The tanants won't pay (who would when not living these) and ntl will just disconnect the house and not reconnect until its paid... so it will become the owners problem...
Terminating a fixed lease to sell house
- Thread starter spinal_tap
- Start date
The tanants won't pay (who would when not living these) and ntl will just disconnect the house and not reconnect until its paid... so it will become the owners problem...
If you sign a lease the lease terms apply, unless they are ruled to be onerous on the client or unless they are less than the minimum protections afforded to tenants. In the absence of a lease a part IV tenancy is automatically created.
This is all pretty simple, I don't know why people think a contract can just be ignored. The latter advice is the best, if a tenant wants to be akward towards you they have plenty of opportunity, so it would be best to proceed cautiously.
tosullivan
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,747
a tenant can break a fixed term lease by giving teh appropriate notice even if there is 6 months left on it, same way a landlord can break it if it is done properly.
Whether the tenant agrees to this is entirely up to them. They can refuse to move out and make it awkward...thats why I suggested he go talk to them first
Whether the tenant agrees to this is entirely up to them. They can refuse to move out and make it awkward...thats why I suggested he go talk to them first
Unless the lease has terms for breaking the lease, there is no such thing as "appropriate notice" on a fixed term lease. The clue is in the name.
Can't believe some of the legal misinterpretation here - three choices exist
Don't issue a one year fixed term lease - DOH - issue a six month one and then revert to a PRTB style agreement if you like the tenant - UK style
Wait till the year is up - this is the purpose of a one year fixed term lease - love to see you get eviction approval from a court otherwise (subject to rent on time and no anti-social)
Bribe / politely encourage the tenants to vacate the lease early - helpful references / hassle compensation / flexible leave date (once new rental secured)
A lease cannot give less than PTRB cover but certainly can prescribe more (eg tenure for the fixed term period) - PS I was a landlord and went thru this
Don't issue a one year fixed term lease - DOH - issue a six month one and then revert to a PRTB style agreement if you like the tenant - UK style
Wait till the year is up - this is the purpose of a one year fixed term lease - love to see you get eviction approval from a court otherwise (subject to rent on time and no anti-social)
Bribe / politely encourage the tenants to vacate the lease early - helpful references / hassle compensation / flexible leave date (once new rental secured)
A lease cannot give less than PTRB cover but certainly can prescribe more (eg tenure for the fixed term period) - PS I was a landlord and went thru this
why else would anyone waste their time and effort signing a 1yr lease.
The reason why is obviously security as pointed out, but like many other instances there are exemptions, and in this case the owner deciding to sell his property within the next three months is one of them.
The reason why is obviously security as pointed out, but like many other instances there are exemptions, and in this case the owner deciding to sell his property within the next three months is one of them.
I would be quite amused at the OPs attempts to get vacant possession within the one year lease tenure period(opening a whole can of "whoop ass" at the local court" for him/herself) - subject to rent payment and no anti-social behaviour - WHY do people only want to hear what suits them?
Circumstances change as in the OP's situation and that is why such exemptions are in place, this is also the case for the tenant, should they have to break a fixed lease the landlord cannot withhold deposit if he/she finds new tenants within given timeframe.
The residential tenancies Act 2004 was introduced to provided greater security to tenants to try and balance the relationship between landlord and tenant. The exemptions that I mentioned earlier are in place so that should such occasions arise as in the OP's case then they could proceed to break the lease giving the approriate notice period without the need for a solicitor.
I would doubt very much that a tenant would take the route through the courts as they would be advised that they haven't a leg to stand on and the costs wouldn't make sense in the context of this case
The residential tenancies Act 2004 was introduced to provided greater security to tenants to try and balance the relationship between landlord and tenant. The exemptions that I mentioned earlier are in place so that should such occasions arise as in the OP's case then they could proceed to break the lease giving the approriate notice period without the need for a solicitor.
I would doubt very much that a tenant would take the route through the courts as they would be advised that they haven't a leg to stand on and the costs wouldn't make sense in the context of this case
La - la - la (I don't hear you) - why do people only hear what they want to hear
From a short guide to the PRTB act on their website - remember now the OP has a signed agreed fixed term one year lease (not one of those part V periodic ones that the landlord should have given ie six months)
"The Act allows for leases to provide greater security of tenure for tenants, and allows leases to specify longer notice-periods." - one year = one year = one year - amen
Implications for leases and tenancy agreements generally
The provisions of the legislation will need to be reflected, as appropriate, in any future tenancy agreements, leases, etc. Tenancy agreements or leases can provide for matters not dealt with in the Act. However, in relation to matters that are covered in the Act, a tenancy agreement or lease cannot take away from rights and obligations provided for in the Act and if it purports to do so, that provision is rendered void. The landlord or tenant cannot contract, or be contracted, out of the rights or obligations of the Act.
•
The Act allows for leases to provide greater security of tenure for tenants, and allows leases to specify longer notice-periods. However a lease cannot detract from the security of tenure measure specified in the Act. A landlord and a tenant can agree shorter notice periods, but only at the time the tenancy is being terminated.
· The PRTB's function in dealing with disputes relating to
tenant or landlord tenancy obligations also includes
obligations of a tenancy agreement or lease not specified in
the Act.
· A tenant’s right to request a rent review annually cannot be contracted out in a lease.
· Notwithstanding the existence of a fixed term tenancy and despite anything to the contrary in a lease or tenancy agreement, where a landlord withholds consent to assignment or sub-letting, the tenant may terminate the tenancy.
From a short guide to the PRTB act on their website - remember now the OP has a signed agreed fixed term one year lease (not one of those part V periodic ones that the landlord should have given ie six months)
"The Act allows for leases to provide greater security of tenure for tenants, and allows leases to specify longer notice-periods." - one year = one year = one year - amen
Implications for leases and tenancy agreements generally
The provisions of the legislation will need to be reflected, as appropriate, in any future tenancy agreements, leases, etc. Tenancy agreements or leases can provide for matters not dealt with in the Act. However, in relation to matters that are covered in the Act, a tenancy agreement or lease cannot take away from rights and obligations provided for in the Act and if it purports to do so, that provision is rendered void. The landlord or tenant cannot contract, or be contracted, out of the rights or obligations of the Act.
•
The Act allows for leases to provide greater security of tenure for tenants, and allows leases to specify longer notice-periods. However a lease cannot detract from the security of tenure measure specified in the Act. A landlord and a tenant can agree shorter notice periods, but only at the time the tenancy is being terminated.
· The PRTB's function in dealing with disputes relating to
tenant or landlord tenancy obligations also includes
obligations of a tenancy agreement or lease not specified in
the Act.
· A tenant’s right to request a rent review annually cannot be contracted out in a lease.
· Notwithstanding the existence of a fixed term tenancy and despite anything to the contrary in a lease or tenancy agreement, where a landlord withholds consent to assignment or sub-letting, the tenant may terminate the tenancy.
Yeah, I agree with the above.
It would make the whole process of having a lease worthless if you can be made homeless.
Contracts are inherently restrictive to both parties.
The tenant can, I think, simply assert his right to stay put until the lease expires. That's what he signed for. That's what the landlord signed for.
The Act is irrelevant where a lease exists.
Section 26 is:
The lease is more beneficial, thus it is in force.
A simple search on the website will show that this comes up over and over again. I got legal advice on this from two solicitors because a friend of mine wanted to organise a 4 year lease with his landlord and wanted security of tenure.
A lease supersedes the act. That is the whole point in having a lease. The OP hasn't a leg to stand on and cannot use the terms of the PRTB act to remove the tenant from the house. Any other advice could land the OP in some trouble.
A lease supersedes the act. That is the whole point in having a lease. The OP hasn't a leg to stand on and cannot use the terms of the PRTB act to remove the tenant from the house. Any other advice could land the OP in some trouble.
G
gonk
Guest
It does and it doesn't. Terms in a lease which would give a tenant less favourable conditions than the act are void and unenforceable.
It would appear from the information posted in this thread that the view that the landlord cannot terminate a fixed-term lease early is correct. On the other hand, if the tenant decides to end it early, apparently the landlord has no redress against him.
Why would any landlord give a fixed-term lease under these circumstances?
Because your rent is higher if you give a fixed term lease.
Is that true? Where does it say that?
It would be sort of mad for a tenant to sign a lease which he couldn't leave early. What if your employer goes bust? What if you break your back and can no longer work? A bit harsh to force the tenant into bankruptcy because he cannot complete the lease.
The Act may require landlords to give minimum options to a tenant to leave early if he's unlucky.
Is that true? Where does it say that?
It would be sort of mad for a tenant to sign a lease which he couldn't leave early. What if your employer goes bust? What if you break your back and can no longer work? A bit harsh to force the tenant into bankruptcy because he cannot complete the lease.
The Act may require landlords to give minimum options to a tenant to leave early if he's unlucky.
G
gonk
Guest
Not in my experience. In fact, the reverse. A short-term letting would typically be at a higher rent than a longer term one.
"Notwithstanding the existence of a fixed term tenancy and
despite anything to the contrary in a lease or tenancy
agreement, where a landlord withholds consent to
assignment or sub-letting, the tenant may terminate the
tenancy."
despite anything to the contrary in a lease or tenancy
agreement, where a landlord withholds consent to
assignment or sub-letting, the tenant may terminate the
tenancy."
[broken link removed]
I don't disagree. But no-one is talking about forcing tenants into bankruptcy. Before the act came in, realistically the worst that would happen a tenant ending a lease early would be the loss of the deposit.
All I'm saying is that since the new rules have come in, fixed term leases create obligations for landlords, but provide no benefits. In my opinion, the best option for landlords now is not to have a lease, but just to register the tenancy and allow the default notice periods, etc. to apply.
Or they could have a lease but just specify in it that it will be a Part IV tenancy and all the standard breakout clauses apply (owner wants to sell, move a family member in, renovate it, or whatever).
Yes I am a new poster and it seems have posted invalid advice.
Now that I have eaten my humble pie I can add that having confirmed with the PRTB that a fixed term lease requires a clause stipulating the exemptions in Part 4 tenancies for a landlord to legitimately terminate a lease before the end I am now officially in the know!
Regarding the balance of power under the new regulations, there definitely is a shift in favour of tenants and I wonder how a register of tenants might even things up as in a database for refernces etc to weed out those who abuse property etc (prob not feasible, just a thought)
Now that I have eaten my humble pie I can add that having confirmed with the PRTB that a fixed term lease requires a clause stipulating the exemptions in Part 4 tenancies for a landlord to legitimately terminate a lease before the end I am now officially in the know!
Regarding the balance of power under the new regulations, there definitely is a shift in favour of tenants and I wonder how a register of tenants might even things up as in a database for refernces etc to weed out those who abuse property etc (prob not feasible, just a thought)
I guess a very long philosphical debate could now ensue as to whether tenants rights should be stronger . There is no doubt that until the new legislation came into being tenants with bad landlords were in a very weak position e.g the stereotypical mean landlord cramming 20 tenants into badly designed over crowded bedsits in an old redbrick in rathmines and as soon as they complained they were evicted. The new legislation in theory should do away with these landlords. Whether it does in practice may be determined in part by whether the PRTB is properly funded (and given our track record in such things it isnt at the moment).
However many landlords do not fit the above stereo type and equally many tenants are not exactly deserving of sympathy. I have heard as many cases of tenants thrashing flats etc... refusing to leave unless they get a payout as I have heard of the dickensian type landlord. Most landlords in Ireland have one or two rented properties and usually these are with a view to being part of the pension
so they dont really fit the stereotype of the evil landlordAs someone who owns a rented property abroad I know that if I have a good tenant paying a reasonable market rent then provided that if I (1)genuinely want to sell the property or (2)have it for my own use I can get rid of my tenant with reasonable notice then quite frankly I dont care if he acquires rights to remain on indefinitely(other than the above two reasons)provided there is a rent review mechanism.
I think most decent landlords would feel the same. Anyone I know here who is a landlord feels the same. The current legislation is now in my view very fair as it gives people,in situ for more than 6 months the right to extend by 4 years or so unless the Landlord is genuinely selling or using it for himself.
I know 4 years is still short if you intend to rent and live in aparticular area for life but for the vast vast majority of people in ireland this is usually not the plan so 4 years suits most people.
If ,however more absolute rights were given to tenants this might have the consequence of less rental properties or badly maintained ones(if the landlords investment is devalued by the tenants having very strong rights he will be less inclined to properly maintain the property)( the old controlled tenancies were an example of this..they fell into serious disrepair as landlords were getting next to nothing in rent and as a result the controlled tenants ended up at times in very bad conditions.
Howver for the new system to work its essential that tenants and landlords can solve their disputes quickly and cheaply via the PRTB. As this is not properly staffed and funded by the geniuses in government everybody suffers except the bad landlords and bad tenants who can continue to abuse the system with impunity as they have always done.