Forced to Sign Lease

Ken.

Op, are you in direct contact with the landlord or is it all through the middlemen. Because they could be telling you one thing and him another to get a fee out of him. Especially if as you say the landlord is a bit naive.

Grolschevik

Daith wrote: »

How would there be re-letting costs if the tenant stays on?

I meant in the event that the tenant eventually decides to leave (after a couple of years).

odds_on

Daith wrote: »

How would there be re-letting costs if the tenant stays on?

The landlord may have assumed that the tenancy was ending because the tenant had not advised him between 3 months and 1 month prior to the expiry of the fixed term, and gone ahead with advertising the property for rent to a new tenant. There could be advertising fees, agents fees etc. involved for which the tenant is liable.

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

They can evict on the grounds of needing the property for themselves, but if they dont ultimately move in then I think you have a good case against them.

Just be aware of other things that they might try, such as increasing the rent. While it must remain within market rate, if you are in a high demand area such as many parts of Dublin are experiencing then the market rate might have gone up quite a bit since you signed the lease.

I suppose it boils down to how much you want to remain living there. If you are happy and plan on being there long term then it might be best swallowing your pride and signing the lease. It may cost you more in the long term to move for the sake of your principles.

Just to add the djimi's post:

If a notice of termination gives the reason for eviction as the owner or a close relative wants the property for themselves, then the named person must reside there for a minimum of six months. In default of the named person not staying for a minimum of 6 months, the landlord is obliged to offer a tenancy of the property to the evicted tenant.

Eldarion

Just like to say great thread, very insightful altogether.

OP, it seems like you don't want to be tied down to a lease for 12 months which is perfectly understandable, but the trade off is that you're not as secure. He's perfectly entitled to increase the rent at any time he chooses to (in line with market rates and once every 12 months) and he's well within the law to evict you for a range of reasons. He can claim he needs the property for personal use or use by a close family member. Or he intends to sell. Or to renovate. You're not exposed to rent increases or legal evictions with a lease.

It's really up to you how you want to play it but you can't expect to have it all.

SeanPuddin

Update: Signed the f-in thing.

As far as I'm concerned I can still move out with 1 months notice, as per part 4 tenancy. The agency agrees. The landlord cannot move home or pull any funny business due to new lease. Like a previous poster claimed it's seems like a win-win.

I have informed the landlord never to contact me again and only deal through the agency. If he was prepared to go into early retirement and move home, a rental increase would be next I'm sure.

It's hard to swallow your pride when the landlord is being such a c*nt, but this time it seemed like the only option to stay on.

Thanks for all the advice and input.

SeanPuddin

odds_on wrote: »

Just to add the djimi's post:

If a notice of termination gives the reason for eviction as the owner or a close relative wants the property for themselves, then the named person must reside there for a minimum of six months. In default of the named person not staying for a minimum of 6 months, the landlord is obliged to offer a tenancy of the property to the evicted tenant.

True, but they also have up to 3 months from asking you to leave to moving in. By the time you realise something is wrong, you should have moved on with your life. Trump card for the landlord.

The_Conductor

Ok- on that note, I think this thread has gone its course.
Closed.