Ending Tenancy

The_Conductor

Shefwedfan wrote: »

That’s a useless offer. Tenant wants out and could stick in the first person willing to take the house, then landlord is left with trying to deal with the person who has taken over the house....person could be a nightmare but it’s the landlords issue then

It is useless- but its the law.
The law is written to safeguard the tenant at every possible juncture- and pays lipservice to protecting the landlord- but in such a manner that its impossible for a landlord to ever enforce their rights (including judgements in a landlord's favour)- against a tenant.

The system is setup to protect tenants- the OP's landlord is doing the wisest possible thing- and getting proper legal advice as to what their best course of action is.

Fol20

In terms of reassignment if a tenant gets in lets say a couple(single person only), both dont work, have known links to criminal gangs, have a talk to the ll while injecting themself with god knows what and the ll declines the reassignment. Is the current tenant entitled to their money back or do they need to wait until a decent tenant is accepted. Extreme example i know but always wondered as i have never had a dispute in relation to this.

Treviso

If the Landlord doesn't trust the tenant to get a decent replacement, then they should source the person themselves

Shefwedfan

Treviso wrote: »

If the Landlord doesn't trust the tenant to get a decent replacement, then they should source the person themselves

Yes they can.....At the end of the lease that the tenant signed....


The fact Pat offered seemed like a huge plus to the Landlord.It isn't, it is a useless offer.

Treviso

I hate linking Threshold but here is what it says about re-assigning a lease

https://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/getting-someone-to-replace-you/

As a tenant, you cannot assign or sub-let without the landlord's written consent. Furthermore you cannot assign or sub-let part of a dwelling so if a group of tenants are sharing only the whole tenancy can be assigned/sub-let. if your request to assign or sublet the whole tenancy is refused you can give the relevant notice of termination in writing.

- If you have a lease and wish to assign or sub-let the whole tenancy, write to your landlord and request permission. Use the template letter in the Useful Downloads section on this page.
- If your landlord agrees to your request, then you will have to find a new tenant or sub-tenant
- If your landlord refuses, you can terminate the tenancy by issuing a written notice of termination

Pat201

So Thought id give an update on this Thread.
I did manage to move into my new house on date i predicted. Landlord did eventually let me leave the lease but it was hardwork.
I had to send an official letter to her with official notice even though we had agreed it was okay on whatsapp, On receipt of the letter the landlord questioned the date of notification as i put down date she agreed to on whatsapp.

Anyway i think her plan was to be very difficult but i informed her that as rest of people on lease had been there for less time that there notice was a lot shorter and if she wanted to be hard with it they could leave much earlier than 84 days notice i was giving.

House was tidied up and she had had 3 separate days for viewings so when we left on 12th June she would have people ready on 13th June to move in. On Final inspection it was found that one of the Ensuite sinks had a crack in it, It was high up on sink and not leaking but had to be replaced according to landlord. That was fair enough i thought as it was damaged but i did not see it until last inspection.

Landlord Has taken 700 euro from deposit for replacing sand fitting new sink.

Interestingly enough though is that landlord has rented place out for 2500 a month and we were paying 1560 a month. House is in a RPZ

Situation im in now is do i just ride off into sunset and forget about the bad relationship i had with landlord or report this person for being greedy in the current market ( the law is there is for a reason).

I kinda feel that landlord was a pain to deal with as she made 500 euro off a person leaving house without giving official notice period even though i had a person in to replace him so no money was lost in rent. I also had issue with her trying to jump rent last year and threatening to evict us if we did not accept. The 700 euro for replacing a sink seems excessive too but i do accept that it had a crack in it .


Any Advice ? Am i being petty ?

P2C

What goes around comes around. I would report her most definitely

Shefwedfan

Pat201 wrote: »

So Thought id give an update on this Thread.
I did manage to move into my new house on date i predicted. Landlord did eventually let me leave the lease but it was hardwork.
I had to send an official letter to her with official notice even though we had agreed it was okay on whatsapp, On receipt of the letter the landlord questioned the date of notification as i put down date she agreed to on whatsapp.

Anyway i think her plan was to be very difficult but i informed her that as rest of people on lease had been there for less time that there notice was a lot shorter and if she wanted to be hard with it they could leave much earlier than 84 days notice i was giving.

House was tidied up and she had had 3 separate days for viewings so when we left on 12th June she would have people ready on 13th June to move in. On Final inspection it was found that one of the Ensuite sinks had a crack in it, It was high up on sink and not leaking but had to be replaced according to landlord. That was fair enough i thought as it was damaged but i did not see it until last inspection.

Landlord Has taken 700 euro from deposit for replacing sand fitting new sink.

Interestingly enough though is that landlord has rented place out for 2500 a month and we were paying 1560 a month. House is in a RPZ

Situation im in now is do i just ride off into sunset and forget about the bad relationship i had with landlord or report this person for being greedy in the current market ( the law is there is for a reason).

I kinda feel that landlord was a pain to deal with as she made 500 euro off a person leaving house without giving official notice period even though i had a person in to replace him so no money was lost in rent. I also had issue with her trying to jump rent last year and threatening to evict us if we did not accept. The 700 euro for replacing a sink seems excessive too but i do accept that it had a crack in it .


Any Advice ? Am i being petty ?

What answers are you expecting?

A landlord who was good to you for 4 years, you broke lease but she let you move out, only charged you for something you agreed you broke....

Stop me now if I got any of above wrong?

So what exactly is your problem?

Pat201

I dont know if i would say landlord was good to us. We paid rent on time and other than occasional gas boiler check there was no need for repairs. House was spotless on leaving other than crack in sink as i said.

I followed correct way to leave lease by giving notice and offering to reassign lease, relationship turned sour a year earlier when landlord tried to jump rent to 2500. If you look back at my previous posts you will see landlord made it as difficult as possible to leave but it was within her rights as a landlord. Those same rules apply to rent increases i would say and she is well aware of all other laws with regards to renting.

My Point is should i just put this down as a lesson learned and let landlord leave ahead with 500 rent from another person( She was entitled technically to this as left without proper notice ) and 700 from me due to crack ( Seems excessive but not disputing crack).

If She is entitled to above surely she cannot just decide to forget about RPZ rules and squeeze every last penny out of next people in house . It will not affect me as i have my house now but feels like landlord would win in this case otherwise.

Mrs OBumble

P2C wrote: »

What goes around comes around. I would report her most definitely

What goes around comes around. I would not report her for just that reason.

TheChizler

Get a receipt for the sink repair. Seems like a lot.

Shefwedfan

TheChizler wrote: »

Get a receipt for the sink repair. Seems like a lot.

Hard to know if a lot, could be specific sink and plumbers ain’t cheap....saying it’s a lot but then having no rival quote is pointless

Get a quote for job and then you can confirm if expensive or not, also getting a quote from someone you wouldn’t let work on your own house is pointless....

The_Conductor

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Hard to know if a lot, could be specific sink and plumbers ain’t cheap....saying it’s a lot but then having no rival quote is pointless

Get a quote for job and then you can confirm if expensive or not, also getting a quote from someone you wouldn’t let work on your own house is pointless....

I had a plumber callout recently- the callout was billed at 200, work was at 200 per hour or part thereof, and he gave me the actual invoices for the parts (we had to replace toilet U bends etc). Simple toilet disposal plastic pipes (2) cost just shy of 500 Euro to fix/replace. If I told anyone who looked at them that they cost 500- they'd not believe it. Plumbers are not cheap.

Shefwedfan

The_Conductor wrote: »

I had a plumber callout recently- the callout was billed at 200, work was at 200 per hour or part thereof, and he gave me the actual invoices for the parts (we had to replace toilet U bends etc). Simple toilet disposal plastic pipes (2) cost just shy of 500 Euro to fix/replace. If I told anyone who looked at them that they cost 500- they'd not believe it. Plumbers are not cheap.

Exactly, a proper plumber is not cheap

Tenants go off and get a price from John who will bust the place up and leave a mess....get a proper plumber in and see how far the 700 quid goes

TheChizler

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Hard to know if a lot, could be specific sink and plumbers ain’t cheap....saying it’s a lot but then having no rival quote is pointless

Get a quote for job and then you can confirm if expensive or not, also getting a quote from someone you wouldn’t let work on your own house is pointless....

True but the main thing I'd be checking is that the invoice actually came to €700, or even existed at all!

Shefwedfan

TheChizler wrote: »

True but the main thing I'd be checking is that the invoice actually came to €700, or even existed at all!

Why would the landlord/landlady show you the invoice?



The person has moved out and already agreed to the 700 quid? if they wanted to complain they should of complained before agreeing to it

The OP thinks 700 is expensive as if they are getting ripped off, all I am saying is that if anything is left from the 700 quid it will be small and did anyone count the landlords time arranging to get the item repaired?

Shefwedfan

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Why would the landlord/landlady show you the invoice?



The person has moved out and already agreed to the 700 quid? if they wanted to complain they should of complained before agreeing to it

The OP thinks 700 is expensive as if they are getting ripped off, all I am saying is that if anything is left from the 700 quid it will be small and did anyone count the landlords time arranging to get the item repaired?

I could be wrong, but I think any deductions from deposit for repair/replacement have to be supported with receipts. Someone else might confirm/refute that.

TheChizler

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Why would the landlord/landlady show you the invoice?



The person has moved out and already agreed to the 700 quid? if they wanted to complain they should of complained before agreeing to it

The OP thinks 700 is expensive as if they are getting ripped off, all I am saying is that if anything is left from the 700 quid it will be small and did anyone count the landlords time arranging to get the item repaired?

To prove the costs they incurred? They're formally required to provide them if it gets as far a dispute.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/during-a-tenancy/wear-and-tear wrote:

Deductions may be made or a deposit may be retained in full if there has been damage above normal wear and tear to the property. However, the onus of proof will be on the landlord to justify why all of, or a portion of the security deposit, was retained to remedy damages in excess of reasonable wear and tear.

The OP only moved out last week, I don't see anything that would imply they've agreed to the costs.

Shefwedfan

TheChizler wrote: »

To prove the costs they incurred? They're formally required to provide them if it gets as far a dispute.



The OP only moved out last week, I don't see anything that would imply they've agreed to the costs.

From the OP


,

It was high up on sink and not leaking but had to be replaced according to landlord. That was fair enough i thought as it was damaged but i did not see it until last inspection.

So they agreed, money is removed but now they have an issue with it?

They broke the tenancy agreement, not the landlord. If they had an issue why not say it then?

To me just sounds like someone who is bitter in life. They have moved into a nice new house, supposed to be one of the biggest moments in your life....last thing on my mind would be what the landlord is renting my previous property for.....

TheChizler

Shefwedfan wrote: »

From the OP


,


So they agreed, money is removed but now they have an issue with it?

They broke the tenancy agreement, not the landlord. If they had an issue why not say it then?

Nothing there says they agreed to the €700 deduction. Thought it was fair enough to replace the sink during inspection yes, but it sounds like the landlord has only recently informed them how much. Either way the onus is still on the landlord to prove costs.

Browney7

Shefwedfan wrote: »

From the OP


,


So they agreed, money is removed but now they have an issue with it?

They broke the tenancy agreement, not the landlord. If they had an issue why not say it then?

To me just sounds like someone who is bitter in life. They have moved into a nice new house, supposed to be one of the biggest moments in your life....last thing on my mind would be what the landlord is renting my previous property for.....

I imagine the "bitterness" stems from the LL saying it's 700 quid damage to the sink (not sure if wear and tear comes into it anywhere as it's likely the sink predates the OP but that's beside the point) and deducting the 700 from the deposit to cover damage and yet then turning around and flouting RPZ legislation and hiking the rent by 800 which after one month pays for the sink damage. Or maybe replacing a sink constitutes significant refurbishment....

OP, ask for the supporting documentation on the cost of the sink - she may not have even repaired it - and see what you get back.

Thoie

Pat201 wrote: »

I kinda feel that landlord was a pain to deal with as she made 500 euro off a person leaving house without giving official notice period even though i had a person in to replace him so no money was lost in rent. I also had issue with her trying to jump rent last year and threatening to evict us if we did not accept. The 700 euro for replacing a sink seems excessive too but i do accept that it had a crack in it .


Any Advice ? Am i being petty ?

Congrats on your new home - hope you'll be very happy there. Moving into a new house is stressful. At this stage, you're out of the tenancy, you don't need to have any more dealings with your former landlord. Just let it go. Save your energy for getting the builders to fix the niggles you'll find in your new place.

Shefwedfan

Browney7 wrote: »

I imagine the "bitterness" stems from the LL saying it's 700 quid damage to the sink (not sure if wear and tear comes into it anywhere as it's likely the sink predates the OP but that's beside the point) and deducting the 700 from the deposit to cover damage and yet then turning around and flouting RPZ legislation and hiking the rent by 800 which after one month pays for the sink damage. Or maybe replacing a sink constitutes significant refurbishment....

OP, ask for the supporting documentation on the cost of the sink - she may not have even repaired it - and see what you get back.

The sink was broken,if it was picked up now it would have been picked up 4 years ago when they moved in.



I still dont understand what the new rent has got to do with the OP?



Does the OP know how much of a mortgage the landlord is paying? maybe he/she has been taking a hit for the last few years like a lot of landlord and now can cover off the mortgage?

Graham

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Does the OP know how much of a mortgage the landlord is paying? maybe he/she has been taking a hit for the last few years like a lot of landlord and now can cover off the mortgage?

There is no exemption in the RPZ legislation relating to mortgages.

TheChizler

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I still dont understand what the new rent has got to do with the OP?



Does the OP know how much of a mortgage the landlord is paying? maybe he/she has been taking a hit for the last few years like a lot of landlord and now can cover off the mortgage?

Nothing illegal or wrong about topping up a mortgage if rent doesn't cover the full portion. It's the norm in many countries. You still are paying towards an asset you own at the end of the day.

Plenty wrong with breaking the RTA and increasing rent above what is allowed by law. Lawbreaking is everyone's business IMO.

dennyk

OP can't file a complaint with the RTB about their former landlord's new rent in any case because they are not the tenant and have no standing.

OP, you can contact the new tenant if you want and let them know what rent you were paying previously. It'd be up to them whether they want to file a complaint or not, though; sometimes folks won't because they are afraid of retribution from the landlord or losing their place entirely.

Subutai

dennyk wrote: »

OP can't file a complaint with the RTB about their former landlord's new rent in any case because they are not the tenant and have no standing.

OP, you can contact the new tenant if you want and let them know what rent you were paying previously. It'd be up to them whether they want to file a complaint or not, though; sometimes folks won't because they are afraid of retribution from the landlord or losing their place entirely.

OP will be able to file a complaint with he RTB next month when they begin to accept complaints in respect of the investigatory capacity given to them under the 2019 Act.

Shefwedfan

TheChizler wrote: »

Nothing illegal or wrong about topping up a mortgage if rent doesn't cover the full portion. It's the norm in many countries. You still are paying towards an asset you own at the end of the day.

Plenty wrong with breaking the RTA and increasing rent above what is allowed by law. Lawbreaking is everyone's business IMO.

One conversation is people complaining the rents are gone up because of demand.....Other conversation is the few landlords left everyone wants to try and send them bust.....


So which one is it? do people want more landlords, more choice? or do they want to send the current ones bust so they have less choice and rents continue to increase?

Shefwedfan

Subutai wrote: »

OP will be able to file a complaint with he RTB next month when they begin to accept complaints in respect of the investigatory capacity given to them under the 2019 Act.

Another reason why more and more landlords will be selling up.....

woodchuck

Interestingly enough though is that landlord has rented place out for 2500 a month and we were paying 1560 a month. House is in a RPZ

Situation im in now is do i just ride off into sunset and forget about the bad relationship i had with landlord or report this person for being greedy in the current market ( the law is there is for a reason).

Yes, this person is breaking the law and should be reported. I don't know if the report needs to come from you or the new tenant(s), but they shouldn't be allowed to get away with increasing the rent by over 60% in a RPZ!

3DataModem

Pat201 wrote: »

Landlord said in March that it was okay as we gave enough notice

Some of the posters here seem to have ignored this bit.

If you made an agreement verbally, stick to it. If you have texts or emails, even better.

Pat201

@ 3DataModem
We all moved out of house last week after required 84 day notice. House was rented out to new people the very next day. The moral question is do i ignore fact that landlord has broken RPZ rules and rented a 3 bed duplex out for 2500 a month , that is nearly 1000 euro more than i was paying. Works out at 800 + a month per room.

I could be accused of being bitter but point is that rules are being broken and if everyone turned a blind eye because it did not affect them we would be in a situation where people were thrown outta houses, overextending to pay a ludicrous rent or even subletting houses to be able to pay those kind of crazy rents. Ohh wait that sounds like current rental market with certain landlords .

im lucky that i was able to get accommodation afew years ago when i first moved to dublin and though it was quite high i could still save each month to be able to eventually buy my own place. At 2500 a month rent not including bills the next generation of renters will be forever stuck and people like this landlord will only get richer.

A point was made earlier that i do not know what mortgage landlord is paying, My point is i guarantee you it aint 2500 and that the same person has more money in there bank account than either of us .

Pat

Fol20

Pat201 wrote: »

A point was made earlier that i do not know what mortgage landlord is paying, My point is i guarantee you it aint 2500 and that the same person has more money in there bank account than either of us .

Pat

I would love to know how you can guarantee this.

The_Conductor

Fol20 wrote: »

I would love to know how you can guarantee this.

This is none of the tenant's business- and wholly irrelevant to the OP's situation. I'm not even sure why its being mentioned- its quite simply not relevant.

Fol20

The_Conductor wrote: »

This is none of the tenant's business- and wholly irrelevant to the OP's situation. I'm not even sure why its being mentioned- its quite simply not relevant.

I think its justification of whatever they would like to do.

woodchuck

I could be accused of being bitter but point is that rules are being broken and if everyone turned a blind eye because it did not affect them we would be in a situation where people were thrown outta houses, overextending to pay a ludicrous rent or even subletting houses to be able to pay those kind of crazy rents. Ohh wait that sounds like current rental market with certain landlords .

Even if you are doing it out of bitterness, it doesn't change the fact that what they're doing is illegal and they should be reported.

The_Conductor

Sigh, perhaps, however to try to suggest a landlord is fair game because he/she is likely to have a decent sum squirreled away in a bank account somewhere- quite simply is wishful thinking on someone's part. I wish the government would ever start building social housing units in large volumes- and get the private sector out of supplying property to social tenants. It was stupid to offload local authority obligations on the private sector- and the craziest thing of all is local authorities are still selling local authority housing stocks.

The_Conductor

woodchuck wrote: »

Even if you are doing it out of bitterness, it doesn't change the fact that what they're doing is illegal and they should be reported.

Currently the only person who can report it is the new tenant.
Whether the OP wishes to gently inform the new tenant of the situation and let them decide what they want to do- is what they have to decide.

With respect of the new legislation- the RTB are on the record as stating they have no intention of using the criminal aspects of the code- any action taken will be civil in nature and likely under current legislation (as its impossible to prove the intent necessary to trigger a criminal case).

As such the OP needs to decide do they contact the new tenant and liaise with them- or do they walk away- the decision whether or not to take a case or make a complaint to the RTB- is the new tenant's to make.

woodchuck

@Conductor, I agree with you that the entire system is a total mess. However the landlord will be well aware that what they're doing is against the rules. The reasons for reporting the landlord and speculation about their finances is completely irrelevant.

As such the OP needs to decide do they contact the new tenant and liaise with them- or do they walk away- the decision whether or not to take a case or make a complaint to the RTB- is the new tenant's to make.

OP I think you should inform the new tenant. If you were the new tenants, wouldn't you want to know?

MacDanger

Pat201 wrote: »

@ 3DataModem
We all moved out of house last week after required 84 day notice. House was rented out to new people the very next day. The moral question is do i ignore fact that landlord has broken RPZ rules and rented a 3 bed duplex out for 2500 a month , that is nearly 1000 euro more than i was paying. Works out at 800 + a month per room.

I could be accused of being bitter but point is that rules are being broken and if everyone turned a blind eye because it did not affect them we would be in a situation where people were thrown outta houses, overextending to pay a ludicrous rent or even subletting houses to be able to pay those kind of crazy rents. Ohh wait that sounds like current rental market with certain landlords .

im lucky that i was able to get accommodation afew years ago when i first moved to dublin and though it was quite high i could still save each month to be able to eventually buy my own place. At 2500 a month rent not including bills the next generation of renters will be forever stuck and people like this landlord will only get richer.

A point was made earlier that i do not know what mortgage landlord is paying, My point is i guarantee you it aint 2500 and that the same person has more money in there bank account than either of us .

Pat

I'd ask for proof of payment for the E700 for retention of deposit. If this what they've actually paid, they should have no problem proving it. It's your money they're paying this bill with after all.

On the rent increase, write to the new tenants and inform them of what rent you were paying. I'd also contact the RTB giving them the details (maybe they'll follow it up once they have the powers under the new legislation)

You were within your rights to break the lease and the landlord decided to be a w@nker about it despite the fact that he / she would have no difficulty in renting out the apartment. It sounds like you were a good tenant overall but the landlord didn't appreciate that in any sense.

Shefwedfan

Pat201 wrote: »

@ 3DataModem
We all moved out of house last week after required 84 day notice. House was rented out to new people the very next day. The moral question is do i ignore fact that landlord has broken RPZ rules and rented a 3 bed duplex out for 2500 a month , that is nearly 1000 euro more than i was paying. Works out at 800 + a month per room.

I could be accused of being bitter but point is that rules are being broken and if everyone turned a blind eye because it did not affect them we would be in a situation where people were thrown outta houses, overextending to pay a ludicrous rent or even subletting houses to be able to pay those kind of crazy rents. Ohh wait that sounds like current rental market with certain landlords .

im lucky that i was able to get accommodation afew years ago when i first moved to dublin and though it was quite high i could still save each month to be able to eventually buy my own place. At 2500 a month rent not including bills the next generation of renters will be forever stuck and people like this landlord will only get richer.

A point was made earlier that i do not know what mortgage landlord is paying, My point is i guarantee you it aint 2500 and that the same person has more money in there bank account than either of us .

Pat

You do realize the landlord was entitled to raise the rent on that property year on year and they didn't. I know you mentioned they asked about increasing but the fact is they didn't increase it and you would still be sitting in a house paying 1500 per month when you could have put on 4% per year.


So the landlord was actually doing you a good turn by not increasing the rent which they are legally entitled to.



From all account the landlord has been very decent to you, do you disagree?

overkill602

when that LL was subsidizing in 2010 you would have told him to suck it up... now its his turn and you feel bitter maybe his new tenants high rent and all, may have a different plan and get on just as well

overkill602

overkill602 wrote: »

when that LL was subsidizing in 2010 you would have told him to suck it up... now its his turn and you feel bitter maybe his new tenants high rent and all, may have a different plan and get on just as well

That is not the way it works. It is not the tenants problem if the landlord has to “suck it up” any more than it is for the tenant to speculate how much money the landlord has in the bank. Legally the LL shouldn’t be charging more than is allowed under RPZ legislation, but it is not up to the op to dispute it, that is the new tenants problem. I would assume it was up to the new tenants to assess what was charged previously and decide if they want to pay the new rate. Maybe they accepted that they are paying more than they should and are just glad to find a property.

Pat201

Sorry i muddied the waters with my post about landlord bank assets but it was in response to another post that i do not know what landlord was paying in mortgage. As it is none of my business what landlord has in bank it is also none of my business or anyone's what landlord pays in mortgage to justify breaking RPZ laws.

I will leave a note for new tenants and they can do what they like with the information

Shefwedfan

Pat201 wrote: »

Sorry i muddied the waters with my post about landlord bank assets but it was in response to another post that i do not know what landlord was paying in mortgage. As it is none of my business what landlord has in bank it is also none of my business or anyone's what landlord pays in mortgage to justify breaking RPZ laws.

I will leave a note for new tenants and they can do what they like with the information

Why are you leaving a note if none of your business?

Do you admit the landlord was good to you?

Pat201

I am leaving a note as RPZ law is being broken. Morally correct even if you do think its none of my business. If a law is broke should it not be reported. If the current tenants dont want to pursue then they are happy with paying 2500 euro a month in rent and that is end of story.

Landlord being good ? Is a salesman good to you when you purchase an item off them at price they set ? I have paid my rent on time . Delivered house back to landlord spotless bar a crack in sink after 4.5 years renting ( not disputing this).

This is same landlord that sent a eviction letter tens months ago as she suspected we were subletting due to one of tenants girlfriends staying over some nights (apparently had video evidence that i never saw) . Of course the eviction letter was subject to a clause that we keep place if we increase rent from 1560 to 2500 ( coincidental number there).
She of course got this advice from her Solicitor and when proof of his girlfriend renting another place was sent to her , she did not even have common decency to apologise.

Cue 4 months ago when i informed landlord via whatsapp that i had purchased a house and would have it ready for mid June meaning all tenants would be leaving house due to various reasons. Landlord reply was thanks for informing me as now i have enough time to get replacements in. This was followed 3 weeks later by talks with same top notch solicitor as above to say we were breaking lease and could not leave until end of August. Official route then taken by sending formal letter to end lease of 84 days.

Does that sound like a good landlord?

JJJackal

Pat201 wrote: »

Sorry i muddied the waters with my post about landlord bank assets but it was in response to another post that i do not know what landlord was paying in mortgage. As it is none of my business what landlord has in bank it is also none of my business or anyone's what landlord pays in mortgage to justify breaking RPZ laws.

I will leave a note for new tenants and they can do what they like with the information

I advise move on and live your life - re sink you broke it. The LL says it cost 700 to fix (she probably didnt fix it; and I would say 700 sounds dear but she could have gotten the best most expensive plumber and fitting going).

The current tenants are paying above RPZ - you do not know when the rent was last increased - I agree that 1000 is probably well above the allowed increase. You could let tenants know - but is it really your business.

Enjoy your new home

The_Conductor

Pat201 wrote: »

I will leave a note for new tenants and they can do what they like with the information

Why?
It really sounds like a case of sour grapes to be brutally honest.

Pat201

Why not ? are you condoning breaking RPZ rules ?

Shefwedfan

Pat201 wrote: »

I am leaving a note as RPZ law is being broken. Morally correct even if you do think its none of my business. If a law is broke should it not be reported. If the current tenants dont want to pursue then they are happy with paying 2500 euro a month in rent and that is end of story.

Landlord being good ? Is a salesman good to you when you purchase an item off them at price they set ? I have paid my rent on time . Delivered house back to landlord spotless bar a crack in sink after 4.5 years renting ( not disputing this).

This is same landlord that sent a eviction letter tens months ago as she suspected we were subletting due to one of tenants girlfriends staying over some nights (apparently had video evidence that i never saw) . Of course the eviction letter was subject to a clause that we keep place if we increase rent from 1560 to 2500 ( coincidental number there).
She of course got this advice from her Solicitor and when proof of his girlfriend renting another place was sent to her , she did not even have common decency to apologise.

Cue 4 months ago when i informed landlord via whatsapp that i had purchased a house and would have it ready for mid June meaning all tenants would be leaving house due to various reasons. Landlord reply was thanks for informing me as now i have enough time to get replacements in. This was followed 3 weeks later by talks with same top notch solicitor as above to say we were breaking lease and could not leave until end of August. Official route then taken by sending formal letter to end lease of 84 days.

Does that sound like a good landlord?

Yes it does