Student lease getting messy, please help!

DeadMoney

Hi, I am a student sharing an apartment with 2 friends. Our exams have finished and we are trying to sub let the place for the summer while the remainder of our lease runs until september. The only problem is that we have gotten NO interest in the place so far. We have advertised it on daft, student notice boards etc. Our next months rent is due next week but we are all planning on moving home this weekend. We had hoped to have new tenants by now, or even some interest at least. The thing is our rent has gone up to €500 each per month as the 4th household member left a few weeks ago and none of us can afford to be handing over that kind of money just so we have the place for another month to try sub let. There is no guarantee that anybody will even take the place at any stage of the summer so it is like we are talking a gamble by paying any further rent. I personally would not mind if my deposit was held as this is under €400 and I would be happy to walk.
However, our land lord has stressed that we must either sub let or continue to pay rent. So what are the legal implications if we were to hypothetically walk? Can he just take our deposits, our can he sue us for further unpaid rent?

The_Conductor

DeadMoney wrote: »

However, our land lord has stressed that we must either sub let or continue to pay rent. So what are the legal implications if we were to hypothetically walk? Can he just take our deposits, our can he sue us for further unpaid rent?

This is the letter of the law. You may sublet (with the permission of the landlord), or you may continue to pay the rent. You are legally liable for the agreed rent until the end of the lease. If you sublet at a lower amount that on your lease- you are legally liable for the balance. If you do not manage to sublet- you are liable for the entire sum.

A landlord can take a civil suit jointly against all names on the lease in satisfaction of the rent up to the end of the lease. Your deposit is a seperate matter altogether- it is to cover damage over and above normal wear and tear in the accommodation. A landlord may not automatically put a deposit towards rent due.

Normal course of action (now) is for a landlord to initiate proceedings- initially via the PRTB, but depending on the road they decide to go down- it could be a civil matter in the district court.

Do *not* sign a lease if you do not intend to complete it......

Normally a landlord may rent out a unit at a set rate (for arguments sake say EUR1500 per month), on the basis of a 1 year lease. They will normally be willing to agree to a shorter lease at a higher monthly rent (say 1750 for a 9 month lease) on the basis that

1. Tenants are students (with a reputation)
2. Its highly probable that he/she may be unable to let the property for sometime once it becomes vacated.

The longer the lease- the lower the monthly rent (a generalisation- but it tends to hold).

DeadMoney

I totally understand that we are legally obliged to pay rent until our contract ends unless we can get a replacement in the contract. However, after looking at daft.ie for the last half an hour it is now totally obvious why our place has been shown no interest. There are luxury pent house apartments with leather sofas in mountjoy square and other city centre areas that are up to €300 cheaper than ours. Our apartment is an absolute kip compared to these places and our furniture is dilapidated. We have been promised new furniture for the last few months but not yet received it. I highly doubt that it would be possible to get anybody at any stage over the next 3 months to sublet the place to be honest. Desperate students in September, that is about it!

So, is this just our bad luck and are we just stuck with having to pay €4500 over the next 3months or be sued? Should we be requesting that he drops the rent in a bid to try get people in? This really sucks, on top of all the student loans and overdrafts I owe for the year living in this rip off of a city, now we have to worry about this.

The_Conductor

If I were you- I'd sit down with the landlord and try to have a reasonable conversation with him.

1. His property is overpriced (back this up with printouts of similar properties from DAFT etc).
2. In its current state of furnishing etc- its not possible to let it (show a few pics of what its up against)
3. You're students- unless one (or multiple) parents agreed to act as guarantors on the lease- you have no assets on which the landlord could put a claim.
4. Offer the deposits in-lieu of notice to quit
5. I'd suggest claiming extenuating circumstances (such as inability to find employment etc) as reason for breaking the lease.
6. If he/she does indeed decide to issue legal proceedings- its a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding- and given that you're not working- it really isn't worth their time or yours. In theory you could get lumped with the legal costs, along with a judgement (ordering you to pay the remainder of the lease) and a schedule of how to make those payments (over a period of time). Its really not worth anyone's time though.

Unfortunately you really did get yourself in this hole to be honest. There are total dives being let to students all over the place (I've seen some personally that I'd be embarrassed to allow farm animals overnight in). You signed a legal undertaking when you signed the lease. You can be held to it- whether you like it or not. I think its a fair offer to offer to forfeit the deposit and use the whole thing as a learning experience. Come the new term- go househunting in advance. Try to make sure you do not fit the 'student' profile- and if you do have to sign a lease- make sure you are happy to honor it to the letter.

S.

antoinolachtnai

It depends on the lease, but I'd be surprised if the landlord can't hang on to the deposit!

In practice, this is what is likely to happen.

You are realistically unlikely to be able to sublet it. The problem is that rents have fallen generally since you moved in There is probably no market for a property at that rent level now. Of course, you could all top the rent up.

Unfortunately, you are in a situation where a bunch of people have done fairly stupid things over a long period, and these things are now all coming together. First the landlord offered to let it to you knowing you probably wouldn't be able to keep it through to the end of the lease. Second, you signed a lease you couldn't commit to. Third, your house mate decided to do a runner. Fourth, when these problems became obvious, the landlord is being a bit intransigent about helping come up with a solution. Fifth, he is putting pressure on you to sublet, something that is really not in his own interest (because it will reduce his connection to the property and mean that his valuable asset is in the possession of someone he doesn't know). Sixth, he is thinking about pursuing you and your friends legally, when obviously don't have very much money.

Off in the magical land where people act rationally, the landlord would now probably take all the money he could get off you and tell you to leave if you can't pay the rent ongoing. You would then carefully clean the premises and leave as soon as possible. Of course rationality-land is still a mystical place, so it might not happen exactly like this. But it is something to aspire to.

D3PO

everything SMC has said is spot on.

Try and talk to your landlord and see if you can resolve this amicably, its rare for legal proceeding to take place but the law is on his side.

the more likely outcome is you will lose your deposit and that will be the end of it.

either way the most important comment in this thread is that you should not sign a lease if your not going to stick to it.

DeadMoney

Thanks guys, some very solid advice given here. Yeah it was certainly not a good idea to sign a 12 month lease but to be honest, I genuinely thought that a city centre apartment would be easy enough to shift during the summer months. Obviously things have changed in the property market dramatically over the last year so here we are in this situation. The guys I live with are friends who have had this property for the last 3 years and have always managed to find people to sub let it during the summer months so I guess we thought it would be the same this summer.
The apartment is way over priced for its condition and with the double room set up, I highly doubt we would find any interested parties. With regards to deposits, we are willing to offer these up and all and I'm not too worried about losing that. My main concern is the letting agency taking legal action to claim damages. I can't remember if we needed a guarantor when we signed the lease. If we did, I think one of my house mate's may have gotten his dad to sign it. I will have to check back about that. But, if we did not have a guarantor and they take legal action against us, we are all living at home with our parents and jobless so I don't know how I am going to come up with any money. Hopefully it will not come to this however. I think the landlord is being a little unreasonable in that he is putting full pressure on us to find someone and he doesn't seem to be offering much help such as negotiating rent rates etc. He works for an agency so at the end of the day he is answering up to somebody and I don't think he is too bothered with feeling any sympathy for us.

Victor

If the fourth housemate is on the lease, they are stuck with paying the rent aswell (they can use the accommodation aswell).

RoseBlossom

Have you considered subsidising the sub-let? Say, agree with your flatmates to put €500 against the rent each month and offer it on Daft for the lower rent of €1,000?

While it would be a pain to see the money going down the drain, I'd rather pay c. €170 in dead money per month than €500...

DeadMoney

What are the legal implications to forging a Guarantor's signature on the lease? Hypothetically, would this render the Guarantor liable for damages if he/she did not actually sign the contract? Let's be honest half the student leases are signed by false guarantors.

antoinolachtnai

Hypothetically, it would leave whomever forged the signature or presented the forged signature liable to doing time for fraud.

The_Conductor

DeadMoney wrote: »

What are the legal implications to forging a Guarantor's signature on the lease? Hypothetically, would this render the Guarantor liable for damages if he/she did not actually sign the contract? Let's be honest half the student leases are signed by false guarantors.

As per Antoin's post- it would be considered to be criminal fraud- and could potentially result in a criminal conviction- which would severly limit where one could work or travel to.

DeadMoney

I am waiting on threshold to call me back. Perhaps they will tell me something that I didn't know but it seems that the advice given here is pretty spot on and we are pretty much fcuked! I had hoped to travel to the states for the summer but it is highly unlikely now. Will let ye know how it turns out. Thanks again for all the advice.

DeadMoney

Ok this might sound totally insane but if we were to get evicted from our apartment, would this not terminate the lease? I mean technically if we had a lot of parties over the year and acted in nuisance, we would be evicted right? So if we were to get evicted now, would this not break us from the contract?
You are probably laughing but if we are in breach of the duty of care that we owe to neighbours not to create acts of nuisance, surely we would inevitably be evicted from the premises. Our landlord knows full well that we will be unable to find replacements for the lease so what is stopping us from behaving like a bunch of animals over the next few weeks resulting in a load of complaints? We have had a few complaints in the past for minor noise pollution so it wouldn't be hard to attract real complaints. I am actually really curious and hopefully it will now come to this, but as absurd as it sounds, I would rather take this route than hand over a few thousand Euro for a dormant apartment.

Xiney

the landlord could probably still take you to court over lost rent (not 100% sure)

also, it takes 6 weeks to evict someone legally. You'd still be liable for the rent incurred in that time.



Besides all that, if you do something to get the police involved, you might end up with a conviction to your name.


Honestly, you signed a 12 month lease. It's a legally binding contract, which you were allowed to sign because you are a legal adult. Now stop acting like a child.

The_Conductor

I can well see why the landlord's association have petitioned the PRTB for a register of tenants, and Treshold for the reciprochal register of landlords...... I just wish they'd ever get over their problems- make the two databases publicly available and get on with it. It would do away with Cowboy Landlords, and tenants from hell in one foul swoop.....

Merch

It all depends on what kind of lease you have?
Do you have a part 4 lease or a fixed term lease.
Look at your lease to see which it is, without that information advising you is only speculating on what might be the case in your circumstances.

The_Conductor

Merch wrote: »

It all depends on what kind of lease you have?
Do you have a part 4 lease or a fixed term lease.
Look at your lease to see which it is, without that information advising you is only speculating on what might be the case in your circumstances.

The OP has specified its a 1 year fixed term lease. If it were a Part 4 tenancy- they wouldn't be here seeking advice tbh- they'd simply give the requisite notice and leave.

DeadMoney

So is there nothing to be said for the fact that our landlord has fallen back on his verbal agreement to provide us with new furniture. This has been promised now for the last year and he assured us that it was on its way every time we asked. I rang him up 3 weeks ago just before my exams started and told him that we would be doing viewings and that we really needed the furniture now. He still hasn't delivered it.
Our current furniture is so torn and ripped that you cannot even sit on it.

So how are we expected to find replacement tenants in these conditions? Also the rent is above the market rate at the moment for apartments of its kind, although I don't really know what the story is when it comes to rent and I assume he is able to charge what he likes. Anybody I tell about this keeps telling me that the agency would most likely just retain your deposits and not bother with legal proceedings as ye are students and they would not be bothered incurring the legal expenses. How likely do you think this is?

Xiney

The furniture getting replaced just so you can sublet is probably not going to happen - the landlord doesn't care if you manage to sublet since he's entitled to get his money anyway.

The rent on the lease is what you have to pay. That it is above market rates at the moment is again not the landlord's concern since you agreed to pay it for the full 12 months. If you were planning on staying on he might reduce it but since you're trying your hardest to get out of your legal obligations I doubt he will.


I don't know how else to tell you this. You have to either find new tenants at whatever rent you can get them for and pay the difference, or pay the full amount of the rent with nobody in there. Contracts are like that - next time don't sign a 12 month contract if you don't intend to stay for 12 months.

herya

What you can do is to try and negotiate the rent down, in fact you should have done it months ago. Everyone with an ounce of market understanding has done it already and landlords are really flexible nowadays. The furniture thing will be a strong argument here if you play it well. You could have saved yourselves thousands if you thought about it earlier.

You need to stick to the lease conditions. That's what happens when you sign a document, you know... I'm sorry but your post is absolutely immature - are you still used to the parents providing the roof over your head?

And to consider causing nuisance to your neighbours to get out of a legal contract... Leave the neighbours alone.

DeadMoney

Xiney wrote: »

The furniture getting replaced just so you can sublet is probably not going to happen - the landlord doesn't care if you manage to sublet since he's entitled to get his money anyway.

The rent on the lease is what you have to pay. That it is above market rates at the moment is again not the landlord's concern since you agreed to pay it for the full 12 months. If you were planning on staying on he might reduce it but since you're trying your hardest to get out of your legal obligations I doubt he will.


I don't know how else to tell you this. You have to either find new tenants at whatever rent you can get them for and pay the difference, or pay the full amount of the rent with nobody in there. Contracts are like that - next time don't sign a 12 month contract if you don't intend to stay for 12 months.

The furniture getting replaced just so we can sublet? I am afraid you misread what I actually said. I never said we asked to get new furniture so that we could sublet. We requested new furniture so we could sit on it. He owes us a duty of care to replace dilapidated furniture as a landlord and he is aware of this duty (hence, the constant promises). He has also broke this numerous times and what is to say that we haven't had people viewing our apartment and leaving in disgust when they saw the state of of the furniture?
Xiney, I don't know what you do as a profession but if you were renting an apartment and your furniture was dilapidated, would you not expect it to be replaced? If we were 3 accountants living in this residence, that furniture would have been replaced long ago.

D3PO

you chose to move in and saw the furnature when you did. there is nothing that says furnitue needs to be updated. your entitled to heating, security and appliances like fridges , cookers etc, not to new furniture.

unless the springs are sticking out and could injure you of course. your looking for every angle to get out of your legal obligation.

its tough luck its a life lesson learn from it and move on. you signed a contract you have to honour it end of discussion

Xiney

As D3PO said, you moved into the place and presumeably the furniture was already in disrepair.

I wouldn't have signed a lease until furniture had been replaced or I had received a written promise that the furniture would be replaced by a specified agreed upon time.

So you're right, if it was accountants probably he would have replaced the furniture, but only because the accountants would make him promise to do so and not take any crap from him.

herya

DeadMoney wrote: »

So is there nothing to be said for the fact that our landlord has fallen back on his verbal agreement to provide us with new furniture.

You can take it up with his organisation I think. But it's not a get out clause for you.

Merch

smccarrick wrote: »

The OP has specified its a 1 year fixed term lease. If it were a Part 4 tenancy- they wouldn't be here seeking advice tbh- they'd simply give the requisite notice and leave.

Can you point out where it says fixed term, I (honestly) cannot see that.

As for the accommodation unless the landlord is PRTB registered then this is all irrelevant.
The tenancy I believe could be canceled on those grounds alone, but that might be considered unreasonable by reasonably decent landlords/people/tenants if the tenants were just trying to break a contract, as for not having furniture, a unit for accommodation should be fit for the purpose, if the furniture is damaged when did it happen, is it included in the lease
Keep all communication in writing also, keep a log, for both parties.
This you saw it as it belief depends on the state of the furniture and if it got that way during this lease, I'm inclined to think not or the landlord would be more likely to want them gone. Furniture doesnt have to be new but reasonable to the job.

It is considerably unreasonable to expect someone to be able to sublet a place if the furniture is as bad as it is made to sound.
I would ever only seek a part 4 tenancy, fixed term is when a landlord is trying to tie you to the property.

D3PO

Merch wrote: »

Can you point out where it says fixed term, I (honestly) cannot see that.

As for the accommodation unless the landlord is PRTB registered then this is all irrelevant.
.

ive never heard such crap in my life. not being registered to the PRTB donest trump a legal obligation. it has reprocussions to the landlord in terms of potential fines and what not but that is it.

Now when you have actually dealt with the PRTB and know what your talking about come and post again.

D3PO

DeadMoney wrote: »

Hi, I am a student sharing an apartment with 2 friends. Our exams have finished and we are trying to sub let the place for the summer while the remainder of our lease runs until september. ?

indicates its not a part 4 tennancy. doesnt say its a 1 year lease but its due to run out in september. doesnt take much to figure out that its a 1 year lease. either way its a fixed lease and not a part 4 tennancy

Merch

D3PO wrote: »

ive never heard such crap in my life. not being registered to the PRTB donest trump a legal obligation. it has reprocussions to the landlord in terms of potential fines and what not but that is it.

Now when you have actually dealt with the PRTB and know what your talking about come and post again.

I do know what I'm talking about, I'm just not unscrupulous
wether you or I or whoever likes it or not, it is a legal obligation for landlords to be registered with the PRTB.
You cant pick and choose what laws suit you, you cant not sign up to the PRTB and then quote the law regarding fixed term leases.
It has repercussions to the landlord regarding fines that would make it not viable to rent and is now a requirement under law to allow a landlord to claim the interest on mortgages for the investment property against tax.

The_Conductor

Guys- I'm only going to say this once on this thread- no personal abuse of any nature whatsoever- if you disagree with what someone posts- refute the post, without attacking the poster. I'm not going to warn people individually- I will simply ban them. So you have been warned.

Merch

[FONT=&quot]Hi, I am a student sharing an apartment with 2 friends. Our exams have finished and we are trying to sub let the place for the summer while the remainder of our lease runs until september. ?

[/FONT]

D3PO wrote: »

indicates its not a part 4 tennancy. doesnt say its a 1 year lease but its due to run out in september. doesnt take much to figure out that its a 1 year lease. either way its a fixed lease and not a part 4 tennancy

Any lease could run out in september, it may be part 4 and this person isnt aware that a part 4 can be ended with a months notice or the landlord has told him its fixed term, I'm not saying what it is, you are, but unless you know more about this than me, that is speculating.
The OP may even think it is a fixed term lease as the landlord has said so or he/she may just assume that is the case.
Until that person looks at the lease, neither of us know.

And lastly dont be so damned narky, I gave my opinion, regarding information which may be useful to the OP not to suit your opinion.
You sound like a landlord with an axe to grind? dont like the PRTB?

jaffa20

Write a letter to the landlord explaining that you are leaving because you are not able to find new tenants because the place is overpriced. Tell him he can keep the deposit.

Keep your phone off for a few weeks and just leave.

Simple as.

What can he do?

Track you down to carry out legal proceedings against students?

He won't even know where you live. All he will have is your name so unlikely he will bother going down the legal route against people with no money.

Merch

jaffa20 wrote: »

Write a letter to the landlord explaining that you are leaving because you are not able to find new tenants because the place is overpriced. Tell him he can keep the deposit.

Keep your phone off for a few weeks and just leave.

Simple as.

What can he do?

Track you down to carry out legal proceedings against students?

He won't even know where you live. All he will have is your name so unlikely he will bother going down the legal route against people with no money.

I would advocate the legal route,
I.E they don't have to do a runner or lose their deposit.
If it is all above board they are liable, if not then they need to look into that. Their landlord is putting the onus on them to let it when it doesnt sound up to scratch and that cannot realistically be expected to sublet it if its not up to scratch.

The_Conductor

We do not know how the lease is worded, what it contains, who signed it or whether there is a guarantor (or multiple) involved. From the (limited) information given- the OP is party to a fixed term lease, not a Part 4 tenancy, and has is party to a legally binding agreement- wholly outside of the remit of the PRTB or the 2006 Residential Tenancies Act. Whether or not the Landlord is tax compliant, compliant with PRTB requirements, and compliant with the multiple conditions of the Act- is both irrelevant and also subservient to the legally binding lease.

Certainly its possible that the Landlord may not be compliant in all matters- however putting him in a position where he may face a sizeable fine (if applicable) is hardly going to put him/her in the frame of mind where they are going to let the other agreement slide.

I do not in any manner suggest that breaking the law is to be condoned in any manner- what I am saying is simply- two wrongs do not make a right......

quietsailor

1st the prtb states that deposits can be held against rent so your going to loose that unless the rent is paid to the end of lease.

2nd your entitled to one rent review per year; this is quoted from the prtb website
Rents (Part 3)
Rent may not be greater than the open market rate and may be
reviewed (upward or downward) once a year only unless there has
been a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation that
warrants a review. Tenants are to be given 28 days notice of new
rents.Tenant may ask their landlord to review the rent if they feel it
exceeds the market rate for the property - if more than a year has
elapsed since the last rent review, tenants may seek a review.
Disputes about any aspect of rent may be referred to the PTRB.
Ask your landlord for a rent review downwards. If he refuses to bring it down to current market prices contact the PRTB and ask if your entitled to terminate the lease

Tenancy Terminations (Part 5)
Tenancies will be terminated by means of a notice of termination,
regardless of why the termination is happening. If the termination
is by the landlord and the tenancy has lasted more than 6 months,
one of the 6 reasons on the previous page must be cited. Tenants
do not need to give a reason for terminating.
The notice period to be given depends on the length of the
tenancy as follows:
Shorter notice periods apply where termination is for noncompliance
with tenancy obligations (7 days for serious anti-social
behaviour, 28 days for other breaches) and the parties may also
agree a shorter notice period at the time of termination (but not
earlier). Longer notice may be given, but not more than 70 days
where the tenancy has lasted less than 6 months.
I've been told that the tenant doesn't have to have a reason to give a notice of termination of tenancy, just the landlord. Have you given a notice of termination of tenancy yet?

Merch

smccarrick wrote: »

We do not know how the lease is worded, what it contains, who signed it or whether there is a guarantor (or multiple) involved. From the (limited) information given- the OP is party to a fixed term lease, not a Part 4 tenancy, and has is party to a legally binding agreement- wholly outside of the remit of the PRTB or the 2006 Residential Tenancies Act. Whether or not the Landlord is tax compliant, compliant with PRTB requirements, and compliant with the multiple conditions of the Act- is both irrelevant and also subservient to the legally binding lease.

Certainly its possible that the Landlord may not be compliant in all matters- however putting him in a position where he may face a sizeable fine (if applicable) is hardly going to put him/her in the frame of mind where they are going to let the other agreement slide.

I do not in any manner suggest that breaking the law is to be condoned in any manner- what I am saying is simply- two wrongs do not make a right......

It sounds like you are suggesting that fixed term agreements are outside the scope of the PRTB and the PRTB is subservient to fixed term agreements. That's not the case, if they were, all a landlord would have to do to circumvent PRTB would be to demand fixed term agreements. landlords are required by the residential tenancies Act 2004, regardless of the lease type to register.
The existence of a fixed term lease does not preclude the operation of Part 4 and the rights afforded to a tenant and landlord.
If a landlord refuses to sign PRTB form, thats a breach of the law, wether we agree with it or like it or not.
I agree with D3PO one doesn't trump the other, thats not how it works.
I would say the landlord seems to be on more tenouous ground than the tenant, if he's not PRTB reg then he/she are likely evading tax also but you're saying that not being compliant with tax law and tenancy law is subservient to a fixed term agreement.

I wouldn prefer not to go down the PRTB route myself and I'd really advise not reporting someone for spite, instead request a meeting, talk to the person about all the issues, if they are contactable and reasonable,(if the furniture is in a bad way and the rent is over market value that's not reasonable to expect them to rent it/find someone to sublet)
I'd tell him he has to replace furniture or no one will take it at all and that he needs to drop the rent to comparable places nearby to make it attractive, If he/she declines to do any of this then they are unreasonable and I would then suggest to landlord about contacting threshold and then PRTB, if he's legit he wont have a concern.
Any tenant has the right to go to the PRTB wether you or I agree, if subsequently it is found the landlord is not reg'd then the tenant is not putting the landlord in a position where they might get a serious fine, the landlord or their agent is putting themself in that position.
It wont matter what their frame of mind is. If they are not compliant with PRTB they cannot claim tax relief on investment mortgage interest, if they arent claiming tax relief that would appear to me if they are not paying tax, which is stealing money from you, me, hospitals etc (if they claimed their allowances they probably wouldn't pay much anyway)
In my opinion the landlord not pissing these people off by failing to return their deposit could be the least of his potential worries. If I were him, if he isn't stubborn, would terminate the tenancy if the circumstances are as above..
If he is not compliant the tenant has landlord over a barrel, which is why landlords should be compliant.He or she may be the most decent nice landlord ever and could end up shafted by a tenant.
If landlord is compliant then the tenants still have a case regarding furniture if it is a shoddy state, as in particularily bad, not that someones girlfriend doesn't like it.

The_Conductor

I am stating that the tax compliance of the landlord is a wholly different matter and will be dealt with seperately from all other issues. There are many landlords out there (even now) who are not PRTB registered- but who *are* fully tax compliant. In a case like that- there is an automatic fine for not registering with the PRTB- but that is the extent of sanctions against the landlord.

A lease is a legal instrument which is legally enforceable between the two parties- however the enforcement of the lease is a civil matter (as evidenced from the multiple cases at District Court level currently).

There are many laws governing the renting of property (including the Residential Tenancies Act), the lease is a seperate legal agreement- which can be enforced by court order over and above the provisions of those laws- as by signing it- a tenant can be said to have signed away other rights afforded to them in law.

It really is a case of- you need to read a document carefully, if you disagree with it- don't sign it. I've been held to contracts I signed in the past- solely on the basis of my signature- I've regretted it, and its cost me money- I learnt my lesson the hard way.....

Merch

I don't see a landlord going the court route or getting very much sympathy against student tenants especially if the Landlord is not compliant with the PRTB which is included in the Residential Tenancy Act 2004.
I don't think it would be viewed well to say, I am coming to court to enforce a fixed term lease and recover the costs, but I haven't registered with the PRTB as is required by law, I'll choose what laws suit me your honour.
Thats like pulling up to a Garda checkpoint and saying oh I have car insurance but I dont get motor tax as I dont agree with it, I'd much prefer choosing the laws I have to comply with.

By not registering with PRTB you are contravening an act of law.

I agree that tenants or anyone signing any contract needs to read it and I would never in the past have signed a fixed term agreement. But I know people who know nothing about renting and are just given a lease to sign and are in essence conned into signing it as the only option.

I am not against landlords, not someone with 2 or maybe even 3 properties. I do believe they should be tax and PRTB compliant. If they are not, then they have helped increase the cost of housing by speculating on property helping keep it out of the reach of other people who might otherwise have been able to afford their own home (while I am not against Investment in property and certainly it was effectively encouraged by banks and Govt) however
If Landlords shirk their responsibility to pay tax, then they are greedy, willing to reap the rewards of being able to have more than their own home and have their investment paid for by someone else but not pay their tax due to society.

I have heard about tenants that are a nightmare and have come across people that are the same, but equally I have personally come across landlords that are milking it and have no intention of complying with tax and therefore have no interest in signing something that highlights them as renting a property.
Not only are these people refusing to pay a legal obligation of tax, but more than likely these are the people I have found will not provide suitable accommodation (furniture) or infringe on the rights of tenants
It is good tenants (and they exist)that suffer these arseh**es.

If anything tenants have very few rights, but if a landlord wants to ensure their own rights they need to sign up to the PRTB to protect themselves.

The_Conductor

Merch-

Tenants actually have far more rights than you seem to realise. It can take between 6 months and a year for due process to take its course in an eviction situation. Students are well aware of this- and do regularly exploit it- as per the current FLAC mess in NUIG. My own sister let her apartment in Galway out while she was an intern in London, when she eventually got it back 9 months later- all she had was the first months rent and a months deposit, 22k worth of damage including structural damage that had to be notified to a commercial premises next door (it backed onto Jury's from Bridge Street), and 8 months of bank and Revenue hassle- over mortgage and tax issues (which had been sorted prior to her leaving the country.

There are many many tenants from hell out there- just as there are cowboy landlords.

My point about the lease is that any action which may be taken concerning non tax compliance or non compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act- are totally seperate matters, the lease being a civil agreement between a landlord and tenant. It would actually be considered prejudicial to even mention other matters in court, as they would not be considered to have a bearing on the case at hand. It may seem unfair- but thats how it goes.

Potentially- there could be 3 or 4 seperate court actions by different parties arising from non-compliance with different aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship and the laws pertaining to it. These are all freestanding cases- a judgement or ruling in one will not impact on another.

We are getting off topic though.

The OP is probably fine- if there are no guarantors on the lease- as there would be no assets on which to place a judgement. If one or more of the parents agreed to act as guarantor on the lease- it is a wholly different situation- and the OP and all named on the lease (including guarantors), need professional advice and possibly representation, to sort out the mess.

The OP has not clarified this.

Merch

smccarrick wrote: »

Merch-

Tenants actually have far more rights than you seem to realise. It can take between 6 months and a year for due process to take its course in an eviction situation. Students are well aware of this- and do regularly exploit it- as per the current FLAC mess in NUIG. My own sister let her apartment in Galway out while she was an intern in London, when she eventually got it back 9 months later- all she had was the first months rent and a months deposit, 22k worth of damage including structural damage that had to be notified to a commercial premises next door (it backed onto Jury's from Bridge Street), and 8 months of bank and Revenue hassle- over mortgage and tax issues (which had been sorted prior to her leaving the country.

There are many many tenants from hell out there- just as there are cowboy landlords.

My point about the lease is that any action which may be taken concerning non tax compliance or non compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act- are totally seperate matters, the lease being a civil agreement between a landlord and tenant. It would actually be considered prejudicial to even mention other matters in court, as they would not be considered to have a bearing on the case at hand. It may seem unfair- but thats how it goes.

Potentially- there could be 3 or 4 seperate court actions by different parties arising from non-compliance with different aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship and the laws pertaining to it. These are all freestanding cases- a judgement or ruling in one will not impact on another.

We are getting off topic though.

The OP is probably fine- if there are no guarantors on the lease- as there would be no assets on which to place a judgement. If one or more of the parents agreed to act as guarantor on the lease- it is a wholly different situation- and the OP and all named on the lease (including guarantors), need professional advice and possibly representation, to sort out the mess.

The OP has not clarified this.

I would have thought it unecessary to get a guaruntor on a lease but thinking about it, I believe it would be a good idea in the case of students, I'd have each student put a parent on so no-one could shirk a share of the responsibility.
Re your post, It is why I am saying a landlord should have PRTB reg to protect themselves, its not some be all cure for them but without it they cannot even enter into a dispute resolution with a tenant/s.
Was your sister paying tax and reg with PRTB?
If she was, she has the law on her side and can sue these people, even if she cannot extract money she can get a judgement against them so they will not be able to get a loan until that judgement has been dealt with.
She could then be able to write off costs against tax (not something someone wants to do or maybe extremely difficult and costly and unpleasant) and carry that forward until the loss is mitigated.

I am aware that there as many tenants from hell as there are landlords that are non compliant. I understand it can take a long time to process that kind of thing and I sympathise with any legit landlord that has had to deal with that.
I disagree that they are separate issues and if a tenant knows or guesses that you are not legit then they can screw you around, if a landlord is not legit then they are asking for trouble.
If she let it through an agent then it comes across as more professional (although i am sure they do little for their money, it can also be written off against tax) if she let it herself then maybe they knew she was away and decided without contact or with distance that they could do with it what they wanted.
If you get good tenants they should be appreciated, in the case of the OP I believe they said they were there for years, if they were bad tenants then the landlord wouild have tried to get rid of them by now, as it seems they have been paying, thats a good thing, it doesnt seem like they have caused damage, so if this is the case wether that landlord is legit, tax or PRTb the landlord should be thanking their lucky stars they didnt have the misfortune your sister had and that they had some people paying for years that sublet during the summers, unfortunately they now want to go, he/she should be trying to renegotiate with them to have them come back in the future or reccomend potential good tenants.