Landlord wants to up rent or sell

moocows

Hi folks

Firstly, is a lease broken if one signatory moves out and lease is not amended to include renter?

Secondly, landlord is having financial worries and is looking to up rent or sell. What security do current tenants have, 1 year into lease as above.

Thanks

tuisginideach

Landlord can sell at any time - with tenant in place if necessary.

Fol20

tuisginideach wrote: »

Landlord can sell at any time - with tenant in place if necessary.

More than likely it will be sold with vacant possession. It will make more money that way

Fian

Your landlord can evict you if they intend to sell within 3 months.

spaceHopper

moocows wrote: »

Firstly, is a lease broken if one signatory moves out and lease is not amended to include renter?

It is up to the leaver to find a new tenant and then they can ask the LL to reassign the lease new tenant, they can only refuse if they are not happy with the new tenant for some reason. If they just up sticks and move out then the lease may be broken even if they found a replacement tenant.

moocows wrote: »

Secondly, landlord is having financial worries and is looking to up rent or sell. What security do current tenants have, 1 year into lease as above.

If the lease is broken they would need to follow the process and evict the remaining tenant then sell. If there is a 1 year lease they should first honour that then sell. If the lease has expired then they have part 4 wights they LL can sell but has to follow a process and give notice to leave to the tenants depending on how long they are there.

moocows

Thanks all

LuckyLloyd

Because you’re one year into your lease, you have acquired Part IV Tenancy rights. This means your landlord can only terminate your tenancy for specific reasons, one of which is an intention to sell:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html

Please note that they must adhere to standards around the written notice, notice period and then actually sell the place.

In terms of your rent, check if you’re currently located in a Rent Pressure Zone:

https://www.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones

If that’s the case, your landlord can only increase the rent by a limited amount.

Just to be clear: any cute whoreism around this stuff can be taken by you as a case to the Rental Tenancies Board. Keep a copy of all correspondence and if your Landlord acts in bad fate, open a dispute (there are no costs involved).

Good luck.

moocows

Thanks LuckyLloyd - cute whoreism is what I expect is going on! 
Good points & thank you for those links. It is indeed a pressure zone and this further increase is the second time in 1.5 years that he has raised it substantially - 40% by cute whoreism tactics.
Where we are caught is that the rent is still just under the going rate in the city so if we refuse to pay it and are out on our ear due to a 'sale', we lose out more in pocket. 
Cheaper to negotiate a deal with him unfortunately.

LuckyLloyd

moocows wrote: »

Thanks LuckyLloyd - cute whoreism is what I expect is going on! 
Good points & thank you for those links. It is indeed a pressure zone and this further increase is the second time in 1.5 years that he has raised it substantially - 40% by cute whoreism tactics.
Where we are caught is that the rent is still just under the going rate in the city so if we refuse to pay it and are out on our ear due to a 'sale', we lose out more in pocket. 
Cheaper to negotiate a deal with him unfortunately.

Understood. Bear in mind that if you negotiate a rent increase with him over the legal limit do it via email / text message if possible (though your bank statements / lease would prove it also). You have that in your back pocket against him down the line, as you could open an RTB dispute for an illegal increase at any point thereafter. Always handy to have a bit of ammunition in reserve.

davo10

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Understood. Bear in mind that if you negotiate a rent increase with him over the legal limit do it via email / text message if possible (though your bank statements / lease would prove it also). You have that in your back pocket against him down the line, as you could open an RTB dispute for an illegal increase at any point thereafter. Always handy to have a bit of ammunition in reserve.

So on the one hand you are advising the op to negotiate a rent increase above the limit allowed, and then use that to later blackmail the LL?. "Cute whorism" isn't the term I'd use, it would be "scumbagism".

LuckyLloyd

davo10 wrote: »

So on the one hand you are advising the op to negotiate a rent increase above the limit allowed, and then use that to later blackmail the LL?. "Cute whorism" isn't the term I'd use, it would be "scumbagism".

If you're going to be put in a difficult situation by a landlord unwilling to respect the current rules and threatening a sale as a means to increase the rent beyond what is allowed you should be aware of all your options. It's a two way street. Once someone starts moving outside the remit of the rules they open themselves up to the consequences of same.

Ray Palmer

davo10 wrote: »

So on the one hand you are advising the op to negotiate a rent increase above the limit allowed, and then use that to later blackmail the LL?. "Cute whorism" isn't the term I'd use, it would be "scumbagism".

I am a landlord and I would be happy if any tenant does this to any landlord. The landlord knows they can't increase the rent and is trying to pull a fast one. It is really annoying to have laws that one sticks by to have another cheat people. I don't agree with the way RPZ were introduced.
If the OP can afford it pay the rent and open a case later on. It isn't blackmail it is the consequence of the LLs actions. There is nothing scummy about it.
What is interesting to note both terms of insult I see as a very negative feature of our society, it is basically the same post colonial hang up about authority. I genuinely think I will remember this as a classic example for the rest of my life.

davo10

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I am a landlord and I would be happy if any tenant does this to any landlord. The landlord knows they can't increase the rent and is trying to pull a fast one. It is really annoying to have laws that one sticks by to have another cheat people. I don't agree with the way RPZ were introduced.
If the OP can afford it pay the rent and open a case later on. It isn't blackmail it is the consequence of the LLs actions. There is nothing scummy about it.
What is interesting to note both terms of insult I see as a very negative feature of our society, it is basically the same post colonial hang up about authority. I genuinely think I will remember this as a classic example for the rest of my life.

Op agrees to rent increase or the LL sells. Op agrees to increase, takes case to RTB, LL has to sell and op is out of there with no reference and new prospective LL sees ops name on RTB website. What's the upside for the op?

Graham

davo10 wrote: »

Op agrees to rent increase or the LL sells. Op agrees to increase, takes case to RTB, LL has to sell and op is out of there with no reference and new prospective LL sees ops name on RTB website. What's the upside for the op?

There is nothing at all to suggest there are large numbers of landlords checking prospective tenants against RTB cases.

I do recall the RTB will remove names or outcomes if requested. Something I suspect will increase if tenants keep getting threatened about unofficial RTB-name-blacklisting by shortsighted landlords.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

There is nothing at all to suggest there are large numbers of landlords checking prospective tenants against RTB cases.

I do recall the RTB will remove names or outcomes if requested. Something I suspect will increase if tenants keep getting threatened about unofficial RTB-name-blacklisting by shortsighted landlords.

I wouldn't rent to a person who took a case to the RTB, why take the risk?

Graham

davo10 wrote: »

I wouldn't rent to a person who took a case to the RTB, why take the risk?

I gathered.

Most landlords do not scour the RTB website for previous tenants names.

Personally, I find the entire idea of threatening a tenant with some sort of pseudo blacklisting for asserting their legal rights fairly appalling but maybe that's just me.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

I gathered.

Most landlords do not scour the RTB website for previous tenants names.

Personally, I find the entire idea of threatening a tenant with some sort of pseudo blacklisting for asserting their legal rights fairly appalling but maybe that's just me.

So, you are about to rent to someone when you find an RTB case for previous non payment of rent/refusal to vacate/ return of deposit even though damage done to property/ vexatious raising of dispute/ or other etc, and you would still rent to that person rather than someone else? You find that appalling, seriously?

LLs don't look for previous tenants, what would be the point of that? They look for prospective tenants before they rent to them. You know well that there are those that use the RTB system as a delaying tactic or to frustrate valid terminations, it is quick and easy to have a look on the RTB site, no "scouring" needed.

Most may not, but LL are researching their prospective tenants more before they let, there is a fairly lengthy thread on this very subject, this is what you think is "short sighted"? . Personally I think not checking the tenant out before you rent is short sighted, but maybe that's just me, oh wait, no it isn't. GGTrek posts updates on RTB cases, you don't think LL would want that type of info before they hand over the keys to their valuable property to the tenant in those cases?

Youu know that without a reference it is nigh on impossible to get another rental property, add in a name check on RTB site search and it is impossible.

__..__

I know I used to Google anyone if shortlisted and if I found anything at all I didn't like i went on to the next person. I also searched the rtb site and always asked forward previous landlords as refs as well as current. If I were doing it again now I would ask for 3 previous landlords plus current. It's all about mitigating the risk of getting a really bad tenant these days, as the consequences are massive, especially if they've shown a propensity to engage with the rtb in the past. And their previous landlords will happily tell you when you ask them if the tenant ever threatened them with the rtb. Current landlord would most likely keep that to himself though.

The_Conductor

__..__ wrote: »

I know I used to Google anyone if shortlisted and if I found anything at all I didn't like i went on to the next person. I also searched the rtb site and always asked forward previous landlords as refs as well as current. If I were doing it again now I would ask for 3 previous landlords plus current. It's all about mitigating the risk of getting a really bad tenant these days, as the consequences are massive, especially if they've shown a propensity to engage with the rtb in the past. And their previous landlords will happily tell you when you ask them if the tenant ever threatened them with the rtb. Current landlord would most likely keep that to himself though.

As a very minimum- most landlords do a Google and also check Facebook and Social Media accounts of prospective tenants. The big problem many landlords have highlighted- vis-a-vis the RTB- is either tenants or landlords can request the RTB take details of any adverse findings down from their website- so it won't be publicly searchable. Threshold have publicly praised this approach and advised how satisfied they are with the speed in which the RTB responds to such requests- I'm sure there are landlords out there who similarly are very happy to have their past misdeeds scrubbed from the RTBs database.

Personally- I think that both tenants and landlords should obey both the letter of the law- but also the intent behind the law. Part of the reason for all the amendments to the RTB- is both landlords and tenants have been acting the maggot and melding the legislation to suit particular purposes.

If the landlord wants to sell the property- let him. However, if he/she subsequently puts it back on the market, save a significant renovation having occurred, the original tenants gets first dibs on it- at the previous rent.

If the landlords finances are as stretched as is being suggested- I think he/she should sell, and lock in whatever capital gains they can- and use it to restructure their finances. Of course this doesn't suit the OP. However- if the landlord is genuine about attempting to sell it- let them- cognisant of the fact that its yours again- if, ultimately, they fail to secure a sale.

Also- the RTB have accepted that the 3 months in the legislation in unenforceable- and it has been argued at several recent cases and shown that the landlords needed greater than 3 months to sell the property (in some cases it took most of the 3 months to get the property into a fit state to sell after the tenant left). The RTB have advised they have communicated this to the Department and it is intended it will be added to the list of items to be addressed in the next amendment to the legislation. At present- while it is in the legislation, it is deemed by the RTB to be unenforceable.

lucernarian

I also understood part IV tenancy rights commence after a set duration of living there and the "resigning" of leases after a year is questionable considering statutory rights would supersede all the terms and conditions I've seen in those contracts. I mean, they can't be evicted just because they don't sign a renewal of a lease, right? And it can't be assumed that someone is leaving just because they haven't confirmed they're staying a month before the lease is up.

Varik

The_Conductor wrote: »

If the landlord wants to sell the property- let him. However, if he/she subsequently puts it back on the market, save a significant renovation having occurred, the original tenants gets first dibs on it- at the previous rent.

Not sure first dibs would help that, would probably help a LL who didn't intend to sell in the first place.

How many tenants are going to be in a position in 3 months to move out of wherever they're living to go back to their old place.

The_Conductor

lucernarian wrote: »

And it can't be assumed that someone is leaving just because they haven't confirmed they're staying a month before the lease is up.

Under legislation- unless the tenant informs the landlord of their intention to continue a tenancy past the elapse of a fixed term tenancy- at least 30 days prior to the elapse of a fixed term tenancy- if the landlord incurs any costs whatsoever related to reletting the property (advertising, agency fees etc) the tenant who is staying is liable for the costs incurred.

Its not rocket science- a tenant is entitled to stay- however, renting or letting a property is a business- and a landlord has every right to advertise property coming up to the end of tenancies- in order to minimise vacant periods.

If you intend to stay after the elapse of a fixed term tenancy- the landlord is not a mind reader- and he/she is running a business- the very least a tenant should be expected to do- is highlight the fact that they intend to remain in plenty of time...........

The_Conductor

Varik wrote: »

Not sure first dibs would help that, would probably help a LL who didn't intend to sell in the first place.

How many tenants are going to be in a position in 3 months to move out of wherever they're living to go back to their old place.

I hear you- however, there are plenty of reasons a sale might be delayed (or fall through) and a landlord is not expected to sit on vacant property. Its not an ideal situation- however, if a tenant were in the first 6 months of a new tenancy- and really wanted to go back to the old property- it is their right to do so.

brendan86

This is a slight bit off what you are all talking about but I'm a landlord also, if a prospect tenant comes to me and gives references of a previous landlord by name and phone number what use is it? It could be there friend/family member vouching for them and putting in good word. How does one prove?

Unless they give a ex estate agent I don't understand why a reference from a Tom dick or Harry is of any use?

lucernarian

The_Conductor wrote: »

Under legislation- unless the tenant informs the landlord of their intention to continue a tenancy past the elapse of a fixed term tenancy- at least 30 days prior to the elapse of a fixed term tenancy- if the landlord incurs any costs whatsoever related to reletting the property (advertising, agency fees etc) the tenant who is staying is liable for the costs incurred.

Its not rocket science- a tenant is entitled to stay- however, renting or letting a property is a business- and a landlord has every right to advertise property coming up to the end of tenancies- in order to minimise vacant periods.

If you intend to stay after the elapse of a fixed term tenancy- the landlord is not a mind reader- and he/she is running a business- the very least a tenant should be expected to do- is highlight the fact that they intend to remain in plenty of time...........

Who says all those tenancies are "fixed.term"?

Your sense of "running a business" Vs "it's my home" is pretty bizzare btw. Not saying it's wrong as such, but would be nice if I saw a post from you that was a little less defensive about landlords.

__..__

brendan86 wrote: »

This is a slight bit off what you are all talking about but I'm a landlord also, if a prospect tenant comes to me and gives references of a previous landlord by name and phone number what use is it? It could be there friend/family member vouching for them and putting in good word. How does one prove?

Unless they give a ex estate agent I don't understand why a reference from a Tom dick or Harry is of any use?

You get a sense of these things. And get good at it. It's not 100% though.
It's one reason you get 3 refs plus current. More change of tripping at least one of them up by asking certain questions.
Of course easiest option by far as I am doing is to remove your properties from the long term market altogether.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

I gathered.

Most landlords do not scour the RTB website for previous tenants names.

Personally, I find the entire idea of threatening a tenant with some sort of pseudo blacklisting for asserting their legal rights fairly appalling but maybe that's just me.

Any LL who is running their business properly is scouting the RTB and google to check any potential tenant. Why on earth wouldn't you use any tool you can in your attempts to get the best tenant you can for the property.

The_Conductor wrote: »

Also- the RTB have accepted that the 3 months in the legislation in unenforceable- and it has been argued at several recent cases and shown that the landlords needed greater than 3 months to sell the property (in some cases it took most of the 3 months to get the property into a fit state to sell after the tenant left). The RTB have advised they have communicated this to the Department and it is intended it will be added to the list of items to be addressed in the next amendment to the legislation. At present- while it is in the legislation, it is deemed by the RTB to be unenforceable.

Thanks for highlighting this, it's just as I expected.