Ending Tenancy

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

Dav010

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

JJJackal

Pat201 wrote: »

Why not ? are you condoning breaking RPZ rules ?

When was the rent last raised?

Shefwedfan

Pat201 wrote: »

Why not ? are you condoning breaking RPZ rules ?

You are aware they are allowed to increase rent, 4% per year...

Pat201

Yes i well aware of this. Rent i was paying up until June 12 this year was 1560. That Rent was last set in August 2017. New Tenants are paying 2500.

RPZ calculator says max rent should be 1674

Pat201

@ JJJJackal

House rented at end 2014. Rent increased again before RPZ became effective ~ 2016. Rent increased again by allowed RPZ rules August 2017.
We all Left House 12 June 2019. New Tenants Moved in next day

Pat201

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Yes it does

I would not want to see what a bad one was so haha

JJJackal

Pat201 wrote: »

@ JJJJackal

House rented at end 2014. Rent increased again before RPZ became effective ~ 2016. Rent increased again by allowed RPZ rules August 2017.
We all Left House 12 June 2019. New Tenants Moved in next day

Thats fair enough - thought the rent might have been 1500 for years and years.

Treviso

How are RPZ rent increases governed in this country? Is there a database with a current list of rent prices or does it rely solely on previous/current tenants reporting the illegal increases?

MacDanger

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?

Seems like your landlord didn't know when she had a good tenant, maybe she'll realise the value of a good tenant if the next crowd in wreck the place / don't pay the rent

Shefwedfan

MacDanger wrote: »

Seems like your landlord didn't know when she had a good tenant, maybe she'll realise the value of a good tenant if the next crowd in wreck the place / don't pay the rent

The landlord never increased the rent over the term of the contract which they are entitled to.


They only contacted the person because it was brought to their attention the house was been used by other people. Any landlord would do the same. Also at the end of that the landlord just left them to it once it was cleared up

Remember it was the tenant who broke the contract, not the landlord.



Whats the point in paying a solicitor for a legal contract if the tenant does exactly what they want and leave when they want? then complains about it


Even if new tenant moves in the landlord has to get new contracts drawn up etc which is all a cost. Seems like some people forget about these costs.


I am not saying the tenant was bad eitherover course of contract, just the carry on since seems to leave a bad taste in my mouth

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Pat201 wrote: »

Landlord holding me to this contract is only putting me under financial burden and for what benefit?

Eh, did the landlord force you to take out a mortgage? The only person responsible for your finances is you. The landlord can't be at fault here because of the decisions you made.

Old diesel wrote: »

Not sure if anyone picked up on the fact that Pat offered in March to find new people for the house.

But Landlord declined the offer.

Pat201 wrote: »

Landlord will not be out of pocket. I will offer to assign lease and will have no issue getting people but let's be honest I will not be picky as it's not my place.

I'd say the landlord made the right choice there. OP has no interest in getting in the appropriate tenant. The LL will certainly be out of pocket, regardless of how quick somebody moves in. LL is right in this case.

I don't know really, I think it's bad that only one side can avail of the law, when a landlord does it they are evil.

MacDanger

Shefwedfan wrote: »

They only contacted the person because it was brought to their attention the house was been used by other people. Any landlord would do the same. Also at the end of that the landlord just left them to it once it was cleared up

The LL didn't just "contact" the OP, they threatened to kick them out (which would have been illegal) and tried to use it as pretext for to illegally raise the rent by ~66%.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Remember it was the tenant who broke the contract, not the landlord.
Whats the point in paying a solicitor for a legal contract if the tenant does exactly what they want and leave when they want? then complains about it

Broke the contract in accordance with the law, you seem to be missing that bit. Everything the OP did was entirely within the law so while you may not agree with it, it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Even if new tenant moves in the landlord has to get new contracts drawn up etc which is all a cost. Seems like some people forget about these costs.

I'd imagine most landlords just re-use the same contract so it's a stretch to say that this is a cost. In any event, they'd have had this cost in August anyway.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I am not saying the tenant was bad eitherover course of contract, just the carry on since seems to leave a bad taste in my mouth

What "carry-on"? The LL initially agreeing by text that it was okay for the OP to break the lease but then changing her mind and attempting to keep the deposit? The LL illegally increasing the rent on her new tenants? Or something else?

There are plenty of bad tenants out there (you only need to read some of the threads on here to see how bad it can get) but the OP is certainly not one of them.

Shefwedfan

MacDanger wrote: »

The LL didn't just "contact" the OP, they threatened to kick them out (which would have been illegal) and tried to use it as pretext for to illegally raise the rent by ~66%.


Broke the contract in accordance with the law, you seem to be missing that bit. Everything the OP did was entirely within the law so while you may not agree with it, it's irrelevant to this discussion.


I'd imagine most landlords just re-use the same contract so it's a stretch to say that this is a cost. In any event, they'd have had this cost in August anyway.


What "carry-on"? The LL initially agreeing by text that it was okay for the OP to break the lease but then changing her mind and attempting to keep the deposit? The LL illegally increasing the rent on her new tenants? Or something else?

There are plenty of bad tenants out there (you only need to read some of the threads on here to see how bad it can get) but the OP is certainly not one of them.

Did I say the OP was a bad tenant?

Subletting without the landlord's permission is illegal and yes you can be evicted.

No idea why you are using bold. Everything the landlord did while the OP was a tenant is also the law. The bit they didn't do which is within the law is raise the rent 4% year on year.

After the OP left the house, it is just gossip and they have no confirmation of how much the current tenant is paying. For all they know the current tenant could be paying within the legal limits. Did the OP see the contract the new tenant signed?

MacDanger

Rosalie Creamy Chair wrote: »

I don't know really, I think it's bad that only one side can avail of the law, when a landlord does it they are evil.

Landlords are also able to avail of the law - tenancies can be broken unilaterally by the LL if they want to sell the house, lease to a family member or do substantial renovations

Fol20

MacDanger wrote: »

Landlords are also able to avail of the law - tenancies can be broken unilaterally by the LL if they want to sell the house, lease to a family member or do substantial renovations

Tentants can break the contract for whatever reason they like and it cant be enforeced.

LL have extremely specific reasons to break the lease and if the tenants dont like it, they could hold this up by up to 2 years.

MacDanger

Fol20 wrote: »

Tentants can break the contract for whatever reason they like and it cant be enforeced.

LL have extremely specific reasons to break the lease and if the tenants dont like it, they could hold this up by up to 2 years.

What can't be enforced?

Both sides can break the contract - granted the LL needs to give one of the reasons listed above but would you prefer that neither side could break the contract?

For the record, I don't think tenants should be able to overstay, get away with not paying rent and all that sh*t that goes on; it should be much easier to evict tenants who are acting the boll!x. In the instance of the OP though, they didn't do anything out of the way and it's the LL who's in the wrong

MacDanger

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Did I say the OP was a bad tenant?

Subletting without the landlord's permission is illegal and yes you can be evicted.

No idea why you are using bold. Everything the landlord did while the OP was a tenant is also the law. The bit they didn't do which is within the law is raise the rent 4% year on year.

After the OP left the house, it is just gossip and they have no confirmation of how much the current tenant is paying. For all they know the current tenant could be paying within the legal limits. Did the OP see the contract the new tenant signed?

Gossip?? Ah come on!!

I'll leave the rest of this here as a rant

Shefwedfan

MacDanger wrote: »

Gossip?? Ah come on!!

I'll leave the rest of this here as a rant

Yeah its a rant because it is right......you like when other people use bold

How else would you describe it? the OP has no confirmation from the new tenant of what they are paying. I would guess they seen something on daft and using that as a guideline. So yes gossip.

Pat201

@Shefwedfan You are completely right that i saw advertisement on daft but next you will be telling me that they advertised place at 2500 a month but decided to give place to next tenants at max allowed rent of ~ 1650 according to RPZ. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that.

You also are incorrect when you say landlord did not raise rent over term of stay. Place rented in 2014. Landlord raised rent in 2016 before RPZ rules started then raised again in 2017 by allowed amount of 4%. Was it originally in RPZ rules that rent could only be increased every 2 years as yes i think they missed out in 2018 but it was going up again in 2019 , you can guarantee that.

Landlord got advice from solicitor to send us an eviction letter for subletting even though no proof except hearsay as you say. Also used this to try and jump rent to 2500 and all at advice of solicitor ? This seems like solicitor was very naive or just very bad at job. After all we proved no subletting occurred and sent all information to landlord. i would think it was common decency to at least apologise for the threat alone.

Pat201

@iamXavier Taking snippets of conversation would make any statement look bad.
Read the entire posts. i wanted to work with landlord. I offered originally to get working professional in but she said she would prefer to get her own picks in ( A family). That was fair enough in my opinion but when she was gonna hold me until end of lease even though originally saying it was okay to leave, then of course im hardly going to be picky

Fol20

MacDanger wrote: »

What can't be enforced?

Both sides can break the contract - granted the LL needs to give one of the reasons listed above but would you prefer that neither side could break the contract?

For the record, I don't think tenants should be able to overstay, get away with not paying rent and all that sh*t that goes on; it should be much easier to evict tenants who are acting the boll!x. In the instance of the OP though, they didn't do anything out of the way and it's the LL who's in the wrong

The tenant was wrong here, they signed a contract and now want to back out of this. Once you sign on the dotted line, you should follow the rules of this.

If you want long term tenancies, then there should be no break clause from both parties. If you sign a contract, your locked into this. Tenants want it both ways though.

If we had 2,5 and 10 year contracts, Im ok with removing sale of property, move your family in, and renovation of property unless its a safety issue from a ll point of view.. On the contract, you would also include 4 per cent rent reviews up or down. This would allow for full transparency for ll and tenants and create a stable environment for both. The caveat to this though is if either party backs out they are fully liable for the balance of the contract so for example, lets say your monthly rent is 1k and you sign a 2 year contract. If a tenant leaves after 12 months, they are still liable for the 12k even if the ll gets a new tenant. If a ll needs the property back after 6months and if the tenant agrees, the ll has to compensate the tenant 18k. This way both parties are treated equally and allows for long term tenancies.