Thinking of selling a rental property? You should probably get a move on...

This clause is not well known but it has been kept in throughout all of the changes (four I think) to the Residential Tenancies Act since 2016.
The RTB actually publishes data on the notices for termination that they have received.

From Q2 2019 - Q2 2021 only 3%(!) of notices of termination were to avoid a Part IV/further Part IV tenancy arising.

If the Minister wants to meaningful improve the security of tenure of tenants, he would have to further restrict the grounds for no fault terminations. Simply extending the term of Part IV tenancies won't have any meaningful impact.
 
Simply extending the term of Part IV tenancies won't have any meaningful impact.
I tend to agree.

My guess is that it is there for constitutional reasons even if it's not much used. So landlords have the option to end the tenancy on no-grounds reasons at some point.

Let's see if it survives the next proposed amendments to the RTA.
 
So say the landlord wants to sell the house, he gives proper notice to the tenant but when the notice period is up and the tenant has been unable to find alternative accommodation...what does the landlord do? Say , "it's not my problem, out you go", or agree to let them remain until such time as they have somewhere else to go? So no contract in place etc.
What about asking an estate agent to help to find a place for the tenant, on the basis that the same estate agent will then be given the the go-ahead to sell the house once the tenant has left?
 
until someone or some body of people come together and challenge the state on it.

I believe some landlord group tried to challneg it and were smacked down because they are not allowed to challenge it ads a group. Nor is it allowed that one person challenges it but is funded by a group. So that was a no go.
And why would REITs challenge it with their cosy tax deal.
Its a total con.
 
So say the landlord wants to sell the house, he gives proper notice to the tenant but when the notice period is up and the tenant has been unable to find alternative accommodation...what does the landlord do?
The property owner then has to apply to RTB, then from there to court to have the eviction order enforced and then have the tenants forcibly evicted if they are still overholding. This can easily take up to two years. In the meantime tenants most likely are not paying rent and in similar cases, extensive damage has been caused to the property.
Say , "it's not my problem, out you go",
See note above - if notice has been given, there are grounds for doing so.
or agree to let them remain until such time as they have somewhere else to go? So no contract in place etc.
See note above, it doesn't work that way.
 
House prices keep roaring ahead. Up 12.4% year on year in September, and 1.6% month-on-month. Houses outside Dublin are showing huge increases, in all cases in double digits.

National house prices have now doubled since their 2012 trough, and are only 8% off their 2006 peak:eek:

Not every landlord selling today up will make a capital gain, but most will, and almost anyone who has kept up capital and interest payments should be able to get out clear.
 
Already done...

The new legislation also proposes to provide enhanced tenancy protection by making a ‘Part 4’ tenancy one of unlimited duration after a tenant has been in place for six months and not subject to expiry at the end of a six-year term.

It is intended that this would apply to new tenancies commencing six months or more after enactment of this Bill. In addition, where any existing tenancy is renewed after this time, it will become a tenancy of unlimited duration.


If anyone hasn't got out who wanted to (many don't) the clock is now ticking as your tenancies rollover and renew.
 
I looked at the proposed amendment to Part 4. New tenancies will be of "unlimited duration", but this won't come into effect for six months after the commencement of the act (commencement is only is done by the minister after Oireachtas passage and signature by the President).

This would basically remove the option a landlord has under existing legislation to make a no-grounds termination after six years.

Unless I am reading it wrong, subsection 3 means that landlords of existing tenancies will have to consent to tenancies of unlimited duration. I am not sure that any of them would do this voluntarily and it is a big protection for existing landlords.
 
Anyone any wiser?
Indeed, I can't see any proposed amendment to the "Table" that follows Section 34 of the existing RTA which states that one ground for termination is the desire to sell on the open market. See below:
3. The landlord intends, within F88 [ 9 months ] after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling F86 [ and the notice of termination is accompanied by a statutory declaration referred to in section 35 ] .

I struggle a lot with the cross-referencing though.
 
If a LL has tenants 5.5yrs into a tenancy, 6 months is short enough considering the length of notice they have to give.

I assume there are no tenants left on 4yr tenancies now.
 
Unless I am reading it wrong, subsection 3 means that landlords of existing tenancies will have to consent to tenancies of unlimited duration. I am not sure that any of them would do this voluntarily and it is a big protection for existing landlords.

hmm, that would be fair, at least new landlords can go into a new tenancy knowing the law, as opposed to existing landlords having the rules of the game changed drastically.

Hopefully this is the case.
 
If an tenancy already exists, the article says that "where any existing tenancy is renewed after this time, it will become a tenancy of unlimited duration."

I don't understand what it means by an existing tenancy being renewed? Is this at the end of the current 6 year term where you need to re-register with RTB or if your last agreement was say for 3 year lease (contract not worth the paper it's written on - I know!!!!) do you have until this 3 years is up, before you are liable to a tenancy of indefinite duration. I'd appreciate peoples clarification and opinions on this, as I find it very confusing. Thanks!
 
I'm finding it difficult to read as well; does the 'unlimited tenancy' mean

A. You cannot sell the property with vacant possession

And / or

B. You cannot regain the property for your own use?
 
The press release is also not very clear:

The legislation proposes to provide enhanced tenancy protection by making a ‘Part 4’ tenancy one of unlimited duration after a tenant has been in place for six months and not subject to expiry at the end of a six-year term (at the discretion of the landlord).

But what landlord will voluntarily give up the right to a no-grounds termination after six years?

It is intended that this would apply to new tenancies commencing six months or more after enactment of this Bill. In addition, where any existing tenancy is renewed after this time, it will become a tenancy of unlimited duration.

What is the "renewal" here? I guess it means that at the end of six years a new tenancy starts and it's of unlimited duration.

So a tenancy that began in for example 2018 can be terminated by the landlord on a no-grounds basis in 2024 but no later. And by 2028 all tenancies will be of unlimited duration.
 
Looks like landlords can still terminate a tenancy if intention is to sell
Yes, that’s my reading of the Bill as initiated.

It will be interesting to see if the Government accept any amendments during the course of the legislative process.
 
Back
Top