Tenant trouble

Easyliving

I have a tenant in my house who I'm concerned about. I want to move in and he's due to move out as his lease is at an end. I've tried to end the lease early however he tried to seek cash for this. He's been late with the last few rents and not given me a move out date. I've also discovered one of his reference was fake. It was an employment reference. Where to I stand and is it possible to avoid a legal route here if he overstays and causes further problems?

antoinolachtnai

No, not really. You need to go through the procedures. I hope you're set up to follow the procedures correctly.

Easyliving

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

No, not really. You need to go through the procedures. I hope you're set up to follow the procedures correctly.

How more could I be set up? It's a fixed term lease.

jimmycrackcorm

Easyliving wrote: »

. I've tried to end the lease early however he tried to seek cash for this

Give him the cash, it's actually cheaper as you will find the law stacked against you.

Easyliving

Is blackmail not against the law?

Hollister11

Make you life easier and pay up. Don't mind the legality of it.

Easyliving

I'm not a big commercial company, I have my house, a young family and I don't have the money. I spent years struggling to get the house and sacrificed a lot and the advice is to hand over a couple of grand to someone essentially blackmailing me?

antoinolachtnai

Tenancies are governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 as amended as well as by the lease.

If you want the tenant to leave the first step is to give notice.

If you are not familiar with the law, you should get legal advice.

The only way to end a residential tenancy is in accordance with the law. It has its own paragraph in the Constitution.

I would certainly not advise you to pay the tenant to leave.

FishOnABike

If the tenant is there for more than six months they will have part IV tenancy rights. Make sure any termination of the tenancy is done in accordance with tenancy legislation or it could come back to bite you.

dennyk

If your tenant has a fixed term lease with no landlord break clause and you are asking your tenant to leave early in violation of the lease terms, it's not unreasonable for him to offer to do so in exchange for compensation to cover the additional expenses he'll be taking on for vacating on short notice. That's not blackmail, it's negotiation. If you don't want to pay him to vacate early, then you can wait and serve him with appropriate notice after the fixed term lease has expired.

Really isn't anything you can do directly to prevent him overstaying; even paying him is no guarantee that he'd actually leave (early or otherwise). All you can do is follow the required procedures for serving notice, making sure all your 'i's are dotted and 't's are crossed, and then proceed with eviction if he doesn't vacate. If you have reason to believe he will be a problem about leaving after being served notice, I'd definitely forget about making any cash-for-keys deal; no sense throwing good money after bad when all it'll get you is a bigger € number on your eventual court case that your tenant may not be able to afford to pay you even if you win. Just wait till your lease expires and then serve him the required notice based on how long he's been living there.

Mrs OBumble

Easyliving wrote: »

the advice is to hand over a couple of grand to someone essentially blackmailing me?

You can pay him to leave and get your house back soon and intact. Or you can follow the legal process and have it take years.

Your dime.

But i know what professional landlords do.

Next time, check the references properly.

beauf

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

...
But i know what professional landlords do.

Next time, check the references properly.

Define "properly" ....

Spanish Eyes

I so admire landlords who have the bottle, the money, and the headspace to deal with tenant issues.

Stacked against the LL it is surely. Even if LL obeys the rules. What about overholding and how long it takes to get rogue tenants out?

But I will be told otherwise I am sure.

the_syco

Easyliving wrote: »

Is blackmail not against the law?

Him not paying rent whilst you take a few months evicting him will be more costly.

The_Conductor

Easyliving wrote: »

How more could I be set up? It's a fixed term lease.

A fixed term lease can only confer rights in addition to those in the Residential Tenancies Act- to the tenant- it cannot detract from them in any manner (including- but not limited to- all the rights a tenant can invoke once they are present in the property for 6 months).

The best manner of dealing with this- is to issue proper notice as defined under the Act.

The ending of the 'fixed term lease' means precisely nothing- nothing whatsoever- however, while it is still in force, your hands are tied as the tenant has rights which trump the RTA itself.

Yes- blackmail is against the law- however, trying to breach a fixed term lease- is a breach of a civil agreement between you and the tenant- which it is at the discretion of the tenant to agree to- or not agree to.

I agree with you- on top of everything else- you've discovered the tenant supplied you with fake references- by rights this should be a deal breaker- wholly aside from any other thing- however, the regulatory environment is stacked against landlords- regardless of what the tenant does- and if the tenant decides to overhold, you're looking at a minimum of 4-6 months to get them out- possibly even longer- during which time, likely as not, they'll not pay you a penny in rent- and if you pursue them, they'll simply plead an inability to pay to the judge and be off the hook.

The fact that this is your sole property- and you need it for your own and your family's use- is irrelevant- you, as the landlord, have absolutely no rights here- other than the right to invoke the personal use clause under the Residential Tenancies Act- as a mechanism to serve notice on the tenant (after the elapse of their fixed term lease!!!!).

It is blackmail demanding a few grand from you to leave your property- however, it is rapidly becoming the norm- as tenants know they are untouchable. If you don't pay- there is a high probability that you'll face months without rent- while you jump through the hoops that you have to jump through in order to retrieve your property- and there is also a distinct possibility that they may do all manner of damage to property and its contents. Yet- if you don't jump through the hoops- to the letter of the law- regardless of how innocuous your failure to follow the letter of the law is- the Residential Tenancies Board- will find against- and award the tenant a large lump sum for an attempted illegal eviction.

I know I'm painting a very black picture- unfortunately- its also a true picture.

The simplest course of action- is to beg, borrow or steal the money- and give it to the tenant on the explicit exit from the property- as they hand you the keys- and change the locks immediately, within the hour, and do the whole lot in the presence of witnesses and document it- so no-one can claim at a later date that you did anything other than what you claim you did.

The situation is- you are the landlord- the tenant holds the cards- and they know they have you over a barrel. Yes, blackmail is illegal- however, its preferable in some situations to accept that its the lesser of two evils- the second evil being non-payment of rent for a protracted (but unknown) period of time- and the possibility of serious damage to the property.

The tenant holds all the cards- its your call how you decide to proceed- personally, I'd do whatever I had to do- to get them the money they are demanding (and I'd document the whole shebang three ways to kingdom come- and send copies of everything to every politician I knew- so their eyes are opened to what is happening- as they're all pretending they don't).

antoinolachtnai

We don't know the OP's circumstances. If they get legitimate notice they will probably leave.

If it suits the landlord to buy out the remainder of the lease, maybe they should do that.

The idea that tenants who have come to the end of their lease and who are not protected by Part IV have to be paid to leave is plain wrong. The idea that it is commonplace is wrong.

If a tenant overholds, there is a real risk for them of having to compensate the landlord.

jamesthepeach

Yet another thread that reinforces to me that letting your property just means giving it away and taking pot luck on whether you get it back or not.
It really is a scary situation renting your property of now.
No wonder so many are getting out.

The_Conductor

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

We don't know the OP's circumstances. If they get legitimate notice they will probably leave.

If it suits the landlord to buy out the remainder of the lease, maybe they should do that.

The idea that tenants who have come to the end of their lease and who are not protected by Part IV have to be paid to leave is plain wrong. The idea that it is commonplace is wrong.

If a tenant overholds, there is a real risk for them of having to compensate the landlord.

True- however, attend a few RTB hearings as an advocate- and you'll develop a hightened sense of cynicism very very quickly.

The tenant faked their references- and suggested a payoff to the landlord. They have form. It would be nice to think things would work for the landlord in a reasonable manner- and that both the landlord and the tenant would respect each other's rights- and the law- however, given the tenant's previous form- its hard to see how or why they would suddenly meekly decide to follow the rulebook- esp. as it is they themselves who decided on a payoff (the OP stated they had thousands in mind- obviously they feel they have the landlord over a barrel and want to milk it for everything its worth).

The OP *has* to follow the rulebook to the letter- the tenant is *supposed* to- however, the only party for whom there are any meaningful consequences- is the OP. I.e. the potential for them to be completely screwed- no matter what they do- is horrendous.

Even were the landlord to follow the process, and eventually be awarded damages against the tenant (and its premature to even discuss this in this case)- the landlord then needs to go to the District court to get a judgement against the tenant- and eventually- the sheriff would have to be appointed to enforce the judgement- however, if the tenant pleads penury- the landlord gets nothing (barr an interesting legal bill, months with no rent and possible damage to their property). Its a no-win for the landlord.

I'd try to reason with the tenant- but advise them that due process, as defined by the Act will be followed, if they are not willing to reason. And after that- I would strongly suggest the OP pay a solicitor who is fully au fait with tenancy law- for assistance in ensuring they dot every 'i' and cross every 't' so the tenant is given their rightful protections under the Residential Tenancy Act- however, so the landlord also- is allowed exercise their right to their property for personal use.

For the record- a number of TDs tried to force a vote to remove landlord's right to envoke a 'need to use' clause to retrieve property- i.e. regardless of whether or not a landlord has only the one property- and needs it for their own use- the prevailing view of a segment of our elected representatives- is that the landlord and his/her family can live in a tent- or present themselves as homeless- they should not have the right to retrieve their sole property for personal use- once its let to a tenant (I'm ignoring the fixed term lease that the OP elected to grant to the tenant- as presumably they are going to allow this to run its course before issuing a termination of the tenancy on personal use grounds).

The regulatory regime is almost comical in how one-sided its stacked.

jamesthepeach

A person uses take reference to gain controlling possession of an asset worth over €100,000.
They then try to blackmail the owner to give it back.
I know what should happen here, and so does everyone, but it's the exact opposite of what should happen that the rtb support.

The_Conductor

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Yet another thread that reinforces to me that letting your property just means giving it away and taking pot luck on whether you get it back or not.
It really is a scary situation renting your property of now.
No wonder so many are getting out.

Even 'getting out' is an issue- as you can't sell with a sitting tenant, if the tenant chooses to overhold (and they are being advised by Threshold to do so)- the landlord has to spend thousands jumping through the hoops- and eventually- a year later or however long- may find their property destroyed and needing thousands in restorative works- before it can be placed on the market.

The whole situation is quite remarkable- between the RPZs and the RTA- and yet, somehow, the landlord is portrayed as the bogeyman.

There is a presumption of guilt on the part of landlords- i.e. all landlords are presumed to be guilty (of something or the other) and deserving of punishment. There is a presumption of innocence on the part of tenants- even where their actions are staggeringly obvious to the world and its dog. And then you have state funded agencies- cheerfully peddling illegal suggestions to tenants (seek a pay-off, overhold, you're in a strong position- possession is nine tenths of the law.........) RTE did an exposé on this some time ago. Its gotten even more blatant since.

jamesthepeach

Tell me about it. I'm going through exactly that myself at the moment.

TimeToShine

Doesn't sound like he plans on overstaying to be honest. As far as you're concerned his move out date is the last day of the lease. He has no obligation to indulge your attempt to end the lease early so I wouldn't go hitting panic buttons until the lease actually finishes or he skips out on rent.

Greaney

Easyliving wrote: »

I have a tenant in my house who I'm concerned about. I want to move in and he's due to move out as his lease is at an end. I've tried to end the lease early however he tried to seek cash for this. He's been late with the last few rents and not given me a move out date. I've also discovered one of his reference was fake. It was an employment reference. Where to I stand and is it possible to avoid a legal route here if he overstays and causes further problems?

If you give him the correct notice, and you can because you've got a family need, he cannot overstay


https://www.lawyer.ie/property/ending-your-tenancy/

Fol20

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Give him the cash, it's actually cheaper as you will find the law stacked against you.

+1. It's painful but practicality of theory and law is true here.
Plus you avoid all the headache of it.

athtrasna

Greaney wrote: »

If you give him the correct notice, and you can because you've got a family need, he cannot overstay


https://www.lawyer.ie/property/ending-your-tenancy/

He should not but he absolutely can. Any attempt to force him to leave needs legal guidance as the fines for illegal eviction can be 5 figure sums

pilly

Greaney wrote: »

If you give him the correct notice, and you can because you've got a family need, he cannot overstay


https://www.lawyer.ie/property/ending-your-tenancy/

This is the whole problem we have now. The difference between the regulations and what actually happens.

What galls me more is so called governmental agencies advising people to break the law because THEY don't want the hassle of someone relying on the services to help them.

It's wrong in so many ways.

The_Conductor

Greaney wrote: »

he cannot overstay

Cannot, will not, is forbidden to, has no option but to- or quite simply doesn't care- are all completely different concepts.

The tenant can overstay- regardless of what the law states- and with a virtual guarantee of impunity- because the regulatory regime is set up in their favour.

If a landlord finds himself homeless- because their tenant overholds and the landlord doesn't have somewhere to live- they are advised to present themselves to their local authority as homeless and to request assistance. I'm not joking........

Turtle_

People seem to be confusing the matter here. The OP tried to end a fixed term early.

OP, unless you included a break clause in the fixed term lease you've no right to ask him to leave until the lease is up. He offered to bargain with you, agreeing to shorten it in return for a financial benefit. Absolutely no problem in doing that.

Easyliving wrote: »

he's due to move out as his lease is at an end. I've tried to end the lease early however he tried to seek cash for this.

then we have:

He's been late with the last few rents and not given me a move out date.

Maybe he doesn't want to move out and that's why he hasn't given you a moving date and is being annoying because he knows you want him out. If he's there more than 6 months he has part 4 rights. So once his fixed term is over, then YOU must serve him with notice. do this exactly per the requirements given by the RTB. Make sure you provide enough notice for the time he's been there too.

I've also discovered one of his reference was fake. It was an employment reference. Where to I stand and is it possible to avoid a legal route here if he overstays and causes further problems?

has he been generally good? Up until you wanted him out, had he caused you any heart ache? If not, tell him you'll give him a good written reference and will take phone calls from any prospective landlords so that it can help him find another place. If he had to provide a fake reference before he's probably going to appreciate a real one.

I'm not justifying his paying rent late, but f that's recent and he's been otherwise fine then you're not doing too badly here. When you send him the notice, tell him that if he finds another place you're happy to let him move sooner than the full notice so that he doesn't have to be paying rent in two places at once. Tell him you'll give him the full deposit back.

Make it easy for him to move.

But seriously, him asking you to buy him out of the remainder of a fixed term lease is perfectly fair - you're the one who wanted to break the contract. Also, he didn't flat out say no. That's promising for him actually moving out once you following the eviction proceedings properly.

The_Conductor

Just for clarity- terminating a tenancy- is *not* an eviction.

A termination of tenancy is the landlord ending the rental agreement, in an appropriate and legal manner and formally asking the tenant to vacate the rental dwelling.

A tenant can have their tenancy terminated and amicably move out without being evicted. An eviction is the actual RTB process and further court processes to have a tenant removed from the property should they overhold.

I'm sorry for being pedantic- but it really is not fair to be bandying the term 'eviction' around willy nilly- but I do fully accept that a lot of people may not be fully aware of what it entails.

Easyliving

The_Conductor wrote: »

Yes- blackmail is against the law- however, trying to breach a fixed term lease- is a breach of a civil agreement between you and the tenant- which it is at the discretion of the tenant to agree to- or not agree to...

It's a disgraceful situation to be in and astonishing how much it's all stacked against a landlord. I will never rent my house again once all over and will recommend anyone else not to also. This is one part of the problem of why there are so few properties for rent.