Landlord insisting on 28 days notice despite breaking agreement - Help please

The_Morrigan

notlawna1 wrote: »

What a great reply, thanks so much.

You're correct it is Dublin so once we got a suitable place we had to move on it quickly.

I suppose we can only hope that there are fewer and fewer people out there who are willing to treat tenants like this in the future. Doing our best to forget it and move on.

I know you're annoyed, but the landlord didn't do anything wrong, so it's unfair to infer the landlord treated you badly.
You got sufficient notice of viewings - which you didn't have to agree to btw.
The landlord didn't give you a termination notice, you gave them an incorrect notice to vacate.

Mrs OBumble

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It's a standard practice in Irish banking.

And so is irrelevant in the case of a cash buyer, and cannot be regarded as applying in all cases?

uberwolf

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And so is irrelevant in the case of a cash buyer, and cannot be regarded as applying in all cases?

Except that it would be a standard check by any purchasers solicitor.

OP - I wanted to express my sympathy to you. We recently went through similar except that our landlord, for all of his other failings, was very decent about our exit giving 3 months notice and effectively waived the requirement for notice on our side. Sure it suited him to have the property back in his control, but it was still decent. Especially hearing what happened to you.

The_Morrigan

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And so is irrelevant in the case of a cash buyer, and cannot be regarded as applying in all cases?

I can't comment on the best practices of Irish law firms in relation to conveyancing, so I can't answer that question.

blue4ever

I'd have rolled the dice on this and see what happens.

Tell the landlord that you're staying for 56 days and not the 28 in his email - this its you right!

notlawna1

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I know you're annoyed, but the landlord didn't do anything wrong, so it's unfair to infer the landlord treated you badly.
You got sufficient notice of viewings - which you didn't have to agree to btw.
The landlord didn't give you a termination notice, you gave them an incorrect notice to vacate.

The landlord confirmed our upcoming years tenancy, then 4 weeks later put the house on the market with 4 days notice of the first viewing (a day after out rent went in).

Sure, legally they did nothing wrong, but morally it's fairly skewed.

If you believe that this is fair treatment of a tenant then we'll have to agree to disagree!

The_Morrigan

notlawna1 wrote: »

The landlord confirmed our upcoming years tenancy, then 4 weeks later put the house on the market with 4 days notice of the first viewing (a day after out rent went in).

Sure, legally they did nothing wrong, but morally it's fairly skewed.

If you believe that this is fair treatment of a tenant then we'll have to agree to disagree!

Situations change; this time last year in the space of a month of had gone from employment stability (with verbal agreements from mangement on progress) to unemployment.

You don't know the reasons behind the decision to put the house on the market, it may not have been their decision even, it could have been the bank.
I understand you feel done by, but it's a fact of life that sh*t can happen and people have to make decisions and change to deal with it. Renting is a business, emotions do not come it, adhering to the obligations and rights of both sides is the only thing important here.

I would advise you to read up thoroughly on your tenants rights and obligations, I think the fact you didn't know you could kick back on some items or that you were expected to give a certain amount of notice was a factor in this situation.

drumswan

notlawna1 wrote: »

The landlord confirmed our upcoming years tenancy, then 4 weeks later put the house on the market with 4 days notice of the first viewing (a day after out rent went in).

Unfortunately the only thing which confirms an upcoming years tenancy is a fixed term lease covering that period.

A landlord is not your friend and shouldnt be expected to treat you "morally", he is someone with whom you have a business relationship and should be expected to treat you according to the rights and obligations set down in the Residential Tenancies Act. Its up to you understand those rights and obligations, and your own.

usernamegoes

If that was me I would tell the landlord I was going to overhold for as long as the PRTB process would allow, delay the sale and frustrate in every way I can unless he refunded my deposit.

Of course if he called my bluff I wouldn't overhold as that would be illegal.

useruser

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Renting is a business, emotions do not come it, adhering to the obligations and rights of both sides is the only thing important here.

Renting is a business? For the landlord sure, for the tenant it is their home that is in question and of course emotion comes into it. The OP has clearly been treated badly (albeit legally) by their landlord who has initially mislead and then later taken full advantage of the OPs' mistakes to squeeze out every last cent.

This is not common decency and if I were the OP I would seek to be as obstructive as possible now (within the letter of the law) in order to try and force the landlord to act with a shred of humanity.

The_Morrigan

useruser wrote: »

Renting is a business? For the landlord sure, for the tenant it is their home that is in question and of course emotion comes into it. The OP has clearly been treated badly (albeit legally) by their landlord who has initially mislead and then later taken full advantage of the OPs' mistakes to squeeze out every last cent.

This is not common decency and if I were the OP I would seek to be as obstructive as possible now (within the letter of the law) in order to try and force the landlord to act with a shred of humanity.

Yes it is a business transaction....payment of rent in exchange for use of the property.

Again...the landlord didn't do anything wrong, the OP panicked and caused the situation to unfold as it did.

useruser

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Yes it is a business transaction....payment of rent in exchange for use of the property.
Again...the landlord didn't do anything wrong, the OP panicked and caused the situation to unfold as it did.

If you don't see anything wrong (morally rather than legally) with the landlords' actions then we clearly have very different moral compasses. Assuming that the OP has accurately described the situation (and there are after all two sides to this story) then they have been treated very shabbily indeed. I would be personally ashamed to treat someone like this in a business transaction and would be livid if it happened to me.

Again...the OP was mislead and then had their ignorance of the finer points of tenancy law used against them. The entire situation could have been handled with good grace and manners by the landlord but for the sake of a few extra grubby euro they prefer this road.

The_Morrigan

useruser wrote: »

If you don't see anything wrong (morally rather than legally) with the landlords' actions then we clearly have very different moral compasses. Assuming that the OP has accurately described the situation (and there are after all two sides to this story) then they have been treated very shabbily indeed. I would be personally ashamed to treat someone like this in a business transaction and would be livid if it happened to me.

Again...the OP was mislead and then had their ignorance of the finer points of tenancy law used against them. The entire situation could have been handled with good grace and manners by the landlord but for the sake of a few extra grubby euro they prefer this road.

We aren't here to discuss the moral actions of anyone though; people come here looking for their legal rights and obligations to be clarified for them. In this case it was the OP who got it wrong.

You can feel as outraged as you like about that but moral actions don't tend to be considered.

useruser

This is a discussion forum and I sought only to offer my opinion and my support (for what it's worth) to the OP against the "rules are rules" and "sucks to be you" responses which however legally correct, I find unpleasant.

The_Morrigan wrote: »

You can feel as outraged as you like about that but moral actions don't tend to be considered.

Yes, that is sadly very clear.

The_Morrigan

useruser wrote: »

This is a discussion forum and I sought only to offer my opinion and my support (for what it's worth) to the OP against the "rules are rules" and "sucks to be you" responses which however legally correct, I find unpleasant.

That's a bit unfair - quoting the correct procedure and pointing out that it was not the landlord that was in the wrong does not equate to 'sucks to be you'.
If we only told people what they wanted to hear to make them feel better this forum & quite frankly society, would descend into madness.

useruser

The_Morrigan wrote: »

That's a bit unfair - quoting the correct procedure and pointing out that it was not the landlord that was in the wrong does not equate to 'sucks to be you'.
If we only told people what they wanted to hear to make them feel better this forum & quite frankly society, would descend into madness.

Yes, you are correct, that is unfair and I withdraw the comment, the advice that has been given has been useful and it is very important that the OP knows where they stand legally.

OP, if you are still reading then I hope that you will forgive my injudicious attempt to drive society to madness. Good luck and I nonetheless hope that you are able to legally inconvenience your landlord to the point that they are obliged to return some of your money.