Landlord falsely claiming intent to sell

FortySeven

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Would you get over yourself with "pure greed" crap. It's absolutely none of your business how your landlord finances his property. If you receive an inheritance are you going to donate it all to charity? I doubt it.

Sorry, if what op states is true then my own moral compass would define this as greed. You can't have it both ways. 'Greed is good' is the capitalist mantra after all.

davo10

Clampdown wrote: »

Part 4 reasons for termination are set out in section 32 or 34, I assume they are there for a reason, and that the landlord can't just go 'Sorry tenancy is over'. He has to give one of the reasons and it has to be genuine. He's not doing that.

Forget about the rent increase for now. I'm not going to be convinced that I am paying below market rate when 2 houses on the same street at the same size are the same rent. Yes I read the news but I don't live in Dublin and rents in my area have not risen much at all, I could get a house at similar rent but I prefer this location and this house and should not be forced out under false pretenses. The problem isn't getting another house at the same rent. I could have taken the similar one down the road last year at the same rent and would have if I had known I was going to be thrown out of this one, and I wouldn't have bothered painting the kitchen, etc.

Should a landlord be able to force long term tenants out for whatever reason they want by lying about selling up? No, and that's why the laws were brought in. Landlords are using this loophole so often they had to make legislation to combat it.

Someone said 'good tenants pay the market rate'. I am a good tenant paying the market rate! The house was paid off by the landlord's parents who lived here for decades and then left it to the landlord, he doesn't even have a mortgage on it. It's just pure greed.

From citizens advice website:

Further Part 4 tenancy
After 4 years of your tenancy have passed, your Part 4 tenancy ends and a new tenancy begins. You now have a further Part 4 tenancy. During the first 6 months of your further Part 4 tenancy, your landlord may end it at any time without having to give a reason – though you must get 112 days’ notice (16 weeks). After 6 months you again acquire security of tenure and you are now 6 months into a further 4-year cycle.

athtrasna

Mod Note Enough folks. On topic replies only please. Grammar and economics lessons belong elsewhere.

Thanks

cerastes

davo10 wrote: »

From citizens advice website:

Further Part 4 tenancy
After 4 years of your tenancy have passed, your Part 4 tenancy ends and a new tenancy begins. You now have a further Part 4 tenancy. During the first 6 months of your further Part 4 tenancy, your landlord may end it at any time without having to give a reason – though you must get 112 days’ notice (16 weeks). After 6 months you again acquire security of tenure and you are now 6 months into a further 4-year cycle.

If what you are writing is what you mean, it seems you think a tenant can stay after 4 years, ie for the 112 days notice, but the notice can be given 111days prior to the end of the 4 years tenancy, so the tenant would have completed their 112days notice the day after the original tenancy expire, therefore they would have stayed 4 years and are allowed 24 hours to vacate.

You seem to think the 112 days notice only starts after the 4 years has expired, it doesnt.
Your scenario is just if the landlord decides to relet to the same people, they have the same rights as when they first rented, ie they may be asked to move out inside the first 6 months with the required notice without any explanation (28days I believe).

To add to that, the only explanation required at the 4 years is that the landlord has decided not to relet to the same tenant as the tenancy duration legally required has expired.

Clampdown

Clampdown wrote: »

Part 4 reasons for termination are set out in section 32 or 34, I assume they are there for a reason, and that the landlord can't just go 'Sorry tenancy is over'. He has to give one of the reasons and it has to be genuine. He's not doing that.

As others have said, after 4 years in the property the LL can ask you to leave for whatever reason he feels like. He can just say "sorry tenancy is over" if he wishes and you have to leave (once you have been served the required notice correctly).

If you just refuse to pay the increased rent the LL can issue notice of arrears after the first month you don't pay the increased rent and this can lead on to you being evicted if you continue to fall behind in your rent by not paying the increase. You can go to the PRTB but there is no guarentee whatsoever that they will find in your favour.

Sarn

cerastes wrote: »

You seem to think the 112 days notice only starts after the 4 years has expired, it doesnt.
Your scenario is just if the landlord decides to relet to the same people, they have the same rights as when they first rented, ie they may be asked to move out inside the first 6 months with the required notice without any explanation (28days I believe.

The notice period does not reset after 4 years. As to when the 112 days notice can be served based on the end of a Part IV tenancy and the beginning of the next I don't know as it depends on how it is interpreted. It could be argued that notice, without a reason, could only be begun at the start of the new 6 month period. Equally, serving notice so that it coincides with the ending of the 4 year period and beginning of the next period could work. It is something that the PRTB would need to clarify.

Clampdown

Clampdown wrote: »

I would actually be willing to split the difference and pay 50 more per month but the landlord just decided to refuse this

Landlords who in the past were quite happy to negotiate reasonably are digging their heels in, because of the new legislation. Whatever rent is set now will be fixed for two years, and possibly longer depending on the outcome of the next election.

Therefore, from their perspective its worth experiencing a void, which they would normally want to avoid, to set a higher rent for the long term.

Arbiter of Good Taste

FortySeven wrote: »

Sorry, if what op states is true then my own moral compass would define this as greed. You can't have it both ways. 'Greed is good' is the capitalist mantra after all.

If you are referring to the OP's greed of wanting his rent to stay the same for time immemorial, then I would agree with you.

Clampdown

Moshe Young Khakis wrote: »

As others have said, after 4 years in the property the LL can ask you to leave for whatever reason he feels like. He can just say "sorry tenancy is over" if he wishes and you have to leave (once you have been served the required notice correctly).

If you just refuse to pay the increased rent the LL can issue notice of arrears after the first month you don't pay the increased rent and this can lead on to you being evicted if you continue to fall behind in your rent by not paying the increase. You can go to the PRTB but there is no guarentee whatsoever that they will find in your favour.

I'm not 4 years here yet so he must give one of the stated reasons in the Tenancies Act. Which is why he is pretending to be selling up. I have not been given any written notice of an increase. I am currently under no obligation to pay the higher amount. He can only raise it to market value. Which, and I've said before I AM paying market value.

What you are saying is that he could just decide one day that my rent goes up by any amount he plucks out of the air on a whim. Could be 5k more and if I don't start paying that amount I am now in arrears to him by 5k per month and can be evicted on those grounds. That's not accurate at all. He can only raise it to market rates.

Sure, there's no guarantee they will find in my favor as regards rates. But if more than one nearly identical property on the same street is the same rent as mine currently, what grounds would they have for saying I should be paying more? I am friendly enough with the neighbor next door that when I talked to him about it he offered to let me make a copy of his current lease as proof of what he is paying for his nearly identical 2 BR house (if anything, his is nicer, having been recently refurbished). So I'm not even worried about that part of it which I keep getting challenged on.

What I really was trying to clarify is this: Regardless of the reason he really wants me out, he cannot by law, force me to vacate by falsely claimng he is selling unless he is actually selling up. If he isn't being genuine about that, he will get hit with fines right? Even if he serves me with the written notice before January (when the laws come in), because the sale would have to happen after January, right? That's all I really wanted to know. If he's not selling and uses this excuse to force a tenant out he's the one breaking the rules, isn't that right? Not the tenant who doesn't immediately fork over whatever number he decides to conjure up and has a solid case that his rent is market rate already.

I have to admit some of the replies made me a bit annoyed, it's obvious some of you are landlords who, like my current one, really look down on those of us who rent. Sorry that I peed off some of you who, in some cases, seem to think tenants merely exist to provide an ever increasing income for landlords, and expect to be able to cause financial hardships on tenants whenever the mood strikes you or you read a headline about rents going way up in Dublin and think it applies to every property, even if it's a tiny, outdated, damp, former council house built eons ago in a small town in the Northwest. God forbid a lowly tenant should resist an extortionate rent increase or an illegal eviction.

I've a hunch that the reason these new regulations aimed at stopping tenants being forced out of their homes by lying landlords HAD to be brought in, is because so many of them are at this carry on all the time. If this underhanded tactic wasn't causing unfair hardship, wasn't contributing to the housing crisis and wasn't rampant amongst the landlords in this country these laws wouldn't have been brought in, would they? And now that these rules are being set, tenants have every right to hold landlords to them, just as tenants are required to pay rent on time and keep the place in good condition and clean, etc. Sounds like some of you want renting to be a one way street that only runs in the landlord's favor.

I know the property busines is not a charity but still, we are talking about people's homes, not luxury items. If you're unhappy with tenants having rights than invest in something else where you aren't part of a system that affects people's ability to afford a basic necessity, because that industry is regulated for a very good reason - we all need shelter, and many of us can't afford to buy and may never be able to. I know it isn't free but people who are forced into renting should not have to live in perpetual fear of arbitrary rent increases or sudden evictions that are based on a lie and a loophole.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts all. I've decided that I shouldn't let this worry me any more until well after the holidays as I want to actually try to enjoy them and I have until March at the minimum before the notice period is up (I still have not received written notice to vacate either). If I am forced to leave I will at the least, make sure he follows the new regulations requiring a legal declaration to sell that are being brought in according to the Irish Times article I linked earlier:

"Landlords who attempt to evict tenants by claiming that they are selling properties will face fines of up to €3,000, it if subsequently emerges that they did not sell, under proposals going to the Cabinet today.
A legal declaration will have to be signed by landlords if they issue notice to tenants saying they want to get the property back for sale, Minister Alan Kelly and Minister Michael Noonan will tell colleagues.
The move is aimed at curbing the practice where landlords tell tenants their property is being sold while subsequently recruiting new residents at a higher rent.
Currently, the Private Residential Tenancies Act allows tenants to be evicted if a landlord intends to sell the property or needs it for themselves or their family.
The Minister for the Environment is also proposing a requirement for landlords to inform tenants of their legal rights and how to contest a rent increase."

See you in 112 days or so and I'll let you know how my attempt to fight the power, stick it to the man, etc. works out. Who knows maybe Santy will bring me a nicer newer place and get me off the landlord's naughty list.

salamanca22

I refer you to my earlier post which answers your questions: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97884587&postcount=16

In short, as they have decided to furnish notice the previous rent increase attempt/ negotiations do not matter anymore. You must vacate the premises at the end of the notice or you will be overholding, which is against the law.

After that happens you can then investigate and bring a case against the landlord if he has been dishonest. If it does turn out he has been dishonest he can be fined and damages can be awarded to you for illegal eviction. Some awards have been in the 20k range. So you do have options if he does act dishonestly.

Remember though, the landlord does not have to sell in the end and can go back to the renting game if they wish but (as far as I know, really you need to see a solicitor) must give you the option to take the tenancy up again in front of other prospective tenants.

Honestly I do not think the landlord is being dishonest. It would be much simpler to say that the landlord requires the house for himself where you would not be able to investigate as easily if they really wanted to be dishonest.

It is much easier to sell a house without sitting tenants.

seamus

If you're convinced he has no intention of selling, then call his bluff.

Offer to buy the house. If he jumps at the opportunity to sell to a sitting tenant, like anyone would, then you know he's genuine and you can give your notice and move out.

If he blusters or delays or tells you that he wants to put it on the market first then you can be pretty sure he's lying and you can dig your heels in.

gordongekko

Unless he has a letter from the bank confirming funds he's wasting his time.

Op you have no idea what the landlords personal circumstances are. He may be under pressure from the bank to pay off arrears or sell the house and since this rent increase isn't going down well he may just have decided it's not worth his while keeping the house.

Digging in serves no purpose but to bring stress onto your life. If you are in fact paying the going rate you'll have no problem picking up a similar priced property in the area.

Gumbo

And the exact opposite is also needed. An online rating site that you can check the tenants rating. The PRTB should be able to set this up as you have to give them PPS numbers of the tenant.

Tenants can also be "little fiefdoms"

I'd love to see a poll in here to see if we have many landlords V tenants.
I've a feeling there be more tenants in here than landlords.

The market is totally one sided alright but in favour of tenants not LLs. Tenants have all the rights and as can be seen again and again get away with leaving LLs seriously out of pocket (most recently with that person who destroyed an apartment with his own excrement and paid over a pathetic sum 800 euro out of 15k).

FortySeven

c montgomery wrote: »

And one for tenants????

Most landlords require references surely, and deposits, and advance payment.

Seems fairly well covered.

delahuntv

As an outsider who owns a home and does not have a second property all I see here is the OP making an assumption backed up by evidence whatsoever and convincing himself that he is 100% right.

Then the more he goes on, the more convinced he is of his assumptions and the angrier he gets

Maybe the op should look at it from a different angle.

Look at the figures.

Lets assume a rent of €700/month
€8400 a year,
Circa €840 for agent
Property tax
Upkeep
Buildings insurance
Other costs.
Tax

Maybe a net 5,000 - 5500 a year.


If the property had a market value of over €120,000 then the ll would probably be better off selling.


So to the OP, maybe check all facts and figures before making scurrilous allegations.

Using a figure of €100 rent per about €16-€18,000 of house valuation see if your rent is above or below a reasonable return.

Gumbo

FortySeven wrote: »

Most landlords require references surely, and deposits, and advance payment.

Seems fairly well covered.

References are fabricated.
Deposits are fully refundable and come nowhere near the cost of repairs should you get a bad tenant.
Rent payment in advance every month means nothing when a tenant can sit in your property for 2 years without paying even after the Mickey Mouse court that the PRTB initiate.

Both parties bed more protection and enforcement.
I know guys paying €1400 a month in rent and a bank won't give them a mortgage, that's wrong.

Some sort of system needs to be set up where the deposit goes to a third part account with reference and only gets released when both parties agree.
Tenants need better support so that they can get mortgage approval of the want using proof of rent paid as evidence.

BUT

Landlords also need better protection to evict genuine unruly tenants quickly, and I mean within a month or so.

kceire

kceire wrote: »

References are fabricated.
Deposits are fully refundable and come nowhere near the cost of repairs should you get a bad tenant.
Rent payment in advance every month means nothing when a tenant can sit in your property for 2 years without paying even after the Mickey Mouse court that the PRTB initiate.

Both parties bed more protection and enforcement.
I know guys paying €1400 a month in rent and a bank won't give them a mortgage, that's wrong.

Some sort of system needs to be set up where the deposit goes to a third part account with reference and only gets released when both parties agree.
Tenants need better support so that they can get mortgage approval of the want using proof of rent paid as evidence.

BUT

Landlords also need better protection to evict genuine unruly tenants quickly, and I mean within a month or so.

So many problems in Ireland track back to our disfunctional Courts/Justice system.

The only one of the Troika reforms that has still not been implemented....

iguana

Mezcita wrote: »

How do you know that the landlord does not actually want to sell the property?

Because of this >>>

seamus wrote: »

If you're convinced he has no intention of selling, then call his bluff.

Offer to buy the house. If he jumps at the opportunity to sell to a sitting tenant, like anyone would, then you know he's genuine and you can give your notice and move out.

If he blusters or delays or tells you that he wants to put it on the market first then you can be pretty sure he's lying and you can dig your heels in.

The Op has already done that and the EA wouldn't entertain the idea which in fairness seems very, very fishy.

davo10 wrote: »

Not many will like your odds, parcularly if you haven't had a rent increase in 3 years. Have you read a newspaper recently?

Have you read much of the same newspapers? Or the relevant parts of the thread? There are at least 3 markets in this country right now, all operating very differently. There is the Dublin market where demand seems to vastly outstrip supply at present, the market in the other cities where demand is high and the rest of the country in which many micro-markets exist and in numerous areas it's still a renters market. The OP states they are in the latter, so perhaps tailor your responses to his/her situation rather than that which exists in your area.

iguana

delahuntv wrote: »

Maybe the op should look at it from a different angle.

Look at the figures.

Lets assume a rent of €700/month
€8400 a year,
Circa €840 for agent
Property tax
Upkeep
Buildings insurance
Other costs.
Tax

Maybe a net 5,000 - 5500 a year.


If the property had a market value of over €120,000 then the ll would probably be better off selling.

And where did you get those figures? Your imagination or do you have a basis for them? Seeing as how the OP stated their location as the north west and their home as ex-council, I took a look at the market in Sligo town. There houses that look ex-council are asking for rental prices of €550-600pm and sales asking prices of €55-65K. So quite a difference from the results of your figures. And if the LL really was intending on selling, why would they not entertain the OP when they said they would be interested in buying? Surely any landlord who wanted to sell their let property would first and foremost negotiate with the sitting tenant? It would make the whole sale so much easier if they could reach a price they were both happy with.

April 73

Have to say that to me it looks like the LL tried to increase the rent, which the OP refused. (He might have been better to refer the increase to the PRTB for adjudication on market rates at that point. (The question of whether any previous increase applied over the last three years was never answered))

The LL then decided that if he wasn't going to get his €100 a month increase then he had two options.
1) Tell the tenant he is selling in order to get him out & get new tenants in at a higher price.
2) Make a real decision to sell as the LL game is too much hassle.

We really don't know the truth, although it has the feel to me of a dodgy LL using the "selling the house" excuse. If this is the case the OP has a good case against the LL. Unfortunately that can't be proven until after he moves out & sees what happens to the house.

Three years is a long time to live in a house & make it feel like home. It's not a good experience to feel pushed out at the whim of someone else. It's the awful part of renting. There are always two sides to every story but on the face of it I'm coming down on the OPs side.

Let us know how things go OP?

otwb1

Clampdown wrote:

So I should just let the landlord lie, increase my rent above what my next door neighbor pays for the exact same size, but more modern house, and above the rent we agreed when moving in just because the landlord likely read a few articles in the Indo about rents going up and saw some other houses in town listed for 100 euro more on daft and got greedy? When I've been an absolutely top notch tenant for 3 years including making small repairs myself to save him hassle?

seriously? you expect rent agreed 3 years ago to stay the same forever?

If you don't feel that the rent increase is market rate then appeal to the prtb. Rents have increased substantially over the past two years, so if it's only 100 increase I'd be grabbing it with both hands.

+1 on the people who have reminded you that one you go over 4 years the landlord can give you notice without reason
...I'd spend the next 6 months looking for accommodation at the rate that you feel is appropriate for you to pay. if you can get it, then move. Otherwise I'd agree to the increase fast before the landlord has a chance to see what market rate is at the moment.

Clampdown

Clampdown wrote: »

I'm not 4 years here yet so he must give one of the stated reasons in the Tenancies Act. Which is why he is pretending to be selling up. I have not been given any written notice of an increase. I am currently under no obligation to pay the higher amount. He can only raise it to market value. Which, and I've said before I AM paying market value.

I understand he can't ask you to leave now without valid reason but the point I'm getting at is that you are saying how this place is home and you don't want to move. After another year in the property it willl be your home even more so and the LL can force you to move out then and messing him around now by not challenging the increase through the proper channels will mean he will definitely be evicting you after the 4 years.

athtrasna

Mod note

This thread is getting increasingly difficult to keep open. It's going wildly off topic and going down the path of landlord V tenant generalisations which are not helpful. Please stick to the topic at hand. Thank you

davo10

iguana wrote: »

Because of this >>>


The Op has already done that and the EA wouldn't entertain the idea which in fairness seems very, very fishy.


Have you read much of the same newspapers? Or the relevant parts of the thread? There are at least 3 markets in this country right now, all operating very differently. There is the Dublin market where demand seems to vastly outstrip supply at present, the market in the other cities where demand is high and the rest of the country in which many micro-markets exist and in numerous areas it's still a renters market. The OP states they are in the latter, so perhaps tailor your responses to his/her situation rather than that which exists in your area.

It really doesn't matter which part of the country the op is in or in which of the 3 "markets" you refer to he resides, the legislation governing all locations and "markets" is the same. If there hasn't been a rent increase for 12 months, if other properties in the area are renting for more and if proper notice is given, the LL has every right to increase the rent to the maximum that a similar property can rent for. That is not my opinion, that is provided for in tenancy legislation.

Also, that legislation allows for eviction under certain circumstances including intention to sell and the ending of Part 4 tenancy after 4 years. Again his is not my personal opinion, it is set down in law.

Of course the op can object to the increase and open a dispute with the prtb, but the EA can just show proof that other houses in the area rent for more or he can show that the house has been advertised for sale.

For those that say the op can just make an offer for the house to test if it is in fact for sale, the EA can just respond requesting proof of funds, this is becoming more common in house sales. The op would have to get a letter from the bank outlining that the funds are available to back the bid the op has made. Without proof of funds, the EA just tells the op to take a hike.

myshirt

I wonder would it be helpful if each poster would come out of the long grass and state if they are a landlord or not when replying to the op, or to queries like this.

Op - go to PRTB - every landlord on this forum knows what that means, despite what any google-merchant or kerbside lawyer says. Such persons have no experience of this. You have very limited risk in going to the PRTB. You have limited cost. The landlord has increased risk. The landlord has increased cost. Short of someone trying to burn down the building, the PRTB rulings are very heavily in favour of tenants. Very heavily.

We got done for €5k for not supplying a lady with a replacement fridge. She had overheld the property for 5 months, and it was her fridge in the first place. She did raise it with us, but not with sufficient force. It was at most a passing comment when she explained her financial situation and said she was unable to find accommodation within budget. Her husband had left her. The PRTB said she was not able to have 'peaceful enjoyment of the property' without a fridge and that she had suffered. €5k we had to pay her! And the loss of our rent.

The practicality is no sensible person will throw good money after bad. The workings of the PRTB are very likely to act in your favour op, so take advice and see where you stand.

Certainly don't let any scumbag landlord toss you around. Soften the gentleman's cough.

davo10

myshirt wrote: »

I wonder would it be helpful if each poster would come out of the long grass and state if they are a landlord or not when replying to the op, or to queries like this.

Op - go to PRTB - every landlord on this forum knows what that means, despite what any google-merchant or kerbside lawyer says. Such persons have no experience of this. You have very limited risk in going to the PRTB. You have limited cost. The landlord has increased risk. The landlord has increased cost. Short of someone trying to burn down the building, the PRTB rulings are very heavily in favour of tenants. Very heavily.

We got done for €5k for not supplying a lady with a replacement fridge. She had overheld the property for 5 months, and it was her fridge in the first place. She did raise it with us, but not with sufficient force. It was at most a passing comment when she explained her financial situation and said she was unable to find accommodation within budget. Her husband had left her. The PRTB said she was not able to have 'peaceful enjoyment of the property' without a fridge and that she had suffered. €5k we had to pay her! And the loss of our rent.

The practicality is no sensible person will throw good money after bad. The workings of the PRTB are very likely to act in your favour op, so take advice and see where you stand.

Certainly don't let any scumbag landlord toss you around. Soften the gentleman's cough.

What costs would be involved in an EA providing examples of similar properties in the area renting for more than the op is paying? The LL actually has nothing to lose in this case, the op is refusing to pay the increase so no doubt the LL would be more than happy for the prtb to rule on this, if he wins then op has to pay the increased rent from the date the increased rate was to begin.

It's easy to look up the conditions under which rent can be increased or a tenent evicted, the citizens advice and threshold sites have pretty clear explanations. You don't need to be a kerb side lawyer or Google merchant, you just need to be able to read and comprehend simple terms.

myshirt

davo10 wrote: »

It's easy to look up the conditions under which rent can be increased or a tenent evicted, the citizens advice and threshold sites have pretty clear explanations. You don't need to be a kerb side lawyer or Google merchant, you just need to be able to read and comprehend simple terms.

I don't mean it in a derogatory way - but if you have experience in dealing with the PRTB you will understand. There is wide concern within the legal profession that they do not apply the law as it is read at all. They seriously hammer the majority of landlords, good ones included. Speak to a few solicitors or a few barristers and get a feel for what it is like practically on the ground. This is something that you can't get from googling or viewing citizens info.

The PRTB really needs to be gotten rid of, but for the time being, it is at least a mechanism to soften the cough of a certain profile of landlord. I have been in there just under 10 times with my clients and our solicitors, and it was like being in the twilight zone. I think the majority here are sabre-rattling and trying to put the op off. If it were me, I'd take this guy on full on. I'd be putting on the warpaint as we speak, and lacing up the boxing gloves. I am sick of scumbag landlords, and young people busting their bollix to put money in their pocket, sometimes up to 50% of their wage.

dudara

If I've read this correctly, the landlord has not put the rent increase notice in writing, so therefore, it doesn't "exist" at this point. If they wish to sell, they must serve you the correct notice, in writing. So far, it appears to me that nothing has been served in writing?

iguana

davo10 wrote: »

It really doesn't matter which part of the country the op is in or in which of the 3 "markets" you refer to he resides, the legislation governing all locations and "markets" is the same. If there hasn't been a rent increase for 12 months, if other properties in the area are renting for more and if proper notice is given, the LL has every right to increase the rent to the maximum that a similar property can rent for. That is not my opinion, that is provided for in tenancy legislation.

Of course it matters because if the OP lives in an area where rent prices have not increased then the landlord can't show that rent prices have increased. And in the type of area the OP describes living rent prices have very likely not increased.

For those that say the op can just make an offer for the house to test if it is in fact for sale, the EA can just respond requesting proof of funds, this is becoming more common in house sales. The op would have to get a letter from the bank outlining that the funds are available to back the bid the op has made. Without proof of funds, the EA just tells the op to take a hike.

The OP already did say they were interested in buying the house and the EA refused to even entertain it. The landlord almost certainly has no interest in selling or else he would have come back to the OP and begun negotiating. It seems pretty clear cut once you actually read the details the OP is posting instead of jumping in with preconceived notions based on your own, not especially relevant experience of a completely different market.