Help - getting out of lease early

lulu1985

hi

I have taken on a lease in september 14 for a year in private accommodation who are not willing to accept rent allowence or go on ras. im paying 650 pm.today I got told that a house that my sister was renting has come up in the market and the landlady rang her to see was I interested and she would happily go on ras scheme which mean my rent would be down to 300pm. now my predicament is that how do I get out of the lease as I will lose my deposit and I really cant afford to.

petes

Will you not still be liable for the remainder of the lease also?

ABajaninCork

I'd speak to the landlord and see if they're willing to re-assign the lease. As far as I can see, that's the only viable option.

If the landlord wanted to be funny, they can make you pay the rent up to and until they find another tenant. They can also deduct the deposit for any letting costs associated with the re-let.

Michael D Not Higgins

You have no way of getting out of this, except by assigning the lease. If you can replace yourself with another tenant, you should get your deposit back.

Baby01032012

lulu1985 wrote: »

hi

I have taken on a lease in september 14 for a year in private accommodation who are not willing to accept rent allowence or go on ras. im paying 650 pm.today I got told that a house that my sister was renting has come up in the market and the landlady rang her to see was I interested and she would happily go on ras scheme which mean my rent would be down to 300pm. now my predicament is that how do I get out of the lease as I will lose my deposit and I really cant afford to.

You're liable for remainder of lease until sept 2015. You could sublet or reassign the lease if landlord is agreeable. If not reassigned the Landlord would be entitled to withhold any costs of resetting or any period for which the apartment would be idle.

Are you receiving rent supplement and landlord doesn't know. Does welfare know you're paying above the limit they set?

lulu1985

no my present landlord doesnt accept rent allowence. think ill just have to wait it out untill sept... just financially paying a lessercrent would be ideal. thanks

johnnyskeleton

Baby01032012 wrote: »

You're liable for remainder of lease until sept 2015. You could sublet or reassign the lease if landlord is agreeable. If not reassigned the Landlord would be entitled to withhold any costs of resetting or any period for which the apartment would be idle.

As i understand it, if the landlord unreasonably refuses the proposed assignee, hen the tenants duty is fully discharged.

Baby01032012

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As i understand it, if the landlord unreasonably refuses the proposed assignee, hen the tenants duty is fully discharged.

Yes that is true ( below copied from RTA 2004). Once they give required notice.

Tenant may terminate where consent to assignment or sub-letting withheld.

186.—(1) This section has effect—

(a) despite the fact that the tenancy concerned is one for a fixed period, and

(b) despite anything to the contrary in the lease or tenancy agreement concerned.

(2) If a landlord of a dwelling refuses his or her consent to an assignment or sub-letting of the tenancy concerned by the tenant, the tenant may serve a notice of termination in respect of the tenancy and terminate it accordingly.

(3) The period of notice to be given by that notice of termination is—

(a) that specified in section 66 , or

(b) such lesser period of notice as may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant in accordance with section 69 ,

even if the lease or tenancy agreement provides for a greater period of notice to be given.

KCross

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Yes that is true ( below copied from RTA 2004). Once they give required notice.

Tenant may terminate where consent to assignment or sub-letting withheld.

186.—(1) This section has effect—

(a) despite the fact that the tenancy concerned is one for a fixed period, and

(b) despite anything to the contrary in the lease or tenancy agreement concerned.

(2) If a landlord of a dwelling refuses his or her consent to an assignment or sub-letting of the tenancy concerned by the tenant, the tenant may serve a notice of termination in respect of the tenancy and terminate it accordingly.

(3) The period of notice to be given by that notice of termination is—

(a) that specified in section 66 , or

(b) such lesser period of notice as may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant in accordance with section 69 ,

even if the lease or tenancy agreement provides for a greater period of notice to be given.

Thats interesting. So, does that mean that if the existing tenant brings someone to the LL's door that they dont like(for whatever reason), they have to accept them as a new tenant OR let the existing tenant serve notice and legally break the lease early and put it back on the market.... is that how that works?

So, a tenant could legally break a lease early by bringing someone that looks dodgy to the door and say to the landlord.... here is my replacement.... LL saysm no they are not.... and hey presto they are out of the lease, deposit back etc!;)

Michael D Not Higgins

KCross wrote: »

Thats interesting. So, does that mean that if the existing tenant brings someone to the LL's door that they dont like(for whatever reason), they have to accept them as a new tenant OR let the existing tenant serve notice and legally break the lease early and put it back on the market.... is that how that works?

So, a tenant could legally break a lease early by bringing someone that looks dodgy to the door and say to the landlord.... here is my replacement.... LL saysm no they are not.... and hey presto they are out of the lease, deposit back etc!;)

I think it's if they don't allow an assignment in the first place. There can be conditions on finding a suitable assignee.

KCross

Who determines what the criteria for a "suitable assignee" is?

Baby01032012

KCross wrote: »

Who determines what the criteria for a "suitable assignee" is?

Logic determines. If an assignee is obviously not suitable, doesn't meet same criteria that you met... References ability to pay etc., then obviously they are not suitable. I'm sure PRTB would find in landlords favour if you tried that. And you would be liable for rent for remainder of lease.

The law is meant to be just and equitable not as a means to get you out of your legal responsibility.

dudara

Talk to the landlord about re-assigning the lease. If you propose reassignment, and offer to manage all the activities around finding a new tenant, then the landlord should be happy with this. If the landlord refuses a reasonable offer of reassignment, then you can give notice and exit with penalty.

Have a chat with the landlord first to determine if they're amenable and if so, put it in writing.

The_Conductor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As i understand it, if the landlord unreasonably refuses the proposed assignee, hen the tenants duty is fully discharged.

The part of this statement that I'd focus on is 'unreasonably refuses'.........
It is open to interpretation what this means.
A tenant can't simply grab someone off the street, frogmarch them to the Landlord's door- and state 'hey- Ms. Coyle is your tenant- give me my deposit back.......'

The landlord will be entitled to insist on at least conditions which the current tenant fulfills- no RA, in paid employment etc etc etc

I'd suggest renting the second property on a short lease, and subletting that- for the 6 months- and then moving into it- though this itself could be fraught with difficulties.........



Also OP- its not just your deposit that you stand to loose- you are legally on the hook for rent to next September- come what may. If you sublet the property- and the tenant destroyed it- or did a legger- you could be liable. So- it would be in your interests to get as good a tenant to replace you, as possible.........

Eldarion

I never liked that line in the RTA 2004 at all. It's open to such wide abuse it seems mad. I understand circumstances change but a lease is a legally binding agreement for a set period. You shouldn't be able to wash your hands of it by finding some random person who, as evidence would suggest, couldn't get secure a lease themselves normally.

The unreasonably line should be thrown out entirely. It should be viewed as significant act of goodwill on the Landlord's part if he/she allows a lease to be reassigned mid term. No other agreements of this nature have such wooly escape clauses. Taking leasing car companies as a comparison, many flat out refuse any and all lease transfers mid term and if they do, on top of charging a hefty fee to transfer they also stipulate that the original customer is still liable for any default on payments for the duration of the lease.

antoinolachtnai

Tidy up the house spick and span, and ask the landlord if he will let you forfeit your deposit and go. If you are anxious to go he would be as well to accept this deal.

Eldarion

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Tidy up the house spick and span, and ask the landlord if he will let you forfeit your deposit and go. If you are anxious to go he would be as well to accept this deal.

I'd probably take this deal but forfeiting a deposit can be a big old hit to some tenants.

campingcarist

Eldarion wrote: »

I'd probably take this deal but forfeiting a deposit can be a big old hit to some tenants.

And there we have another good reason for landlords to ask for more than 1 months deposit?

As to the OP's question, my understanding, and reading the above posts, is that:
1. Ask the landlord for permission th assign the lease.
2. If the landlord says "No", then you can leave with 28 days notice and get your deposit returned.
3. If the landlord says"yes", then, in order to get your deposit returned, it is your responsibility to find the new tenant and pay any costs (e.g. an advert on Daft.ie).
4. When you find someone, the landlord may reference that proposed replacement according to his criteria, if accepted, when the replacement moves in, you get your deposit back.

I believe I read somewhere that a landlord must be able to justify the refusal of any proposed tenant.

The_Conductor

Further- the original tenant is reassigning the lease.
The landlord technically has a legally binding agreement with the original tenant.
If there is an issue with the tenant that the lease is reassigned to- the landlord would be legally within their rights to pursue the original tenant to make good any damage or financial loss, resulting from the reassignment of the lease.

Its a stupid enough get-out clause for tenants- that ultimately doesn't suit anyone- the original tenant, or the landlord (or indeed the new tenant- who may only have a partial amount of time left on a lease reassigned to them).

The whole notion of reassigning leases- came from the retail sector- where its quite common- and where there are no losses to be incurred by any party- as it is the duty of the tenant to fully kit out the property- all the way to doing the wiring/plumbing etc.

Marcusm

There is no "unreasonably"; the test is whether or not the assignment is refused simpliciter.

campingcarist

Marcusm wrote: »

There is no "unreasonably"; the test is whether or not the assignment is refused simpliciter.

Which means? Not being of a legal mind.

Marcusm

campingcarist wrote: »

Which means? Not being of a legal mind.

No legal advice can be obtained here. However, this is simple English. Whether something is "refused" is a matter of fact demonstrated by whatever communication can be shown. Whether such a refusal is "reasonable" is a subjective matter. The absence of the "reasonable" qualification, on its face, simply requires proving that there has been a refusal. However, there is no real point in relying on this if you are dependent on the return of the deposit without recourse to PRTB.

Michael D Not Higgins

Marcusm wrote: »

There is no "unreasonably"; the test is whether or not the assignment is refused simpliciter.

There's a difference between refusing assignment outright and refusing assignment to a particular person.

Baby01032012

Marcusm wrote: »

No legal advice can be obtained here. However, this is simple English. Whether something is "refused" is a matter of fact demonstrated by whatever communication can be shown. Whether such a refusal is "reasonable" is a subjective matter. The absence of the "reasonable" qualification, on its face, simply requires proving that there has been a refusal. However, there is no real point in relying on this if you are dependent on the return of the deposit without recourse to PRTB.

Refusal outright yes, but refusal to accept an assignee who is not a reasonable replacement ie doesn't have means to pay rent, no references, etc. is a different matter.

Marcusm

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Refusal outright yes, but refusal to accept an assignee who is not a reasonable replacement ie doesn't have means to pay rent, no references, etc. is a different matter.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

There's a difference between refusing assignment outright and refusing assignment to a particular person.

Those may indeed be your views but the statute is fairly stark, the test is whether consent is refused, there is no statutory requirement that the assigned be of a similar standing or category to the assignor. On its face, absent a corrupt or fraudulent purported assignment, the test is weighted towards the tenant rather than the landlird. Whether that is just or fair is a matter to take up with the legislature. In reality, while the landlord holds the deposit, he retains a degree of control and this maybe why it's considered fair, ie stalemate will occur.

Michael D Not Higgins

Marcusm wrote: »

Those may indeed be your views but the statute is fairly stark, the test is whether consent is refused, there is no statutory requirement that the assigned be of a similar standing or category to the assignor. On its face, absent a corrupt or fraudulent purported assignment, the test is weighted towards the tenant rather than the landlird. Whether that is just or fair is a matter to take up with the legislature. In reality, while the landlord holds the deposit, he retains a degree of control and this maybe why it's considered fair, ie stalemate will occur.

I'd like to see that get through the PRTB.

campingcarist

Marcusm wrote: »

No legal advice can be obtained here. However, this is simple English. Whether something is "refused" is a matter of fact demonstrated by whatever communication can be shown. Whether such a refusal is "reasonable" is a subjective matter. The absence of the "reasonable" qualification, on its face, simply requires proving that there has been a refusal. However, there is no real point in relying on this if you are dependent on the return of the deposit without recourse to PRTB.

Sorry, poorly explained by someone who didn't even get the Intermediate exams. It was the expression "refused simpliciter" that I didn't get and it sounds very legal.
the test is whether or not the assignment is "refused simpliciter".

Marcusm

campingcarist wrote: »

Sorry, poorly explained by someone who didn't even get the Intermediate exams. It was the expression "refused simpliciter" that I didn't get and it sounds very legal.
the test is whether or not the assignment is "refused simpliciter".

I'm surprised that I used "simpliciter" but it means "simply" is the test is whether it was simply refused not whether the landlord had grounds (reasonable or not) for doing so.

Michael D Not Higgins

Marcusm wrote: »

I'm surprised that I used "simpliciter" but it means "simply" is the test is whether it was simply refused not whether the landlord had grounds (reasonable or not) for doing so.

But the landlord can agree to assignment without taking the first punter thrown at them by the tenant.

As an example, the landlord has a right to refuse rent allowance. Trying to assign to a rent allowance recipient when the original tenant is not in receipt of RA would be deemed reasonable grounds to object.

Are there any examples of a case like this in the PRTB? I can't imagine they would permit a tenant to break a lease because they wanted to assign to someone unsuitable or reasonable objectionable in the landlord's eyes.

campingcarist

Marcusm wrote: »

I'm surprised that I used "simpliciter" but it means "simply" is the test is whether it was simply refused not whether the landlord had grounds (reasonable or not) for doing so.

Thank you, Marcusm; all clear now.

Marcusm

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

But the landlord can agree to assignment without taking the first punter thrown at them by the tenant.

As an example, the landlord has a right to refuse rent allowance. Trying to assign to a rent allowance recipient when the original tenant is not in receipt of RA would be deemed reasonable grounds to object.

Are there any examples of a case like this in the PRTB? I can't imagine they would permit a tenant to break a lease because they wanted to assign to someone unsuitable or reasonable objectionable in the landlord's eyes.

The point is that it is not simply possible to read in additional provisions to the law; had the consent been required to be "reasonably" then such words would be used. I can see that a fraudulent or corrupt assignment could easily be refused - such as proposing a minor child or a destitute homeless person - but the law does not deem the landlord as a person requiring a high level of protection - this is clear from the RTA generally.

The landlord is not required to accept the proposed tenant but the law, to my reading, is framed in a manner that if the landlord chooses not to accept the proposed assignment, he has no further claim on the tenant. That being said, he still has the deposit so it is always best for the parties to come to an agreeable solution.