Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

5 month lease. Issued with notice of termination before I acquired legal rights

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    wonski wrote: »
    Thanks. I was like what does Road Traffic Act has to do with it.

    Op received notice of termination.

    Case closed.

    O/p can challenge the Notice. case open.


  • Options
    #33
    wonski
    Registered Users Posts: 13,685 ✭✭✭✭wonski


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    O/p can challenge the Notice. case open.

    On what grounds?


  • Options
    #34
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    wonski wrote: »
    On what grounds?

    OIn the grounds that it doesn't comply with the requirements of the Act.


  • Options
    #35
    castle2012
    Registered Users Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭castle2012


    Its hard I'm sure . But reading the posts a lease is a lease and 5 months is the term . Everything seems above board . Fighting with the ll is not going to help you in the long run. I'm sure you LL need reference s etc


  • Options
    #36
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    castle2012 wrote: »
    Its hard I'm sure . But reading the posts a lease is a lease and 5 months is the term . Everything seems above board . Fighting with the ll is not going to help you in the long run. I'm sure you LL need reference s etc

    Fighting with the LL will keep him longer in the property. If he gets the NOT struck down he will have Part 4. A LL reference after 5 months is useless anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    wonski
    Registered Users Posts: 13,685 ✭✭✭✭wonski


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    OIn the grounds that it doesn't comply with the requirements of the Act.

    Sorry. I might not have a knowledge of the act you quoted.

    But when I sign a 5 months lease I do expect it to last for 5 months, unless new contract is received.

    Simple as that and I believe there is no comeback for op.

    I will put my hands up if I am wrong.


  • Options
    #38
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    wonski wrote: »
    Sorry. I might not have a knowledge of the act you quoted.

    But when I sign a 5 months lease I do expect it to last for 5 months, unless new contract is received.

    Simple as that and I believe there is no comeback for op.

    I will put my hands up if I am wrong.

    You are wrong. The Act provides that when no new contract is received the tenancy becomes month to month. Notices of termination can be successfully challenged. What you believe is not relevant. What is relevant is what the law is.


  • Options
    #39
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Fighting with the LL will keep him longer in the property. If he gets the NOT struck down he will have Part 4. A LL reference after 5 months is useless anyway.

    I would agree with you that even though both parties knew at the beginning it was a 5 month lease that a written letter to officially terminate the lease would still be required. But, I don't agree that if the OP fights it then the time it takes to see the outcome would qualify him for Part IV tenancy rights.


  • Options
    #40
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    kceire wrote: »
    I would agree with you that even though both parties knew at the beginning it was a 5 month lease that a written letter to officially terminate the lease would still be required. But, I don't agree that if the OP fights it then the time it takes to see the outcome would qualify him for Part IV tenancy rights.

    If the termination notice is declared invalid, then the time which has elapsed from when he received it to the date of the determination will reckon towards part 4.


  • Options
    #41
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    wonski wrote: »
    It is a fixed term lease.

    I am not sure what effect expressing ones intention to stay would have on a fixed term contract tbh.

    I have received a number of tenancy agreements over last few years, and always have them ready a month or so before the end of the term.

    There are advantages for both - landlord and tenant - to sign a fixed term contract. There are both bad tenants and landlords out there, OP's landlord did nothing wrong and it is the tenant's responsibility to ensure he has a place to live after his current contract expires.

    Again, as the OP said:

    "which was accepted by the landlord "

    Apparently the landlord accepted his intention to stay, but before getting it in writing or the landlord honoring it he just decided to kick him out on the street (presumably in order to squeeze more money from another young person just trying to start out in life)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    wonski
    Registered Users Posts: 13,685 ✭✭✭✭wonski


    lima wrote: »
    Again, as the OP said:

    "which was accepted by the landlord "

    Apparently the landlord accepted his intention to stay, but before getting it in writing or the landlord honoring it he just decided to kick him out on the street (presumably in order to squeeze more money from another young person just trying to start out in life)

    You see, I like facts. I don't mind being wrong, as long as I learn something new in the process.

    You like drama - landlords sending people on the streets in order to keep their profits flowing and allowing them to leave a life of footballers.

    Presumably.


  • Options
    #43
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    wonski wrote: »
    You see, I like facts. I don't mind being wrong, as long as I learn something new in the process.

    You like drama - landlords sending people on the streets in order to keep their profits flowing and allowing them to leave a life of footballers.

    Presumably.

    We have only heard one side of the story. On Irish Landlord there might be a landlord saying he has the tenant from hell in on a 5 month lease.


  • Options
    #44
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    wonski wrote: »
    You see, I like facts. I don't mind being wrong, as long as I learn something new in the process.

    You like drama - landlords sending people on the streets in order to keep their profits flowing and allowing them to leave a life of footballers.

    Presumably.

    Ok..

    It appears he got screwed over here. He knew it was a 5month lease, but told the landlord he wanted to extend. The landlord said ok. Then he got a letter saying he had to leave after 5 months.

    Those are the 'facts' we have in this situation.

    Now you tell me whether the landlord is a stand up guy.


  • Options
    #45
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    lima wrote: »
    Ok..

    It appears he got screwed over here. He knew it was a 5month lease, but told the landlord he wanted to extend. The landlord said ok. Then he got a letter saying he had to leave after 5 months.

    Those are the 'facts' we have in this situation.

    Now you tell me whether the landlord is a stand up guy.

    He got notice that he has to leave at the end of the lease agreement which the op signed. Something is not right here, why would the LL want the op out after 5 months if he was a good tenant paying rent?


  • Options
    #46
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    davo10 wrote: »
    He got notice that he has to leave at the end of the lease agreement which the op signed. Something is not right here, why would the LL want the op out after 5 months if he was a good tenant paying rent?

    So that he can re-let the property at a higher rent?


  • Options
    #47
    wonski
    Registered Users Posts: 13,685 ✭✭✭✭wonski


    lima wrote: »
    Ok..

    It appears he got screwed over here. He knew it was a 5month lease, but told the landlord he wanted to extend. The landlord said ok. Then he got a letter saying he had to leave after 5 months.

    Those are the 'facts' we have in this situation.

    Now you tell me whether the landlord is a stand up guy.

    We don't know if the landlord said ok.

    All we know is that the tenant said so.

    Why would the landlord took a risk of getting new tenant instead of extending current lease?

    Surely rents didn't go up that much in such a short time.

    I have my ideas...


  • Options
    #48
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    wonski wrote: »
    We don't know if the landlord said ok.

    All we know is that the tenant said so.

    Why would the landlord took a risk of getting new tenant instead of extending current lease?

    Surely rents didn't go up that much in such a short time.

    I have my ideas...

    Yeah we don't know, I'd imagine it would be hard to get someone over Christmas so it's risking a vacant month but based on the information available we can only make assumptions.. I'm sure there's more to it as you say


  • Options
    #49
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    wonski wrote: »
    5 months lease is a fixed term lease.

    It is mentioned in op.

    No it wasn't, here's what they said below, it could have been a 5 month periodic lease, it may be a fixed term, but only the OP can confirm that, it certainly doesn't say it in the OP
    dancingqueen wrote: »
    I commenced a tenancy in July, signed a five month lease.

    Today I have a notice of termination just before my sixth month... Is a photocopy of a notice of termination valid?

    Nothing mentioned about a fixed term
    wonski wrote: »
    There is no notice required.

    Fixed term is a term, no need for a notice.

    That is my understanding.

    Id tend to agree with that, the landlord can reasonably expect a tenant to leave at the end of a fixed term, assuming this is a fixed term (OP can clarify). Although to be clear, I think it would be better to give a notice of termination, really it was the OP who should have given the landlord a notice that they intended to stay on, but as they had not acquired Part 4 rights, they would have no right to stay even if they wanted to.
    Either way, unlike at the end of a more usual fixed term (a year), where a tenant would have acquired part 4 rights, this is less than 6 months, whether it is a periodic or fixed term, part 4 rights do not exist, so the tenant cannot rely on them.
    The tenant would have to inform the landlord of their intention to stay no later than a month prior to the end date of the fixed term, however, as above unlike a more usual fixed term, as part 4 rights have not been acquired, the tenant has no rights to and the landlord has no obligation to let the tenant stay.

    4ensic15 wrote: »
    O/p can challenge the Notice. case open.

    How? part 4 rights dont exist, they have not been present 6 months
    4ensic15 wrote: »
    OIn the grounds that it doesn't comply with the requirements of the Act.

    Doesnt comply with what? they haven't gained part 4 rights, they signed as lease for 5 months and now have been given a notice of termination.
    Even threshold says it.
    http://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/how-your-landlord-may-end-your-tenancy/
    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Fighting with the LL will keep him longer in the property. If he gets the NOT struck down he will have Part 4. A LL reference after 5 months is useless anyway.

    He has been given his notice, overholding after that to cross the 6 month time doesn't give them Part 4 rights.
    4ensic15 wrote: »
    You are wrong. The Act provides that when no new contract is received the tenancy becomes month to month. Notices of termination can be successfully challenged. What you believe is not relevant. What is relevant is what the law is.

    No new contract? the OP received a termination notice, thats clarification of no continuation of the lease.
    lima wrote: »
    Again, as the OP said:

    "which was accepted by the landlord "

    Apparently the landlord accepted his intention to stay, but before getting it in writing or the landlord honoring it he just decided to kick him out on the street (presumably in order to squeeze more money from another young person just trying to start out in life)

    which we have the tenants say so that is the case.
    You can presume all you like, but the agreement the OP signed was for the time he stated, its not early so I cant understand the surprise he is being told its finished.
    lima wrote: »
    Ok..

    It appears he got screwed over here. He knew it was a 5month lease, but told the landlord he wanted to extend. The landlord said ok. Then he got a letter saying he had to leave after 5 months.

    Those are the 'facts' we have in this situation.

    Now you tell me whether the landlord is a stand up guy.

    That may have been said or it may not, or it may have been misinterpreted!
    We dont know, it may have been, okaaaaayy??? while landlord scratched their head and pointed at the 5 month time period on the lease.
    We dont have access to the facts unless we see a copy of the lease, hear a recording of the conversation and see some footage, even then.

    Why would a landlord want someone out before they acquired part 4 rights unless there was a reason, either the landlord didnt like the tenant for some reason and he doesnt have to give a reason before 6 months (even if there was a years lease which was periodic) or he wanted access to the property for themselves for some reason and intentionally set the date to reflect that, rather than signing a years periodic lease and surprising the tenant by asking them to move anytime prior to 6 months.

    4ensic15 wrote: »
    So that he can re-let the property at a higher rent?

    Speculation, maybe they need it for themself for some reason.
    lima wrote: »
    Yeah we don't know, I'd imagine it would be hard to get someone over Christmas so it's risking a vacant month but based on the information available we can only make assumptions.. I'm sure there's more to it as you say

    It's a s possible they want it themself or want access to it for themself or someone they know, so it may not be vacant, whats clear is, this was arranged upfront, its not liek the landlord gave them years lease and then pulled the rug from under them!


  • Options
    #50
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    cerastes wrote: »



    Nothing mentioned about a fixed term
    5 months is a fixed term!


    cerastes wrote: »

    How? part 4 rights dont exist, they have not been present 6 months

    The only difference between Part 4 and non part 4 is that the landlord doesn't have to give a reason. He still has to issue a notice of termination.
    cerastes wrote: »
    Doesnt comply with what? they haven't gained part 4 rights, they signed as lease for 5 months and now have been given a notice of termination.
    Even threshold says it.
    http://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/how-your-landlord-may-end-your-tenancy/
    There are numerous formalities to be complied with even if it is not a part 4. Threshold says the landlord can terminate but he still has to follow all the formalities. Many Notices are struck down because of failure to follow the formalities. Example.
    http://www.irishlandlord.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3193&page=2
    cerastes wrote: »
    He has been given his notice, overholding after that to cross the 6 month time doesn't give them Part 4 rights.
    If the notice is struck down as invalid it doesn't amount to overholding.
    cerastes wrote: »
    No new contract? the OP received a termination notice, thats clarification of no continuation of the lease.
    It doesn't mean the termination notice is valid. The op can challenge it.

    invalid it doesn't amount to overholding.
    cerastes wrote: »

    which we have the tenants say so that is the case.
    You can presume all you like, but the agreement the OP signed was for the time he stated, its not early so I cant understand the surprise he is being told its finished.

    Irrespective of what happened the tenant can challenge the notice and if successful will get part 4.


  • Options
    #51
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    If the notice is struck down as invalid it doesn't amount to overholding.

    On what basis is the notice invalid?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    4ensic15 wrote: »


    Irrespective of what happened the tenant can challenge the notice and if successful will get part 4.

    In other words act the maggot like many other tenants we read about in here regularly and try to unfairly gain part 4 rights when the LL wants them out. Leaving the LL stuck with a tenant he doesn't want for a long time, how on earth is that fair?

    I would very much hope that there is some clause that part4 rights cannot be gained while "buying time" with a dispute.

    There is absolutely no reason to believe the termination notice is invalid either so don't know what's making you think it is. The op has to move out as requested, he signed a 5 month lease the correct thing to do is move out after your 5 months is up when the LL doesn't want to keep you on.


  • Options
    #53
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    Graham wrote: »
    On what basis is the notice invalid?

    I'm struggling to see 4ensic15's reasoning on this situation, the op signed a 5 month lease and the LL gave the op written notice of termination and part4 rights do not apply. Overstaying your lease does not impart part 4 rights when they didn't exist in the first place. Seems pretty straightforward and if there is a lesson to be learned, it is not to sign any contract of less than 6 months duration if you want to avail of tenancy protection legislation.

    Maybe I missed it but op said she "informed the landlord of her intention to stay" , was this in written form and did the LL agree to the extension in writing?


  • Options
    #54
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    davo10 wrote: »
    I'm struggling to see 4ensic15's reasoning on this situation, the op signed a 5 month lease and the LL gave the op written notice of termination and part4 rights do not apply.

    +1


  • Options
    #55
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Graham wrote: »
    On what basis is the notice invalid?

    Who knows. It can still be challenged.


  • Options
    #56
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    davo10 wrote: »
    I'm struggling to see 4ensic15's reasoning on this situation, the op signed a 5 month lease and the LL gave the op written notice of termination and part4 rights do not apply. Overstaying your lease does not impart part 4 rights when they didn't exist in the first place. Seems pretty straightforward and if there is a lesson to be learned, it is not to sign any contract of less than 6 months duration if you want to avail of tenancy protection legislation.

    Maybe I missed it but op said she "informed the landlord of her intention to stay" , was this in written form and did the LL agree to the extension in writing?

    Overstaying the lease gives part 4 rights unless the letting is properly terminated. Leases to not terminate by effluxion of time. If a tenant is still in a dwelling after the end of the lease the landlord has to terminate by the methods prescribed in the Act. if the lease was for 5 months and there was no notice part 4 would start a month after the lease ended.


  • Options
    #57
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Overstaying the lease gives part 4 rights unless the letting is properly terminated. Leases to not terminate by effluxion of time. If a tenant is still in a dwelling after the end of the lease the landlord has to terminate by the methods prescribed in the Act. if the lease was for 5 months and there was no notice part 4 would start a month after the lease ended.

    I think you should read the first couple of posts by the op. In them the op confirms that she signed a 5 month lease, and has received a signed, written and delivered notice of termination, this is a simple document. So, on what grounds do you think the lease was not properly terminated and how do you you come to the conclusion that the op will gain part4 rights by refusing to leave?


  • Options
    #58
    housetypeb
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    This thread should be in the "Being a landlord and stress" thread.
    Landlord lets his property for 5 months in the expectation that he'll get it back in 5 months, seems simple enough.
    But apparently a smart tenant with the help of the law could get to stay there for 4 years if he plays his cards right.


  • Options
    #59
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    davo10 wrote: »
    I think you should read the first couple of posts by the op. In them the op confirms that she signed a 5 month lease, and has received a signed, written and delivered notice of termination, this is a simple document. So, on what grounds do you think the lease was not properly terminated and how do you you come to the conclusion that the op will gain part4 rights by refusing to leave? Are you trolling?
    A notice of termination is not a simp,le doculent. It has to conform exactly to the requirements of the Act.
    I haven't seen the notice of termination but many of them contain errors which cause them to be invalidated. In an event if the o/p challenges it the letting continues until the issue is determined. That could be after an adjudication, a tribunal hearing and a High Court hearing. There is also an open question if the letting continues into a 7th month because of the challenge that Part 4 rights do accrue. There has been no court decision on this yet.


  • Options
    #60
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Who knows. It can still be challenged.

    Let's hope the OP spends the time to find new accommodation rather then relying on whatiffery.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    housetypeb wrote: »
    This thread should be in the "Being a landlord and stress" thread.
    Landlord lets his property for 5 months in the expectation that he'll get it back in 5 months, seems simple enough.
    But apparently a smart tenant with the help of the law could get to stay there for 4 years if he plays his cards right.

    If it was easy everyone would be at it!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement