Part 4 Tenancy and Rent Increase Queries

Saudade

Hello,

I'll try and keep this brief because similar queries have been asked before, but my two queries may intertwine, hence a new thread.

Our 12 month lease is approaching it's end, and we wish to stay in the property.

The landlord told me that he is happy for us to stay in the property (apartment), but upon two conditions;

1, He wants us to sign a new 12 month contract.
2, He wants to increase our rent by €75 a month.

The relationship has been smooth so far, even if it did seem like a bit of a poker game at the start when trying to secure the lease, so this caught us a bit off guard. At first I thought fair enough, he's a businessman just trying to earn as much from his property as possible.

But then I started reading up on some tenant rights.

Regarding his new proposed 12 month contract;

We don't want to commit to another year because we would risk losing some or all of the deposit if we leave before November 2016.

Since we are approaching the end of the fixed-term lease, I believe we can officially notify the landlord that we wish to stay, and enter into the part 4 tenancy, instead of signing a new 12 month fixed-term lease.

I have heard of landlords trying to get tenants to sign new 12 month contracts as a way to scam them out of some of their deposit if they want to leave before the 12 months is finished (even if it's the second or third 'round' of 12 months, if you get me) and don't want to fall into that trap.

My questions -

-Do we need to officially notify him that we wish to enter into the part 4 tenancy? Or has it legally already happened after the first 6 months?

-Is there any penalty for not officially claiming part 4 tenancy in writing?

-Can he refuse to give us part 4 tenancy unless we sign a new fixed-term 12 month lease? Can he evict us if we don't commit to 12 more months? Or is the law on my side here?

Regarding his proposed rent increase;

He is within his legal rights to try his luck after 12 months, that's understandable. However, PRTB state that he cannot charge more than 'market rate'. Or in other words, he can charge it if we agree, but we are not legally obliged to agree to the increase.

However, I honestly believe that we are already paying more than the current market rate for our property type. I checked this on the Average Monthly Rent Report section of PRTB website, using the latest available 2015 Quarter 1 rates, and searching for matching location, property type, and number of bedrooms as our own property. Even slightly tweaking the search (our property covers several different locational options) reveals that we are paying somewhere between 150-200 a month more than the PRTB index.

So I have looked into the possibility of raising a dispute with PRTB. 'Dispute' seems like a harsh word, but I feel he probably won't back down, as he really doesn't have anything to lose, and €75 a month to gain. And for the sake of a few Euros submission fee to the PRTB, I don't feel like I have anything to lose either as my Part 4 tenancy is protecting me from eviction, if the landlord were to try to evict us due to the dispute. (We arrive to the part 4 tenancy / rent increase intertwining part that I alluded to earlier).

So my queries,

-Does it really only cost €15 to submit an online dispute to the PRTB (according to citizensinformation.ie), or is that just an initial application fee, and further costs occur later on?

-Which other means, (if any), will the PRTB use to determine the market rent for my property, other than their own index? Will they go so far as to locate current rent records of other properties in my building? If I know this information, then I can do a bit more research on market rents in my building before considering a dispute.

What may strongly work against me - whilst there's nothing currently available to rent in my building on daft, there are 3 'let agreed' still on record on the website, all within around only €50-€75 difference on mine, so that would likely work against me if PRTB check that in addition to checking their own index.

Any thoughts or opinions are most welcome. Sorry if it was too much to read.

Have a pleasant Sunday :-)

davo10

You are not required to sign another fixed term contract, you automatically assumed part 4 tenancy rights after 6 months, these stay in place for 4 years. You can just inform the LL that you do not wish to sign a contract as you already have these rights.

Regarding the rent increase, you are not quite right there. The LL is entitled to raise the rent after one year, all he will be required to show is that the new rent is market rate. The registers are often out of date and rents are rising nationwide though perhaps not as much as they were. Even rental prices advertised on daft are not accurate as tenants in some cases are offering in excess of the advertised listing to secure a property. The LL just needs a letter from an EA outlining rates in the area. Remember, you can raise a grievance with the PTRB but if you lose, you will be required to pay the full amount backdated to the original date on which the rent was to increase so it would be best to leave that amount aside each month in case you are unsuccessful.

Before you go on the warpath with your LL, if you like the property and think you might want to stay a while, check out what is available in the area and how much it costs, if there is limited supply, poor quality or rents are higher than you thought, you might be better off accepting what perhaps is a reasonable increase.

Saudade

Thanks Davo, some wise words of wisdom there.

Perhaps I will absorb the increase, but start to look around at other properties to see if there is anything available at a cheaper price.

Maybe I will still dispute the increase with the PRTB anyway, I don't really have anything to lose so I may call them tomorrow and ask their opinion. The latest index available on their website was 2015 Quarter 1.

The rents in Dublin have risen at a surprisingly high rate lately. 2 years ago we were paying 800, and now it's going to be 1225. Other than the influx of <snip> students, I can't really understand why they have risen so sharply in such a short space of time.

I think it's time to get a mortgage :-)

Fol20

davo10 wrote: »

You are not required to sign another fixed term contract, you automatically assumed part 4 tenancy rights after 6 months, these stay in place for 4 years. You can just inform the LL that you do not wish to sign a contract as you already have these rights.

Regarding the rent increase, you are not quite right there. The LL is entitled to raise the rent after one year, all he will be required to show is that the new rent is market rate. The registers are often out of date and rents are rising nationwide though perhaps not as much as they were. Even rental prices advertised on daft are not accurate as tenants in some cases are offering in excess of the advertised listing to secure a property. The LL just needs a letter from an EA outlining rates in the area. Remember, you can raise a grievance with the PTRB but if you lose, you will be required to pay the full amount backdated to the original date on which the rent was to increase so it would be best to leave that amount aside each month in case you are unsuccessful.

Before you go on the warpath with your LL, if you like the property and think you might want to stay a while, check out what is available in the area and how much it costs, if there is limited supply, poor quality or rents are higher than you thought, you might be better off accepting what perhaps is a reasonable increase.

I would believe anything on the PRTB index. Their pricing is well off the mark. To get an idea of rental prices. Check on daft or call an estate agent and tell them you are thinking of letting a property and wondering how much you would get.

You do have a bit to loose. Raising a dispute with the prtb will no doubt cause tension between you and the landlord. If stuff in your house breaks down, your landlord might be slower to resolve the issue, and no doubt next year, he will inevitably increase the price to the full market rate amount as he no longer has a good relationship with you.

DivingDuck

Fol20 wrote: »

You do have a bit to loose. Raising a dispute with the prtb will no doubt cause tension between you and the landlord. If stuff in your house breaks down, your landlord might be slower to resolve the issue, and no doubt next year, he will inevitably increase the price to the full market rate amount as he no longer has a good relationship with you.

A reference would be unlikely to be glowing, either. It also looks like the results of most PRTB cases are listed on their website, and I suspect many future landlords may look unfavorably upon an application coming from someone who lodged a dispute against their landlord before-- particularly if you lose, as it may appear frivolous or petty.

Rather than going directly to the PRTB, you could try to negotiate with your landlord on the amount of the increase? He would probably prefer not to go to the bother of re-letting the apartment when he could retain his current tenants, and if he's using an agent, it will cost him a few quid there as well as the cost of any time the flat is idle.

Make a reasonable case based on the financials, e.g, while a €50 increase rather than a €100 one will net him €600 less over the year, he also won't be down, potentially, a few weeks of rent plus whatever agent fees he's paying, so it may actually mean more money in his pocket as well as yours at the end of the day.

Saudade

Thanks for the replies guys. I really appreciate you taking a few minutes out of your valuable weekend to give honest advice.

I basically just wanted to see if I had a good case to take to the PRTB, but upon second thoughts, maybe I will just accept the raise, all the while looking around at other places nearby and seeing if there are many other options at cheaper rates are available - probably something I should have done weeks ago anyway.

Perhaps instead of bringing the PRTB into it, I will try to negotiate the rent increase, but I suspect he will already be rather unhappy at me playing my 'Part 4 tenancy' card and not signing a new 12 month contract, which may affect my reference and cause a slight bit of tension with him anyway.

It's a game of poker. Like most things in life I suppose. The timing isn't ideal as I already have other problems in life. Like everyone else I suppose.

But the fixed-term lease is coming to an end and at least I now have the part 4 tenancy protecting me, so if finances become a problem, I can downgrade anytime to something cheaper at 6 weeks notice, knowing I can reclaim my deposit.

davo10

DivingDuck wrote: »

A reference would be unlikely to be glowing, either. It also looks like the results of most PRTB cases are listed on their website, and I suspect many future landlords may look unfavorably upon an application coming from someone who lodged a dispute against their landlord before-- particularly if you lose, as it may appear frivolous or petty.

Rather than going directly to the PRTB, you could try to negotiate with your landlord on the amount of the increase? He would probably prefer not to go to the bother of re-letting the apartment when he could retain his current tenants, and if he's using an agent, it will cost him a few quid there as well as the cost of any time the flat is idle.

Make a reasonable case based on the financials, e.g, while a €50 increase rather than a €100 one will net him €600 less over the year, he also won't be down, potentially, a few weeks of rent plus whatever agent fees he's paying, so it may actually mean more money in his pocket as well as yours at the end of the day.

The apartment is in Dublin, there are none available in the building and the others are renting for more, trust me, the LL will have no issue with reletting the apartment and would not be bound by any restrictions on rate increase if he did so. The best case scenario for the LL right now if the op reacts badly to the rate increase would be for the op to move out and re advertise the apartment at an even higher rental rate.

DivingDuck

davo10 wrote: »

The apartment is in Dublin, there are none available in the building and the others are renting for more, trust me, the LL will have no issue with reletting the apartment and would not be bound by any restrictions on rate increase if he did so. The best case scenario for the LL right now if the op reacts badly to the rate increase would be for the op to move out and re advertise the apartment at an even higher rental rate.

You don't have to struggle to find a tenant for the re-letting process to be a financial let-down and a headache. There's advertising and agency fees, re-registering with the PRTB, cleaning up, putting right whatever small issues the previous tenant let slide, etc. Even if you have the offer of a tenant on day one, chances are it will be at least a week until they can move in (or more) which is a week's rent you're down. You're also taking the risk with a new tenant in that they might be more troublesome or less financially reliable than your previous tenant has proven to be.

All that adds up to both lost revenue and annoyance for the landlord, so if they could avoid it for another year for a cost of under €100, would they be bothered? Especially if they have a tenant who pays on time every month and doesn't cause any undue hassle? Probably not.

Most half-decent landlords will value a good tenant. Although they are operating a business and their goal is to make money, most are capable of weighing the options and deciding to let the status quo roll on if it's pleasant and it's only going to cost them a small amount of money. If both parties can be reasonable, both parties can win.

davo10

DivingDuck wrote: »

You don't have to struggle to find a tenant for the re-letting process to be a financial let-down and a headache. There's advertising and agency fees, re-registering with the PRTB, cleaning up, putting right whatever small issues the previous tenant let slide, etc. Even if you have the offer of a tenant on day one, chances are it will be at least a week until they can move in (or more) which is a week's rent you're down. You're also taking the risk with a new tenant in that they might be more troublesome or less financially reliable than your previous tenant has proven to be.

All that adds up to both lost revenue and annoyance for the landlord, so if they could avoid it for another year for a cost of under €100, would they be bothered? Especially if they have a tenant who pays on time every month and doesn't cause any undue hassle? Probably not.

Most half-decent landlords will value a good tenant. Although they are operating a business and their goal is to make money, most are capable of weighing the options and deciding to let the status quo roll on if it's pleasant and it's only going to cost them a small amount of money. If both parties can be reasonable, both parties can win.

I'm sorry to ask but have you any experience of being a LL?, advertising on daft is simple and cheap. The op does not want to pay the increase and the LL will soon enough know that the op does not want to sign a contract because he/she is planning to leave within the next year ie the LL is going to have to do it soon anyway. Of course there is always a risk associated with new lets but that is something a LL accepts when going into the rental business. Right now the LL can only put it up by €75, op confirmed that this is the going rate in the building, but a new let can be increased by more and apartments are not short of potential tenent sat the moment. If the op is going to follow your advice, he/she needs to check the local market first, €75 pm does not seem an unreasonable increase in Dublin, he/she may find that it will cost considerably more elsewhere.

ted1

OP you should pay the €75, will you be looking for a reference?

Saudade

ted1 wrote: »

OP you should pay the €75, will you be looking for a reference?

Well, I will leave one day, so eventually I will need a reference.

I looked at a few market rate dispute cases on the PRTB, and the vast majority of the time, the landlord has won the case (although in many cases there were other circumstances). I think for €75 a month, my case wouldn't be taken seriously as it appears that rent rates are increasing by 10% per year and that would be the basis of the landlord's defence, which I can understand to be fair.

Funnily enough, I saw my landlords name pop up in a dispute with a previous tenant about 7 years ago.

So as I said, I will accept the increase.

Browsing though Daft for something in my area at a cheaper price, whether 50, 100, or 150 a month cheaper, every property has at least 1,000 page views. Some have 5,000. If just 1% of those people apply to rent that property, I'm competing with at least a dozen other people.

So I'll probably sit back, thank the good Lord that I have a roof over my head, and maybe review after Christmas.

Surely rent rates can't keep increasing by 10% a year?

Once again, thanks for each and every reply.

The_Conductor

Impossible to say whether rents will continue to increase or not- however, according to DAFT, the absolute number of properties on the rental market in Ireland- is falling. Until such time as government policy encourages an increase in the absolute number properties, where people want to live, and stops unfairly targetting landlords- unfortunately- the supply of property is not going to increase. Simple economics dictates that until supply and demand are in equilibrium- prices will increase. At the moment- they certainly aren't in equilibrium..........

Saudade

Just as an update to this;

My landlord hadn't a clue (or was bluffing) as to what a part 4 tenancy is. He was insistent that I needed to sign a new lease. After sending him several links from PRTB and citizens information website, he finally agreed that I was correct.

But after all that, he has now sent a new sort of 'Part 4 tenancy' contract that he wants me to sign.

My gut feeling says that I shouldn't sign this.

I sent him a letter of intent to stay in the property after the 1 year lease expires, which is in a few weeks. I assume this letter should be enough. As far as my research has told me, the Part 4 Tenancy doesn't require any signing of a new lease or contract, it just automatically kicked in after 6 months, right?

Is it normal for a landlord to issue a Part 4 Tenancy contract?

Pawwed Rig

Saudade wrote: »

Is it normal for a landlord to issue a Part 4 Tenancy contract?

Never heard of it. As you correctly stated you don't have to sign anything if you have a part 4 tenancy.

The_Conductor

It really sounds as though the landlord is clueless- as a colleague of mine is fond of saying- 'never ascribe to mischief or vindictiveness, that which can be explained by ignorance.'

For the landlord's own sake- someone who is familiar with the 2004 Act- and indeed tenancies in general- should sit down and give the landlord a general lecture on what the different types of tenancy are- how they differ from one another- and what his obligations as a landlord are- as clearly- he is clueless.

Its not the tenant's duty to do this though.

Saudade

I suspect that the landlord is playing dumb. He probably wanted me to sign a new 12 month fixed term lease as a way to scam me out of some/all of my deposit if I left before 1st November 2016.

quietsailor

I know at the moment Part IV suits you OP but do you know that it gives you LESS rights in some cases than a fixed term lease?

Specifically
Under a fixed term lease a LL can only evict you from the property if you stop paying rent or cause serious damage to the house.
Under Part IV they can end the lease* for a number of reasons - LL or LL family member needing the house, putting the house up for sale are the two most common that I can think of

Note the difference between evict and end the lease. Eviction is bloody hard to do in this country and most times the PRTB side with the tenant in eviction cases, ending a Part IV lease is written into law and is a lot, lot easier to do.

Part IV probably suits you at the moment but I wanted to let you know there are downsides to a Part IV

Saudade

Saudade wrote: »

Is it normal for a landlord to issue a Part 4 Tenancy contract?

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Never heard of it. As you correctly stated you don't have to sign anything if you have a part 4 tenancy.

Sat down and had a proper read of it today. It looks like it was printed from a website offering free downloads of standard residential leases, either Fixed Term or Part 4. I won't name the website but it looks like this websites version of the Part 4 Tenancy agreement is for renters who are starting a new rental agreement, and have agreed a Part 4 from Day 1, not for renters such as myself who have already passed through a fixed-term and already automatically acquired that security of tenure.

For example, this version of Part 4, says that the landlord can still evict me within the first 6 months without specifying reason. Hence my reluctance to sign.

quietsailor wrote: »

I know at the moment Part IV suits you OP but do you know that it gives you LESS rights in some cases than a fixed term lease?

Specifically
Under a fixed term lease a LL can only evict you from the property if you stop paying rent or cause serious damage to the house.
Under Part IV they can end the lease* for a number of reasons - LL or LL family member needing the house, putting the house up for sale are the two most common that I can think of

Note the difference between evict and end the lease. Eviction is bloody hard to do in this country and most times the PRTB side with the tenant in eviction cases, ending a Part IV lease is written into law and is a lot, lot easier to do.

Part IV probably suits you at the moment but I wanted to let you know there are downsides to a Part IV

Thanks for the good advice. But if I signed a 'new' fixed term, the LL can still 'evict' me without reason within the first 6 months anyway with just 28 days notice I believe. That's half the time frame of the lease. At least with Part 4, he would have to prove a legitimate good reason for 'ending the lease', and even if he did, would have to give a reasonable 42 days notice.

quietsailor

Saudade wrote: »

Sat down and had a proper read of it today. It looks like it was printed from a website offering free downloads of standard residential leases, either Fixed Term or Part 4. I won't name the website but it looks like this websites version of the Part 4 Tenancy agreement is for renters who are starting a new rental agreement, and have agreed a Part 4 from Day 1, not for renters such as myself who have already passed through a fixed-term and already automatically acquired that security of tenure.

For example, this version of Part 4, says that the landlord can still evict me within the first 6 months without specifying reason. Hence my reluctance to sign.





Thanks for the good advice. But if I signed a 'new' fixed term, the LL can still 'evict' me without reason within the first 6 months anyway with just 28 days notice I believe. That's half the time frame of the lease. At least with Part 4, he would have to prove a legitimate good reason for 'ending the lease', and even if he did, would have to give a reasonable 42 days notice.

On the bit in bold above - I don't ever recall hearing a fixed term had a cooling off period, a Part IV has though. I know there are posters on here more knowledgeable than me on the actual SI so hopefully one of them will comment on this point

Where are you getting the info from - the reason I ask is that there is a lot of info out there that is just incorrect, Threshold has been caught out mixing up the two types of leases and also telling tenants to break the law so in your case trust no single source of info unless you can back it up from several different sources

Sarn

Saudade wrote: »

For example, this version of Part 4, says that the landlord can still evict me within the first 6 months without specifying reason. Hence my reluctance to sign.

Thanks for the good advice. But if I signed a 'new' fixed term, the LL can still 'evict' me without reason within the first 6 months anyway with just 28 days notice I believe. That's half the time frame of the lease. At least with Part 4, he would have to prove a legitimate good reason for 'ending the lease', and even if he did, would have to give a reasonable 42 days notice.

That would be unenforceable. As you are there for over a year the notice periods as detailed under Part IV are applicable, unless you both mutually agree otherwise. The 28 days notice period with no justification for eviction is no longer applicable to you.

Saudade

quietsailor wrote: »

On the bit in bold above - I don't ever recall hearing a fixed term had a cooling off period, a Part IV has though. I know there are posters on here more knowledgeable than me on the actual SI so hopefully one of them will comment on this point

Where are you getting the info from - the reason I ask is that there is a lot of info out there that is just incorrect, Threshold has been caught out mixing up the two types of leases and also telling tenants to break the law so in your case trust no single source of info unless you can back it up from several different sources

Hi sailor,

Thanks for sticking with me :-)

Yes I am sure that you are correct, I think I had myself confused due to reading several websites and my contract and perhaps mixing some rules up. More research needed on my part.

It seems that the new contract that the landlord has sent to me, does have a 6 month cooling off period for him.

I quote -

5. The Landlord can terminate this Tenancy Agreement, without specifying the grounds, at any time during
the first 6 months by giving 28 days written notice to the Tenant.

6. Once this Tenancy Agreement has lasted 6 months the Landlord can terminate this Agreement if any of the
following conditions apply:
• The property is not longer suited to the occupants accommodation needs, eg overcrowding.
• The Landlord intends to sell the property within the next 3 months.
• The Landlord requires the property for his own or family member occupation.
• The Landlord intends to substantially refurbish the property.
• The Landlord intends to change the business use of the property.
• On the basis that the 4 Year Cycle has expired.

But this looks an awful lot like a Part 4 agreement where the LL and Tenant are either just starting their relationship, and have agreed a Part 4 from the very start, or to a FURTHER Part 4 Tenancy, where LL and Tenant are starting year 5 of their relationship.

It seems to contradict the terms of a Part 4 where the LL and Tenant are technically already 6 months into the Part 4.

So I remain slightly confused.

It seems like if I sign this new contract, I am opening myself up to the possibility of termination of contract within the first 6 months. (PS. The contract says 28 days notice, but I couldn't find this on The Residential Tenancy Act 2004, only about a further Part 4 termination, Section 42, says 112 days notice (16 weeks)). But I thought the Part 4 was essentially a safety net for the Tenant to remain for a further 3 and a half years after passing through the initial first 6 months of a fixed term unless in rare circumstances as mentioned in the quote above.

Saudade

Sarn wrote: »

That would be unenforceable. As you are there for over a year the notice periods as detailed under Part IV are applicable, unless you both mutually agree otherwise. The 28 days notice period with no justification for eviction is no longer applicable to you.

Thanks for this piece of mind :-)

I'm only here 11 months so far, but I assume the rule still applies?

The 28 days notice period only seems to be applicable to Further Part 4 (first 6 months of year 5), not the initial Part 4, right?

Fol20

quietsailor wrote: »

On the bit in bold above - I don't ever recall hearing a fixed term had a cooling off period, a Part IV has though. I know there are posters on here more knowledgeable than me on the actual SI so hopefully one of them will comment on this point

Where are you getting the info from - the reason I ask is that there is a lot of info out there that is just incorrect, Threshold has been caught out mixing up the two types of leases and also telling tenants to break the law so in your case trust no single source of info unless you can back it up from several different sources

Part 4 tenancy over rules a fixed term contract in relation to the cooling off period if you have already lived in the place for over 6 months. Likewise your part 4 overrules the termination notice. I would be worried about these. The only thing that should concern you is if you would like to move out before the next 12 months. Then you are better off not sigining a contract as would be within is rights to retain a portion of your deposit then.

dudara

Saudade wrote: »

It seems like if I sign this new contract, I am opening myself up to the possibility of termination of contract within the first 6 months. (PS. The contract says 28 days notice, but I couldn't find this on The Residential Tenancy Act 2004, only about a further Part 4 termination, Section 42, says 112 days notice (16 weeks)). But I thought the Part 4 was essentially a safety net for the Tenant to remain for a further 3 and a half years after passing through the initial first 6 months of a fixed term unless in rare circumstances as mentioned in the quote above.

In short, no. You have already lived in the property for a year, which means that your minimum period notice is now that defined for year under Part IV. Even if you signed this new lease, it cannot supersede that. Your landlord really needs to get informed.

quietsailor

Fol20 wrote: »

Part 4 tenancy over rules a fixed term contract in relation to the cooling off period if you have already lived in the place for over 6 months.

Likewise your part 4 overrules the termination notice.

I would be worried about these. The only thing that should concern you is if you would like to move out before the next 12 months. Then you are better off not sigining a contract as would be within is rights to retain a portion of your deposit then.

Part 4 tenancy over rules a fixed term contract in relation to the cooling off period if you have already lived in the place for over 6 months.
No, Part IV cannot overrule a Fixed Term, that's the whole point of a fixed term, it gives both tenant AND landlord greater rights and security. I don't know if you're confusing the two types, have read wrong info somewhere or am I reading you wrong as it reads like you're saying that the Part IV gives you a break clause even though there is a fixed term in place


Likewise your part 4 overrules the termination notice
No - If it is a fixed term and there is no termination notice possible outside of serious damage or non-payment of rent, there is nothing for the Part IV to overrule

Fol20

quietsailor wrote: »

Part 4 tenancy over rules a fixed term contract in relation to the cooling off period if you have already lived in the place for over 6 months.
No, Part IV cannot overrule a Fixed Term, that's the whole point of a fixed term, it gives both tenant AND landlord greater rights and security. I don't know if you're confusing the two types, have read wrong info somewhere or am I reading you wrong as it reads like you're saying that the Part IV gives you a break clause even though there is a fixed term in place


Likewise your part 4 overrules the termination notice
No - If it is a fixed term and there is no termination notice possible outside of serious damage or non-payment of rent, there is nothing for the Part IV to overrule

I meant in relation to the cooling off period. Just because he signed a new contract doesnt mean that the landlord can evict him for no reason within the first 6 month. He can use his part 4 rules to prevent this from happening.

Likewise the termination notice of the fixed term contract is not valid either. I know the tenant has to remain in the property for x amount of months depending on what contract they signed. All i meant is that the LL cant give only 28 days notice. If they have stay in the house for a number of years the LL is required under part 4 to give 156 days or whatever it is.

Pkiernan

Claiming a Part 4 tenancy at the end of a fixed-term lease

If you have a fixed-term contract or lease and you wish to remain in the property under the rights acquired under Part 4, you must notify your landlord of your intention to stay in the property. You must do this between 3 months and 1 month before the expiry of your fixed–term tenancy or lease agreement. You can use this sample letter of notification to remain in the property under Part 4.

If you do not notify your landlord, you cannot be refused coverage under Part 4, but you may have to compensate the landlord for any financial loss that they incur because you did not notify them of your intention to remain in the tenancy.