Landlord looking for rent if they don't find a replacement tenant

FishOnABike

suchafunkymonke wrote: »

Its a 12 month lease. These means you agree to pay for and lease the property for a minimum of 12 months and the landlord agrees to allow you to do so and to keep the property habitable.

You cannot sub-let based on a normal tenancy agreement. If you need to end a tenancy early, then you can agree terms with the landlord to terminate the contract by mutual agreement. This is usually aided by the tenant helping the landlord find a replacement (which usually costs the landlord money).

You can't just get up and leave because X, Y or Z has happened in your life. If you do, the landlord can keep your deposit and also claim the remainder of the rent due from you. The notice period is there to give notice of intention to vacate the property one you are beyond the minimum agreed term, not during it.

The tenant can request to assign or sublet and issue notice of termination if the request is refused. I don't think it can be much clearer than this.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/sec0186.html#sec186

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.

The OP has six months or so remaining on their fixed term lease so there's a not inconsequential sum at stake. Rather than depend on internet amateurs here he should get knowledgeable advice from threshold, flac or a solicitor who is familiar with property and rental law and make sure everything is done correctly. It could be the best return on a few euro he'll ever see.

Del2005

FishOnABike wrote: »

The Residential Tenancy Act regulates the area and prescribes a legal and fair way to deal with circumstances where it may be necessary to end a fixed term lease before the end of the fixed term by way of assignment, subletting or allowing the landlord recover reasonable expenses associated with having to re-advertise and re-let the property. It balances the obligations and rights of both landlord and tenant.

OP is perfectly within their rights here to request permission to assign the lease and issue notice of termination if the request is refused.

The landlord is within their rights to allow the lease to be assigned or choose to re-let the property themselves but can't have it both ways.

How is it fair that a tenant can just ask to reassign a fixed term lease and walk away, either by getting it reassigned or giving the necessary notice when reassignment is refused, and it can take a landlord over a year to remove a non paying tenant? Seems it's still biased towards the tenants.

FishOnABike

Del2005 wrote: »

How is it fair that a tenant can just ask to reassign a fixed term lease and walk away, either by getting it reassigned or giving the necessary notice when reassignment is refused, and it can take a landlord over a year to remove a non paying tenant? Seems it's still biased towards the tenants.

It's fair because the tenant is obliged to find an alternative tenant to assign or sub-let the property to and ensure the landlord is not at a loss as a result. If there is a vacancy period between when the tenant leaves and the new tenant takes on the assignment or sublet the original tenant is still responsible for the rent.

If the tenant just ups and leaves (with or without notice) without finding a replacement the tenant is liable for reletting costs and any shortfall in rent until a new tenant is found. the landlord is obliged to mitigate their losses by advertisinig and relettinjg the property.

With a current, almost critical housing shortage, it would be socially unacceptable to have idle properties locked into useless leases (useless in the sense of not providing any accommodation) for months on end.

Overholding and not paying any rent is a totally separate matter. The law is there to deal with it but is far to slow in practice due the the length of time it takes to access the courts. This is a wider problem with slow access to the law and I agree something needs to be done to improve speed of access and efficiency not only here but also in general.

the world wonders

Joy Quiet Kelp wrote: »

I would like to add that there is not any legislation, to the best of my knowledge, that states a tenant is obligated to pay rent for the remainder of their tenancy should they choose to terminate early.

There doesn't need to be legislation, a lease is a legally binding contract same as any other. However, the contract law principle that the wronged party must make their best effort to mitigate their loss applies, in this case meaning that the landlord must make their best effort to relet the place as soon as possible.

Murt10 wrote:

If OP is allowed to get out of the lease if he finds someone willing to take it over then I wonder could he nominate a traveller to take up the lease.

He certainly could, as it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of membership of the travelling community. However, the landlord would be entitled to use the same criteria when approving the new tenant e.g. work/bank references, previous landlord references etc.

the world wonders

the world wonders wrote: »

There doesn't need to be legislation, a lease is a legally binding contract same as any other. However, the contract law principle that the wronged party must make their best effort to mitigate their loss applies, in this case meaning that the landlord must make their best effort to relet the place as soon as possible.He certainly could, as it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of membership of the travelling community. However, the landlord would be entitled to use the same criteria when approving the new tenant e.g. work/bank references, previous landlord references etc.

If the bank and previous landlord references are bad, can the landlord reject the replacement but still require the tenant to find a suitable alternative? Or does anyone off the street get the tenant off the hook?

P. Breathnach

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

If the bank and previous landlord references are bad, can the landlord reject the replacement but still require the tenant to find a suitable alternative? Or does anyone off the street get the tenant off the hook?

The legislation doesn't make that clear, but I'm sure that if the matter ended up in court the judge would apply a test of reasonableness: that the person to whom the lease is assigned is a suitable tenant, and that the landlord is obliged to accept a reasonable assignment.

Del2005

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The legislation doesn't make that clear, but I'm sure that if the matter ended up in court the judge would apply a test of reasonableness: that the person to whom the lease is assigned is a suitable tenant, and that the landlord is obliged to accept a reasonable assignment.

The statute that FishOnABike posted seems fairly clear that once a tenant asks for reassignment they are out of the lease regardless of the LL decision.

P. Breathnach

Del2005 wrote: »

The statute that FishOnABike posted seems fairly clear that once a tenant asks for reassignment they are out of the lease regardless of the LL decision.

So if I want out of a lease, I can find a homeless and destitute alcoholic, assign the lease to him, and walk away? I'd be fairly sure that the court would rule that out on the grounds that it is not reasonable.

Intifada

Intifada wrote: »

What? I'm asking why OP doesn't just move out and be done with it. Presumably they don't have a direct debit set up with the landlord but if they do, cancel it. If you're worried about your deposit then just leave without paying your last month's rent (or however many months your deposit is) - as long as you don't leave the place with damages that would otherwise be covered by it.

Because this would be illegal and the LL would be able to bring the tenant to court if necessary in order to get the rent that's owned. By signing a lease the tenant entered a legal agreement to pay one years rent for the property.

Fkall

FishOnABike wrote: »

The tenant is entitled to request reassignment of the lease or to sublet (I'd say reassigning it is preferable from a tenant's perspective). If the landlord refuses to allow the tenant to reassign or sublet the tenant can issue notice under section 186 of the Residential Tenancy Act 2004 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/...86.html#sec186

If notice is properly given with the required notice period under section 66 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/sec0066.html#sec66 i.e. 28 days if the tenancy is less than 6 months at the time notice is given or 35 days if between six months and one year.

In the above circumstances there is no penalty or further liability for rent on the tenant.



Even so the landlord can only keep as much of the deposit as is necessary to cover advertising and any loss of rent due to vacancy. As I said, in Dublin it would be difficult to justify more than the cost of advertising plus one month's rent.

Requesting to reassign the lease avoids the possibility of a the deposit being held.

If the landlord refuses to reassign the lease the tenant can issue a notice of termination under section 186 of the Residential Tenancy Act 2004 and leave without penalty or further liability for rent.

If the landlord agrees to reassign the lease the tenant can look for a new tenant to reassign the lease to with the minimal vacancy and is entitled to the return of their deposit.

The landlord is also entitled to claim a proportion of the letting fee.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

the world wonders wrote: »

There doesn't need to be legislation, a lease is a legally binding contract same as any other. However, the contract law principle that the wronged party must make their best effort to mitigate their loss applies, in this case meaning that the landlord must make their best effort to relet the place as soon as possible.He certainly could, as it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of membership of the travelling community. However, the landlord would be entitled to use the same criteria when approving the new tenant e.g. work/bank references, previous landlord references etc.

My use of the term 'legislation' was wrong, sorry. I meant 'previous court findings' or whatever the term for that is.

In any case, a contract is binding but not in a sense that just too many people in this thread believe. Stop thinking that a contract _*forces*_ a person into a life of servitude with no way out.

Too many unscrupulous people play on this ignorance and frankly it's disheartening to see people fall for it hook, line and sinker.

Any contract must have a termination clause, but very importantly, that termination clause must be reasonable! An unreasonable termination clause will very likely not hold up in a court of law.

Expecting rent for the term of the remaining lease is unreasonable. Keeping the security deposit is reasonable. Which is something many official websites have stated, there isn't a single website claiming "rent for the remaining term" is normal.

The OP and anyone in the same position should call a land lord out if they try and demand "rent for the remaining term".

foggy_lad

Del2005 wrote: »

The statute that FishOnABike posted seems fairly clear that once a tenant asks for reassignment they are out of the lease regardless of the LL decision.

They would also be entitled to get their deposit back in full as an alternative has been refused by the landlord.

The_Conductor

Unfortunately its one of those areas that was written with the best of intentions in the legislation- but is being interpreted in wildly different ways from the intention of those who framed the regulation.

In practice- when reassigning a lease in order to comply with the rules for vacating a lease inside of its defined term- a tenant is expected to find a replacement tenant of at least similar stature to the tenant themselves.

Aka- getting a drunk off the street, a criminal, or someone who is unable to satisfy reasonable requirements that the landlord requested at the outset (has to be reasonable- and legal)- is not acceptable.

If the OP were to find some randomer to move in- likely they would fall on the fence of 'reasonableness'.

It is not a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card- it is a reasonable opportunity for a tenant to ascribe their legal obligation to a new tenant (who I must add- the subject of the tenancy rolls back to day zero under the RTA- aka the landlord could ask them to leave without giving a reason for the first 6 months of the tenancy).

It doesn't offer security of tenure to a replacement tenant at all- that is the only saving grace of the provision, from the point of a landlord- other than that- its remarkably badly balanced in the tenant's favour.

dissed doc

Del2005 wrote: »

The statute that FishOnABike posted seems fairly clear that once a tenant asks for reassignment they are out of the lease regardless of the LL decision.

But that also assumes that the new person is in a reasonable position to sign the same lease.

i.e., provide deposit, references, etc., . Someone with no job, no income, no references or deposit cannot be a reasonable reassignee, because they would fail to be considered in the first place as someone who can sign the lease.

Marcusm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So if I want out of a lease, I can find a homeless and destitute alcoholic, assign the lease to him, and walk away? I'd be fairly sure that the court would rule that out on the grounds that it is not reasonable.

I don't think that's an issue of reasonableness so much as capable of being disregarded as a sham.

FishOnABike

+1 to what the conductor, dissed doc and marcsum have said.

The prospective new tenant would need to meet the same criteria as the original tenant to be considered a reasonable replacement for assigning the lease, character references from previous landlords, bank statements to show ability to pay rent, etc...

The proposed Employment Equality (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, should it be enacted, might have some effect on looking for work related character or financial references.