# Notice to terminate how long?



## roker (5 Jul 2011)

If a lease is signed for 12 months, does the tenant still have to give notice to leave, we have been told that the laws states 42 days notice must be given


----------



## onq (5 Jul 2011)

Could I respectfully request that you carefully read the lease document and any briefing documents you or your solicitor received from the lessor or his solicitor.
I would be surprised if conditions governing the giving of notice is not stated therein and your solicitor should have briefed you on this.
Otherwise you may need to ask about what legislation governs this matter and there I cannot assist you.
I think leases may be enforceable for the period of the lease unless there is a break clause.
If you vacate the premises prematurely there may be a penalty clause.

ONQ.

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot      be                            relied                      upon                                                                                                                                                             as    a                           defence          or                           support      -                in                   and         of                                  itself       -                                           should                                        legal                                         action                         be                                            taken.
             Competent legal and building professionals should be asked             to                              advise        in                                                                                                                                                                       Real               Life              with                       rights            to                             inspect                  and                               issue                                       reports                   on                        the                                                           matters                at                                          hand.


----------



## roker (5 Jul 2011)

Thanks, I am equiring for my daughter, she is not finishing the lease before the twelve months is up, only the LL solicitor said thay must give 42 days notice. but 12 months lease is twelve months or is it ? I have also told her to look at the contract, but are these the terms not general conditions?.


----------



## oldnick (5 Jul 2011)

The law as determined by the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 which states that for leases of between one and two years require 42 days notice.
No contract or lease agreement can over-rule the law. Personally, but I may be wrong I don't think contracts mean much


----------



## onq (5 Jul 2011)

Happy to stand corrected oldnick, but don't tell a legal eagle that 

roker, you might find this Guide to the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 useful.

The table on page 5 refers giving the following periods of notice to be served by tenants after the relevant period of occupation.

==============

_Less than 6 months - 28 days

6 or more months but less than 1 year - 35 days

1 year or more but less than 2 years - 42 days

_==============

Thanks to oldnick for the heads up. 

ONQ.


----------



## roker (6 Jul 2011)

Thanks. 42 days from the link given. Although my daughter is giving notice, she is forced into this and would prefer to stay, because the house is on the market for sale and she does not feel secure, I think it is the LL that should be giving the notice and not enforcing the 42 days


----------



## Greta (10 Jul 2011)

It looks to me from the link given by Onq that at the end of a fixed term tenancy the tenants must give notice *to remain* rather than to leave!



> Tenants may opt to continue in occupation after a fixed
> term tenancy that has lasted 6 months or more expires, but
> they must notify the landlord of an intention to remain,
> between one and three months before the fixed term lease
> is due to expire.


----------



## oldnick (11 Jul 2011)

There are two seperate aspects-
Tenants must give certain periods of notice to terminate, length of period depending on length of tenancy.
 And ,seperate from that, tenants must give notice of intention to stay between one to three months before the end of the lease.


----------



## muchmore (11 Jul 2011)

So you keep your deposit (all other things being ok) if you give 35/42 days notice for a rented house etc? Don't think many people know that, if true... Regardless of what you sign up to inthelease agreeent?


----------



## oldnick (11 Jul 2011)

I get the impression that many landlords, and certainly most tenants, seem unaware of the Residential Tenancies Act - a quick guide of which can be obtained from Dept Environment or accessing the website.
 As it says in the Act ..
" THE LANDLORD OR TENANT CANNOT CONTRACT OR BE CONTRACTED OUT OF THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE ACT..... IF A TENANCY AGREEMENT OR LEASE PURPORTS TO TAKE AWAY SUCH RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS THEN ANY SUCH PROVISON IS RENDERED VOID"

In other words it doesnt matter what the lease or agreement states  if in any way it contradicts the Act.

That's why in many cases contracts are a meaningless waste of time.  However you can make certain specifications  e.g. about pets, overnight guests, smoking etc that are not covered in the Act.

P.S. _re length of notice to leave:_ -it ranges,depending on lentgh of tenancy from 28 days(under 6 mths) to 56 days (2 yrs plus)


----------



## bugler (11 Jul 2011)

I would point out that the RTA 2004 *does not* override fixed term leases in terms of their fixed nature. i.e. you, or your landlord, cannot terminate a fixed term lease simply by giving the notice periods that are outlined in the RTA. Threshold, the PRTB etc have been quite clear on this in their supplementary materials. 

The RTA is an atrocious piece of legislation, that warbles on about this, that and the other while failing at any point (that I know of) to qualify that its statutory obligations are the minimum afforded outside of a lease agreement, not something that negates the point of leases full stop. As a fixed term agreement can't be quantified as "good" or "bad" (it's good if you want seucirty of tenure, bad if you lost your job or hate the place and want to leave) the RTA leaves them alone. 

Your statutory rights are not infringed by being held to a fixed term agreement, be you landlord or tenant.

Threshold.ie



> What happens if there is a fixed term lease in place?
> A tenant cannot avail of the notice periods where they are bound by a fixed term lease which they signed.



PRTB.ie



> Termination of fixed term tenancies by the landlord
> 
> A fixed term tenancy should last for its duration and should only be terminated if:
> 
> ...


----------



## oldnick (11 Jul 2011)

Yes, based on the websites you quote you are right, bugler, and I am wrong -apologies to OP and indeed Onq. I really believed that the RTA was the last and full word on tenancy agreements. Good job I've never had a problem with any tenants !

It would seem therefore that if OP's daughter had signed a twelve month contract then she must pay for the full twelve months or whatever it says in the contract -i.e. 42 days notice may not be enough. ( unless she finds a suitable alternative tenant that the landlord cannot reasonably refuse).  Is that so?

So, Bugler, is the following right ?......

-The RTA periods of notice only apply when there has been no pre-contracted  fixed period of tenure ? 
For example 1) if a tenant has stayed for ,say, three years  (-but there was no contract,or maybe just a short one) and wishes to leave then she can give 52 days notice.
2) But if a tenant has signed, say , a five-year fixed lease contract then he/she can't quit without penalty/loss deposit/ whatever it says in contract ? (unless finds suitable alternative tenant?)

-and is my belief that the landlord can't refuse a suitable alternative ,or am i only thinking of commercial tenancies ?

As you seem to know the law it would be great to get your clarification on this.


----------



## bugler (12 Jul 2011)

I'v bashed my head against many scenarios, and met all sorts of people who had all sorts of interpretation of the RTA. I met a letting agent who thought no one could be held to leases (he viewed the RTA has superceding all else).

I don't think the OP's query is related to breaking a lease, merely not continuing with one. But to answer your questions as I understand the RTA:

_It would seem therefore that if OP's daughter had signed a twelve month  contract then she must pay for the full twelve months or whatever it  says in the contract -i.e. 42 days notice may not be enough. ( unless  she finds a suitable alternative tenant that the landlord cannot  reasonably refuse).  Is that so?_ 

Yes, she would be bound to the lease unless she can avail of section 186 which allows for termination where a request to sublet is refused. I have never heard of someone being pursued for and charged the outstanding rent owed on the lease - loss of deposit is the most common result. 

_The RTA periods of notice only apply when there has been no pre-contracted  fixed period of tenure ? _

The RTA gives certain statutory rights and obligations that can't be taken away by any lease. But the right to terminate an agreement is not one of those rights. The RTA 2004 provisions on notice periods govern all tenancies that are not otherwise covered by a fixed term agreement - it doesnt matter what the origin of the tenancy was (lease or no lease). You are correct in both of your examples. In the first it is a Part IV tenancy and the tenant must give the requisite statutory notice. In the second example the tenant has signed a legally binding agreement for a fixed period and must see it through, or else find a legal way out (assignment of the remainder of the lease).

_-and is my belief that the landlord can't refuse a suitable alternative ,or am i only thinking of commercial tenancies ?_ 

That sounds reasonable, but to my knowledge there is no clarification of the section 186 process or what the LL is entitled or not entitled to in terms of a sub-let tenant. It seems reasonable that the LL should be allowed seek references etc, but where is this actually stated? Nowhere to my knowledge. 

FYI, I am not a legal professional and my opinions and interpretation of the RTA or otherwise are the result of personal experience and curiosity. Better and clearer legislation would be very welcome, there are currently too many tenants who think they can walk away from any property by serving notice, and too many landlords who think the house is theirs and they can do what they please with it, fixed term tenancy or not. 

Additionally, in affording tenants no *real *security of tenure it is ensuring Ireland remains a renter-hostile society.


----------



## oldnick (12 Jul 2011)

Many thanks - for someone not a legal professional most impressive, though I don't know if all the property investors on AAM would entirely agree with the last  few words about Ireland being renter-hostile.


----------



## bugler (12 Jul 2011)

oldnick said:


> Many thanks - for someone not a legal professional most impressive, though I don't know if all the property investors on AAM would entirely agree with the last  few words about Ireland being renter-hostile.



They probably wouldn't. But all I know is that if I want to provide a secure home for my family *and *rent, the legislation provides no help to me. I have to contract for that security myself by seeking a longer lease term. 

The RTA would leave me at the mercy of a landlord who can kick me out if:

- They want to sell.
- They want the house for themselves.
- They want the house for a "relative". 
- They want to substantially renovate.

It is no wonder we have an obsession with home ownership.


----------



## Greta (12 Jul 2011)

Private landlords aren't there to provide security of tenure for other people, it's provided by social housing, for those who qualify. Those who don't, can provide for it themselves - by *buying* a property.

Any imposition of rent controls/security of tenure only leads to acute shortages of private rental accommodation, as landlords abandon buy to let market in droves, as happened in the UK in the 70s-80s.

I personally think RTA is as good as tenants may get without actually driving most landlords out of the market.

I personally wouldn't rent out my house if there was no way for me to get the tenants out if I needed to, or if I couldn't get around the rules somehow - by only letting short-term or to companies, for example. I'd board the house up and wait for the laws to be changed, or sell if I could get a good price, and reivest in a normal country.


----------



## bugler (13 Jul 2011)

> Those who don't, can provide for it themselves - by *buying* a property.



Yeah, this has worked out *really *well for Ireland, hasn't it? What a great ethos - and no harm done to anyone!

A sizeable portion of Irish landlords are small-time and opportunistic, because they are encouraged to be by the legal framework. If you are a "professional" landlord you won't be looking to sell your property at short notice or want your tenants out so your daughter can move in while she's at college. These are not desirable outcomes for a modern society with respect to use of capital or labour mobility.

A professional landlord views it as a business and appreciates stability, you will often see here on AAM landlords talking about how good tenants are key, and how a bad one will sink you. So why wouldn't you want a long-term tenant at the prevailing market rent? Because you are opportunistic.



> and reivest in a normal country.



I'd suggest Germany. You'd love it there as a landlord.


----------



## oldnick (13 Jul 2011)

According to the very detailed and infromative  Irish law is regarded as "pro-tenant ".
The guide goes through every country and summarises  everything from property investment to rights or tenants and landlords.

I'm unsure, bugler, if a tenant and landlord sign a a fixed tenancy agrement for XYZ period of time how this leads to insecurity for the tenant. I understand that RTA does not give this security - to either side, but surely any tenant wanting security is safe with a fixed term lease. I'm probably wrong again so I bow to your superior knowledge.
But what EU state's example do you think ireland should follow for tenant security rights ?


----------



## Greta (13 Jul 2011)

bugler said:


> Because you are opportunistic.
> 
> I'd suggest Germany. You'd love it there as a landlord.



I would appreciate it if you refrain from personal slights. You don't know me and it's not for you to decide if I am opportunistic or not. I wrote about what I'd do, not my opinion of you for wanting someone else (your landlord) to provide security of tenure for you, without you having to take the risks that go with the property ownership

I do actually happen to want stable longish-term tenants paying market rent to me for my property. But I don't want to lose control of my property. The law already affords the tenants some security of tenure requiring the landlords to give nearly 4 months notice. Which is a big improvement on the old days when tenants could be kicked out with only 1 month notice.

My point is that it's *my* property and I want the right to use it as *I* want - provided the tenants are treated fairly while they are there and are given adequate notice to leave if I have other plans for the property.

Besides why exactly is the right to stay indefinitely/longer than the owner wants them to in a property that belongs to someone else is so important for tenants if they still have to pay *market* rent? After all, if the landlord asks them to leave and they are paying *marke*t rent, it should be possible to rent a similar property for similar rent? 
The laws affording tenants security of tenure usually also limit future rent increases, forcing landlords to subsidize their tenants, indefinitely.

I doubt that many professional (and not opportunistic) landlord would be happy with that


----------



## roker (16 Jul 2011)

Thanks for your comments; the regulations are very confusing to me. My daughter is completing a 12 month contract, the LL would like her and family to stay because they are good tenants and they have reduced the rent, but at the same time LL has the house on the market, with the added inconvenience of having people view the house. She does not feel secure in these circumstance and has given notice to quite.

 They quoted 42 days notice but I am still not sure about this. If she signs for 12 months then does she have to give notice? It should be obvious.


----------



## oldnick (16 Jul 2011)

I share your confusion. But after much reading since I was corrected by bugler at the start of this thread my feeling is this.....

If your daughter has a fixed term tenancy then that's all that matters - unless she wanted to stay, in which case she should have notified the LL one to three months before expiry of that fixed term tenancy.
But she does  not want to stay and never told the LL that she wanted to stay.               So, actually, there was no reason for her to have given any notice except out of politeness to remind the LL that she doesn't wish to extend her tenancy.
If she is sticking to the 12 month period as per the contract then there is no need for her to give any notice.

I think the LL is using the RTA conditions ,much as I wrongly did at the start of this thread. But as she had a fixed term lease the RTA aspect does not apply- unless she herself advised the LL she wished to extend.

I'm 99% sure this is right.


----------

