Landlord wants to kick us out

ampleforth

I am renting an apartment in Dublin. I originally signed a 9 month fix-term lease and now overstayed my rental agreement with my landlords consent.

I stayed there for 10 months now.

We had an understanding that a few month extra would be no problem until I find a place to buy. I always payed my rent in time and in full. There was never any trouble, but the landlord has often called and asked when I intend move out, which made me feel funny at times.

Now, he called me and told me that he needs me out by the end of the month as his son needs a place to stay.

What are my rights? What are his rights? Is there any Irish wisdom w.r.t. how things run here and what people do in such situations? I do suspect that my landlord does not have son, nor needs the place for his son, but I suspect that there is a clause for family demand that would allow him to kick us out. Any advice is helpful. Many thanks!

L1011

How long have you been there in total? This is important in terms of rights and notice periods.

ampleforth

L1011 wrote: »

How long have you been there in total?

10 months

Del2005

Family needing the place is a valid reason for ending the lease, providing they give the required notice which can be gotten from the RTB website. If he gives you the correct notice you have to move out. If you suspect that he is BSing you you need to check if it's been rented again and then you can take him to the RTB and maybe get some money, again check the website for how long it has to be off the market before it can be relet.

Cilar

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

You also have 5 week from the written notice.


If the landlord needs the property for their own use or for an immediate family member, you must be given the following information in writing, along with the notice of termination: the person’s name; their relationship to the landlord; and how long they will occupy the dwelling. The notice must also include a statutory declaration stating that the landlord needs the property for their own use or for an immediate family member. The RTB’s sample notice of termination when the landlord needs the property (pdf) contains the required information and a sample statutory declaration.

davindub

It sounds like he has been reasonable, it was a fixed lease for a reason, he intended to have his son move in there. He gave you extra time, why make trouble?

athtrasna

davindub wrote: »

It sounds like he has been reasonable, it was a fixed lease for a reason, he intended to have his son move in there. He gave you extra time, why make trouble?

Once they were in situ 6 months part IV tenancy rules apply. It's not making trouble it's about having rights

davindub

athtrasna wrote: »

Once they were in situ 6 months part IV tenancy rules apply. It's not making trouble it's about having rights

Yes and the leasor had the right to serve written notice on any occasion previous to now instead of asking nicely when he expected to move out and the leasee had the obligation to serve notice 1 month in advance of the fixed term expiry.

I'm in favor of the protections of part 4, but disagree with using the legislation for abuse of fairness by tenants or landlords.

The OP knows why he is being asked to leave, and he has my sympathy, but the landlord did not exercise his legal right (and obligation) to serve written notice in order to give the OP time to find somewhere else. Anyway what will the OP gain? As soon as the landlord realises he needs to give written notice, he will, the OP loses a reference many landlords won't rent without and punishes someone who has acted in a kindly manner towards them.

wandererz

You signed a fix term lease. The vast majority would be for a minimum of 12 months yet yours was for 9 months.
This was for a reason, though probably not explained to you at the time.

Now your agreed lease is up.
If you force your own outcome, how do you think the rest of your lease will progress?
Will the relationship with your landlord not be ruined?
What if you have issues and need things repaired or replaced? Do you think you will be looked upon favourably?

Look at it as a fixed term marriage with a pre-nup signed. Why would you expect more?

I've rented in loads of places over 20 years and i wouldn't expect any more than was agreed originally.

How exactly have you been hard done by?

Graham

wandererz wrote: »

Look at it as a fixed term marriage with a pre-nup signed. Why would you expect more?

Because the law specifically grants more.

We may all have opinions on the fairness or otherwise of it, but it is what it is.

wandererz

Graham wrote: »

Because the law specifically grants more.

We may all have opinions on the fairness or otherwise of it, but it is what it is.

So what's the point of a fixed term lease?
And why would a tenant agree to it if they expect something else instead?
What if the landlord lets the place out for a defined period of time (for example to take a foreign contact job themselves) and expects to return thereafter.
Is the law totally one sided in terms of siding with the tenant no matter what was agreed?

Graham

wandererz wrote: »

So what's the point of a fixed term lease?

What if the landlord lets the place out for a defined period of time (for example to take a foreign contact job themselves) and expects to return thereafter. Is it totally one sided in terns of siding with the tenant no matter what was agreed?

A fixed term lease grants the tenant additional rights over and above those granted by a part 4 tenancy. Little benefit to the landlord other than theoretically guaranteeing a tenant will remain for at least the duration of the fixed term.

It's down to the landlord to familiarise themselves with the law before renting out a property.

wandererz

Graham wrote: »

A fixed term lease grants the tenant additional rights over and above those granted by a part 4 tenancy. Little benefit to the landlord other than theoretically guaranteeing a tenant will remain for at least the duration of the fixed term.

It's down to the landlord to familiarise themselves with the law before renting out a property.

Oh well, poor landlord. Setup a lease agreement with one expectation in mind and then finds that this is one area where signed contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Good luck OP, i guess you can pursue things according to the law but it probably will be more hassle in the long term. If someone wants you there, they will provide assistance whenever necessary.
If not then its a matter of the least possible help and rent increases as a minimum.

When i rented, i moved out if i wasn't getting the service i expected or had disagreements with the landlord. The latter was almost never and ended up being asked to remain more often than not.
That's the type of relationship you want rather than forcing someone to keep you on. That will simply end in tragedy.

Graham

wandererz wrote: »

Oh well, poor landlord.

It shouldn't come as a shock to the landlord at all.

wandererz wrote: »

If not then its a matter of the least possible help and rent increases as a minimum.

No rent increases permitted until at least 2 years into the tenancy.

4ensic15

wandererz wrote: »

Oh well, poor landlord. Setup a lease
agreement with one expectation in mind and then finds that this is one area where signed contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

It is specifically provided that notice of termination cannot be incorporated in the lease itself.
It is also provided that the parties cannot contract out of the provisions of the RTA.
Any intending landlord should know this.

wandererz wrote: »

Good luck OP, i guess you can pursue things according to the law but it probably will be more hassle in the long term. If someone wants you there, they will provide assistance whenever necessary.
If not then its a matter of the least possible help and rent increases as a minimum.

The o/p has his rights and it is a matter for him to decide. He may be able to prolong his letting, legally, without a rent increase, for some time to come. This might be at the expense of his relationship with a landlord who is throwing him out anyway. There will be no tragedy.

murphaph

The law says what it says but it also doesn't compel the LL from not revealing any/all of this to a future LL, so you effectively have no reference from this tenancy, which will be a problem for a lot of potential future landlords.

pilly

I'm getting the feeling there's an awful bias on this forum against LL's. If someone agrees only a 9 month lease and then politely asks when you're moving out that's fair enough.

We can quote the law all we like. If the landlord follows the law all he has to do is serve notice anyway. And as other posters have said if the tenant makes this difficult then they will not get a reference.

Fairness has to work on both sides.

davo10

As a previous poster said, 9 months is an unusual fixed period, typically leases are 12 months. That suggests that one or both parties had a specific reason for that precise term and both knew the reason why, on the op's part it could have been the predicted time frame to buy a property, for the LL it could have been because he knew that was when family member needed the house. The LL was good enough to agree an extension but technically the op now has part 4 rights.

Either way op the landlord can evict you as your fixed term is up and a family member wants to move in. The LL has done you a solid by letting you stay longer even though you both knew that you agreed to leave after 9 months. You could hang around, dig your heals in and assert your rights but it's a bit of a crap thing to do. The LL is still going to evict you soon and many LL would be inclined not to give you a reference and to not return your deposit until they went through the property with a fine tooth comb to see if there is even the slightest bit of damage that could validate holding on to your deposit.

TheDoc

pilly wrote: »

I'm getting the feeling there's an awful bias on this forum against LL's. If someone agrees only a 9 month lease and then politely asks when you're moving out that's fair enough.

We can quote the law all we like. If the landlord follows the law all he has to do is serve notice anyway. And as other posters have said if the tenant makes this difficult then they will not get a reference.

Fairness has to work on both sides.

To be honest I always raise an eyebrow when people basically whiff contracts at the behest of the "general law"

a lease would like fall under contractual obligations, of which when two parties sign can be deemed as one or the other knowingly forgoing certain rights and provisions.

Sounds like the landlord is being reasonable here

Graham

TheDoc wrote: »

a lease would like fall under contractual obligations, of which when two parties sign can be deemed as one or the other knowingly forgoing certain rights and provisions.

Like it or not, a lease doesn't override the residential tenancies act.

ampleforth

I asked for a written notice. I will go out and look for another place. I do find these cancellation times rather short, regardless. However, since the landlord called me every month to ask me to move out for other reasons --- mainly because he had somebody else (presumably somebody who payed even more than I did for this walking cupboard ).

However, I try to see it as an opportunity. I do not want to have more phone conversations about me getting out. I would like a place where I pay rent and live. I hope I find it. Thanks for all your helpful advice here. Regardless, I am looking to buy --- more than ever now --- the rental market is somehow mental and I do not want to be part of it any more...

_Brian

So landlord does a favour and let's you stay on until you find somewhere better to buy, but the minute he wants the property he's somehow demonised and your looking to make a nuisance of yourself by staying.

Nice.

davo10

ampleforth wrote: »

I asked for a written notice. I will go out and look for another place. I do find these cancellation times rather short, regardless. However, since the landlord called me every month to ask me to move out for other reasons --- mainly because he had somebody else (presumably somebody who payed even more than I did for this walking cupboard ).

However, I try to see it as an opportunity. I do not want to have more phone conversations about me getting out. I would like a place where I pay rent and live. I hope I find it. Thanks for all your helpful advice here. Regardless, I am looking to buy --- more than ever now --- the rental market is somehow mental and I do not want to be part of it any more...

Look back in this post if you find a property you really want to buy and you want to break your next lease early.

Graham

_Brian wrote: »

So landlord does a favour and let's you stay on until you find somewhere better to buy, but the minute he wants the property he's somehow demonised and your looking to make a nuisance of yourself by staying.

Nice.

Since when has adhering to the law been doing someone a favour?

SB_Part2

What's the point of a fixed term lease if the residential tenancies act makes it void?

I feel sorry for the LL. You knew what you were signing up to.

Michael D Not Higgins

SB_Part2 wrote: »

What's the point of a fixed term lease if the residential tenancies act makes it void?

I feel sorry for the LL. You knew what you were signing up to.

It's sort of the same as why you can't sign an employment contract that says your wage is €1/hour. It's against the law and you can't contract out of your rights.

the_pen_turner

It's nothing like the minimum wage.
It is like hiring someone to work for you for 9 months. Then after 9 months they say I think I will stay.

Michael D Not Higgins

the_pen_turner wrote: »

It's nothing like the minimum wage.
It is like hiring someone to work for you for 9 months. Then after 9 months they say I think I will stay.

If the law had a provision for security of tenure for jobs after 6 months you'd be spot on, but it doesn't.

The landlord does have the ability to issue notice of termination, although it seems he wants to keep it amicable and get the OP to move out when they're able. The next step would be written notice of termination with the correct notice period but this would require a statutory declaration and additional cost to correctly issue. It's easier and cheaper to get the tenant to leave of their own volition.

Graham

the_pen_turner wrote: »

It is like hiring someone to work for you for 9 months. Then after 9 months they say I think I will stay.

It would be just like that if there were specific legislation specifying after 6 months an employee became permanent apart from specifically listed circumstances. There is no such legislation.

The residential tenancies act is different. There is legislation stating after 6 months a tenant acquires rights.

That's all there is to it.

Personally I think there should be some means of granting a short-term tenancy without the potential 4 year commitment, some times that would suit all parties involved. As things stand, there isn't.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

It would be just like that if there were specific legislation specifying after 6 months an employee became permanent apart from specifically listed circumstances. There is no such legislation.

The residential tenancies act is different. There is legislation stating after 6 months a tenant acquires rights.

That's all there is to it.

Personally I think there should be some means of granting a short-term tenancy without the potential 4 year commitment, some times that would suit all parties involved. As things stand, there isn't.

I think pretty much everyone who visits this site regularly agrees with you about the op's legal standing, he has the right to stay until legally evicted. But I suspect why others including myself have sympathy for the LL in this case is that the term of the tenancy, 9 months, is an unusual one and the agreement would seem to have been above and beyond just a simple, straight forward tenancy agreement. Most if not all LLs insist on a minimum 12 month term so the op agreed or may have even requested a shorter one considering he/she is house hunting and may not have wanted to be tied in to paying rent for a longer term. Both agreed that the op would move out after 9 months and then the LL agreed to let him stay, probably on a monthly roling agreement to help him out. Now the op is cribbing about being asked to leave, legally the op has a right to stay, but I think it is sharp practice to now refuse to leave.

beauf

wandererz wrote: »

So what's the point of a fixed term lease?
And why would a tenant agree to it if they expect something else instead?
What if the landlord lets the place out for a defined period of time (for example to take a foreign contact job themselves) and expects to return thereafter.
Is the law totally one sided in terms of siding with the tenant no matter what was agreed?

Most LL wouldn't be interested in short term rentals. They are too troublesome. Unless they do it by renting a room, or AirBnB or such, as then it falls under a different set of rules. Most LL would just avoid this scenario in the first place.