# Landlord breaking the lease



## Duck (7 Jan 2007)

Today my landlord rang me and said that he wants to sell his house,and he told me that he was sending up a letter tomorrow giving us two months notice. We have been living in this UNFURNISHED house for a year and half and we are currently only half way through our current 12 month lease that runs out at the end of July. I was just wondering is he entitled to do this??? We have been perfect tenants and paid the rent on time every month, he said that he justs wants to sell up. Do we have any rights here at all??? Even considering that it is an unfurnished house or is the Landlord well within his rights to sell up???


----------



## baby_tooth (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*

he can sell, but you do have rights and can fight it, which is what you should do. 
If ppl always let landlords away with this then it become ingrained as acceptebale behaviour for them

You have a lease, get him to buy out your lease. If he refuses to do this, then tell him to get an order to quit, this will take him a few months, so you still get your full term.


----------



## Duck (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*

Thanks for the reply baby tooth,are you sure I can do that?? And how and where can I go about in doing this if I decide this is the route I want to go!


----------



## bankrupt (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*

I'm not sure that BabyTooth is correct, you should check your lease in case there is a clause that prevents the landlord from kicking you out but selling up is one of the reasons that the PRTB allow landlords to use to evict tenants.  I suggest that you contact Threshold and the PRTB to get a definitive answer.

Unfortunately your situation underlines just how weak tenants' rights really are under the PRTB (admittedly much improved on the previous state of affairs.)


----------



## Duck (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*

Thanks Bankrupt,do you know how I can contact Threshold or the PRTB?


----------



## bankrupt (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*



Duck said:


> Thanks Bankrupt,do you know how I can contact Threshold or the PRTB?


 
www.prtb.ie
www.threshold.ie


----------



## baby_tooth (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*



bankrupt said:


> I'm not sure that BabyTooth is correct, you should check your lease in case there is a clause that prevents the landlord from kicking you out but selling up is one of the reasons that the PRTB allow landlords to use to evict tenants. I suggest that you contact Threshold and the PRTB to get a definitive answer.
> 
> Unfortunately your situation underlines just how weak tenants' rights really are under the PRTB (admittedly much improved on the previous state of affairs.)


 

the landlord can evict you if he is putting the house up for sale straight away.
but you also have a lease,,,,he's making your life more awkward so ask him to buy out the remaining lease, or give you back your deposit and help you obtain a similar house in the same area, or you can tell him to wait until your lease is up, that you are not moving out till then period.

He can then go and get an eviction order, which most likely he won't get if you have representation and state that you will move out at the end of your lease....

play hard ball with him, its your life he's messing with. Use the law to your full advantage, and this will show l.lords that they can't go about doing whatever it is they want.

speak to threshold..


----------



## baby_tooth (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*

[broken link removed]


----------



## bankrupt (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*



baby_tooth said:


> the landlord can evict you if he is putting the house up for sale straight away. but you also have a lease,,,,he's making your life more awkward so ask him to buy out the remaining lease, or give you back your deposit and help you obtain a similar house in the same area, or you can tell him to wait until your lease is up, that you are not moving out till then period.
> 
> He can then go and get an eviction order, which most likely he won't get if you have representation and state that you will move out at the end of your lease....
> 
> ...


 
Duck, I would be very interested to hear how you get on with this (especially if you take the course of action outlined by BT.)  Good luck.


----------



## Duck (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*



bankrupt said:


> Duck, I would be very interested to hear how you get on with this (especially if you take the course of action outlined by BT.) Good luck.


 
I will keep you up to date on what happens!


----------



## bankrupt (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*



baby_tooth said:


> You can tell him to wait until your lease is up, that you are not moving out till then period.
> 
> He can then go and get an eviction order, *which most likely he won't get if you have representation* and state that you will move out at the end of your lease....


 
Hi baby_tooth, I don't understand why you think an eviction order will be refused?  (assuming the landlord is not breaking the terms of the lease, which I imagine is unlikely).


----------



## delgirl (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*



baby_tooth said:


> the landlord can evict you if he is putting the house up for sale straight away.
> but you also have a lease,,,,he's making your life more awkward so ask him to buy out the remaining lease, or give you back your deposit and help you obtain a similar house in the same area, or you can tell him to wait until your lease is up, that you are not moving out till then period.
> 
> He can then go and get an eviction order, which most likely he won't get if you have representation and state that you will move out at the end of your lease....
> ...


Hi Duck, by all means speak to Threshold and the PRTB, but you should know that the landlord is legally only required to give you 42 days notice under the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act to vacate his/her property as he/she has indicated that the property is to be sold.

The above is very poor, ill-informed advice.


----------



## baby_tooth (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*



bankrupt said:


> Hi baby_tooth, I don't understand why you think an eviction order will be refused? (assuming the landlord is not breaking the terms of the lease, which I imagine is unlikely).


 

he can go and get an order to quit if he wants, but the whole process is slow and protracted. It's not the ideal situation, but you can fight this order, which you can use as a delaying mechanisim.

A lease exists for a reason. 


The best situation if to talk with your landlord and make him aware of the fact that this inconviences you. He may help in relocation or a reduction in rent or give back the deposit early to help in finding another place or a combination of all of the above.

And just becasue the law is weak from the tenants point of view doesn't mean its right and doesn't mean you have to bow and cede way.

Personally i would look for some compensation if this is of a major inconvience to you. And if the l.loard was being unhelpful or disagreeable well i would stand up to him and refuse to move.


----------



## MugsGame (7 Jan 2007)

Which will be very helpful when their next landlord is looking for a reference!

I don't know the legal  situation, but two months notice seems very fair.


----------



## delgirl (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*



baby_tooth said:


> And just becasue the law is weak from the tenants point of view doesn't mean its right and doesn't mean you have to bow and cede way.
> 
> Personally i would look for some compensation if this is of a major inconvience to you. And if the l.loard was being unhelpful or disagreeable well i would stand up to him and refuse to move.


The tenant from Hell!


----------



## bankrupt (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*



delgirl said:


> The tenant from Hell!


 
I have to say that a landlord breaking a lease half-way through a year would be an enormous expense and inconvenience to me, I would certainly do anything (legal) I could to see the lease through.  The security of tenure provided for by the PRTB is just not sufficiently protective of tenants to my mind.


----------



## delgirl (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*



bankrupt said:


> I have to say that a landlord breaking a lease half-way through a year would be an enormous expense and inconvenience to me, I would certainly do anything (legal) I could to see the lease through. The security of tenure provided for by the PRTB is just not sufficiently protective of tenants to my mind.


Yes, the operative work here is legal.

Consider the position of the landlord for a moment - perhaps he/she is ill, has been made redundant, and needs to sell the property to support him/herself.  Perhaps he/she was one of the investors who bought when prices were high and now finds him/herself unable to cover the recent mortgage interest rate increases and is struggling each month to make the payments.

The landlord has acted correctly and has even been fair enough to give 60 day's notice where only 42 are required by law.

The law is there to protect both parties.  It's an unfortunate situation, but Duck should do the right thing and look for alternative accommodation.


----------



## bankrupt (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*



delgirl said:


> Yes, the operative work here is legal.
> 
> Consider the position of the landlord for a moment - perhaps he/she is ill, has been made redundant, and needs to sell the property to support him/herself. Perhaps he/she was one of the investors who bought when prices were high and now finds him/herself unable to cover the recent mortgage interest rate increases and is struggling each month to make the payments.
> 
> ...


 
In my opinion, (and in an ideal world) the landlord should have no right to turf Duck out of his home in this situation, ill or not.  So what if the landlord's investment has under-performed?  This is someone's home that is being considered, not a badly performing piece of stock. 

There is no question that Duck's landlord has acted legally but I would  also encourage Duck to seek whatever redress may be legally available.


----------



## delgirl (7 Jan 2007)

SPC100 said:


> The law is the law. But it generally unfairly protects the landlord (in my view - and I have been a landlord in the past). Tenants in Ireland have no real security of tenure, no real guarantee that where they are staying is their home.


I believe that tenants have more security that they did prior to the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act. The Landlord in this case is entitled to serve notice on the tenant only if he intends to sell the property within 3 months - the grounds for recovery of possession are subject to certain procedures to prevent abuse - it's up to the PRTB to check/enforce this.



> I am not definite, but I believe that *if* Duck signed a 1 year lease, and their is no clause in that lease allowing the landlord to terminate before the year is up, then the landlord is not acting correctly. And the law is protecting Duck.


The Landlord is entitled to terminate the lease giving 42 day's notice if he needs to sell the property.



> In my opinion, (and in an ideal world) the landlord should have no right to turf Duck out of his home in this situation, ill or not. So what if the landlord's investment has under-performed? This is someone's home that is being considered, not a badly performing piece of stock.


I wasn't comparing the tenant's home with 'a badly performing piece of stock', but was merely trying to shed some light from a landlord's point of view.

We recently had to sell an investment property as my husband became too ill to carry on in his particular line of work and we otherwise could not have afforded to pay our mortgage. We gave the tenant 2 month's notice and helped her to find alternative accommodation. The removal was carried out by a friend with a van and she had no other costs to cover. Yes, it was 'inconvenient' for her, but so too would it have been very costly for us to have allowed her to stay until the end of the lease.


----------



## bankrupt (7 Jan 2007)

delgirl said:


> We recently had to sell an investment property as my husband became too ill to carry on in his particular line of work and we otherwise could not have afforded to pay our mortgage. We gave the tenant 2 month's notice and helped her to find alternative accommodation. The removal was carried out by a friend with a van and she had no other costs to cover. Yes, it was 'inconvenient' for her, but so too would it have been very costly for us to have allowed her to stay until the end of the lease.


 
You obviously treated your tenant fairly but really a tenant should not have to depend on such good will, their home should be their home regardless of the landlord's financial difficulties.   If it is too costly for a landlord to maintain a rental property then I would question the landlord's planning.   We seem to have strong regulations in place for commercial leases, why not have corresponding ones for residential property?


----------



## Guest109 (7 Jan 2007)

would you be in a position to buy this property? if so make an offer think of the EA fees he would save if this is possible


----------



## RainyDay (7 Jan 2007)

*Re: Landlord breaking the lease!!*



delgirl said:


> Consider the position of the landlord for a moment - perhaps he/she is ill, has been made redundant, and needs to sell the property to support him/herself.  Perhaps he/she was one of the investors who bought when prices were high and now finds him/herself unable to cover the recent mortgage interest rate increases and is struggling each month to make the payments.


Perhaps the landlord should have considered these contingencies before signing up to a 12 month lease?


----------



## Duck (8 Jan 2007)

ainya said:


> would you be in a position to buy this property? if so make an offer think of the EA fees he would save if this is possible


 
No chance of being able to buy the house,one the exact same went for €670,000 only a few weeks ago,its just way out of my league,there are four of us sharing the rent here!!


----------



## gearoidmm (11 Jan 2007)

My understanding is the same as SPC100 above.  The residential tenancies act was designed to protect tenants who did not have a lease from being evicted willy-nilly.  A lease is a binding contract and supercedes the terms of the act


----------



## Panzraam (12 Jan 2007)

Delgirl,

I am afraid you are incorrect here. The RTA gives the minimum notice period that can be provide. A written lease supercedes the minimum notice and thus unless the lease provides otherwise the landlord has no right to terminate the tenancy until the end of the year period.


----------



## Duck (18 Jan 2007)

*Notice from Landlord*

I finally received the notice from the landlord asking us to vacate the premises. Here is the exact letter I received today,the 18th of January 2007. As I mentioned earlier,we have been living here for a year and a half and our current lease was due to end at the end of july, is he well within his rights to do this?

                                                                                                           7/01/2007

To the tenants of ???????????.
Mr. ??????????
Mr. ??????????
Mr. ??????????
Mr. ??????????

As per my discussion with ???????? earlier today and for the reasons mentioned during that conversation I must hereby give you 60 days notice of the termination of your lease. As personal circumstances necessitate that I must sell the property within the month of March I hereby request that you vacate the property on or before March 7 2007.
I apologise that this action is neccessary and I hope it does not cause you undue stress. If at any point over the coming 60 days you wish tovacate the property you are welcome to do so and your full deposit will duly be returned.

Landlord's signature


----------



## Card (18 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*

He has left out one important piece

something along the lines of 
*NOTE Any issue as to the validity of this notice or the right of the Landlord to serve it, must be referred to the Private Residential Tenancies Board under Part 6 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 within 28 days from the date of receipt of it.*

I believe for the notice to terminate to be valid it should contain the above section. 

PRTB however for what its worth really doesn't offer an protection to tenants. Tenants are very often viewed as commodities by landlords rather than people who consider the landlord's investment to be their home. 

The landlord's circumstances however may have changed and he is within he rights to terminate the lease if he wishes to sell. If a binding contract however is not in place within 3 months of you vacating you may have some comeback, although it's a lot of use to you then​


----------



## Purple (18 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*

If he needs to sell the place he needs to sell it. What do you want him to do, hold onto it because you want to stay there?


----------



## Card (18 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*

He needs to sell, which is fair, but seeing as the Lease runs only until next July the ideal situation if possible would be if he could at all to wait until then. 

The legislation as it currently exists is useless to Tenants in every respect, a system whereby tenants can realistically be allowed to consider a rented property their home and whereby Landlords recognise that their investment is in fact someone's home is probably impossibile to engineer but should be the aim


----------



## bankrupt (18 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*



Purple said:


> If he needs to sell the place he needs to sell it. What do you want him to do, hold onto it because you want to stay there?



I don't see why you think it is unreasonable to think that a lease should be binding?   In an ideal world Duck's landlord should not be at liberty to evict Duck until the end of the lease, if he has to sell then why not sell it with a sitting tenant?


----------



## bacchus (18 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*

Landlord is terminating a part 4 tenancy as he is selling the rented property.
He is actually entitled to give you only 42 days notice, not 60 days as you have been renting for more than 1.5 year.
See details [broken link removed]


----------



## Superman (18 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*

Card's post is correct.

If you really want to play silly buggers with the landlord, wait until the 7th of March and then tell him that he didn't include that sentence in his notice and thus his notice is invalid.  It will mean that you'll then have the house for another 42 days at least.


----------



## Panzraam (19 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*

Duck Why have you posted this again? As clearly set out in your previous thread the landlord will only have the right to terminate the lease if the terms of the lease provide for this. Read the lease and stop raising the issue in multiple threads!


----------



## ClubMan (19 Jan 2007)

I've merged the duplicate threads. Please note the posting guidelines:


----------



## dontaskme (19 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*



bacchus said:


> Landlord is terminating a part 4 tenancy as he is selling the rented property.
> He is actually entitled to give you only 42 days notice, not 60 days as you have been renting for more than 1.5 year.
> See details [broken link removed]


 
the OP says they have a 12 month lease however, the above applies to situation where there is no lease.

How about asking the landlord if he would consider transferring the lease to the new owner? You could agree to let prospective buyers view the house while continuing to live there?


----------



## gearoidmm (19 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*



Purple said:


> If he needs to sell the place he needs to sell it. What do you want him to do, hold onto it because you want to stay there?



Yes, absolutely.  It's your home and you are entitled to stay in it until your lease has expired.  What is the point of having a contract if the landlord can break it whenever he feels like it?  It's a lot of hassle and stress moving house.  The OP entered into this contract in good faith and so it should be honoured.

I have six months remaining on my lease and if the landlord tried to do this to me I'd tell him where to shove it. He can take me to court if he wants that expense (I also discussed this very issue the other day with a solicitor and he agreed with me).

That said, the OP has been asked over and over to go and read the lease and tell us if there are any provisions in the lease for early termination in the event of the landlord wishing to sell the house.  This whole discussion is pointless until we know this.


----------



## Purple (19 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*



gearoidmm said:


> Yes, absolutely.  It's your home and you are entitled to stay in it until your lease has expired.  What is the point of having a contract if the landlord can break it whenever he feels like it?  It's a lot of hassle and stress moving house.  The OP entered into this contract in good faith and so it should be honoured.
> 
> I have six months remaining on my lease and if the landlord tried to do this to me I'd tell him where to shove it. He can take me to court if he wants that expense (I also discussed this very issue the other day with a solicitor and he agreed with me).



So if a tenant wants to leave before the lease is up and gives the landlord 60 days notice the landlord should be able to force them to pay the rent for the full duration of the lease (as is the case with commercial leases)?
As a former landlord and a former tenant I don't think that the landlord is acting badly in this situation. I had tenants leave seven months into a lease because one of them was moving jobs. They gave me one months notice and I gave them their deposit back. While I was entitled to keep it under the terms of the lease I think that it would have been unreasonable to do so.


----------



## bankrupt (19 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*



Purple said:


> So if a tenant wants to leave before the lease is up and gives the landlord 60 days notice the landlord should be able to force them to pay the rent for the full duration of the lease (as is the case with commercial leases)?



Definitely.  A contract is a contract, at the very least there should be a penalty for breaking it.  It is ridiculous that landlords can break their leases with impunity in this country.


----------



## Duck (19 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*



dontaskme said:


> the OP says they have a 12 month lease however, the above applies to situation where there is no lease.
> 
> How about asking the landlord if he would consider transferring the lease to the new owner? You could agree to let prospective buyers view the house while continuing to live there?


 
Thanks dontaskme,that is the best advice I have recieved,sounds like a good idea!!! Hopefully the new owners would like to rent out the property, I didnt think about that


----------



## Purple (24 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*



bankrupt said:


> Definitely.  A contract is a contract, at the very least there should be a penalty for breaking it.  It is ridiculous that landlords can break their leases with impunity in this country.


 So you are saying that a landlord should be able to force a tenant to pay rent for the full term of the lease, even if the tenant moves out? 
I think that's a bit harsh, but you are entitled to your views, even if they are very rightwing.


----------



## bankrupt (24 Jan 2007)

*Re: Notice from Landlord*



Purple said:


> So you are saying that a landlord should be able to force a tenant to pay rent for the full term of the lease, even if the tenant moves out?
> I think that's a bit harsh, but you are entitled to your views, even if they are very rightwing.


 
Rightwing? I am saying that the situation that currently exists where a tenant has effectively no security of tenure is not tenable. If this were to change I would also expect a commensurate change in the responsibilities that tenants have and if this included a legal obligation to honour the terms of a lease that might be no bad thing. The main thrust of my argument is that it is tenants who are badly represented at present, not landlords, this needs to change to encourage a more mature rental market similar to that that exists in other countries.


----------



## pattt (24 Jan 2007)

I think all tenants should withold rents as system is not fair ,investment properties for peoples homes ,giving tennants very little rights,I think if all tenants went on strike  and witheld rent for a couple of weeks it might put a stop to this building boom which has spiralled out of controland values of properties would go where they should be ,ie affordable based on an average income30 years ago when time were bad one income could buy a house now it takes two good ones,is this progress?
Regards
Patt


----------



## gearoidmm (24 Jan 2007)

pattt said:


> I think all tenants should withold rents as system is not fair ,investment properties for peoples homes ,giving tennants very little rights,I think if all tenants went on strike  and witheld rent for a couple of weeks it might put a stop to this building boom which has spiralled out of controland values of properties would go where they should be ,ie affordable based on an average income30 years ago when time were bad one income could buy a house now it takes two good ones,is this progress?
> Regards
> Patt



That's ridiculous.  I don't want to buy.  I require a landlord to rent me a property and I want a market that's well regulated.  It isn't all about buying.


----------



## pattt (24 Jan 2007)

Ridiculous i agree!Fair enough,but now we have got to the rediculous stage where we have to import people into country to build houses to be rented by the workers who are building more,All over the place there are examples of bad planning decisions ,green spaces been eaten up for yet more houses and apartments,Commercial premises such as garages ,garden  centres ,Hotels are closing down for more houses.I think that when we wake up from this boom there will be tribunals about lack of vision ,where are the three fs,we spent years trying to get rid of a landlord class,now we are back to square 1,only this time its not the Brits but the Banks and the Middle classes with second and third properties payed for by tennants who have very little security,and probably couldnt get a morgage if they wanted one .Its ok when your young and free,but it aint a party if you are trying to educate kids in local school and live in a secure environment,to be told ,you got to go because landlord got to  cash in his/her assets


----------



## Purple (25 Jan 2007)

pattt said:


> only this time its not the Brits but the Banks and the Middle classes with second and third properties payed for by tennants who have very little security,and probably couldnt get a morgage if they wanted one .


What do you define as “middle class”? If it’s a two-income family anywhere near the average household income then I don’t think there are too many of them with three properties.


pattt said:


> Its ok when your young and free,but it aint a party if you are trying to educate kids in local school and live in a secure environment,to be told ,you got to go because landlord got to  cash in his/her assets


 That’s a good point but if a tenant is in a property more than a few years they acquire quite good rights of tenure. There will always be circumstances where a landlord has to sell and I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that there should be a blanket ban on this, just as I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that all tenants should be made to pay rent for the full term of their lease if they want or need to leave. 
If a tenant wants to break a lease they risk loosing their deposit. This seems fair. If a landlord wants to sell he or she has to give quite a bit of notice. I also think that this is fair.


----------



## bankrupt (25 Jan 2007)

Purple said:


> That’s a good point but if a tenant is in a property more than a few years they acquire quite good rights of tenure.


 
Unfortunately this just isn't true, the landlord can simply decide that he wants to sell and turf out his tenants, he can also decide that he wants to renovate or move in himself. This is not security of tenure in the sense that a lot of our European neighbours would understand. 



> There will always be circumstances where a landlord has to sell and I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that there should be a blanket ban on this, just as I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that all tenants should be made to pay rent for the full term of their lease if they want or need to leave.


 
Why is commercial property often sold with a sitting tenant? What is so different from the residential situation?



> If a tenant wants to break a lease they risk loosing their deposit. This seems fair. If a landlord wants to sell he or she has to give quite a bit of notice. I also think that this is fair.


 
Consider the following scenario - you have signed a 2 year lease for a property, expecting to be there for the full 2 years with your family. The landlord decides on a whim to sell the property and gives you the statutory 40 days to move. Fair? Perhaps the landlord changes his mind and re-rents the property, how would you know to seek redress? Would it actually make any difference as you have already had to go through the enormous upheaval of moving home? (Homeowners - what would you think of the prospect of having only 40 days to find a new home?)

Is it your attitude that "sure they're only renters - they'll find something? They're probably used to being evicted in any case." The sooner tenants' homes are properly protected the better, the PRTB was a step in the right direction but does not go nearly far enough.


----------



## MOB (25 Jan 2007)

"Consider the following scenario - you have signed a 2 year lease for a property, expecting to be there for the full 2 years with your family. The landlord decides on a whim to sell the property and gives you the statutory 40 days to move."

There seems to be a common misunderstanding here.  I hope this will help:

1.  If you have a two year lease, then you are absolutely entitled to stay for the two years unless the lease document itself gives the landlord an 'out'.  The answer here is not regulation but negotiation.  A tenant should not accept an early termination provision in the lease if the tenant does not want it in there.

2.  This  was the case before PRT Act and PRT Board ever came along.  It is still the case.

3.  If you are on a monthly lease, or if your one year lease has come to an end and you have continued on from month to month, the new regulatory regime gives you some rights.  However, these rights do not include a right to stay on if the Landlord wants to sell, or to move in a family member.   This means that the regulatory protection is kinda weak; but it in no way stops tenants from negotiating better terms when they sign leases, and it is currently by no means a landlord's market.


----------



## gearoidmm (26 Jan 2007)

SPC100 said:


> I agree mob this seems to be commonly misunderstood.
> 
> But the problem remains that renting is not a viable long term strategy in Ireland if you want to live in a particular area, and bring up kids in that area. You have at best (due to the leases offered on the market) a 1yr window of stability.
> 
> I agree the PRTB is a step in the correct direction, but ultimately I believe tennants should have much stronger rights.


 
This situation only applies because people are not used to asking for more.  A friend of mine was going to buy a new house but it would have meant leaving a rental prperty that he loved in an area that he loved with a reasonable rent in order to move to a much more expensive property 20miles away.

His rationale was that he wanted to be able to 'do what he wanted to the property' and that he had no security of tenure.  I convinced him to speak to the landlord and discuss the situation.  As a result, he now has a 4 year lease, he has new furniture, a paint job that he chose himself and is happy with his family.

Just to reiterate.  I spoke to another solicitor and if there is a lease, the landlord has no right to evict the tenants before the end of it.


----------

