Fixed 1 yr/Joint Tenancy

l5auim2pjnt8qx

Hi,

I have 3 tenants on a fixed 1 yr which ends at the end of March.Tenants
contacted me 2 months ago to get an extension for another year which I said I wasn't sure because myself and partner wanted to move back in.

We eventually made up our mind to offer another 6 months ,I put it to the 3 tenants last month and they all agreed by email of the proposal.Then last week one of the tenants contacted me last week to say they wouldn't be staying on ,and they would be going at the end of Fixed Contract which was abit of a shock giving the notice was only 2.5weeks.

The tenant also informed me that because they would be leaving at the end of lease date they are not obliged to replace there tenancy or incur any costs
of advertising for a replacement, this was all legal sought advice so they claimed.

Is the tenant correct ? or giving that Part IV tenancy kicks in after 6 months which overrides any contract over 6 months and that tenant needs to give me a letter in writing and 42 days notice .The other 2 tenants are quite annoyed that they have to pay the full amount with the rollover from the fixed term next month .

"Any advice would be welcomed".

GGTrek

It is just not clear if it is just one tenant that is leaving or all of them. The tenants on part 4 even if the fixed term is expiring have to respect the notice periods of Section 66 (35 days not 42, what matters is when you receive the notice, not when it expires) however in your case it does not make any sense to chase this tenant if the other two will not vacate the property since they will be jointly responsible for the tenancy so you have no loss.

If the property is being vacated by all the occupants, they are right that they are not obliged to replace their tenancy since their fixed term has expired, however you can deduct the rent time it will take you to relet the property up to the 17-18 days missing to reach the 35 days (this does not include advertising costs since their fixed term has expired). You will have to be careful that you need to show reasonable effort to relet the property as soon as possible and if this period is shorter than 17-18 days then you can only discount rent time up to the new tenancy start.

I doubt an email would be considered proof that the tenants have accepted another 6 months fixed term. You would need a signed lease to prove such fact.

I suggest you to read this:
https://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/terminating-a-fixed-term-tenancy

In this current climate I accept short notices up to just 10-12 days from tenants (very quick to replace any tenant in Dublin), but the law allows you to pursue damages in the second case.

l5auim2pjnt8qx

Thanks GGTrek :

It's the 1 tenant out of 3 leaving.
I really needed clarification in relation between the end of fixed term contract and there responsibility of the Part 4 tenancy and the duration time of 35 days.

The reason I am so peeved off with the tenant leaving is that they have done nothing in trying to replace themselves and tenant told me I was legally obliged to look for tenant and they weren't .

I have placed advert on daft shortly after the short notice of tenant and have
had little replies, and the market rate in fact its higher end than most in the area and cheaper.


I have also contacted the other 2 remaining tenants ,explaining they are
responsible for the full price of joint contract and as you can imagine has gone like like a lead balloon, leading to no contact from 1 tenant and the other tenant asking for a rent reduction. Dublin Really!

I have contacted tenant and related information to the Park 4 tenancy, and basically they need to pull there finger of there backside before the the next
rent day.

Again thank you for your response.

4ensic15

Notice from a tenant is not needed when a fixed term expires, on the contrary, the tenant is supposed to give you notice they intend to remain on. The notice period for a part 4 after 6 months is for the tenants benefit, not yours.

The 1 tenant leaving remains jointly and severally liable for the rent unless all of the others leave. His notice alone doesn't absolve him.

l5auim2pjnt8qx

My belief was that Park 4 tenancy supersedes any lease/contract after 6 months The Act was brought in to benefit Tenant and Landlord
and as GGTrek pointed out to me after the confusion of 35 not 42days made sense.

The tenant automatically becomes Part 4 tenant overriding fixed term after 6 months and are required by Law under the Act to
give proper Notification.

Under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, a tenant can request permission to assign or sublet a tenancy. If your landlord refuses, you may terminate the tenancy even if you have a fixed term lease. (See Getting Someone to Replace You).


Where you wish to end your tenancy you must give notice of termination in writing. (Email, text or verbal notice is not valid under the law). The amount of notice you are required to give depends on how long you have been in your tenancy. The normal notice periods that are applicable from 4th December 2015 are:

Duration of Tenancy Notice Period
Under 6 months 28 days
Over 6 months but under 1 year 35 days
Over 1 year but under 2 years 42 days
Over 2 years but under 3 years 56 days
Over 3 years but under 4 years 56 days
Over 4 years but under 5 years 84 days
Over 5 years but under 6 years 84 days
Over 6 years but under 7 years 84 days
Over 7 years but under 8 years 84 days
8 or more years 112 days


I'm not sure on your 2nd point and that 1 Tenant remains liable (Not HE by the way) but none the less would you have any Legal
Facts to back it up.

Thanks by the way I just need to get this right as information is quite obscure even after reading all the information at hand.

4ensic15

There is a provision in the act to the effect that a tenant doesn't have to give notice when a fixed term expires. there is a presumption that the tenant will leave, that is why there is a requirement that the tenant informs the landlord if the intend to stay on past the fixed term.
The problem for the landlord is that once a fixed term has started he has to give notice even if the tenants have not informed him they are staying on.

Michael D Not Higgins

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is a provision in the act to the effect that a tenant doesn't have to give notice when a fixed term expires. there is a presumption that the tenant will leave, that is why there is a requirement that the tenant informs the landlord if the intend to stay on past the fixed term.
The problem for the landlord is that once a fixed term has started he has to give notice even if the tenants have not informed him they are staying on.

That's not correct, the RTA requires a tenant to give notice to terminate a tenancy.

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That's not correct, the RTA requires a tenant to give notice to terminate a tenancy.

No there isn't. What is the purpose of Section 195 in that case?

l5auim2pjnt8qx

4ensic15 wrote: »

No there isn't. What is the purpose of Section 195 in that case?

I've just read Section 195 ,

It refers to a a tenants notification period to stay on ,

" Must contact the Landlord no later than 1 month before expiry date
of contract and no sooner than 3 months".

In this case the tenant the tenant gave notice to leave 2.5 weeks before
expiry date of yearly contract plus also gave email confirmation to stay on several weeks before.

Why would all the housing bodies post "Tenants Notification duration" (as seen above in my earlier post,.......Presumably most new tenancies sign a 1 yearly
contract, WHy make the duration period after 6 months ? it doesn't make sense.

If someone can post a section of "The Act" stating part 4 doesn't apply to a Fixed Lease, if it exists.

4ensic15

Rayan Raspy Penalty wrote: »

I've just read Section 195 ,

It refers to a a tenants notification period to stay on ,

" Must contact the Landlord no later than 1 month before expiry date
of contract and no sooner than 3 months".

In this case the tenant the tenant gave notice to leave 2.5 weeks before
expiry date of yearly contract plus also gave email confirmation to stay on several weeks before.

Why would all the housing bodies post "Tenants Notification duration" (as seen above in my earlier post,.......Presumably most new tenancies sign a 1 yearly
contract, WHy make the duration period after 6 months ? it doesn't make sense.

If someone can post a section of "The Act" stating part 4 doesn't apply to a Fixed Lease, if it exists.

Why is that section there at all if the tenant must notify the landlord he is staying on?

If the tenant had to give notice he would do so, in many cases, before the 1 month time in which he says he is staying on. The landlord is entitled to presume the tenant is leaving if no notice of intention to stay on is received 1 month before the end of the fixed term.
Section 73 deals with multiple tenants. the notice given by one is not valid.

73.—(1) Subsection (2) applies where a notice of termination is being served in respect of a dwelling by all of the multiple tenants of the dwelling.

(2) Where this subsection applies, it suffices, for the purposes of section 62(1)(b), that the notice of termination is signed by one of the multiple tenants if—

(a) the notice states it is signed by that person on behalf of himself or herself and the other tenant or tenants, and

(b) the other tenant or each other tenant is named in the notice.

(3) Any rule of law that a notice of termination served by any of 2 or more multiple tenants under a periodic tenancy of a dwelling without the concurrence of the other or others, or without the knowledge of the other or others, is effective to terminate that tenancy is abolished.

(4) In this section “multiple tenants” has the same meaning as it has in Chapter 6 of Part 4.

l5auim2pjnt8qx

4ensic15 wrote: »

Why is that section there at all if the tenant must notify the landlord he is staying on?

If the tenant had to give notice he would do so, in many cases, before the 1 month time in which he says he is staying on. The landlord is entitled to presume the tenant is leaving if no notice of intention to stay on is received 1 month before the end of the fixed term.
Section 73 deals with multiple tenants. the notice given by one is not valid.

73.—(1) Subsection (2) applies where a notice of termination is being served in respect of a dwelling by all of the multiple tenants of the dwelling.

(2) Where this subsection applies, it suffices, for the purposes of section 62(1)(b), that the notice of termination is signed by one of the multiple tenants if—

(a) the notice states it is signed by that person on behalf of himself or herself and the other tenant or tenants, and

(b) the other tenant or each other tenant is named in the notice.

(3) Any rule of law that a notice of termination served by any of 2 or more multiple tenants under a periodic tenancy of a dwelling without the concurrence of the other or others, or without the knowledge of the other or others, is effective to terminate that tenancy is abolished.

(4) In this section “multiple tenants” has the same meaning as it has in Chapter 6 of Part 4.

Posting Sections of the Act above is not really answering the question, what
above is telling me the tenant ( not he again LOL) can't terminate alone a
Joint Tenancy.

In this case the tenant is leaving at end of Fixed term .
My question a) During Part V even if the termination notice period is invalid
, and it makes it legal to not give notice and leave at the end of Fixed Term 1 year which is also part 4 tenancy. ( Still not making sense) while housing bodies are posting notice periods of tenants to Landlord.

Is it possible to get a definitive answer :

4ensic15

Rayan Raspy Penalty wrote: »

Posting Sections of the Act above is not really answering the question, what
above is telling me the tenant ( not he again LOL) can't terminate alone a
Joint Tenancy.

In this case the tenant is leaving at end of Fixed term .
My question a) During Part V even if the termination notice period is invalid
, and it makes it legal to not give notice and leave at the end of Fixed Term 1 year which is also part 4 tenancy. ( Still not making sense) while housing bodies are posting notice periods of tenants to Landlord.

Is it possible to get a definitive answer :

the tenant is not leaving at the end of a fixed term. One of a number of multiple tenants is moving out, but hasn't terminated the tenancy.
The remaining tenants may be made liable and also the departed tenant can be pursued.

This case deals with One moving out, one staying in
https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports/tr0716-001857-dr0316-25093-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0

GGTrek

OP, I told you in my first reply that if the other two tenants had a joint tenancy with the one that is leaving (i.e. a single joint lease for the whole property, not three separate leases renting rooms), then you have nothing to worry about and you are wasting time chasing this tenant leaving. You do not have to return any deposit to him, the other tenants have to make a deal with him. You have an obligation to return deposit only when they all vacate. The link that 4ensic15 provided in his last post is conclusive proof that the law is interpreted this way.
Just tell the other two tenants that they will have to pay the whole rent. If you want to be nice you can allow them to get a licensee to help them pay the rent.

Michael D Not Higgins

4ensic15 wrote: »

No there isn't. What is the purpose of Section 195 in that case?

What's the purpose of the whole of Part 5? Requirements are given for notice of termination on both landlords and tenants.

OP, the other discussion is correct for your purposes. The remaining tenants are still obligated by the tenancy to the full rent.

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

What's the purpose of the whole of Part 5? Requirements are given for notice of termination on both landlords and tenants.

OP, the other discussion is correct for your purposes. The remaining tenants are still obligated by the tenancy to the full rent.

tHE PURPOSE OF PART 5 IS
Purpose of Part.

57.—The purpose of this Part is to specify the requirements for a valid termination by the landlord or tenant of a tenancy of a dwelling, whether the dwelling is—

(a) one to which this Act applies but to which Part 4 does not apply (by reason of the operation of section 25), or

(b) one to which both this Act and that Part applies (in which case those requirements are in addition to the requirements of that Part with regard to the termination of a Part 4 tenancy or a further Part 4 tenancy).



An Act must be read as a whole. There is a presumption against surplusage when interpreting a statute. Section 195 would not be necessary if a tenant had to give notice to prevent a fixed term lease rolling over.

Michael D Not Higgins

4ensic15 wrote: »

tHE PURPOSE OF PART 5 IS
Purpose of Part.

57.—The purpose of this Part is to specify the requirements for a valid termination by the landlord or tenant of a tenancy of a dwelling, whether the dwelling is—

(a) one to which this Act applies but to which Part 4 does not apply (by reason of the operation of section 25), or

(b) one to which both this Act and that Part applies (in which case those requirements are in addition to the requirements of that Part with regard to the termination of a Part 4 tenancy or a further Part 4 tenancy).



An Act must be read as a whole. There is a presumption against surplusage when interpreting a statute. Section 195 would not be necessary if a tenant had to give notice to prevent a fixed term lease rolling over.

Section 195 is only to protect landlords from a loss for advertising, etc. at the end of a fixed term. The bit you've quoted clearly states Part 5 is applicable to Part 4 tenancies.

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Section 195 is only to protect landlords from a loss for advertising, etc. at the end of a fixed term. The bit you've quoted clearly states Part 5 is applicable to Part 4 tenancies.

The point I am making is that there would be no need to protect the landlord if the tenant had to give notice. If the tenant upped and left at the expiry of the fixed term the landlord could pursue the tenant for rent in lieu of notice.
Section 195 is clearly premised on a presumption that tenants will leave without notice after a fixed term.

Michael D Not Higgins

4ensic15 wrote: »

The point I am making is that there would be no need to protect the landlord if the tenant had to give notice. If the tenant upped and left at the expiry of the fixed term the landlord could pursue the tenant for rent in lieu of notice.
Section 195 is clearly premised on a presumption that tenants will leave without notice after a fixed term.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports-2013/tr0113-00000192-(0712-01861)-report.pdf

This is the closest I can get to a relevant case, since no case will revolve around the tenant not giving notice to stay and notice of termination in the same instance.

In this case, the tenant was in breach of not notifying under 195. They didn't give notice of termination either but it was found that they "effectively agreed to the termination of the tenancy". Now that termination is obviously from the landlord's side but it shows both the notice of termination and the notice to stay being in effect at the same time.

l5auim2pjnt8qx

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports-2013/tr0113-00000192-(0712-01861)-report.pdf

This is the closest I can get to a relevant case, since no case will revolve around the tenant not giving notice to stay and notice of termination in the same instance.

In this case, the tenant was in breach of not notifying under 195. They didn't give notice of termination either but it was found that they "effectively agreed to the termination of the tenancy". Now that termination is obviously from the landlord's side but it shows both the notice of termination and the notice to stay being in effect at the same time.

The Notice of Termination was deemed invalid because the Landlord didn't give
tenant reason for termination.

Please see :On the 30th of August, 2011 the Appellant Tenant received a letter of termination from the
Respondent Landlord. No grounds for termination were given and no action was taken on
foot of the letter.

RTB are clamping down big time on Invalid Notices from Landlords and have
sample notices on the website to download,
Another thing is to get letter signed from Solicitor or Commissioner of Oath.

Slightly off topic : The Landlord had no chance due to unprofessional approach.

Michael D Not Higgins

Rayan Raspy Penalty wrote: »

The Notice of Termination was deemed invalid because the Landlord didn't give
tenant reason for termination.

Please see :On the 30th of August, 2011 the Appellant Tenant received a letter of termination from the
Respondent Landlord. No grounds for termination were given and no action was taken on
foot of the letter.

RTB are clamping down big time on Invalid Notices from Landlords and have
sample notices on the website to download,
Another thing is to get letter signed from Solicitor or Commissioner of Oath.

Slightly off topic : The Landlord had no chance due to unprofessional approach.

The validity of the notice is not what I'm getting at. If section 195 somehow sidestepped any requirement to issue notice of termination since there's an implied end of the fixed term, the validity of the notice wouldn't be in question.

l5auim2pjnt8qx

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The validity of the notice is not what I'm getting at. If section 195 somehow sidestepped any requirement to issue notice of termination since there's an implied end of the fixed term, the validity of the notice wouldn't be in question.

Yes I don't get there is a presumption that the tenant will leave after fixed term in this case,
and it's only there to protect a tenant when the The Act Section 195 clearly
states : .........

(2) The tenant of a relevant dwelling, if he or she intends to remain (on whatever basis, if any, that is open to him or her to do so) in occupation of the dwelling after the expiry of the period of the tenancy concerned, shall notify the landlord of that intention

(3) That notification shall not be made to the landlord—

(a) any later than 1 month before, nor

(b) any sooner than 3 months before,

I think in the case your are talking about the tenant accepted Invalid termination and then not needing to terminate fixed term you are getting at?.

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The validity of the notice is not what I'm getting at. If section 195 somehow sidestepped any requirement to issue notice of termination since there's an implied end of the fixed term, the validity of the notice wouldn't be in question.

Section 195 relieves the tenant of the requirement to servae a notice of termination. The landlord hadn't followed the procedure to terminate the tenancy, the tenant hadn't given a notice of termination so the presumption that the tenant intended to stay on was inferred. This is clear from the fact that damages were awarded for failure to give the Section 195 notice and were offset by damages against the landlord for unlawful termination. The fact that the tenant had agreed to go was a mitigating factor only.
Section 195 clearly presumes that the tenant will leave on the expiry of the fixed term. That is why damages were awarded against a tenant who had stayed on in breach of the requirement to give notice.The landlord was entitled to assume the tenant would leave despite the fact no notice of termination was served by the tenant in what was a part 4 tenancy.

l5auim2pjnt8qx

4ensic15 wrote: »

Section 195 relieves the tenant of the requirement to servae a notice of termination. The landlord hadn't followed the procedure to terminate the tenancy, the tenant hadn't given a notice of termination so the presumption that the tenant intended to stay on was inferred. This is clear from the fact that damages were awarded for failure to give the Section 195 notice and were offset by damages against the landlord for unlawful termination. The fact that the tenant had agreed to go was a mitigating factor only.
Section 195 clearly presumes that the tenant will leave on the expiry of the fixed term. That is why damages were awarded against a tenant who had stayed on in breach of the requirement to give notice.The landlord was entitled to assume the tenant would leave despite the fact no notice of termination was served by the tenant in what was a part 4 tenancy.

The problem I have and others is this word "PRESUMPTION : the Act that is written in facts and not presumptions,Law is Fact, presumption is not.
If a Judge is taken a presumption from "An Act" then he/she is not doing there job correctly the turn of phrase is "The Letter of the Law". This is generalisation of all cases and to stop Housing Bodies using this turn of Phrase.

A judge is suppose to have a UnBias Opinion, if he/she makes a presumption
of a tenant staying the they are being bias against the Landlord give duration
period is fact for a tenant in the Act.

The 2004 Residential Act is clearly flawed and outdated and needs to be updated and amended.

4ensic15

Rayan Raspy Penalty wrote: »

The problem I have and others is this word "PRESUMPTION : the Act that is written in facts and not presumptions,Law is Fact, presumption is not.
If a Judge is taken a presumption from "An Act" then he/she is not doing there job correctly the turn of phrase is "The Letter of the Law". This is generalisation of all cases and to stop Housing Bodies using this turn of Phrase.

A judge is suppose to have a UnBias Opinion, if he/she makes a presumption
of a tenant staying the they are being bias against the Landlord give duration
period is fact for a tenant in the Act.

The 2004 is clearly flawed and outdated and needs to be updated and amended.

The judge has to construe the act. Construction of statutes is done by way of recognised principles of statutory interpretation. One important one is that "the act is always speaking" which means there is a presumption against redundant words or phrases. Another is that in the case of ambiguity the judge is supposed to construe the act according to the supposed intention of the Oireachtas. Furthermore, acts are supposed to be read harmoniously so where there is a contradiction it has to be resolved so as to give effect to the presumed intention of the Oireachtas. Applying these principles it is obvious that section 195 must be based on the presumption that the tenant will simply leave at the end of the fixed term without giving notice. Why would it be there otherwise? Once a tenant signed a lease they would have to give notice of termination before it ends and the landlord would not be taken by surprise.

l5auim2pjnt8qx

4ensic15 wrote: »

The judge has to construe the act. Construction of statutes is done by way of recognised principles of statutory interpretation. One important one is that "the act is always speaking" which means there is a presumption against redundant words or phrases. Another is that in the case of ambiguity the judge is supposed to construe the act according to the supposed intention of the Oireachtas. Furthermore, acts are supposed to be read harmoniously so where there is a contradiction it has to be resolved so as to give effect to the presumed intention of the Oireachtas. Applying these principles it is obvious that section 195 must be based on the presumption that the tenant will simply leave at the end of the fixed term without giving notice. Why would it be there otherwise? Once a tenant signed a lease they would have to give notice of termination before it ends and the landlord would not be taken by surprise.

If a Contraction exists within The Act under a Section, this shows the particular
section Flawed and if the judge cannot formulate an answer from the Act they fall back on the "Intention of the Oireachatas" and make an Unlawful decision on there own judgement.( Bascially I don't have a answer so I just fall back on
a judgement from another Judge who could not give an answer either , and so it goes on and on and on....Bluffing -Merry -go -round....As I said earlier Act needs to be amended.

Reasons Landlords do not have any faith in the Housing Bodies with more and more red tape coming on stream ,and Presumptions made by behalf of the Oireachatas.

Michael D Not Higgins

4ensic15 wrote: »

The judge has to construe the act. Construction of statutes is done by way of recognised principles of statutory interpretation. One important one is that "the act is always speaking" which means there is a presumption against redundant words or phrases. Another is that in the case of ambiguity the judge is supposed to construe the act according to the supposed intention of the Oireachtas. Furthermore, acts are supposed to be read harmoniously so where there is a contradiction it has to be resolved so as to give effect to the presumed intention of the Oireachtas. Applying these principles it is obvious that section 195 must be based on the presumption that the tenant will simply leave at the end of the fixed term without giving notice. Why would it be there otherwise? Once a tenant signed a lease they would have to give notice of termination before it ends and the landlord would not be taken by surprise.

If 195 means a tenant doesn't need to issue notice since a lack of notice under 195 means a presumption of leaving at the end of the fixed term that also means the landlord is under a presumption of not having to give notice.

I can make the same argument you can and it's just as silly.

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

If 195 means a tenant doesn't need to issue notice since a lack of notice under 195 means a presumption of leaving at the end of the fixed term that also means the landlord is under a presumption of not having to give notice.

I can make the same argument you can and it's just as silly.

I am not making up an argument. The landlord is entitled to presume a tenant will leave unless he receives a notice of intention to continue. There is no need for him to issue a notice. He can't issue a notice anyway during the currency of a fixed term. If the tenant doesn't leave and the landlord has not been given notice of intention to continue the landlord is entitled to compensation for his losses.

Michael D Not Higgins

4ensic15 wrote: »

I am not making up an argument. The landlord is entitled to presume a tenant will leave unless he receives a notice of intention to continue. There is no need for him to issue a notice. He can't issue a notice anyway during the currency of a fixed term. If the tenant doesn't leave and the landlord has not been given notice of intention to continue the landlord is entitled to compensation for his losses.

See, you read it as "it's there and thus can't contradict another section", I read it as "some civil servants didn't fully think the whole thing through".

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

See, you read it as "it's there and thus can't contradict another section", I read it as "some civil servants didn't fully think the whole thing through".

It is obvious some civil servants didn't think the whole thing through. Whatever happened the legislation is what it is. It has to be construed by the accepted canons of statutory interpretation. If there is a contradiction it has to be resolved. A section can't exist for no reason so where there is a conflict the interpretation which renders a section redundant has to be avoided.

Michael D Not Higgins

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is obvious some civil servants didn't think the whole thing through. Whatever happened the legislation is what it is. It has to be construed by the accepted canons of statutory interpretation. If there is a contradiction it has to be resolved. A section can't exist for no reason so where there is a conflict the interpretation which renders a section redundant has to be avoided.

I didn't infer that it was redundant, just that it doesn't render the requirement for notice of termination by the tenant redundant in the case of a fixed term ending. I don't expect it to be resolved as it's unlikely to ever cause enough of an issue for it to require resolving.

I'll give an example of what I'm talking about:

Tenant doesn't give notice of termination or notice to stay but leaves at the end of the fixed term.

The landlord won't have any losses under Section 195. The landlord may incur losses due to a period of vacancy but this should be mitigated by renting as soon as they can again. They also have the deposit to cover such losses.

Result: Unlikely to go to RTB, especially during the housing and rental crisis.

The only way I would expect that they would resolve the issue is if this situation was causing landlords to lose a lot of money and they were taking cases all the time to cover the losses. I can't see that happening, especially with a deposit to deduct from.

On the other hand, most landlords would be proactive and contact their tenant coming up to the end of a fixed term lease and ask what their intentions are. This sidesteps the whole issue and there won't be any losses or RTB cases unless there's a huge breakdown in communication that leads to a case of overholding, unpaid rent, etc.

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I didn't infer that it was redundant, just that it doesn't render the requirement for notice of termination by the tenant redundant in the case of a fixed term ending.

If the tenant had to serve a notice of termination, it would be redundant.


I'll give an example of what I'm talking about:

Tenant doesn't give notice of termination or notice to stay but leaves at the end of the fixed term.

The landlord won't have any losses under Section 195. The landlord may incur losses due to a period of vacancy but this should be mitigated by renting as soon as they can again. They also have the deposit to cover such losses.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The tenant doesn't give any notice of intention to stay or of termination. Under Section 195 the landlord can assume the tenant will leave and prepare accordingly. The tenant leaves. No losses. No case for the RTB.

In the case you referred to earlier in this thread, the tenant didn't give notice but stayed on and was made to pay the landlord for wasted outlay, which could only have arisen because the landlord assumed and was entitled to assume that the tenant would leave at the end of the fixed term.

That is the RTB interpretation and is consistent with the Act as construed in accordance with the recognised principles of statutory interpretation.