Tenant won't move after notice given

Chiorino · 13-05-2013 04:30PM #1

We are selling our old family home and gave our tenants notice recently. It was a fixed term lease with a one month break contract. I know there isn't tons of stuff out there at the moment so I tried to help by giving them an extra two weeks. The notice period expires at the end of this month but the tenant is now saying they might not be gone as they cannot find anything and that they cannot, by law, be forced to leave if they have not found alternative accommodation (news to me if true) by then. Any ideas on where to go from here?

the_syco · 13-05-2013 05:07PM

Chiorino wrote: »

but the tenant is now saying they might not be gone as they cannot find anything and that they cannot, by law, be forced to leave if they have not found alternative accommodation (news to me if true) by then. Any ideas on where to go from here?

Bullsh|t. Serve an eviction notice on them the moment the lease expires.

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 13-05-2013 05:14PM

Boot their squatting ass out. Get on it immediately and keep all correspondence with them in a file. It may come in useful later.

the world wonders · 13-05-2013 06:11PM

Chiorino wrote: »

It was a fixed term lease with a one month break contract.

How long have they been there?

Also did you send them a proper notice of termination?

In order to be valid, a notice of termination must:
Be in writing.

Be signed by the landlord or his or her authorised agent or, as appropriate, the tenant.

Specify the date of service.

State the reason for termination (where the tenancy has lasted for more than 6 months or is a fixed term tenancy).

Specify the termination date and also that the tenant has the whole of the 24 hours of this date to vacate possession.

State that any issue as to the validity of the notice or the right of the landlord to serve it must be referred to the Private Residential Tenancies Board within 28 days from the receipt of the notice.

Chiorino · 13-05-2013 07:57PM

The tenants were there a year in March so 14 months so far. I gave the notice (in writing) on 14th April.

murphaph · 13-05-2013 08:48PM

Chiorino wrote: »

The tenants were there a year in March so 14 months so far. I gave the notice (in writing) on 14th April.

Then they have acquired Part IV tenancy rights regardless of the lease ending now. They don't have to leave because of the lease expiring.

They do have to leave if you want to sell the property.

You need to read the Residential Tenancies Act and work within its constraints from here on in. Tread carefully but know that your tenants could make this difficult four you.

djimi · 13-05-2013 09:00PM

The tenants are entitled to 42 days notice under the part 4 tenancy. If you issued them with a months written notice then it is invalid and they are within their rights to ignore/challenge it. The months break clause is the lease means nothing in this regard; you cannot seek to reduce a tenants legal rights even if they sign a lease with such a clause contained within.

D3PO · 13-05-2013 09:09PM

djimi wrote: »

The tenants are entitled to 42 days notice under the part 4 tenancy. If you issued them with a months written notice then it is invalid and they are within their rights to ignore/challenge it. The months break clause is the lease means nothing in this regard; you cannot seek to reduce a tenants legal rights even if they sign a lease with such a clause contained within.

exactly right. In essence the OP has not served valid notice and must do so again. Meaning that they will get another 42 days notice from that point.

OP needs to do this by the book but Id expect they will be gone the second they find somewhere suitable TBH.

Chiorino · 13-05-2013 09:30PM

They arent on a Part 4, they renewed a six month fixed term lease in February. How does this affect things?

Chiorino · 13-05-2013 09:31PM

And yes, I am selling the property.

Doom · 13-05-2013 09:48PM

I think they they can aquire a part 4 after 1st six months, regardless of what you put on a lease

Chiorino · 13-05-2013 10:03PM

Doom wrote: »

I think they they can aquire a part 4 after 1st six months, regardless of what you put on a lease

So does that mean a tenant is automatically on a part 4 after six months no matter what? I was under the impression that this happened only if another fixed term lease wasn't signed.

the_syco · 14-05-2013 01:01AM

djimi wrote: »

The tenants are entitled to 42 days notice under the part 4 tenancy.

Chiorino wrote: »

I know there isn't tons of stuff out there at the moment so I tried to help by giving them an extra two weeks.

Would've thought month + 2 weeks = about 44 days?

Chiorino wrote: »

So does that mean a tenant is automatically on a part 4 after six months no matter what? I was under the impression that this happened only if another fixed term lease wasn't signed.

Open to correction, but I'm pretty sure the "Part 4" only applies when they don't sign another lease after their previous lease ends.

D3PO · 14-05-2013 07:36AM

Chiorino wrote: »

So does that mean a tenant is automatically on a part 4 after six months no matter what? I was under the impression that this happened only if another fixed term lease wasn't signed.

they automatically acquire part 4 rights after 6 months regardless of the lease. These rights can only enhance their rights provided under the lease. They are supposed to write to you advising they are claiming part 4 rights they haven't so you would have been entitled to costs as a result of this however you didn't incur costs for reletting etc.

Anyway back on topic yes they have part 4 rights, you are absolutely entitled to give them notice for the reason you have but it must be the correct notice in the correct manner or the letter of notice is invalid, which it would appear to be given previous posts in this thread.

djimi · 14-05-2013 08:21AM

the_syco wrote: »

Would've thought month + 2 weeks = about 44 days?

If the original notice was only for a month then a verbal "ah sure you can stay for another two weeks" does not suddenly make an invalid notice to be valid. If the original notice was invalid then whatever happened afterwards is pretty much irrelevant.

the_syco wrote: »

Open to correction, but I'm pretty sure the "Part 4" only applies when they don't sign another lease after their previous lease ends.

You automatically acquire part 4 tenancy rights after 6 months in a tenancy, regardless of the type of lease. It is my understanding that a break clause can allow either party to break a fixed term lease at a set point, but that relevant notice must be served as outlined in the part 4 tenancy (where applicable).

It is also my understanding that there is no validity in writing into a lease a clause that allows the landlord to break said lease with less notice than the tenant is entitled to under part 4 rights.

The OP would be well advised to seek futher clarification on this (Threshold would be worth a call), because you can be sure that your tenants most likely have done already.

Chiorino · 14-05-2013 09:03AM

So after serving them written notice on 14th April giving them until the end of this month, where do I stand now then?

I think I've done everything right but there seems to be a huge amount of overlap and contradiction.

djimi · 14-05-2013 09:10AM

Im sorry, I may have taken you up wrong. I thought initially that you said you gave them one months written notice, but you are now saying that you gave them notice on the 14/4 to vacate on the 31/5? That being the case, 47 days notice is more than sufficient for a tenant who has been in the property between 1 and 2 years (42 days is the required notice).

Villa05 · 14-05-2013 09:45AM

The quicker the banks start repossesing the better. The playing field needs to be levelled between renters and mortgage holders in default

gaius c · 14-05-2013 09:49AM

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Boot their squatting ass out. Get on it immediately and keep all correspondence with them in a file. It may come in useful later.

Unhelpful post. There's no indication that the tenants are in arrears on their rent.

djimi · 14-05-2013 09:55AM

Villa05 wrote: »

The quicker the banks start repossesing the better. The playing field needs to be levelled between renters and mortgage holders in default

And that has what to do with the OP's situation exactly...?

seamus · 14-05-2013 10:08AM

If you've served the correct notice and the renters refuse to leave at the end of the notice period, then your next step is the PRTB. If the tenant continues to pay rent during this time, this is known as overholding.

The PRTB will hear the dispute from both sides, decide on whether or not the eviction is valid and make a ruling. The PRTB have no powers to enforce rulings, only to make them. If they still refuse to move, then your next step is the courts to get an eviction order. Which can be enforced by the Gardai if they ignore it.

However it probably won't go that far. If it does end up in the PRTB, chances are they will leave once a ruling is made against them. Keep a record of everything, I've heard stories of tenants trying to come up with all sorts of bull**** about the landlord and the property during a PRTB hearing.

the_syco · 14-05-2013 10:48AM

If the tenants don't move, shouldn't the OP go down the eviction route? All above board to ensure the tenant has no come-back.

D3PO · 14-05-2013 10:55AM

the_syco wrote: »

If the tenants don't move, shouldn't the OP go down the eviction route? All above board to ensure the tenant has no come-back.

yes they should. Seamus has outlines the action the OP needs to take perfectly.

This is on the assumption that notice of 44 days plus was served and not just 4 weeks notice plus a verbal you can stay the extra few weeks. (The OP still hasn't clarified what was in the original letter of notice)

khards · 14-05-2013 11:05AM

the_syco wrote: »

Bullsh|t. Serve an eviction notice on them the moment the lease expires.

Kora Lively Squalor wrote: »

Boot their squatting ass out. Get on it immediately and keep all correspondence with them in a file. It may come in useful later.

@the_syco and Kora Lively Squalor

What are your thought on banks evicting families from their family home because they have not paid the mortgage for years?

The courts should put a stay on cases where tenants are paying the rent and genuinely have nowhere else to move to because the landlord decided that they want to cash in on the tenants family home.

Perhaps I should start a protest group to stop landlords evicting tenants, just like banks evicting mortgagees (aka bank renters).

khards · 14-05-2013 11:08AM

@Chiorino

I think you should question you morals.

Let the tenant stay until they can find another suitable property to move into.

I hope you sleep well tonight whilst thinking about the situation you have put the tenant in.

listermint · 14-05-2013 11:11AM

khards wrote: »

@the_syco and donkeyoaty0099

What are your thought on banks evicting families from their family home because they have not paid the mortgage for years?

The courts should put a stay on cases where tenants are paying the rent and genuinely have nowhere else to move to because the landlord decided that they want to cash in on the tenants family home.

Perhaps I should start a protest group to stop landlords evicting tenants, just like banks evicting mortgagees (aka bank renters).

khards wrote: »

@Chiorino

I think you should question you morals.

Let the tenant stay until they can find another suitable property to move into.

I hope you sleep well tonight whilst thinking about the situation you have put the tenant in.

Take your campaign elsewhere the OP has every right to sell his property

Frankly both your posts are ridiculous.

syklops · 14-05-2013 11:16AM

Threads like this is why Irish people have such a desire to own their own homes.

listermint · 14-05-2013 11:20AM

syklops wrote: »

Threads like this is why Irish people have such a desire to own their own homes.

Irish people have such desire to own their own property because alot of us are idiots. Its a left over relic from plantation, which is strange for a supposedly dynamic small little island like ourselves...

djimi · 14-05-2013 11:21AM

khards wrote: »

The courts should put a stay on cases where tenants are paying the rent and genuinely have nowhere else to move to because the landlord decided that they want to cash in on the tenants family home.

Perhaps I should start a protest group to stop landlords evicting tenants, just like banks evicting mortgagees (aka bank renters).

Its in law that a landlord can serve notice to a tenant to vacate when they wish to sell the property (once there is no fixed term lease protecting the tenant). Its clear as day on many websites and other sources for any tenant who wishes to educate themselves before entering the world of tenancy in Ireland. Anyone wishing to rent in this country should do so with their eyes open and know their legal rights and where they stand as a tenant. In this case the OP has done nothing wrong morally (and by the sounds of it legally either assuming the notice to vacate was in order).

khards · 14-05-2013 11:21AM

listermint wrote: »

Frankly both your posts are ridiculous.

As you offer no explanation, please explain why the poses are ridiculous.

Frankly if he is reasonable with the tenant and lets him stay until they have found an alternative then it will save the landlord lots of time and effort in taking him to court, a process which may not even be successful even if the tenant is paying his rent.

Essentially the landlord will not be selling this year if the tenant dosent want him to.

listermint · 14-05-2013 11:27AM

khards wrote: »

As you offer no explanation, please explain why the poses are ridiculous.

Frankly if he is reasonable with the tenant and lets him stay until they have found an alternative then it will save the landlord lots of time and effort in taking him to court, a process which may not even be successful even if the tenant is paying his rent.

Essentially the landlord will not be selling this year if the tenant dosent want him to.

It has been perfectly outlined above I dont need to add to that comment. Pretty much sums up how silly your posts on the particular case are.

D3PO · 14-05-2013 11:28AM

khards wrote: »

As you offer no explanation, please explain why the poses are ridiculous.

Frankly if he is reasonable with the tenant and lets him stay until they have found an alternative then it will save the landlord lots of time and effort in taking him to court, a process which may not even be successful even if the tenant is paying his rent.

Essentially the landlord will not be selling this year if the tenant dosent want him to.

You have a screwed up mentality. You think its ok for the tenant to overhold, to force a landlord who is going by the book to march to the tenants tune.

That alone should explain how ridiculous your previous posts are. Its a pity that there isn't a mechanism for landlords to sue over holders for losses as a result.

The tenant has had plenty of time to find new accomadation (assuming correct notice of 44 days plus was provided) notice periods are there for a reason. Its not the OP's issue that the tenant hasn't pulled their lazy arse finger out of their hole to find new accomadation.

khards · 14-05-2013 11:32AM

djimi wrote: »

Its clear as day on many websites and other sources for any tenant who wishes to educate themselves before entering the world of tenancy in Ireland. Anyone wishing to rent in this country should do so with their eyes open and know their legal rights and where they stand as a tenant.

By default everyone is a tenant unless they are in a position to buy a property.
Essentially you are saying that everyone (as some stage) should learn the law around renting property, given the confusion ion this thread I do not believe that is practical.

listermint · 14-05-2013 11:36AM

khards wrote: »

By default everyone is a tenant unless they are in a position to buy a property.
Essentially you are saying that everyone (as some stage) should learn the law around renting property, given the confusion ion this thread I do not believe that is practical.

Its very practical. The rules are as outlined by previous posters. Its up to you the tenant to inform yourself.

And you would be amazed how quickly tenants become extremely knowledgeable on the system should the need arise.

As a tenant myself, tenants are treated very fairly in this country in terms of legislation tbh.

syklops · 14-05-2013 11:37AM

listermint wrote: »

Irish people have such desire to own their own property because alot of us are idiots. Its a left over relic from plantation, which is strange for a supposedly dynamic small little island like ourselves...

You totally missed my point.

djimi · 14-05-2013 11:38AM

khards wrote: »

By default everyone is a tenant unless they are in a position to buy a property.
Essentially you are saying that everyone (as some stage) should learn the law around renting property, given the confusion ion this thread I do not believe that is practical.

Im saying if you are renting (or if you are a landlord for that matter) then yes, you should have some basic knowledge of tenancy law. A quick trip to citizensinformation.ie (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/) would give all the basics in plain English. Its not rocket science.

khards · 14-05-2013 11:39AM

D3PO wrote: »

The tenant has had plenty of time to find new accomadation (assuming correct notice of 44 days plus was provided) notice periods are there for a reason. Its not the OP's issue that the tenant hasn't pulled their lazy arse finger out of their hole to find new accomadation.

If the tenant had been given a reasonable amount of time (as long as it takes) then the landlord would not find himself in this position.
Clearly the tenant has not been able to find themselves alternative accommodation within the short 44day period, what you are proposing is to turn up with the sheriff and dump the onto the street for no other reason than the landlord decides that he wants to sell.

Clearly you can see that this situation is unfair and ridiculous, especially compared to the situation where a bank (also a landlord) wants to evict a non paying mortgagee (tenant).

Any Judge would put a stay on the eviction to give the tenant more time to find suitable accommodation. They would not allow them to be turfed out into the street, which is what you are suggesting.

djimi · 14-05-2013 11:42AM

khards wrote: »

If the tenant had been given a reasonable amount of time (as long as it takes) then the landlord would not find himself in this position.
Clearly the tenant has not been able to find themselves alternative accommodation within the short 44day period, what you are proposing is to turn up with the sheriff and dump the onto the street for no other reason than the landlord decides that he wants to sell.

Clearly you can see that this situation is unfair and ridiculous, especially compared to the situation where a bank (also a landlord) wants to evict a non paying mortgagee (tenant).

Any Judge would put a stay on the eviction to give the tenant more time to find suitable accommodation. They would not allow them to be turfed out into the street, which is what you are suggesting.

Its the law; fair and reasonable do not come into it. If the landlord so chooses then they can extend the notice of termination, however they are under no obligation to do so.

Provided the landlord has done everything by the book then a judge (or the PRTB initially) would side with them. It doesnt matter if you dont like that or dont think that its fair; provided the law has not been broken then the tenant has no cause for complaint. 42 days might not seem like a lot of time to find altenative accomodation, but it is what the law has deemed to be sufficient.

Chiorino · 14-05-2013 11:44AM

khards wrote: »

@the_syco and donkeyoaty0099

What are your thought on banks evicting families from their family home because they have not paid the mortgage for years?

The courts should put a stay on cases where tenants are paying the rent and genuinely have nowhere else to move to because the landlord decided that they want to cash in on the tenants family home.

Perhaps I should start a protest group to stop landlords evicting tenants, just like banks evicting mortgagees (aka bank renters).

I certainly dont want to have to go down the route of evicting tenants eho otherwise have been great. I currently rent the house I live in now so I know the situation and accept that as a tenant I simply dont have the same security as a homeowner.

As for "cashing in", the house is in neg equity and I've been offered enough (with savings added) to clear the mortgage so I'm certainly not making money out of it. I'm more concerned about the deal falling through because of the tenant dragging their heels.

D3PO · 14-05-2013 11:46AM

khards wrote: »

If the tenant had been given a reasonable amount of time (as long as it takes) then the landlord would not find himself in this position.

A reasonable amount of time as defined by law is 44 days. So therefore they have given a reasonable amount of time. If there weren't set times what would prevent the tenant staying forever under the guise they haven't had a reasonable amount of tim e ...

Clearly the tenant has not been able to find themselves alternative accommodation within the short 44day period,

Then quite frankly they have been lazy. If you cant find accommodation in 44 days your an idiot.

what you are proposing is to turn up with the sheriff and dump the onto the street for no other reason than the landlord decides that he wants to sell.

I never said turn up with a sheriff and dump them onto the street, That would be an illegal eviction ... But the landlord wanting to sell is a LEAGALLY ACCEPTABLE reason to ask them to levae in the LEGALLY agreed notice period.

Clearly you can see that this situation is unfair and ridiculous, especially compared to the situation where a bank (also a landlord) wants to evict a non paying mortgagee (tenant).

Are you for real ? It is neither unfair or ridiculous. What is ridiculous is what the tenant is doing. If the tenant doesn't want to go then they should buy the house ....

Any Judge would put a stay on the eviction to give the tenant more time to find suitable accommodation. They would not allow them to be turfed out into the street, which is what you are suggesting.

Your miseducation is very obvious here. If the landlord has to go to the PRTB and gets a determination order a judge will create an order for eviction they will not put a stay on it. You have no idea what your talking about.

I cant believe you actually believe a single word your saying. Its beyond the limitations of rational thinking to actually accept your not winding us up for enjoyment

khards · 14-05-2013 11:49AM

It is also perfectly legal for the tenant to say on past his 42 day notice period and for the Landlord to get an eviction order.
As long at the tenant complies with any orders that a court makes then he is not breaking any law.

D3PO · 14-05-2013 11:54AM

khards wrote: »

It is also perfectly legal for the tenant to say on past his 42 day notice period and for the Landlord to get an eviction order.
As long at the tenant complies with any orders that a court makes then he is not breaking any law.

True its legal but that doesn't make it morally acceptable. Its reprehensible behavior, nobody said what the tenant is doing is illegal.

Like I said already if financial penalties for loss of earnings could be attributed to those who overhold the system would be much better. Everything is weighted towards the tenant right now.

The whole system needs an overhaul both in regards to tenant & landlords rights and also to the deposit situation.

khards · 14-05-2013 11:55AM

D3PO wrote: »

I cant believe you actually believe a single word your saying. Its beyond the limitations of rational thinking to actually accept your not winding us up for enjoyment

Fair cop I am a troll, but there is a serious side to what I have been saying. think before you turf someone out on the street as they can make your (the landlords) life hell.
For some people they may have a huge problem in finding suitable accommodation, they may not have the deposit, they may not be able to find anywhere within 5 miles of their child's school etc.

People need to drop the 'I am the landlord, do as I say' attitude and have some respect for other people.
We don't know any of the details of the tenants situation, I also suspect the landlord does no know the full story either. You might find that there is no where for them to go, then what?

Potatoeman · 14-05-2013 11:58AM

syklops wrote: »

Threads like this is why Irish people have such a desire to own their own homes.

It really does. Moving is a major inconvenience. I hope the op made their plans clear when leasing.

seamus · 14-05-2013 12:01PM

khards wrote: »

If the tenant had been given a reasonable amount of time (as long as it takes) then the landlord would not find himself in this position.

Reasonable amount of time and "as long as it takes" are not compatible.

What if it takes a year? Two years? Five years? Is that a reasonable amount of time?

You paint this idea that people are reasonable. Many are, many aren't. If a tenant is asked to move out, "But sure whenever you find somewhere, no rush like", then they won't go anywhere. It is reasonable that when a tenant is asked to leave, they are given a reasonable timeframe in which to leave so that both tenant and landlord understand what is expected of them.

What is not reasonable is for the tenant to take as long as they like to find somewhere else.

Clearly the tenant has not been able to find themselves alternative accommodation within the short 44day period, what you are proposing is to turn up with the sheriff and dump the onto the street for no other reason than the landlord decides that he wants to sell.

The notice period the landlord is required to give is reflective of the length of tenancy. The longer a tenant has been in situ, the more settled they are and therefore harder it may be to find a suitable property and arrange the move.

These tenants have only been there a year. A month and a half seems like plenty of time to find alternative suitable accommodation. It's the nature of tenancy that you don't get to sit around and wait for the perfect property to come up. If you have to move, then you have to choose the best property from what's available. That's how it works.

What you're proposing is that any tenant should be permitted to stay in a property indefinitely so long as they can say, "Ah there's nothing else out there". That pure ridiculous.

Zaph · 14-05-2013 12:02PM

The OP has a property that he wants to sell. He's perfectly entitled to do so after the notice expires, and that's all there is to it really. He's not a housing charity, he's just an ordinary guy who's trying to get out of negative equity and is lucky enough to have an opportunity to do so. Why should the tenant hold all the cards and be able to prevent this? As long as the OP has done everything by the book then he really shouldn't have to jump through hoops just to be able to sell his house. And while it's unfortunate for the tenant, that really isn't the OP's problem.

D3PO · 14-05-2013 12:06PM

khards wrote: »

People need to drop the 'I am the landlord, do as I say' attitude and have some respect for other people.
We don't know any of the details of the tenants situation, I also suspect the landlord does no know the full story either. You might find that there is no where for them to go, then what?

That isn't the attitude anybody is taking here. However your advocating an "Im the tenant everything is stacked in my favour do as I say or I will screw you attitude."

Cold perhaps but being a landlord is being a business, there is no room for sentiment. As for the tenant having nowhere to go that's bull, there is always somewhere for them to go, your making it out as if they wouldn't have other rental options.

Unless this is a house on one of the Aran islands or the likes there will be other accomadation available locally. If its not up to the tenants liking that's a different story but not a concern of the outgoing landlord.

Stereomaniac · 14-05-2013 12:07PM

Couldn't agree with you more. It's within the OP's rights to just force them out of the house, I would have thought, to just evict them. However, it is a very difficult situation. We hear people on the Moan-In radio shows saying they haven't found alternative accommodation all the time and my heart just goes out to them. Some understanding is needed.

Victor · 14-05-2013 12:22PM

khards wrote: »

@Chiorino

I think you should question you morals.

Let the tenant stay until they can find another suitable property to move into.

I hope you sleep well tonight whilst thinking about the situation you have put the tenant in.

Do not personalise posts. Keep it on topic and constructive.

Moderator

Chiorino · 15-05-2013 08:21AM

Thanks for all the advice folks. From the info I've gotten here I'm happy that I've done everything by the book so far. I'll send the tenant a letter today and see what the response is.

the_syco · 15-05-2013 09:15AM

Chiorino wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice folks. From the info I've gotten here I'm happy that I've done everything by the book so far. I'll send the tenant a letter today and see what the response is.

Ensure you send it by registered post so that you get confirmation that he received the letter. Handing the note over by yourself won't stand up in court.

Tenant won't move after notice given

Comments