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
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    handlemaster wrote: »
    The LL did you a good deal

    I'm not sure illegal eviction is a great deal to be honest.


  • Options
    #63
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,301 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    handlemaster wrote: »
    But it was less than market rate which makes it under the market rate. The LL did you a good deal
    Nice stable tenants often get a good deal. It'll be karma if the ex-landlords new tenants are toerags :pac:


  • Options
    #64
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    Even if there was something in the lease about selling you can't sign away your rights so I don't think it would work that way. Correct me if I'm wrong.


  • Options
    #65
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »
    Even if there was something in the lease about selling you can't sign away your rights so I don't think it would work that way. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    A break clause in the lease would not alter any rights you may have under a Part 4 tenancy.


  • Options
    #66
    Butters1979
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    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.

    What's that got to do with anything? If the landlord wanted to raise the rent, they could inform the tenant, provided it was within the law of rent increases.

    Are you trying to justify and illegal termination of lease by saying the OP must have being undercharged in rent?
    And even after that, the rent was what was agreed between the LL and tenant. So regardless of what is now the going rent, the OP was not undercharged at all. There are processes in place for the L to raise the rent over time if the going rate is going up.

    OP I hope you go after the LL for this dirty trick and I hope you take him to the cleaners.

    Personally I'd name and shame if I could get the local media to take interest but I can't advise you to do that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Butters1979
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    Lesson learned. Next time, move forward on the basis of the RTA, its there to protect you.

    Lesson learnt? Just because someone has been conned, it does not justify taking advantage like that. It was an illegal termination and a dirty trick.


  • Options
    #68
    KrakityJones
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭KrakityJones


    handlemaster wrote: »
    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

    I see what you're getting at and that's a fair comment, however we signed a new lease each year and discussed the amount, there was an opportunity each year to raise the amount if that was required. The last rent review I acknowledged the favorable rate we were on and agreed to an increase. This was less than 6 months ago.


  • Options
    #69
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Graham wrote: »
    A break clause in the lease would not alter any rights you may have under a Part 4 tenancy.

    Correct- a lease can offer enhanced terms and conditions to those specified in a Part IV tenancy- however, it cannot diminish those terms.


  • Options
    #70
    Butters1979
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    KrakityJones wrote: »
    I see what you're getting at and that's a fair comment,

    No it isn't a fair comment. You and the LL had an agreement and a contract for the amount of rent you were paying.
    KrakityJones wrote: »
    The last rent review I acknowledged the favorable rate we were on and agreed to an increase. This was less than 6 months ago.

    And here we get to the meat of the issue. The LL had just raised the rent and was unable to raise the rent for another 2 years and he knew this. Lied about having to sell to get the OP out and then put it back up on daft for much higher.


  • Options
    #71
    fyfe79
    Registered Users Posts: 4,199 ✭✭✭fyfe79


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    And here we get to the meat of the issue. The LL had just raised the rent and was unable to raise the rent for another 2 years and he knew this. Lied about having to sell to get the OP out and then put it back up on daft for much higher.

    I'd say the LL isn't the brightest either by holding onto the OP's deposit. He knows he's in the wrong and if had any sense would have paid back the deposit immediately just to get rid of the OP. Instead, he denies the deposit, has the OP still hanging around and eventually asking for advice on here and finds out that he/she has been illegally evicted. Ergo, the LL will now get nailed. Very silly boy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,390 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    No it isn't a fair comment. You and the LL had an agreement and a contract for the amount of rent you were paying.



    And here we get to the meat of the issue. The LL had just raised the rent and was unable to raise the rent for another 2 years and he knew this. Lied about having to sell to get the OP out and then put it back up on daft for much higher.

    hasn't a leg to stand on


  • Options
    #73
    KrakityJones
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭KrakityJones


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    No it isn't a fair comment. You and the LL had an agreement and a contract for the amount of rent you were paying.

    And here we get to the meat of the issue. The LL had just raised the rent and was unable to raise the rent for another 2 years and he knew this. Lied about having to sell to get the OP out and then put it back up on daft for much higher.

    Yeah the more I think about it the more likely that seems. Edit : yes just checked and that change came into effect in December.

    So as you say,we agreed higher rent towards the end of last year,shortly after that rent in the area started shooting up. The law was bought in a couple months later stating rents couldn't be put up for 2 years - he maybe realised he's now stuck into the agreed rate for 2 years and wanted more. Speculation I know but it does fit.


  • Options
    #74
    KrakityJones
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭KrakityJones


    fyfe79 wrote: »
    I'd say the LL isn't the brightest either by holding onto the OP's deposit. He knows he's in the wrong and if had any sense would have paid back the deposit immediately just to get rid of the OP. Instead, he denies the deposit, has the OP still hanging around and eventually asking for advice on here and finds out that he/she has been illegally evicted. Ergo, the LL will now get nailed. Very silly boy.

    You're bang on. If I had gotten the deposit back when we were supposed to I doubt this would have even been an issue, I wouldn't have even checked daft etc to see if it was back up.


  • Options
    #75
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    Lesson learnt? Just because someone has been conned, it does not justify taking advantage like that. It was an illegal termination and a dirty trick.

    Yes, lesson learned. You dont just move out of your home because someone asks you to.


  • Options
    #76
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    KrakityJones wrote: »
    handlemaster wrote: »
    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

    I see what you're getting at and that's a fair comment, however we signed a new lease each year and discussed the amount, there was an opportunity each year to raise the amount if that was required. The last rent review I acknowledged the favorable rate we were on and agreed to an increase. This was less than 6 months ago.
    Add your reply here.


    Fair enough. I think he has messed up. But I think you should just move on.... Dont stress to much over it and put it down to experience. He shouldnt hold your deposit still thats not on, unless there are out standing issues you havent stated. The prtb case should solve all this.


  • Options
    #77
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    handlemaster wrote: »
    Dont stress to much over it

    I agree the OP shouldn't stress too much over it.

    Personally I wouldn't feel the least bit stressed by pursuing a claim through the PRTB for the return of the deposit and the illegal eviction. :)


  • Options
    #78
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,651 ✭✭✭Milly33


    Why should the OP move on if the LL is clearly in the wrong.

    It seems a little unfair that despite being a honest tenant the LL has taken advantage. Not a very nice thing to do.. I would go down the PRTB route, they can be very slow alright but I have heard they are now handing out fines to landlords who have done this... http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/34/enacted/en/html

    Sounds like the LL may not be the sharpest tool in the box either if he has done this so quickly.....


  • Options
    #79
    Giblet
    Registered Users Posts: 11,980 ✭✭✭✭Giblet


    Lilliana Great Metropolitan wrote: »
    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.

    The only break clause you could insert in would only be of benefit to the tenant, as you cannot remove rights via a lease, so your lease would either be invalid or just unenforceable.


  • Options
    #80
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    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.

    And even if there was such a clause, that's not what the landlord specified as their reason for selling. They sold under false pretenses.


  • Options
    #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Giblet wrote: »
    The only break clause you could insert in would only be of benefit to the tenant, as you cannot remove rights via a lease, so your lease would either be invalid or just unenforceable.

    What rights are you removing? once you also abide by the terms of part 4 if the tenancy is over 6 months old then you are not removing any rights (which obviously didn't happen in the op's situation).

    It's nonsensical to suggest that a LL cannot but in some stipulations in a lease to enable them regain their property in limited circumstance like selling it or needing to move in. Especially as a tenant can break the lease whenever they feel like by reassigning it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Lilliana Great Metropolitan wrote: »
    It's nonsensical to suggest that a LL cannot but in some stipulations in a lease to enable them regain their property in limited circumstance like selling it or needing to move in. Especially as a tenant can break the lease whenever they feel like by reassigning it.

    If the tenant has part 4 rights, these rights cannot be removed or reduced by a clause in the lease.


  • Options
    #83
    Rodgeb
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭Rodgeb


    Well done on reporting to the PRTB OP.

    I just went through something similar and come out the other end.

    Last August we were told by the letting agent that the landlords son was moving back to Ireland and needed the apartment.
    No more than 20 minutes after we handed over the keys the apartment was up on daft for €150 more rent...


    I followed up with a complaint to the PRTB against the landlord and a complaint to the PSRA against the agent.

    About 6 six weeks after submitting the complaint there was an adjudication hearing. Its a private hearing with you, the landlord and one representative from the PRTB in an office. It lasted about 20 minutes where you both tell your side of the story and we got the decision about 2 weeks later.

    I won and they found it was an illegal eviction.

    I decided to appeal as some facts were wrong in the report and had a tribunal about 2 months later. This is open to the public and there is 3 PRTB representatives with everything recorded. The tribunal hearing itself went on for an hour and a half. The report of this will be published on the PRTB website.

    It took about 2 months to get the report back from this (I only got it last week) but it told the full story which will be on public record.

    Turns out the landlords son was living with the landlord the whole time and never had any intention of moving in. They admitted everything and the only defense they had was it wasn't really a big deal... It was all worthwhile though to see them squirm under cross examination.

    The landlord did get fined however to be honest not nearly enough to act as a deterrent considering the chances of getting caught and reported. Id say this type of thing will become more and more frequent as landlords try to get around rent certainty.

    Still no word at all from the PSRA about the agent though...


  • Options
    #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Graham wrote: »
    If the tenant has part 4 rights, these rights cannot be removed or reduced by a clause in the lease.

    And I never said they could, the clause would be to end the lease then part 4 reasons for termination and notice periods would also need to be followed or not if the tenancy was less than 6 months old.


  • Options
    #85
    Lux23
    Registered Users Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    Lilliana Great Metropolitan wrote: »
    And I never said they could, the clause would be to end the lease then part 4 reasons for termination and notice periods would also need to be followed or not if the tenancy was less than 6 months old.



    So what would be the point in including it then?


  • Options
    #86
    Butters1979
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    Graham wrote: »
    If the tenant has part 4 rights, these rights cannot be removed or reduced by a clause in the lease.

    But notice of eviction to sell the property is within a LL's right under Part IV tenancy. Meaning a clause in the lease to allow termination of tenancy in the event the LL wants to sell would not remove or reduce the part IV rights already in place.

    These clauses can and do exist in some lease agreements, I've seen and singed them.


  • Options
    #87
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    But notice of eviction to sell the property is within a LL's right under Part IV tenancy. Meaning a clause in the lease to allow termination of tenancy in the event the LL wants to sell would not remove or reduce the part IV rights already in place.

    These clauses can and do exist in some lease agreements, I've seen and singed them.

    Why didn't I think of that.
    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, any such provisions could not remove the protections (e.g. notice periods) a tenant has under part 4 if they also apply.


  • Options
    #88
    Butters1979
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    Graham wrote: »
    Why didn't I think of that.

    So from your last post it looked like you were saying a LL could not put a clause in the lease to sell as Part IV tenancy rights could not be overwritten by a lease.

    What exactly are you saying? Or are you just arguing with whoever is around?
    Graham wrote: »
    Lilliana Great Metropolitan wrote: »
    It's nonsensical to suggest that a LL cannot but in some stipulations in a lease to enable them regain their property in limited circumstance like selling it or needing to move in. Especially as a tenant can break the lease whenever they feel like by reassigning it.

    If the tenant has part 4 rights, these rights cannot be removed or reduced by a clause in the lease.


  • Options
    #89
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    So from your last post it looked like you were saying a LL could not put a clause in the lease to sell as Part IV tenancy rights could not be overwritten by a lease.

    Nope, I didn't say that
    Butters1979 wrote: »
    Or are you just arguing with whoever is around?
    mmmm k


  • Options
    #90
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,651 ✭✭✭Milly33


    Rodgeb wrote: »
    Well done on reporting to the PRTB OP.

    I just went through something similar and come out the other end.

    Last August we were told by the letting agent that the landlords son was moving back to Ireland and needed the apartment.
    No more than 20 minutes after we handed over the keys the apartment was up on daft for €150 more rent...


    I followed up with a complaint to the PRTB against the landlord and a complaint to the PSRA against the agent.

    About 6 six weeks after submitting the complaint there was an adjudication hearing. Its a private hearing with you, the landlord and one representative from the PRTB in an office. It lasted about 20 minutes where you both tell your side of the story and we got the decision about 2 weeks later.

    I won and they found it was an illegal eviction.

    I decided to appeal as some facts were wrong in the report and had a tribunal about 2 months later. This is open to the public and there is 3 PRTB representatives with everything recorded. The tribunal hearing itself went on for an hour and a half. The report of this will be published on the PRTB website.

    It took about 2 months to get the report back from this (I only got it last week) but it told the full story which will be on public record.

    Turns out the landlords son was living with the landlord the whole time and never had any intention of moving in. They admitted everything and the only defense they had was it wasn't really a big deal... It was all worthwhile though to see them squirm under cross examination.

    The landlord did get fined however to be honest not nearly enough to act as a deterrent considering the chances of getting caught and reported. Id say this type of thing will become more and more frequent as landlords try to get around rent certainty.

    Still no word at all from the PSRA about the agent though...

    Great to hear this and well done to you for taking him on


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    jcd5971
    Registered Users Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭jcd5971


    KrakityJones wrote:
    No it's his name and number as the contact.

    I know that it's now illegal to do this and I feel for you buddy I really do, but I also feel for the landlord like 350 a month Is a lot to have to give up just to have the pleasure of seeing your mug every month as you can't afford it.

    It's a hard one all round, however your deposit is bull **** should have got that right back. Maybe even a few quid for painting if he was decent


Advertisement