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

House landlord is selling magically appears for rent at a higher price

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Graham wrote: »
    That depends on the specific terms of the lease. It is not unusual for a lease to make specific provisions for the sale of the property
    I would say its pretty unusual. Whats the point of a fixed term lease if it includes clauses which allows one party to break it on a whim?


  • Options
    #33
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    Whats the point of a fixed term lease

    Leases are usually written by/for the landlords and for the most part go largely unread by the tenants (until it's too late).

    About 30% of the leases I've come across include such a clause.
    testaccount123 wrote: »
    allows one party to break it on a whim?

    On a whim subject to the requirements of Part 4.


  • Options
    #34
    quadrifoglio verde
    Registered Users Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭quadrifoglio verde


    Lilliana Great Metropolitan wrote: »
    He could have a break clause in the lease in the event of wanting to sell the house.

    Even if he did, it's still an illegal eviction


  • Options
    #35
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    quadrifoglio verde wrote: »
    Even if he did, it's still an illegal eviction

    Certainly looks like it in this instance.


  • Options
    #36
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    I would say its pretty unusual. Whats the point of a fixed term lease if it includes clauses which allows one party to break it on a whim?

    Slightly off topic but I asked the very same question on another thread, what the point in a fixed term contract when a tenant can break it whenever he feels like by asking to reassign the lease.......
    quadrifoglio verde wrote: »
    Even if he did, it's still an illegal eviction

    Looks like it is but people are latching onto the lease aspect which may be a red herring.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Lilliana Great Metropolitan wrote: »
    Looks like it is but people are latching onto the lease aspect which may be a red herring.

    +1

    It's the part 4 notice requirements that appear relevant here.


  • Options
    #38
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Nonsense, Ive never seen a fixed term lease with a break clause such as this, nor would I ever sign one, especially not in the current rental climate.


  • Options
    #39
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    Nonsense, Ive never seen a fixed term lease with a break clause such as this, nor would I ever sign one, especially not in the current rental climate.

    Well why didn't you say that earlier, if you haven't seen them they mustn't exist and I must have imagined them. I stand corrected.
    testaccount123 wrote: »
    nor would I ever sign one, especially not in the current rental climate.

    Fair enough.


  • Options
    #40
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,651 ✭✭✭Milly33


    What would the case be if there was no lease in place.

    As such if there was a letter stating that there would be a price increase a few months beforehand but no new lease was taken out.


  • Options
    #41
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Milly33 wrote: »
    What would the case be if there was no lease in place.

    As such if there was a letter stating that there would be a price increase a few months beforehand but no new lease was taken out.

    If there is no fixed term lease in place the landlord can issue notice to vacate with the required notice because he is selling.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Caliden
    Registered Users Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭Caliden


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    If there is no fixed term lease in place the landlord can issue notice to vacate with the required notice because he is selling.

    Where are you getting this from?

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html


    Read that please.


  • Options
    #43
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Caliden wrote: »
    Where are you getting this from?

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html


    Read that please.

    ITS RIGHT THERE ON THE PAGE

    For a tenancy that has lasted between 6 months and 4 years – known as a Part 4 tenancy – the landlord can end it only in the following circumstances:

    ...

    If the landlord intends to sell the property within 3 months

    Christ on a bike


  • Options
    #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    Nonsense, Ive never seen a fixed term lease with a break clause such as this, nor would I ever sign one, especially not in the current rental climate.

    Most leases are just copied from the internet and the LL doesn't read them never mind the tenant. A shrewd LL will have break clauses inserted, just because you haven't seen them don't mean they don't exist. There are hundreds of thousands of leases enacted in the country and you have probably seen a single digit number of leases.

    If I were renting out a house I would definitely be inserting some break clauses for selling, me or family needing to move in etc. You mightn't sign it (though you might have no choice) but most people will as in the current climate people have very little options, in fact I'd be surprised if most people even read the lease.


  • Options
    #45
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Lilliana Great Metropolitan wrote: »
    Most leases are just copied from the internet and the LL doesn't read them never mind the tenant.

    If I were renting out a house I would definitely be inserting some break clauses for selling, me or family needing to move in etc. You mightn't sign it (though you might have no choice) but most people will as in the current climate people have very little options, in fact I'd be surprised if most people even read the lease.

    I pay 15 grand a year in rent, you think I didnt read the contract I signed when agreeing to pay that much? :rolleyes:

    So much nonsense in this thread.


  • Options
    #46
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    I pay 15 grand a year in rent, you think I didnt read the contract I signed when agreeing to pay that much? :rolleyes:

    Nobody accused you of not reading your lease, nobody said your lease had a break clause in it. This entire thread isn't about you.

    Believe it or believe it not, many many many tenants see a lease full of legalese, sign it and hand over a large chunk of change without ever trying to read/understand it.

    Nobody is suggesting the OP is one of these people either so I don't think any of this is really helping.


  • Options
    #47
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    Folks please remember the charter. Stay on topic and remain civil. If you have a problem with a post, report it.

    Mod


  • Options
    #48
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,651 ✭✭✭Milly33


    Interesting going to read through the document there. Just in similar situation but well the rent has been longer that 4 years, there was no new lease drafted up the last year. Just a letter signed by all a few months before they decided to sell, to say that they were uping the rent and that the house would not be sold within the next few years..

    Thanks for the info all..


  • Options
    #49
    littelady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 340 ✭✭littelady


    Ring him looking for a viewing, more evidence in the event you have to go further and make him feel uncomfortable at the same time.


  • Options
    #50
    KrakityJones
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭KrakityJones


    littelady wrote: »
    Ring him looking for a viewing, more evidence in the event you have to go further and make him feel uncomfortable at the same time.

    The thought did occur to me but I don't want to go playing games.

    Regards the earlier comments on what type of lease etc and why this wasn't raised with him at the time - the Landlord came to me to say that he was in trouble with the banks and would have to sell the house. I didn't mind moving out in that situation so felt no need to challenge him on it. If it was sold we'd have to move out anyway so best to just get it over and done with.I agreed to move out on that basis.

    My problem is that it now appears that this was just a ruse to oust us for higher rent, which is further compounded by the fact he is not responding to requests to give the deposit back.

    Anyway the complaint is in with the PRTB now along with all documented evidence as it were so will see what happens.


  • Options
    #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,007 ✭ [Deleted User]


    KrakityJones wrote: »
    My problem is that it now appears that this was just a ruse to oust us for higher rent, which is further compounded by the fact he is not responding to requests to give the deposit back.

    He probably has no intention of paying that back until the new tenant hands over their deposit :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    BBDBB
    Registered Users Posts: 26,899 ✭✭✭✭BBDBB


    In addition I would also get a friend, maybe with a partner to enquire about the property and arrange a viewing

    Documenting what takes place


  • Options
    #53
    sadie1502
    Registered Users Posts: 666 ✭✭✭sadie1502


    Are you sure it's not up for sale also?


  • Options
    #54
    quadrifoglio verde
    Registered Users Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭quadrifoglio verde


    sadie1502 wrote: »
    Are you sure it's not up for sale also?

    Even if it was it's still an illegal eviction


  • Options
    #55
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    The OP said the house is now up for rent 350 more expensive than that he was paying. It sounds like the OP was on a good deal all these years.. could the OP state how much he has saved by been undercharged for the last number of years.


  • Options
    #56
    KrakityJones
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭KrakityJones


    sadie1502 wrote: »
    Are you sure it's not up for sale also?

    It was anyway, not sure about now though - could well be. Presume that would change things?


  • Options
    #57
    KrakityJones
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭KrakityJones


    handlemaster wrote: »
    The OP said the house is now up for rent 350 more expensive than that he was paying. It sounds like the OP was on a good deal all these years.. could the OP state how much he has saved by been undercharged for the last number of years.

    You cannot say it's undercharging if it's an agreement by both parties? If the landlord came to me and offered continuation but at a higher rate I may well have agreed to it - this wasn't offered at any time.


  • Options
    #58
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Keane2baMused wrote: »
    Wrong. It is a part 4.

    The OP stated in the very first post in this thread- that they had just signed a new lease with the landlord just before Christmas- and it was on this basis that they felt it was worthwhile for them to paint the property themselves..........

    A tenant automatically acquires Part IV rights after a tenancy of 6 months has elapsed- however, the rights granted under a Part IV tenancy are in addition to, and not a dilution of, any rights they may have under a contractual lease with the landlord. If they have a fixed term lease- its safeguards trump those of a Part IV tenancy- and the fact that the landlord decided to sell the property (or was persuaded by their bank or whoever- to do so)- is neither here nor there. They cannot invoke a Part IV clause to get the tenant out of the property- and then try to relet the property- the tenant has their lease safeguards.

    The landlord is wrong in what they have done on at least 3 different grounds.


  • Options
    #59
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    KrakityJones wrote: »
    Regards the earlier comments on what type of lease etc and why this wasn't raised with him at the time - the Landlord came to me to say that he was in trouble with the banks and would have to sell the house. I didn't mind moving out in that situation so felt no need to challenge him on it. If it was sold we'd have to move out anyway so best to just get it over and done with.I agreed to move out on that basis.
    Lesson learned. Next time, move forward on the basis of the RTA, its there to protect you.


  • Options
    #60
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,651 ✭✭✭Milly33


    Did you take a bite out of the salmon of knowledge testcount jes I hope not everyone thinks like that.. landlords should not be aloud get away with stuff like this..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    KrakityJones wrote: »
    handlemaster wrote: »
    The OP said the house is now up for rent 350 more expensive than that he was paying. It sounds like the OP was on a good deal all these years.. could the OP state how much he has saved by been undercharged for the last number of years.

    You cannot say it's undercharging if it's an agreement by both parties? If the landlord came to me and offered continuation but at a higher rate I may well have agreed to it - this wasn't offered at any time.
    Add your reply here.

    But it was less than market rate which makes it under the market rate. The LL did you a good deal


Advertisement