# Possible for two parties to draw up a tenancy agreement without the use of an agent?



## terrontress (27 Mar 2012)

I own a property with tenants in and the rent does not cover the mortgage.

The tenants have contacted to advise that they intend to move out in the near future.

They say they might know of people who are interested in moving in and would be willing to assist in that process.

This will save me the cost of a letting agent, which could be as high as €1,000.

Is it possible for two parties to draw up a tenancy agreement without the use of the agent? This is the one issue which I am most concerned about. Something legally enforceable.


----------



## 44brendan (27 Mar 2012)

Of course it is. Do you not have such an agreement with your current tenants?


----------



## bugler (27 Mar 2012)

There are template agreements out there - I believe there is one on 

EDIT: It looks as though they now charge a fee for this - I'm sure it used to be free.

Still a free one here: [broken link removed]


----------



## facetious (27 Mar 2012)

You have three options for a lease, Fixed term, Part 4 or periodic. There are advantages and disadvantages for all of them.

Very briefly:
A Fixed Term lease is the most popular with landlord as basically the landlord can hope to have the property rented out for the full fixed term. However, if the tenants are a problem, he cannot remove the tenants unless they break the terms of the lease. Also you cannot breal the terms of the lease - for example, if you want to regain possession of the property before the lease expires.
A Part 4 lease is the minimum requirement under current regulations - and most Fixed Term leases are based on a Part 4 lease but for a specified time. A tenant with a Part 4 lease can leave the property at any time by giving written notice and the required notice period. The landlord can remove a tenant during the first 6 months of a Part 4 lease without a reason. After the six month "probationary" period of six months, the landlord can only remove the tenant using certain grounds, the two most used are if the landlord requires the property for his, or a close family member's use. The other ground is if he intends to sell the property in the next 3 months. 

A Periodic lease usually runs from month to month, being renewed on a monthly basis but using the same lease contract - it can continue for up to 4 years (I think). A part from that, it's terms are the same as a Part 4 lease. A Periodic lease is very rarely used.

As bugler said, topfloor has both fixed term and Part 45 leases available for free and downloadable.


----------



## oldnick (27 Mar 2012)

A cynical comment on contracts/leases or any sort of written agreements  between tenant and landlord........
 (based on my own long experience, those of my friends and from the many posts on this and other sites).

Tenants breaks a lease and just move out. What do you do ? Sue ? If you keep the deposit consider yourself lucky.  Even if you are crazy enough to take legal proceedings for lost rent, and assuming tenants are'nt now in Sydney, what do you do if the tenants can't pay because they're broke ? 

Tenants cause damage costing more than the deposit. Again,same story.

Tenants stop paying. O.K. you have a contract and you'll evict them. Good luck on that in Ireland.

Look -if the tenant is a decent person the landlord will come to some sort of settlement/compromise etc.  Good references plus ,even better, recommendation from a reliable source  are far better ,to me, than any contract.

If the tenant is nasty then a piece of paper affords little comfort to the landlord.


----------



## facetious (28 Mar 2012)

I definitely agree with you, oldnick.

In general, the tenant seems to be able to get away with a lot of things. As you say, if the tenant just vanishes leaving with rent arrears, utilities unpaid and/or damage to the property over and above the value of the deposit. And the case of the tenant using the deposit as the last month's rent. Basically, there is nothing the landlord can do. In most cases, the tenant will be a tenant of another landlord so the PRTB should be able to find them but alas, the data protection seems to prevent any action being taken by the landlord.

The landlord can also have a problem as regards vetting a new tenant which is partly due to the data protection act. I know of one landlord who uses an excessively long application form which seems to deter the more irresponsible type of tenant. Again, I think that the greater percentage of problems are in the lower end of the rental market.

In the UK there are several agencies which the landlord can get information on prospective tenants. Also, "over there", deposits are often 1.5 or 2 times the monthly rent.
There are, without doubt, a number of close to unscrupulous landlords out there. They rent accommodation to the absolutely minimum of standards and with furniture/appliances/ which have really seen better days and are liable to break down at any moment. 

The PRTB, while a well intentioned organization (quango?) appears to be, in spite of the large registration fees received, highly inefficient and slow to adjudicate in disputes. Disputes need to have decisions made quickly, within a month at the most - not the months or even years that it currently takes. 

IMHO, the PRTB need to have some form of legal enforcement of their decisions without having to revert to the courts. Another way might be that the two parties may have the right to either accept the PRTB's decisions or to elect to go through the more expensive and a longer process of the courts.

But I go off topic really, so I close.


----------



## oldnick (28 Mar 2012)

Actually,  you're right on topic . The OP is concerned about leases/contracts that are "legally enforceable". 

You and I are pointing out leases/contracts are not worth trying to enforce.

Waving a contract may persuade some tenants to behave well, but good tenants don't need it and bad tenants will behave badly.

I would love to hear of a case where a landlord has pursued a tenant in court and got fully compensated for all losses, court costs, time and effort etc.


----------



## facetious (28 Mar 2012)

All (or at least most of) leases are legally enforceable. The question is, is it worth while pursuing a tenant who has little or no money, or a tenant who has "vanished".

In the vast majority of cases, landlords do not pursue as the cost, hassle etc is often more than he would recover in the short term. And most of the "bad" tenants know this.

To help prevent having a "bad" tenant, the landlord should act in a completely business like manner and thoroughly investigate his prospective tenant - but this is never infallible.

Somewhere between the bad landlord and the professional landlord is the unwilling landlord, who has found that as he is in negative equity he can neither sell the property nor afford to remain living in it. Thus, he sees renting out his home as a way out, not realizing all the pitfalls of being a landlord, even if he employs the services of a letting/estate agent. These latter class of people are generally, IMHO, extremely poor at their job, not knowing the laws as regards renting (nor selling, how many have all the properties on their books which have a BER cert, for example?)  

OP, be warned!!


----------



## terrontress (2 Apr 2012)

Nail on the head facetious. I fall squarely in to the third camp. Had to leave the state with my wife to find work overseas.

Since then the value of our property and its rental value has dropped, dropped, dropped.

We would love to wash our hands of it in the morning but cannot so we are just trying to tread water and pay the biils, pray upon pray that something miraculous happens in Ireland because we cannot afford to sell and crystallise the negative equity.

As the outgoings are already far in excess of the incomings, I want to keep the costs as low as possible and the tenant who is now moving out has mentioned that he would help look for someone new to move in, saving me one month's rent which a letting agent would charge. Allegedly he had friends who wanted to move in to our complex in the past but each time a place was advertised, it was snapped up quickly.

Maybe it is best to leave it up to the professionals to find someone.


----------



## Bronte (2 Apr 2012)

oldnick said:


> .
> 
> I would love to hear of a case where a landlord has pursued a tenant in court and got fully compensated for all losses, court costs, time and effort etc.


 
Me too.  Having rented for a few years now I've never supplied a lease to a tenant, waste of time.


----------



## terrontress (2 Apr 2012)

Bronte said:


> Me too. Having rented for a few years now I've never supplied a lease to a tenant, waste of time.


 
Obviously the tenant feels somewhat protected by the lease though...


----------



## Bronte (2 Apr 2012)

terrontress said:


> Obviously the tenant feels somewhat protected by the lease though...


 
How so?  What extra rights does it give them that they don't already have.


----------



## terrontress (2 Apr 2012)

Bronte said:


> How so? What extra rights does it give them that they don't already have.


 
That they will not have to undergo the hassle and costs of moving home within the duration of the tenancy period.

Or if I decided to start dropping in every now and again, that they could refuse entry if I had not given adequate notice.

These may not be dependent on the agreement itself but if I were a tenant, I would feel a lot more secure if I had such a document in my hand.


----------



## oldnick (2 Apr 2012)

Yes, the tenant may feel protected by a piece of paper, but actually there's a whole load of laws, rules and regulations that adequately protect the tenant, so ,as Bronte says, there's little differtnce betwene having a written contract and not having one.

But even if there's a tiny advantage for the tenant, of which I;m unaware, I am convinced that there is none for the landlord. Maybe in theory but not in practice.

The greatest beneficiaries of  written contracts are lawyers.


----------



## oldnick (2 Apr 2012)

terontress -I'm intrigued and you don't have to tell me.

You say you're outgings are far more than your rental. I'm assuming therefore that you bought a house ,rather than,say, a centrally located apartment. (Usually, house rentals don't produce the same returns as an apt).

 I'm also assuming you're on a dearer variable mortgae rather than a cheap tracker.
If you had bought an apt and got tracker then ,regardless of the collapse in price,your rent should cover your loan repayments. In fact some people who bought in 2005 are paying less per month than some people who bought a similar property last year (2% of 400k costs less than 5% of 200k).

Anyway I was just curious.Sorry to be nosey.


----------



## Bronte (3 Apr 2012)

terrontress said:


> That they will not have to undergo the hassle and costs of moving home within the duration of the tenancy period.
> 
> Or if I decided to start dropping in every now and again, that they could refuse entry if I had not given adequate notice.
> 
> .


 
Not sure why you are asking about it from a tenant's point of view.  But a lease or not a landlord does not have the right to enter a property.  And a tenant does not have to leave when the lease ends?  Most sane landlords don't want tenant's to leave.  Tenant's who pay their rent on time and keep the place well are worth their weight in gold.


----------



## facetious (3 Apr 2012)

I would always recommend a written lease agreement between a landlord and tenant. 

It sets out all the details, terms and conditions and if done correctly also *acts as the rent book.* Any special conditions in a written lease over and above those provided in the RTA 2004 are clearly defined and can be useful to remove a tenant if they are in breach thereof. 

Lack of a written lease, a detailed inventory or when conditions are verbal all lead to disputes. In regard to disputes with the PRTB, landlords usually lose any claim (made either by landlord or tenant) through insufficient or poor quality proof which often stems from lack of written evidence.

The bad tenant may ignore a written lease and a claim against him may not be worthwhile. 

However, IMHO, it is better to have a written lease. Leases can be downloaded for free and can be completed by a landlord thus solicitors and their fees are not required. Most of all, a landlord should have a good tenant application form with lots of relevant questions. IMHO, a bad tenant will not both with a long application form but the good tenant has no problems in filling it out.


----------



## bugler (3 Apr 2012)

Without a fixed term lease the tenant can be turfed out with little notice if the landlord wants the dwelling for their own use, a family members use, if they are going to sell etc. That's a pretty bloody big reason to have a lease. As a renting family there's no way we could be at ease knowing we could be given 5 weeks notice in the morning.


----------



## terrontress (4 Apr 2012)

oldnick said:


> terontress -I'm intrigued and you don't have to tell me.
> 
> You say you're outgings are far more than your rental. I'm assuming therefore that you bought a house ,rather than,say, a centrally located apartment. (Usually, house rentals don't produce the same returns as an apt).
> 
> ...


 
No probs oldnick. I think there is no reason to be secretive on a site such as this, especially when asking for help.

It is an apartment, bought in 2005, but not located centrally. I was working for AIB back then and got it with a staff rate mortgage. AIB Staff Business are still the lender and I am on their variable rate, currently 3%.

The loan is about €40k less than was taken out but it is still €100k more than the value of the property.

The repayments of the mortgage are currently €150 more than the rent. Then I've got monthly home insurance, life assurance payments. Finally, €120 per month in property management charges. I have eaten through all my savings and now the tenant wants to move so I'll have to pay for all the associated costs of that.

I think I am going to have to go interest only which really sickens me. 

I am sorry I ever laid eyes on the place.


----------



## facetious (4 Apr 2012)

If the tenant is moving out mid term, it is best to have the lease assigned as in this case you do not have to register the tenancy again with the PRTB but only advise them of the new tenants. 
If you create a new lease then you must pay for a new tenancy registration.


----------



## terrontress (5 Apr 2012)

The existing tenants are coming up on four years in the property so I think I would have to re-register with PRTB anyway.


----------



## facetious (5 Apr 2012)

That is correct. If you decide to go for a Part 4 lease, you can remove the tenants during the first 6 months without stating a reason as the four year cycle " a further Part 4" starts out at zero again. Not that you would want to remove a good tenant!!


----------



## Manuel (19 Apr 2012)

Interesting discussion!

I for one have never given a tenant a lease agreement. On a few occasions I've handed the tenant a copy of that template and asked them to read through it. But for one reason or another (yes, laziness partly), I've never gone back and actually written it up and signed it. I thought I was the only one, and I'm a little reassured that some of you landlords out there don't feel it's worth having ...

My second-last tenant was a disaster and I had to ensure I got him out before he was there 6 months - and I did. Had there been a lease in place I suspect it might have been more difficult.

The lesson I learned was to invest all my energy into getting the right tenants in the first place. Funnily enough, with my current tenant, again I handed him a copy of the lease template, but never followed it through.

I suppose if my tenant felt strongly enough he would get back to me .. but as a single man I guess he's not too bothered about security of tenure ....


----------



## facetious (20 Apr 2012)

If you don't sign a fixed term lease with the tenant, the tenant will in fact have a Part 4 tenancy and can therefore leave at any time with the correct amount of notice AND be entitled to the return of the deposit in full (excepting damage over and above normal W&T). So, in effect, the landlord is going to have to register a new tenancy when he finds a new tenant.
With a fixed term lease the landlord is entitled to retain the deposit if the tenant does not find an assignee. No re-registration required, just a change of tenant.

However, if the tenant is on a Part 4 tenancy from the start, the landlord can remove the tenant during the first 6 months without giving a reason whereas, with a fixed term lease the landlord cannot unless there is a break clause to that effect but which must give the tenant the same rights. After the six months, the landlord can only remove the tenant using the (six, I think) grounds as stated in the RTA 2004, two of which are if the landlord wants the property for himself or if the landlord intends to sell the property.


----------



## Manuel (22 Aug 2012)

Taking all the above into consideration, wouldn't it be a practical approach to take on a new tenant on an agreed (verbal) trial basis for 6 months, and if both parties are happy approaching the 6 months, then to enter a lease agreement say for a further 12? Tenant then gets security of tenure in a home he likes, and landlord gets peace of mind regarding rent incoming and upkeep of the property etc.

In the case of my bad tenant, I considered myself fortunate that I didn't have a lease in place when I realised I needed to get rid after 4 months ...

/M.


----------



## facetious (22 Aug 2012)

Manuel said:


> Taking all the above into consideration, wouldn't it be a practical approach to take on a new tenant on an agreed (verbal) trial basis for 6 months, and if both parties are happy approaching the 6 months, then to enter a lease agreement say for a further 12? Tenant then gets security of tenure in a home he likes, and landlord gets peace of mind regarding rent incoming and upkeep of the property etc.
> 
> In the case of my bad tenant, I considered myself fortunate that I didn't have a lease in place when I realised I needed to get rid after 4 months ...
> 
> /M.


Ahhhh, an old thread being resurrected!!!

It depends on what type of lease you verbally agreed to, and then, it is your word against the tenant's.

If you have a verbal fixed term lease, you can only remove (evict) the tenant if he is in breach of the tenant's obligations. Likewise, in theory, the tenant can only vacate and retain his deposit if the landlord is in breach of the landlord's obligations or by assigning the lease.

If you do not agree to a fixed term lease, then it will probably be a Part 4 lease. However, the tenant may vacate at any time (giving the correct notice period) and retain his deposit. However, a landlord can also, during the first six months only, evict the tenant without reason, thereafter only on the 6 grounds as cited in the RTA 2004.

In general, landlords want to keep their tenants and therefore, a Part 4 lease is less popular as it is considered a less secure lease (both from the landlord's and tenant's point of view).

Having no lease is all very well while things are going well. It's when there is a problem that a written lease is worth while as it is evidence of what was agreed. A lease should also have a schedule or be annexed with a detailed inventory of all items in the property as well as the condition of all items, furnishings, floors, walls, ceilings, doors, windows, paintwork etc. Having looked at many PRTB claims, failure to provide such a document is the principle reason that landlords lose claims where there is a dispute over damage in excess of normal wear and tear and the return of the tenant's deposit. And this can be very, very costly to a landlord. 

In fact, IMHO, a detailed inventory (signed by the tenant as affirming its details) is probably more important than the lease, as a lease is normally just restating the more important parts of the RTA 2004 with possibly some special clauses such as "no pets allowed" or "no smoking within the property" or, where appropriate the term of the lease.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in an earlier post, if there is no lease, the landlord is required to supply the tenant with a rent book which should also give certain details of the lease agreement. But, with a lease, they are usually written in such a manner that they cover the laws as regards rent books.

It must also be remembered that when a tenant has been in the property for more than six months, he automatically acquires Part 4 rights to remain in the property for a total of 4 years and the tenant can decide what type of lease suits him, not the landlord. A tenant does not have to agree to a fixed term lease whether verbal or written if he feels that he may want to vacate at some point of time in the future and easily retain his deposit.


----------

