Advice on Lease Termination

weshtawake

My sister and her family have been served with a termination notice from their landlord. It was sent to them from a firm of solicitors and it is on the basis that the landlord requires the property for his own use. She has been there for 6 years and the length of time given before having to move out appears to be in order and as per requirements. She only ever signed 1 lease for the initial year and from research it appears that the property was not registered with the PRTB.
Her position is that she will vacate the premises but in "her own time" when she finds suitable alternative accommodation. Does she have any leverage with the landlord in staying a few further months become the termination date given that the property was never registered with PRTB nor was she given an annual lease or is she legally obliged to get out when the landlord demands??

Baby01032012

weshtawake wrote: »

My sister and her family have been served with a termination notice from their landlord. It was sent to them from a firm of solicitors and it is on the basis that the landlord requires the property for his own use. She has been there for 6 years and the length of time given before having to move out appears to be in order and as per requirements. She only ever signed 1 lease for the initial year and from research it appears that the property was not registered with the PRTB.
Her position is that she will vacate the premises but in "her own time" when she finds suitable alternative accommodation. Does she have any leverage with the landlord in staying a few further months become the termination date given that the property was never registered with PRTB nor was she given an annual lease or is she legally obliged to get out when the landlord demands??

Leverage does not come from blackmail or threats, leverage comes from talking to the landlord explaining her situation and seeing if there is any leaway.

Just because you can not see a property on the RTB database does not mean it is not registered. I've had plenty of cases of registered properties not showing on the registry online.

I presume she will need a landlord reference so why would she risk losing that for over holding which would be illegal.

Graham

weshtawake wrote: »

is she legally obliged to get out when the landlord demands??

She is legally obliged to vacate at the end of the statutory notice period.

Mr. Incognito

If the Notice of Termination is not signed by the Landlord it is invalid.

Even if it comes from solicitors.

GGTrek

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

If the Notice of Termination is not signed by the Landlord it is invalid.

Even if it comes from solicitors.

If the solicitor has a power of attorney from landlord then the notice is valid. It is a very risky way of challenging a notice in my opinion.

4ensic15

GGTrek wrote: »

If the solicitor has a power of attorney from landlord then the notice is valid. It is a very risky way of challenging a notice in my opinion.

It can be signed by the landlord or his agent. A solicitor would be accepted as the agent of the landlord. There would be no need for a power of attorney.

GGTrek

4ensic15 wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

If the solicitor has a power of attorney from landlord then the notice is valid. It is a very risky way of challenging a notice in my opinion.

It can be signed by the landlord or his agent. A solicitor would be accepted as the agent of the landlord. There would be no need for a power of attorney.

Thank you. I did not know that no power of attorney is required for a solicitor to represent me in Ireland. Power of attorney was fundamental when hiring lawyers in civil law jurisdictions and the few solicitors I have hired in Ireland have always requested me to sign a terms of business several pages long and with a power of attorney included among the various clauses.

The_Conductor

GGTrek wrote: »

Thank you. I did not know that no power of attorney is required for a solicitor to represent me in Ireland. Power of attorney was fundamental when hiring lawyers in civil law jurisdictions and the few solicitors I have hired in Ireland have always requested me to sign a terms of business several pages long and with a power of attorney included among the various clauses.

It depends entirely on the context, and the jurisdiction in question.
The OP would be threading on very dangerous grounds trying to assert that the notice is invalid- similarly, they would be foolish to imagine that the presence or absence of a property on the RTB database- is any way indicative of whether, or not, the property is registered.

Compromise would appear to be key here- your sister cannot overhold while she finds somewhere else- however, if she sits down with the landlord- perhaps the landlord might be amenable to extending the deadline by a small amount...........

One way or the other- the OP's sister should communicate with the landlord to see if they can extend their stay slightly (the idea that you'd be allowed extend it by months is laughable)- if they overstay however, good luck getting a reasonable reference from the landlord- and the process for dealing with overstaying infers a need for the landlord to fill the letter of the law- which means an immediate case lodged with the RTB.

Also- even if the tenancy isn't registered- the landlord could simply pay a late fee- and presto its on the system.

Don't play mindgames- talk to the landlord and see if you can get them to agree to an extension- this 'go in all guns blazing' approach- isn't going to work...........

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

She is legally obliged to vacate at the end of the statutory notice period.

Not if there is a dispute pending with the RTB.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

Not if there is a dispute pending with the RTB.

Was there mention of a dispute?

weshtawake

"Also- even if the tenancy isn't registered- the landlord could simply pay a late fee- and presto its on the system."

Irish solution........

Ms Doubtfire1

weshtawake wrote: »

My sister and her family have been served with a termination notice from their landlord. It was sent to them from a firm of solicitors and it is on the basis that the landlord requires the property for his own use. She has been there for 6 years and the length of time given before having to move out appears to be in order and as per requirements. She only ever signed 1 lease for the initial year and from research it appears that the property was not registered with the PRTB.
Her position is that she will vacate the premises but in "her own time" when she finds suitable alternative accommodation. Does she have any leverage with the landlord in staying a few further months become the termination date given that the property was never registered with PRTB nor was she given an annual lease or is she legally obliged to get out when the landlord demands??

Frankly. the Ll or his assigned agent have given legally correct notice as far as I can see from the post. Your sister should vacate the property promptly and timely. Overholding is not a nice thing to do nor is it fair on the LL - especially if it's required for personal use. With 6 years she has plenty of time to find alternative property.Just do the right thing. legally she hasn't got a leg to stand on.

4ensic15

weshtawake wrote: »

"Also- even if the tenancy isn't registered- the landlord could simply pay a late fee- and presto its on the system."

Irish solution........

If the tenancy isn't registered it is arguable that the notice of termination isn't valid and the subsequent registration doesn't validate it. The landlord would have to register and then issue a notice.

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the tenancy isn't registered it is arguable that the notice of termination isn't valid and the subsequent registration doesn't validate it. The landlord would have to register and then issue a notice.

I don't see how this follows?
Failure to comply with one piece of legislation- does not absolve someone from complying with another- or restrict their recourse.........
A landlord who has not registered a tenancy- cannot reasonably expect to use the mechanisms of the RTB to chase a non-compliant tenant- but the main stick is- they cannot claim mortgage relief as a tax deductible expense.

It is not stated anywhere- that a notice is non-compliant- because a landlord may not have registered a tenancy- and to be brutally honest- the RTB would laugh at any tenant who tried to argue this point.

The tenant is not entitled to make up the law as they go along- Lord knows there is plenty of law there protecting them as is.

mrslancaster

Baby01032012 wrote: »

I presume she will need a landlord reference so why would she risk losing that for over holding which would be illegal.

when should LL provide a reference and refund deposit? is it when property vacated & keys handed back?

tenant says they intend leaving when they find a new property but will need their deposit & references for the new LL.

how is this managed by tenants & LL's ?

Fol20

mrslancaster wrote: »

when should LL provide a reference and refund deposit? is it when property vacated & keys handed back?

tenant says they intend leaving when they find a new property but will need their deposit & references for the new LL.

how is this managed by tenants & LL's ?

They may receive a reference in advance and deposit once the property has been vacated and has been inspected

4ensic15

The_Conductor wrote: »

It is not stated anywhere- that a notice is non-compliant- because a landlord may not have registered a tenancy- and to be brutally honest- the RTB would laugh at any tenant who tried to argue this point.

To be brutally honest, I have argued this point and I was not laughed at. The notice must be signed by the landlord or agent. The only way it can be establsihed that a person is the landlord is by registration as the RTB are not allowed investigate title to property. The landlord can't prove he was the landlord at the time the notice was signed thus making it invalid.

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

To be brutally honest, I have argued this point and I was not laughed at. The notice must be signed by the landlord or agent. The only way it can be establsihed that a person is the landlord is by registration as the RTB are not allowed investigate title to property. The landlord can't prove he was the landlord at the time the notice was signed thus making it invalid.

A standard letter from a lender advising they have been advised the owner is letting property x (given address) and they give permission, as the mortgator for the letting property x- is accepted by the RTB.

Any mortgaged property in the last 20 years- has a clause which states the lender must be informed by the owner- if the property is no longer owner occupied.

The biggest issue with this- is a lot of Irish landlords don't inform their lender if/when they let out their property (particularly if it is their sole property) as they are terrified they will be put on a higher interest rate.

In any event- this letter is the standard letter the RTB advise landlords to supply to prove they are the landlord- in cases where the property does not feature on the central database.

Note- failure to feature on the central database does not equate with the tenancy not being registered- it is accepted there are just under 12,000 registrations that have 'issues' associated with them- that are preventing their being placed on the central register. I've no idea how the RTB intend to deal with them.........

Its stated that all properties being let to councils/local authorities/housing associations etc- in future- where there is any public money involved- will also require a copy of a letter from the landlord's lender giving their consent to the letting of the property.

One issue pointed out to the Minister- is the not inconsiderable number of properties let- without any mortgage or lien on them- this has not been addressed by the Minister thus far.

4ensic15

The_Conductor wrote: »

A standard letter from a lender advising they have been advised the owner is letting property x (given address) and they give permission, as the mortgator for the letting property x- is accepted by the RTB.

Any mortgaged property in the last 20 years- has a clause which states the lender must be informed by the owner- if the property is no longer owner occupied.

The biggest issue with this- is a lot of Irish landlords don't inform their lender if/when they let out their property (particularly if it is their sole property) as they are terrified they will be put on a higher interest rate.

In any event- this letter is the standard letter the RTB advise landlords to supply to prove they are the landlord- in cases where the property does not feature on the central database.

Note- failure to feature on the central database does not equate with the tenancy not being registered- it is accepted there are just under 12,000 registrations that have 'issues' associated with them- that are preventing their being placed on the central register. I've no idea how the RTB intend to deal with them.........

Its stated that all properties being let to councils/local authorities/housing associations etc- in future- where there is any public money involved- will also require a copy of a letter from the landlord's lender giving their consent to the letting of the property.

One issue pointed out to the Minister- is the not inconsiderable number of properties let- without any mortgage or lien on them- this has not been addressed by the Minister thus far.

The RTB is not allowed to investigate title to property.
Section 110.—The title to any lands or property shall not be drawn into question in any proceedings before a mediator, an adjudicator or the Tribunal under this Part.
The tenant is entitled to say that the landlord did not sign the notice and if he is not registered he can't prove he is the landlord. Mortgage providers permission for any letting does not make a person a landlord in the eyes of the RTB.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

The RTB is not allowed to investigate title to property.
Section 110.—The title to any lands or property shall not be drawn into question in any proceedings before a mediator, an adjudicator or the Tribunal under this Part.
The tenant is entitled to say that the landlord did not sign the notice and if he is not registered he can't prove he is the landlord. Mortgage providers permission for any letting does not make a person a landlord in the eyes of the RTB.

Just to be clear, are you saying that unless the tenancy is registered, the property owner cannot prove he/she is the LL/owner? Surely not, what about title, land registry, mortgage documents, property tax, water registration etc.

If the tenancy is not registered and a tenant brought a case against a LL, could a LL say to the RTB that they have no proof that he/she is the LL? Absolutely not. I'd say they weren't laughing because their mouths were wide open.

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

The RTB is not allowed to investigate title to property.
Section 110.—The title to any lands or property shall not be drawn into question in any proceedings before a mediator, an adjudicator or the Tribunal under this Part.
The tenant is entitled to say that the landlord did not sign the notice and if he is not registered he can't prove he is the landlord. Mortgage providers permission for any letting does not make a person a landlord in the eyes of the RTB.

This has nothing to do with the title- its a permission to let the property- quoting the address of the property, and the landlords name and contact details. Its supposed to be supplied as standard for any HAP or other tenancies which involve public funds- going forwards. Its supposed to be standard (though I'd argue a majority of people ignore it, or are unaware of it).

The purpose of the letter is supposed to be to protect tenants in cases where the landlord may have a history with their lender- and the tenant may be at risk of the property being placed on the market- on the one hand, and the lender on the other- as its obviously no longer owner occupied.

The reason most landlords ignore it- is there is nothing in it for them- indeed, if its highlighted to the mortgage provider- they risk being put on a higher interest rate and/or loosing tracker products.

weshtawake

4ensic15 wrote: »

To be brutally honest, I have argued this point and I was not laughed at. The notice must be signed by the landlord or agent. The only way it can be establsihed that a person is the landlord is by registration as the RTB are not allowed investigate title to property. The landlord can't prove he was the landlord at the time the notice was signed thus making it invalid.

Very interesting point. But as was pointed out by someone else can't this situation be easily rectified by the LL by now registering the property with the RTB retrospectively (pay a small fine) and reissue the Notice of Termination again??

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

The RTB is not allowed to investigate title to property.
Section 110.?The title to any lands or property shall not be drawn into question in any proceedings before a mediator, an adjudicator or the Tribunal under this Part.
The tenant is entitled to say that the landlord did not sign the notice and if he is not registered he can't prove he is the landlord. Mortgage providers permission for any letting does not make a person a landlord in the eyes of the RTB.

Ownership of the house is irrrlavent, you can let a property you don't own.

If a tenant tries to claim the person isn't their LL I'm sure they will be happy to answer why they have transferred rent to them when a bank statement is produced and why they signed a lease (assuming there was one at the start of the tenancy even if it wasn't renewed).

As others have said it's clutching at straws on a whole new level if you think that's going to wash with the RTB saying non-registration invalidates a notice.

Claw Hammer

Florence Sparse Bagpipes wrote: »

Ownership of the house is irrrlavent, you can let a property you don't own.

How do you prove you have been letting the property?

Florence Sparse Bagpipes wrote: »

If a tenant tries to claim the person isn't their LL I'm sure they will be happy to answer why they have transferred rent to them when a bank statement is produced and why they signed a lease (assuming there was one at the start of the tenancy even if it wasn't renewed).

As others have said it's clutching at straws on a whole new level if you think that's going to wash with the RTB saying non-registration invalidates a notice.

A bank statement is hearsay. So is a letter From a bank. Hearsay is not admissible evidence.
The only acceptable evidence that the person who claims to be the landlord, actually is the landlord, is the registration of the tenancy.

davo10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

How do you prove you have been letting the property?


A bank statement is hearsay. So is a letter From a bank. Hearsay is not admissible evidence.
The only acceptable evidence that the person who claims to be the landlord, actually is the landlord, is the registration of the tenancy.

Didn't realise the RTB is a Court of Law and that Court procedures and rules apply. I think you are reaching a bit to far there, has the RTB rejected evidence of ownership given by a LandLord?

Courts rely on bank statements and corredpondance all the time. If a tenant produces a bank statement to prove to RTB that rent was paid, is that inadmissible as "hearsay"?

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

How do you prove you have been letting the property?


A bank statement is hearsay. So is a letter From a bank. Hearsay is not admissible evidence.
The only acceptable evidence that the person who claims to be the landlord, actually is the landlord, is the registration of the tenancy.

A bank statement is hearsay? I've heard it all now :rolleyes:

A lease, rent being paid, tax returns on rent, utility bills in the tenants name at the address etc etc are all much better proofs of being the LL than the very poorly maintained RTB tenancy register.

Claw Hammer

davo10 wrote: »

Didn't realise the RTB is a Court of Law and that Court procedures and rules apply. I think you are reaching a bit to far there, has the RTB rejected evidence of ownership given by a LandLord?

Courts rely on bank statements and corredpondance all the time. If a tenant produces a bank statement to prove to RTB that rent was paid, is that inadmissible as "hearsay"?

The same rules apply in the RTB as in Court. Documents can be admitted if they are agreed otherwise they have to be proven.There are in fact special laws for banks. The Bankers Books Evidence acts specifically to allow banks to have documents which would otherwise be hearsay admitted.

The tenant gives oral evidence that he paid the rent and says he has a bank statement as corroboration. It is the oral evidence which is the proof, not the bank statement.

Claw Hammer

Florence Sparse Bagpipes wrote: »

A bank statement is hearsay? I've heard it all now :rolleyes:

A lease, rent being paid, tax returns on rent, utility bills in the tenants name at the address etc etc are all much better proofs of being the LL than the very poorly maintained RTB tenancy register.

You clearly don't know what hearsay is. A landlord is obliged to register. If he registered he would have a receipt and the RTB would have a record. It has nothing to to with the on-line system and its deficiencies. If someone doesn't comply with their legal obligations and register they are then left proving the own the property and they leased it. The RTB can't make a decision on who owns a property, by law.

davo10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You clearly don't know what hearsay is. A landlord is obliged to register. If he registered he would have a receipt and the RTB would have a record. It has nothing to to with the on-line system and its deficiencies. If someone doesn't comply with their legal obligations and register they are then left proving the own the property and they leased it. The RTB can't make a decision on who owns a property, by law.

I'm not saying you are wrong, you seem to know more about the law than most, but I'm gonna have to call you on this one, can you provide a link to any case where the RTB refused to acknowledge that the landlord was not the actual landlord based only on the fact that they haven't registered the tenancy?

Also, provide a link that the RTB consider bank statements "hearsay" and refused to accept them. as most rent is paid electronically, that would surely make payment of rent hard to prove. Again, bank statements are used as evidence in Court all the time, in fact they are often used in money laundering, CAB cases, fraud, family matters, inheritance etc

Time to put up or ............

Claw Hammer

davo10 wrote: »

I'm not saying you are wrong, you seem to know more about the law than most, but I'm gonna have to call you on this one, can you provide a link to any case where the RTB refused to acknowledge that the landlord was not the actual landlord based only on the fact that they haven't registered the tenancy?

Also, provide a link that the RTB consider bank statements "hearsay" and refused to accept them. as most rent is paid electronically, that would surely make payment of rent hard to prove. Again, bank statements are used as evidence in Court all the time, in fact they are often used in money laundering, CAB cases, fraud, family matters, inheritance etc

Time to put up or ............

Have you a link to a case where an unregistered landlord was allowed prove he was the landlord with bank statements? There is a requirement for a rent book and in article does not supply a rent book may have difficulty proving he didn't get his rent, if the tenant insists the rent was paid.
Here is a link to a case on bank evidence
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/B602AC4401C5590580257CA60039BF3A

The RTB is bound by the rules of evidence as it acts in a quasi-judicial manner.

The_Conductor

Guys- please stop bickering.
If you have factual evidence- pertinent to the RTB or the OP's query- please post it- this is not, however, an appropriate venue to discuss the intricacies of legal process or procedure- and it would be inappropriate for me to allow the discussion continue in its current direction.

Regards,

The_Conductor