Coming Toward The End of My Lease...

bugler

I've been a renter for a few years, but mostly I have lived with owner-occupiers or under fairly informal arrangements with friends or work colleagues. So the situation I find myself in is new to me, namely that I signed a one year lease last October, the end of it is drawing toward and I may wish to stay here.

I say "may" as the thought of looking again for somewhere to rent does not appeal. Also, I'm happy enough here in most respects. My questions are:

- Is it typical for the landlord / letting agent to contact tenants a month before the lease is up as regards staying on etc?

- Following on from that, would the letting agent or LL normally insist on a new one year lease being signed, or would they generally allow it to proceed month to month with one month's notice to be given if leaving?

I just read the following from something another poster put up in another thread, it's an excerpt from the Residential Tenancies Act 2004:

Security of tenure is based on 4-year cycles from the date Part 4 ofthe Act comes into force (i.e. 1st September 2004). The landlord can terminate without specifying grounds during the first 6 months, but once a tenancy has lasted 6 months, the landlord will be able to terminate that tenancy (known as a “Part 4tenancy”) during the following 3 1/2 years only if any of the following apply;

-the tenant does not comply with the obligations of the tenancy

-the dwelling is no longer suited to the occupants accommodation needs (e.g. overcrowded)

-the landlord intends to sell the dwelling in the next 3months-the landlord requires the dwelling for own or family memberoccupation

-the landlord intends to refurbish the dwelling

-the landlord intends to change the business use of the dwelling.The grounds for recovery of possession listed above are subject to certain procedures to prevent their abuse.At the end of the 4 years, a new tenancy will commence and the cycle begins again on the same basis as outlined abov

So basically if I want to stay the LL can't put me out, unless they invoke one of those reasons? So does it follow they can't compel me to sign a new lease?

Afuera

bugler wrote:

So basically if I want to stay the LL can't put me out, unless they invoke one of those reasons? ?

Correct.

bugler wrote:

So does it follow they can't compel me to sign a new lease?

Why would you not want to sign the new lease? A fixed-term lease offers you protection above and beyond that of a Part IV tenancy. If you do not sign it the landlord might decide that now might be a good time to refurbish the place and give you your marching orders.

bugler

Why would you not want to sign the new lease? A fixed-term lease offers you protection above and beyond that of a Part IV tenancy.

But what extra protection does it give me? The main reason I wouldn't want to sign is why tie yourself to the property for a year if you can remain there on a monthly-rolling basis? This is really tied to the first question - what is in it for me?

If you do not sign it the landlord might decide that now might be a good time to refurbish the place and give you your marching orders

Yes, but he/she could do this at any time...

Afuera

bugler wrote:

But what extra protection does it give me? The main reason I wouldn't want to sign is why tie yourself to the property for a year if you can remain there on a monthly-rolling basis? This is really tied to the first question - what is in it for me?

Yes, but he/she could do this at any time...

Signing the lease can give you more rights than you would have under a Part IV tenancy. If you have a fixed-term lease, without any break clauses in it (like those that exist under Part IV), you will have security of tenure for the duration of the lease.

sharpsuit

Getting back to OP's question, the tenant does not have to sign a second lease. Instead, they can avail of their Part 4 rights. A tenant mightn't want to sign a second lease because they might not want to be bound for the whole second year.

Afuera

sharpsuit wrote:

Getting back to OP's question, the tenant does not have to sign a second lease. Instead, they can avail of their Part 4 rights. A tenant mightn't want to sign a second lease because they might not want to be bound for the whole second year.

Sure, I think the OP already knows that. But under Part IV whats to stop the landlord deciding that the property needs to be "refurbished" and the OP getting kicked out?

bugler

Thanks for the responses so far.

But under Part IV whats to stop the landlord deciding that the property needs to be "refurbished" and the OP getting kicked out?

See, this is what is confusing me. As far as I was aware there was nothing to stop a LL coming along after 7 months of a one year lease and saying to the tenant "Sorry, we need to sell, you have 28 days to move out".

So the lease arrangement struck me as being lop-sided from the off. But this is incorrect? They will have to allow me to stay for the duration of the year regardless?

So essentially:

Remaining under Part 4 Tenancy: Gives me as tenant more flexibility. Possibly allows LL to get me out on illegitimate grounds (place is 18 months old if even that, it does not need refurbishment!) if they really want that lease signed.

Remaining Under new one year lease: Gives me the guarantee I can remain in the property for another year. Downside being I'm lease-bound.

Afuera

bugler wrote:

As far as I was aware there was nothing to stop a LL coming along after 7 months of a one year lease and saying to the tenant "Sorry, we need to sell, you have 28 days to move out".

So the lease arrangement struck me as being lop-sided from the off. But this is incorrect? They will have to allow me to stay for the duration of the year regardless?

Provided that the lease does not have a clause in it that allows it to be broken (like Part IV has) then the landlord would have to let you stay for the duration.

bugler wrote:

So essentially:

Remaining under Part 4 Tenancy: Gives me as tenant more flexibility. Possibly allows LL to get me out on illegitimate grounds (place is 18 months old if even that, it does not need refurbishment!) if they really want that lease signed.

Remaining Under new one year lease: Gives me the guarantee I can remain in the property for another year. Downside being I'm lease-bound.

Yes, this is the way I understand it to be.

Note that they would not necessarily need to use illegitimate reasons to get rid of you if you have a Part IV tenancy. If the landlord wanted to move a relative into the property (even if it was just for a short period of time) it would be legitimate grounds for getting rid of a current tenant.

ixoy

Don't most leases have clauses built in though to enable them to sell during a fixed-lease and effectively end the lease? Any I have, seemed to put this in.

Afuera

ixoy wrote:

Don't most leases have clauses built in though to enable them to sell during a fixed-lease and effectively end the lease? Any I have, seemed to put this in.

I've personally never signed a lease with a clause like that in it, so would be interested to see how common it is. If it was common practise then, effectively it would mean it's impossible to have any resonable security of tenure as a tenant in Ireland.