Notice to Leave Tenancy

bucketybuck

Micmonoc wrote: »

But as a landlord with a tenant who didn't give notice, I'm now in a situation having to cover my mortgage & rent for at least a month. So how is that fair?

What does your personal debts have to do with the situation?

CIARAN_BOYLE

bucketybuck wrote: »

Micmonoc wrote: »

But as a landlord with a tenant who didn't give notice, I'm now in a situation having to cover my mortgage & rent for at least a month. So how is that fair?

What does your personal debts have to do with the situation?

Quite clearly it means that he needs the maximum he legally entitled to and that he can't afford to 'play nice'

Anyway there is no reason to be out of pocket but there is also no reason it should take you more than a week or two to fill the property (assuming its in an urban area).

Samuel T. Cogley

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Insofar as they relate to the OP, are suitably on topic and don't stray outside the bounds of advocating illegal behaviour, etc., we allow the RTA and the judgements of the RTB to be discussed.

Many Thanks, it's certainly helped me wrap my head around it. I still can't fathom why people use these fixed term tenancies though, other than to generate agency fees.

Michael D Not Higgins

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Many Thanks, it's certainly helped me wrap my head around it. I still can't fathom why people use these fixed term tenancies though, other than to generate agency fees.

Certainly in a renters market, a fixed term ensures certainty of income. In the current market, you're right, there's no need as long as the property is in a high demand area.

Samuel T. Cogley

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Certainly in a renters market, a fixed term ensures certainty of income. In the current market, you're right, there's no need as long as the property is in a high demand area.

Ah that makes sense actually as one can't exit a fixed term using the Part IV rights if they've agreed to a fixed term. I'm obviously open to correction there as I'm on a roll with that today!

pilly

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Many Thanks, it's certainly helped me wrap my head around it. I still can't fathom why people use these fixed term tenancies though, other than to generate agency fees.

With my last tenants I used a fixed term tenancy because it suited me and them. They only want to stay six months and I want them out in six months.

For that reason I gave them a fixed term because I don't want to suddenly find they've changed their minds and their staying forever.

Samuel T. Cogley

pilly wrote: »

With my last tenants I used a fixed term tenancy because it suited me and them. They only want to stay six months and I want them out in six months.

For that reason I gave them a fixed term because I don't want to suddenly find they've changed their minds and their staying forever.

You wouldn't have needed a fixed term though because you can ask them to leave within the first 6 months. If it goes over the six months you can't ask them to leave even though there is a fixed term tenancy in place.

pilly

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You wouldn't have needed a fixed term though because you can ask them to leave within the first 6 months. If it goes over the six months you can't ask them to leave even though there is a fixed term tenancy in place.

That's my point. What if they just decided to stay after the 6 months? Then they get part 4? No?

Samuel T. Cogley

pilly wrote: »

That's my point. What if they just decided to stay after the 6 months? Then they get part 4? No?

But the fixed term tenancy can't define how long they can stay for, you have to give them notice. I've only just learned this myself by the way so I'm not trying to be smart.

69.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the landlord or tenant may agree to a lesser period of notice being given than that required by a preceding provision of this Chapter and such lesser period of notice may be given accordingly.

(2) Such an agreement to a lesser period of notice being given may only be entered into at, or after, the time it is indicated to the tenant or landlord (as appropriate) by the other party that he or she intends to terminate the tenancy.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, a term of a lease or tenancy agreement cannot constitute such an agreement.

Michael D Not Higgins

pilly wrote: »

That's my point. What if they just decided to stay after the 6 months? Then they get part 4? No?

Part 4 rights are only acquired if there has been no notice of termination served before the end of 6 months. If there was a notice of termination and they overstayed past the 6 month mark they don't acquire any security of tenure.

pilly

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Part 4 rights are only acquired if there has been no notice of termination served before the end of 6 months.

Thank you for that guys. So I have to officially serve them with notice to terminate?

The lease is finished 17th March so I have to serve it by 17th February, am I right?

Sarn

The problem with a fixed term lease of 6 months is that the tenants can claim Part IV as they will have been there 6 months. It's why some LLs give 5 month leases to avoid any complications about whether or not they are allowed to issue a notice of termination within the fixed period.

Better off with no lease for periods of just under 6 months.

Michael D Not Higgins

Sarn wrote: »

The problem with a fixed term lease of 6 months is that the tenants can claim Part IV as they will have been there 6 months. It's why some LLs give 5 month leases to avoid any complications about whether or not they are allowed to issue a notice of termination within the fixed period.

Better off with no lease for periods of just under 6 months.

Part 4 only applies when there has been no notice of termination issued within that period of 6 months. Technically, they can legally be in occupation longer than 6 months but still not acquire Part 4 rights.

Keepgrowing

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm going to trawl through a few of these RTB reports unless someone is nice and points me to the legal basis for RTA notice being the default where a fixed term lease is silent on the matter.

However on deposits, which I've seen about 20 cases (just by perusing) of improperly held deposits as the claim or part of it, in almost every case damages have been awarded to the applicant tenant. So yet another reason not to withhold a deposit willy-nilly unless you've bloody good reason and proof of your loss.

Can you find a case where PRTB came down in favour of LL?

The_Conductor

Keepgrowing wrote: »

Can you find a case where PRTB came down in favour of LL?

How about that case being discussed in this forum- where the RTB found in favour of the landlord whose tenant manufactured her own lease, has horses out the back- and has played a sob story to the Irish Indo playing the 'poor me' card, because she is a pensioner (with 4 horses in her back garden)?

Link here

A serious issue that you're highlighting- is the manner in which these cases simply are not searchable- there is a repository (as there should be)- but the guilty party can simply have their case buried so it doesn't feature in searches. This should *not* be allowable under any circumstance- if there is a finding against a landlord or a tenant (and I don't think any party should be favoured over the other)- the case, its findings and the reason for its findings- should, by all rights, be out there for anyone to search. Forewarned is forearmed- only we're not allowing anyone this basic right to pertinent information.

Samuel T. Cogley

Keepgrowing wrote: »

Can you find a case where PRTB came down in favour of LL?

Can you find one :pac:

http://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/rtb-decisions-outcomes

On a serious note, although they seem to find in the tenants favour more often than not, tend to award damages a little too liberally (IMO) and are working within a framework of ridiculously pro-tenant laws I've struggled to find a decision I disagree with. (From a very cursory glance looking for a particular thing).

Michael D Not Higgins

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Can you find one :pac:

http://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/rtb-decisions-outcomes

On a serious note, although they seem to find in the tenants favour more often than not, tend to award damages a little too liberally (IMO) and are working within a framework of ridiculously pro-tenant laws I've struggled to find a decision I disagree with. (From a very cursory glance looking for a particular thing).

I wonder is this a case of selection bias, in that landlords tend to understand the daunting hill in front of them to trying to get tenants to pay arrears or damage, especially if they're of limited means. This would naturally lead to fewer landlords taking cases while there's no loss on the tenant raising a dispute.

The_Conductor

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I wonder is this a case of selection bias, in that landlords tend to understand the daunting hill in front of them to trying to get tenants to pay arrears or damage, especially if they're of limited means. This would naturally lead to fewer landlords taking cases while there's no loss on the tenant raising a dispute.

Its a very good point- not only is there a bias against landlords taking cases even where there is a legitimate cause for them to do so- many will actively do whatever it takes to try to get a tenant to leave their property- whatever it takes.