# rental question!



## asriel (25 Apr 2006)

Hi!  Myself and my partner have just bought a house which we are moving into before the end of the month.  We have been in our current rented accomodation for 7 months and signed a lease for 12.  We have given our landlord at least two months notice however he has stated only yesterday that we need to find someone to rent the place within the next two weeks or he will keep our deposit.  I have heard from a few people that these contracts are not worth the paper they are written on however I am concerned that this particular property is way overpriced and we will find it difficult enough to rent out.  To be honest its the last thing I want to worry about as well as moving house.  I was just wondering where we stand regarding this?  I would have no objection to showing the house for him but becuase it is so overpriced I feel that we will end up forfeiting our deposit. Can anyone advise if what our landlord is requesting is above board?  I own a property down the country and would never dream of asking tennants to fill rooms if they had given me ample notice, in any case I would like to know who I am renting to!


----------



## Howitzer (25 Apr 2006)

Contact the prtb http://www.prtb.ie/ for a resolution and accept whatever they say. Is your landlord registered? If not, or if you don't know, simply telling him your intentions with respect to the prtb resolution process should suffice.


----------



## asriel (25 Apr 2006)

thanks Howitzer will check that out


----------



## tiroileain (25 Apr 2006)

Contact www.threshold.ie for advice


----------



## demoivre (25 Apr 2006)

I think the op should be happy to get awaw with just losing the deposit given that he signed up to a twelve month lease and wants to leave after seven - the fact that the accommodation is expensive is irrelevant . Your only hope imo is that the landlord hasn't acted legally in his dealings with you - if he has then you haven't a leg to stand on imo.


----------



## JohnnyBoy (25 Apr 2006)

asriel
can you let us know how you got on-apparently very few landlords are registered


----------



## Howitzer (25 Apr 2006)

JohnnyBoy said:
			
		

> asriel
> can you let us know how you got on-apparently very few landlords are registered


 
Also asriel, you say you've a place down the country. Are you yourself registered?


----------



## asriel (25 Apr 2006)

Ok rang the PRTB and Threshold both gave me the same response. Once you have been renting a property for 6 months, regardless of a 12 month contract you are entitled to return of full deposit provided you give one months notice to your landlord. He is registered with the PRTB. I'm going to offer to help him find people for the house as an act of goodwill, even though I'm not obliged to, as long as he can guarantee that there will be no difficulty with prompt return of our deposit regardless of whether we find suitable tennants for him or not.
( johnnyboy no I'm not registered myself, to be honest I'm very much in the dark when it comes to this kind of stuff!)


----------



## demoivre (25 Apr 2006)

I am astounded at the advice you have received and the landlord IS entitled to the rent for the 12 month period that you signed up to - since when is a lease not a legally binding contract ? Read what it says about  leases for fixed periods in  [broken link removed]  and while you're at it have a read of  . As I said earlier you will be doing well to only lose your deposit given you are breaking a legally binding lease  contract.


----------



## asriel (25 Apr 2006)

Yes I read the info on the website but when I rang I was advised otherwise? Now confused as to what to do, there seems to be a lot of conflicting opinions on this.  Think my best bet is to see if I can come to some agreement with the landlord on this.


----------



## Howitzer (25 Apr 2006)

asriel said:
			
		

> Yes I read the info on the website but when I rang I was advised otherwise? Now confused as to what to do, there seems to be a lot of conflicting opinions on this. Think my best bet is to see if I can come to some agreement with the landlord on this.


 
What the prtb says is binding. Tell him what the prtb has told you. I would leave it at that and enter into the prtb resolution process, but then I'm pretty bolshi. If he's not registered he'll back down pretty quickly anyway.

Also, the fact he, AND you as a landlord elsewhere, isn't registered is illegal. There is a fair bit of leeway and I've yet to hear of it being enforced through the courts but you need to resolve your own situation before you start taking a high position with someone else.


----------



## Howitzer (25 Apr 2006)

demoivre said:
			
		

> I am astounded at the advice you have received and the landlord IS entitled to the rent for the 12 month period that you signed up to - since when is a lease not a legally binding contract ? Read what it says about leases for fixed periods in [broken link removed] and while you're at it have a read of . As I said earlier you will be doing well to only lose your deposit given you are breaking a legally binding lease contract.


 
From the Oasis site

"You now have the right to stay in rented accommodation for the remainder of a four-year period, following an initial six-month probationary period. This type of tenancy is known as a *Part 4 tenancy*.
*Part 4 tenancies*

Your landlord can terminate a tenancy without giving a reason during the first six months of the tenancy. However, once the tenancy has lasted for six months they can only terminate the tenancy on specified grounds over the next three and a half years. Read more about if your landlord wants you to leave here. After four years of your tenancy has passed, a new tenancy starts. The same four-year cycle can begin again leading to a further Part 4 tenancy. Any tenancy therefore, that has lasted more than six months is a Part 4 tenancy or a further Part 4 tenancy. *Tenants can terminate the tenancy at any time without giving a reason, subject to the rules for giving notice* (See 'Rules' below).

If tenants have a fixed-term agreement or a lease, they are also subject to the terms of this agreement. This means they may lose their deposit if they leave before the term stated in the lease, even if they give the correct amount of notice. "

The key word is MAY lose their deposit. The exact conditions where they may keep their deposit is not stated, but I would imagine the landlord not having registered with the prtb would be one.


----------



## fobs (25 Apr 2006)

> He is registered with the PRTB


 
Her landlord IS registered according to the OP


----------



## Howitzer (25 Apr 2006)

fobs said:
			
		

> Her landlord IS registered according to the OP


 
Apologies, my mistake. Just so used to it being the other way round.


----------



## demoivre (25 Apr 2006)

Howitzer said:
			
		

> What the prtb says is binding. Tell him what the prtb has told you. I would leave it at that and enter into the prtb resolution process, but then I'm pretty bolshi. If he's not registered he'll back down pretty quickly anyway.



Eh? The prtbs take on this makes the legally binding written lease agreement between landlord and tenant null and void?  Why?
The op has already said that this landlord is registered.


----------



## Howitzer (25 Apr 2006)

demoivre said:
			
		

> Eh? The prtbs take on this makes the legally binding written lease agreement between landlord and tenant null and void?  Why?


 
Don't know. But the prtb site says 

"The PRTB was established in September 2004 to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants, operate a national tenancy registration system and provide information and policy advice on the private rented sector. *The PRTB dispute resolution service replaces the courts in relation to the majority of landlord and tenant disputes.* 

The establishment of the PRTB, and other changes to residential landlord and tenant law in the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, arose out of recommendations of the Commission on the Private Rented Residential Sector."

The disputes section of the site lists numerous instances of deposit disputes being resolved, not all in favour of the tenant.


----------



## gordongekko (25 Apr 2006)

Howitzer said:
			
		

> From the Oasis site
> 
> 
> *If tenants have a fixed-term agreement or a lease, they are also subject to the terms of this agreement*. This means they may lose their deposit if they leave before the term stated in the lease, even if they give the correct amount of notice. "


 
One of the tearms of the lease is that it is for 12 months so the landlord is correct, he can keep the deposit in fact if he wanted to be nasty he could have looked for the rest of the rent for the remaining period of the lease if the house remains vacant for the rest of the lease.


----------



## darex (3 May 2006)

gordongekko said:
			
		

> One of the tearms of the lease is that it is for 12 months so the landlord is correct, he can keep the deposit in fact if he wanted to be nasty he could have looked for the rest of the rent for the remaining period of the lease if the house remains vacant for the rest of the lease.



There seems to be a clear contradiction here between what the PRTB reported as saying and the above. It would be nice to get to the bottom of this and get a definitive position. 

Also it would be nice to know what the situation is the other way round - can a landlord break a (1 yr) lease in the first six months and ask the tenant to leave - prior to the part 4 tenancy coming into play?


----------



## gearoidmm (3 May 2006)

darex said:
			
		

> Also it would be nice to know what the situation is the other way round - can a landlord break a (1 yr) lease in the first six months and ask the tenant to leave - prior to the part 4 tenancy coming into play?


 
No way, a lease is a lease - a legally binding contract.  Part 4 tenanccy provisions apply to situations without a lease.


----------



## WaterSprite (23 May 2006)

It's clear from the "Terminating a Tenancy" leaflet ([broken link removed]) that those notice periods are all "subject to the terms of any letting agreement in place" which means that the lease trumps those terms.

And quoting the "Tenants Rights and Obligations" document from the PRTB also:

"A tenant is free to terminate the tenancy at any time, subject to any fixed term agreement and giving the correct amount of notice. "

The key thing there is the "subject to any fixed term agreement" portion.

[The legal bit]

Under normal circumstances, you would be liable for direct loss as a result of your breach of the lease (terminating prior to its proper expiry date).  However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the landlord can just keep your deposit (although, as previously mentioned, it may be a better solution for you).  If there is no provision in your lease allowing for a return of deposit as damages for breaching the lease, then you, in theory, could  be liable for the remaining 5 months.  However, this is subject to the landlord using reasonable efforts to mitigate his losses.  So his delay in getting back to you may be a factor if he could have had someone to replace you on the date of your leaving had he acted sooner.  You mention that the rent is more than market value - if that's the case and if the landlord can only rent out the property at 75% of what he's getting now (again, all subject to reasonableness in calculating what's an obtainable rent), then you would be liable for the 25% difference for the remaining 5 months of your lease.

Short answer is that you don't have to help him get a new tenant, but if he's happy to accept your deposit (one month's rent?) and you believe the property will be hard to let at the current price, then I'd leave the deposit with him and cut your losses.

Sprite


----------



## lff12 (24 May 2006)

demoivre said:
			
		

> I am astounded at the advice you have received and the landlord IS entitled to the rent for the 12 month period that you signed up to - since when is a lease not a legally binding contract ? Read what it says about leases for fixed periods in [broken link removed] and while you're at it have a read of . As I said earlier you will be doing well to only lose your deposit given you are breaking a legally binding lease contract.


 
According to Private Tenancies Board website you are not allowed to sign away your rights under the law.  Apparently you can only sign a lease that gives you greater rights, not less.  I think the law may have altered the way in which leases work.

The usual practice if there is a strong risk of losing the deposit is not to pay the last month's rent.  Sadly I'm in that situation myself as the landlord (thinks we don't know that the agency he runs is actually renting us a house his wife owns - and pays no tax on!), after dithering on repairs, not sending a proper renewal lease after the first year, refused us a rent book, denied us the right to claim rent relief taxback (he even had the cheek to tell us we were not entitled to it), and hasn't maintained the place in years, is just such a greedy Ba****d we don't trust him to return the deposit.

Besides the pre-PRTB situation was that if you left within the length of the lease you'd lose your deposit but in reality I don't think most landlords could claim for the outstanding 2 months rent as the place is now vacant and can be relet.

I find dodgy landlords generally get quiet and pliable once you show knowledge of the PRTB - its been a great thing for tenants.


----------



## RainyDay (24 May 2006)

lff12 said:
			
		

> The usual practice if there is a strong risk of losing the deposit is not to pay the last month's rent.  Sadly I'm in that situation myself as the landlord (thinks we don't know that the agency he runs is actually renting us a house his wife owns - and pays no tax on!), after dithering on repairs, not sending a proper renewal lease after the first year, refused us a rent book, denied us the right to claim rent relief taxback (he even had the cheek to tell us we were not entitled to it), and hasn't maintained the place in years, is just such a greedy Ba****d we don't trust him to return the deposit.


You may already know this, but you don't need anything from the landlord to claim the rent relief - just submit his/her details (with or without PPS number) on the form.


----------



## CN624 (25 May 2006)

lff12 said:
			
		

> I find dodgy landlords generally get quiet and pliable once you show knowledge of the PRTB - its been a great thing for tenants.


I'm sure the PRTB are the right organisation to go to but I've also heard of the Revenue been made aware of unfair or unreasonable landlords. 

I'm not sure how common it is for disgruntled tenants to report tax avoiding landlords to Revenue? Although I'm sure it could be a fairly profitable area for them. (Revenue, not the tenants!)


----------

