants.
Surely they could have some form of complaint line where breaches of the Act can be reported, investigated and prosecuted.

djimi

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Time and time again we have this nonsense about landlords not registering with PRTB. When will the PRTB get out and make a public campaign via the media to highlight the rights and responsibilities of landlords AND tenants.

I agree (aside from the nonsense part...); we have a large rental culture in this country at the moment and from what I can gather it seems to be largely ignorant on both sides. We have RSA battering us with ad campaigns on TV etc; it wouldnt be a bad idea for the PRTB (or whoever the relevant body is) to start doing the same. Even making people aware that there is a Residential Tenancies Act would be a start!

odds_on

jumpstart6 wrote: »

Hi all,

I had a 6 months lease for a studio/apartment that terminated in september. The tenancy was not registered with PRTB, when I found out the LL said that it wasn't necessary (is it true?). I renewed for another 6 months but now I will probably need to move to another place. In the contract is stated that:
"Should the apartment be occupied by the tenant for a period of less than 6 months or one Months notice not given, then the security deposit will not be repaid."
Does it mean that giving a 1 month notice I will be able to get my deposit back?
Also, if this is not the case (which is ok), can the LL ask for the remaining months payments?

Actually, that clause is illegal. No clause in a lease contract can alter the statutory notice periods as set out in the Residential tenancies Act.
However, as the notice stated is less than the required 35 days, it may be better to say nothing.

Now that you have been in the property for more than six months means that you have acquired Part 4 rights. However, those rights do not really come into effect until the expiry of any fixed term agreement which, gives a tenant more security of tenure.

Again, that clause in the contract is not clear as it does not specify that it must period of occupation can only count from the start of that lease agreement. You have occupied the apartment for more than 6 months.

jumpstart6

Thanks for all the replies. I'll see what I can do then.
The thing is, I know for a fact that the LL registered almost all the other flats in this house. I asked other tenants and they received a letter from the PRTB, I didn't and checking on their website there's no trace of my flat.

bobwilliams

jumpstart6 wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. I'll see what I can do then.
The thing is, I know for a fact that the LL registered almost all the other flats in this house. I asked other tenants and they received a letter from the PRTB, I didn't and checking on their website there's no trace of my flat.

you should have ensured the LL was registered with the PRTB BEFORE you moved in.

jumpstart6

bobwilliams wrote: »

you should have ensured the LL was registered with the PRTB BEFORE you moved in.

I never rented before, I didn't know and when I found out and asked was at the end of the first 6 months and I was going to move. The LL said "there's no point in registering now". Then I renewed and still no PRTB letter. I guess that I shouldn't keep asking the LL about PRTB, no? I guess I'm wrong...

foggy_lad

It doesn't matter to you that he may not have registered you as a tenant in your flat as you can still avail of all the services of the PRTB regardless

The_Conductor

Also- irrespective of a written lease or not- we in Ireland have an almost unique legal acceptance of verbal contracts in a residential tenancy. So- your period of notice, as you've been there over 6 months is as per the 2004 act- aka- you need to give 35 days notice (5 weeks).

The terms of the lease continue to apply, despite your lack of a new lease- you just have the additional tenancy safeguards of a Type 4 tenancy, in addition to any provisions present in the lease.

Vis-a-vis the tenancy not being registered- this is an issue for the landlord. He will be caught out sooner or later. Its not up to you to use it as a bargaining chip though- and if you do- you yourself could be considered complicit in tax evasion, if you attempt to use it to your advantage. Caveat emptor.

Ray Palmer

the world wonders wrote: »

Yes, there is a fine of up to €3000 or six months in jail.

25 landlords have been convicted so far this year

Possible and probable are not the same. They sent out over 25,000 letters and 25 have been charged or 0.1%.

You have to be in a pretty extreme example before they charge you. One tenant and not paying your PRTB is not likely going to happen.

On a basic level they contact you and make you pay it without any fine. Extremely rare they prosecute.

Ultimately we have a tenant who wants to break a lease and nothing more.

Rosier

odds_on wrote: »

Actually, that clause is illegal. No clause in a lease contract can alter the statutory notice periods as set out in the Residential tenancies Act.
However, as the notice stated is less than the required 35 days, it may be better to say nothing.

Now that you have been in the property for more than six months means that you have acquired Part 4 rights. However, those rights do not really come into effect until the expiry of any fixed term agreement which, gives a tenant more security of tenure.

Again, that clause in the contract is not clear as it does not specify that it must period of occupation can only count from the start of that lease agreement. You have occupied the apartment for more than 6 months.

You beat me to it....

djimi

odds_on wrote: »

Actually, that clause is illegal. No clause in a lease contract can alter the statutory notice periods as set out in the Residential tenancies Act.
However, as the notice stated is less than the required 35 days, it may be better to say nothing.

They can if it gives the tenant more rights (ie where it allows for a break clause for the tenant after a certain length of time, or such as in this case where it appears to reduce the notice period required to be given by the tenant). Only if the lease was seeking to lengthen the notice periods required by a tenant, or shorten the notice to be given by the landlord, would it be invalid.

In this case, given that it is the tenant that is looking to break the lease, from my reading of what has been written it seems perfectly okay and seems to allow for the tenant to leave with a months notice once they have been in the property for longer than six months.

Were the landlord to attempt to trigger this clause and try to keep the entire deposit based on it then it would become invalid.

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

They can if it gives the tenant more rights (ie where it allows for a break clause for the tenant after a certain length of time, or such as in this case where it appears to reduce the notice period required to be given by the tenant). Only if the lease was seeking to lengthen the notice periods required by a tenant, or shorten the notice to be given by the landlord, would it be invalid.

In this case, given that it is the tenant that is looking to break the lease, from my reading of what has been written it seems perfectly okay and seems to allow for the tenant to leave with a months notice once they have been in the property for longer than six months.

Were the landlord to attempt to trigger this clause and try to keep the entire deposit based on it then it would become invalid.

RTA 2004 section 69

—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the landlord or tenant may
agree to a lesser period of notice being given than that required by
a preceding provision of this Chapter and such lesser period of notice
may be given accordingly.
(2) Such an agreement to a lesser period of notice being given
may only be entered into at, or after, the time it is indicated to the
tenant or landlord (as appropriate) by the other party that he or she
intends to terminate the tenancy.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, a term of a lease or tenancy agree-
ment cannot constitute such an agreement.

djimi

What do they define as a "term of a lease or tenancy agreement"? To me, that reads that the fixed term/length of a lease does not constitute a notice period, ie you cannot issue a one month lease and have it implied that the tenancy will end at the end of that month.

Or am I reading it wrong and are they using the word term to mean a clause within a lease?

odds_on

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the landlord or tenant may
agree to a lesser period of notice being given than that required by
a preceding provision of this Chapter and such lesser period of notice
may be given accordingly.

Landlord and tenant may mutually agree to a shorter notice period that the statuary periods (i.e. those notice periods usually quoted in posts).

(2) Such an agreement to a lesser period of notice being given
may only be entered into at, or after, the time it is indicated to the
tenant or landlord (as appropriate) by the other party that he or she
intends to terminate the tenancy.

Any shorter notice periods that the statuary requirements, may only be agreed at the time of the notice of termination - i.e. a shorter notice period may not be agreed to several months in advance of the notice of termination but only at the time of the NoT (or immediately preceding it or after it).

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, a term of a lease or tenancy agree-
ment cannot constitute such an agreement.

Just so as there is no doubt about a shorter notice period than the statuary periods, any clause ("term of a lease or tenancy agreement") of a lease agreement cannot constitute (be allowed as valid) any agreement to a shorter notice period.

djimi

Okay I took term to mean length (as in fixed term). If they are using it to mean clause then fair enough.