All rental properties are 'available immediately'

quad_red

Hi all,

Just a quick ask for advice. Myself and my gf's circumstances have changed (need parking space and more space) so we want to move in the near future. Have been living at our current place for just over two years. There's no specific mention of what notice we need to give in our contract and I just checked the PRTB site there and it says 56 days. Which is the guts of two months.

But everything I see for rent (on daft, myhome etc.) is pretty much all 'available immediately'. And no landlord is going to wait 56 days without rent for a tenant.

So basically we have to give our notice and then we'll be forced to wait till 2/3 weeks before our move out date before we'll be able to secure someplace new.

Any advice here? We have built up some almighty mountain of possessions/**** so the thought of some last minute scramble appalls!

RentDayBlues

If you have a yearly lease which has a defined end date then you are required to give 1 months notice - the landlord can either accept this or ask you to sublet the lease to cover the remaning period.

If you do not have a lease then 56 days is legally required though most landlords will take 1 month - just speak to yours.

Regarding the apt to rent - you can see how many there is out there and some LL's will be more than happy to wait 2-3 weeks for you to move in once he has a definite tenant and deposit in place. Tenants have bargaining powers now so dont be afraid to negotiate.

blah

If so many places are "available immediately" it sounds like landlords have empty properties sitting around. Which means that they would be willing to wait 56 days or a month for a new long term tenant.

Also, just ask your landlord how much notice he needs. He'll probably say a month.

quad_red

The lease is renewed annually. Last signed up at the start of September so it runs till September 09. But, as I said, our circumstances have changed.

We deal with a property management agency. I'll suppose I will give them a call later. We've been A+ tenants. Never any problems and had no problem with quarterly inspections of the property.

So I hope they don't start playing games now.

antoinolachtnai

If you have a one year lease to September 09 with no break clause, then you are supposed to stay until then.

On the face of it, you are the one who is starting the playing of games.

Still, talk to the landlord and see what they say. You will probably lose a month's deposit.

Whether landlords will wait depends on the state of the market more than anything else.

quad_red

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

On the face of it, you are the one who is starting the playing of games.

Still, talk to the landlord and see what they say. You will probably lose a month's deposit.

How are we playing games? We signed the lease in good faith. We have been tenants for over two years without problem or issue. It is written into our contract that the landlord can terminate the lease at any point once they give two months notice (the landlord is actually abroad I believe and will take up residence again once they return. Hence that clause).

I think it's pretty glib to say we are playing games. We are taking a reasoned careful approach and fully intend to give the landlord plenty of notice.

I suppose you are coming at this from a landlords point of view.

bangersandmash

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If you have a one year lease to September 09 with no break clause, then you are supposed to stay until then.

On the face of it, you are the one who is starting the playing of games.

Still, talk to the landlord and see what they say. You will probably lose a month's deposit.

Threshold disagree with you:

If a tenant wants to leave before the end of the lease (and there is no break clause), the tenant needs to:

* Find someone else to replace the existing tenant in the lease;
* Write to the landlord, requesting permission to assign the lease to this new person.

If the landlord refuses consent, the tenant can give the landlord notice of termination and leave. The notice period is calculated by how long the tenant has lived there.

shoegirl

I've almost always moved at very short notice. Sometimes just a few days, even when things were much tougher for tenants. You just really need to put aside a full week and agree with the landlord when you will move in and when the tenancy starts. Certainly in the current climate most should be very happy to wait a few weeks.

antoinolachtnai

quad_red wrote: »

How are we playing games? We signed the lease in good faith. We have been tenants for over two years without problem or issue. It is written into our contract that the landlord can terminate the lease at any point once they give two months notice (the landlord is actually abroad I believe and will take up residence again once they return. Hence that clause).

I think it's pretty glib to say we are playing games. We are taking a reasoned careful approach and fully intend to give the landlord plenty of notice.

I suppose you are coming at this from a landlords point of view.

Well if there's a two months clause in the lease, then you can give two months notice and move out. (This is new information.) Or you can just pay a month's rent, and forfeit your deposit and just leave.

This business about assigning the lease - I don't see how what Threshold are saying is correct in law, at least not in the simplistic terms they state it. In theory, it's all very well, but in practice the landlord is entitled to a large degree of discretion over the tenant.

sharpsuit

Below is what section 186 of the Residential Tenancies Act says. It is quite simple.

Tenant may terminate where consent to assignment or sub-letting withheld.186.—(1) This section has effect—
(a) despite the fact that the tenancy concerned is one for a fixed period, and
(b) despite anything to the contrary in the lease or tenancy agreement concerned.

(2) If a landlord of a dwelling refuses his or her consent to an assignment or sub-letting of the tenancy concerned by the tenant, the tenant may serve a notice of termination in respect of the tenancy and terminate it accordingly.

(3) The period of notice to be given by that notice of termination is—
(a) that specified in section 66 , or
(b) such lesser period of notice as may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant in accordance with section 69 ,

even if the lease or tenancy agreement provides for a greater period of notice to be given.

antoinolachtnai

The act is ambiguous and it is certainly not clear that it requires the landlord to allow an assignment. The landlord could require you to sublet, rather than assign. Subletting is a different sort of arrangement and the original tenant would effectively be guaranteeing the whole arrangement.

There are going to be constitutional limits. The idea that a statute could compel a landlord to allow assignment of a lease to a person with no means is just not tenable.

Overall, the legal situation for the OP is very complicated and intricate. There are lots of wherefores, because the lease sounds pretty unusual.

But what it boils down to is that the OP needs to talk to the landlord. The landlord can almost certainly hold him for about two months rent if he really wants to.

sharpsuit

The Residential Tenancies Act is crystal clear and unambiguous. It does not compel a landlord to accept a tenant through assignment or sub-letting.

What the Act says is if a landlord refuses a request from a tenant to assign or sublet a fixed term lease, that tenant is entitled to serve a Notice of Termination as if there was no fixed term lease. The landlord, in effect, chooses to take responsibility for finding a new tenant.

The landlord is also entitled to put the onus of finding a new tenant on the existing tenant. This is what happens when a landlord consents to the tenant's request to assign or sublet a tenancy.