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

Ending Tenancy

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Pat201 wrote: »
    @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.


    I have no idea what they rented for and you have no idea. So as I said it is gossip.



    Seem like the story changes to suit your narrative.



    Will leave you to it, try and enjoy your new house.


  • Options
    #123
    MacDanger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,603 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    Fol20 wrote: »
    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.

    The tenant wasn't wrong in the slightest, he followed the rules to the letter. Both parties knew the existing law when they signed the contract so those terms (about breaking the lease) are implicit in the contract. You may not agree with it but he was 100% correct in the way he dealt with this. You can't say the same for the LL however - her 1st attempt to illegally raise the rent based on an unfounded suspicion of subletting and secondly by raising the rent by ~ 66% on the new tenants.

    Your proposal for longer term contracts with no break allowed sounds fair. It would be interesting to know if LLs generally would give up the right of sale in order to remove the right of the tenants to break the lease? I'm a LL and also a tenant and I think we would be reticent to enter into a rental contract where we wouldn't be able to sell the rented house if our circumstances changed and we needed the cash.


  • Options
    #124
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    MacDanger wrote: »
    The tenant wasn't wrong in the slightest, he followed the rules to the letter. Both parties knew the existing law when they signed the contract so those terms (about breaking the lease) are implicit in the contract. You may not agree with it but he was 100% correct in the way he dealt with this. You can't say the same for the LL however - her 1st attempt to illegally raise the rent based on an unfounded suspicion of subletting and secondly by raising the rent by ~ 66% on the new tenants.

    Your proposal for longer term contracts with no break allowed sounds fair. It would be interesting to know if LLs generally would give up the right of sale in order to remove the right of the tenants to break the lease? I'm a LL and also a tenant and I think we would be reticent to enter into a rental contract where we wouldn't be able to sell the rented house if our circumstances changed and we needed the cash.

    Sorry i was talking about wanting to leave the existing contract.

    -The ll was in the wrong for increasing rent.

    -The tenant wanted to back out of a contract they signed without a specific break clause because they bought their new house > You maybe right, i disagree with a tenant being able to reassign a lease as then it makes the whole contract pointless for a ll.


    When this type of situation has happened to me, i bill the tenant the costs of of advertising for a new tenant and any other costs associated with this. It may not be the correct move however this is what i do and my tenants have had common sense and accepted this fate.

    In your case, you can still allow 1 year contracts where you would be locked in for 12 months. This would allow time for the tenant to vacate and also for the ll to sell if they need the cash.


Advertisement