Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Landlord notice

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    wonski wrote: »
    Somehow I understood what the op meant.

    None of us have such a power, obviously.

    Yes, but no one else purported to have such power.


  • Options
    #33
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    SteM wrote: »
    Why should one effect the other? The landlord should only keep the deposit if there is a good reason to do so. Acting like a prick isn't a reason for a landlord to withhold the deposit ffs.

    The tenant is only entitled to the return of the deposit if he doesn't break the conditions of the lease. Not giving enough notice is a breach of the lease.


  • Options
    #34
    wonski
    Registered Users Posts: 13,685 ✭✭✭✭wonski


    SteM wrote: »
    Why should one effect the other? The landlord should only keep the deposit if there is a good reason to do so. Acting like a prick isn't a reason for a landlord to withhold the deposit ffs.

    I think you should read the post I was responding to first.

    Moving out when it suits just because you no longer need references and when it suits you is exactly that.

    Normal people do talk to the landlord first and find a solution rather than just move out.

    Moving out before your notice is up and not paying a month or two rent could lead to deposit being held by the landlord. No?


  • Options
    #35
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    You said you would set the notice period at 3 months. This implies that you had some sort of power to do so. It now turns out that you don't have any such power.

    No I never meant to imply that and thought it was obvious that what I meant is that in an ideal world this is what I would do.

    Anyway now it’s clear, but did it really come out to you as me claiming have have the power to change the legal notice period??? Would be a pretty bold claim!


  • Options
    #36
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Bob24 wrote: »
    No I never meant to imply that and thought it was obvious that what I meant is that in an ideal world this is what I would do.

    did it really come out to you as me claiming have have the power to change the legal notice period??? Would be a pretty bold claim!

    Yes it did. I was wondering if you are some kind of dictator.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    I would actually like the 3 month rule. I think the legislation is too complicated now and if it was 3months no matter how long or short you were there would be fair. Generally speaking as a ll I’m fairly open to even a months notice for good tenants and especially bad tenants( the quicker their out the better). For 1 tenant I had, they lived there for about 10 years without an ounce of trouble, they gave me 2 weeks notice and I gave them the benefit of the doubt because of the situation and how decent they were as human beings


  • Options
    #38
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Fol20 wrote: »
    I think the legislation is too complicated now and if it was 3months no matter how long or short you were there would be fair.

    Yeah that’s one of my reason for thinking it would be better to change it: make it simpler so that everyone is treated in the same way and is clear about their entitlements and duties, and pick a middle ground which will give a bit more protection to fresh tenants, a bit less to long term ones, while being reasonable for landlords and giving them consistency in the way they approach tenancy terminations.

    This thread probably wouln’t even exist as if there was only one notice duration every tenant and landlord would most likely just know how long it is and not have to look it up.


  • Options
    #39
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Yeah that’s one of my reason for thinking it would be better: make it simpler so that everyone is treated in the same way and is clear about their entitlements and duties, and pick a middle ground which will give a bit more protection to fresh tenants, a bit less to long term ones, while being reasonable for landlords and giving them consistency in the way they approach tenancy terminations.

    This thread probably wouln’t even exist as if there was only one notice duration every tenant and landlord would most likely just know how long it is and not have to look it up.

    The reality is that the landlord can do nothing if the tenant doesn't give the proper notice, whereas the tenant can screw the landlord around if the landlord does not give the proper notice. The tenant can walk out months early, the landlord is expected to mitigate his loss by letting the place immediately so he cannot get any compensation from the tenant as a result.


  • Options
    #40
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    The reality is that the landlord can do nothing if the tenant doesn't give the proper notice, whereas the tenant can screw the landlord around if the landlord does not give the proper notice. The tenant can walk out months early, the landlord is expected to mitigate his loss by letting the place immediately so he cannot get any compensation from the tenant as a result.

    I’d said that firstly many tenants are not ar**oles who have no interest in the law, and because some are doesn’t mean what the law says is irrelevant and is not open for change.

    And secondly while I agree they have limited options I would dispute the statement that landlords can do *nothing* if no proper notice is served. They have a deposit they can retain, and obviously if the ex-tenant requires a reference they are not going to get one.


  • Options
    #41
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Bob24 wrote: »
    I’d said that firstly many tenants are not ar**oles who have no interest in the law, and because some are doesn’t mean what the law says is irrelevant and is not open for change.

    And secondly while I agree they have limited options I would dispute the statement that landlords can do *nothing* if no proper notice is served. They have a deposit they can retain, and obviously if the ex-tenant requires a reference they are not going to get one.

    References are no big deal. The deposit is soon gone, particularly if the tenant doesn't pay near the end. Once a tenant moves out the property has to be cleaned and refreshed and ready for a new tenant the void. It will invariably be more than the value of the deposit. The RTB does not compensate for void periods.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    Bob24 wrote: »
    I’d said that firstly many tenants are not ar**oles who have no interest in the law, and because some are doesn’t mean what the law says is irrelevant and is not open for change.

    And secondly while I agree they have limited options I would dispute the statement that landlords can do *nothing* if no proper notice is served. They have a deposit they can retain, and obviously if the ex-tenant requires a reference they are not going to get one.

    Normally if they are moving, they are at a stage where they don’t need a reference plus ll references mean nothing. Some ll might give a good reference to get rid of a tenant while other might use a fake reference. All I take now is a job reference.


Advertisement