Problems with terminating my fixed-term lease

MCMT

Hello, I'd like a few opinions if they are out there.

My situation: I have a 12 month fixed-term lease on a two bed property, sharing with a friend. She has since left the gaff to pursue a postgrad in Galway. I decided that I would pay the whole rent myself for two months, then assign the lease to new tenants for the remaining 6 months so that I ccould retain my deposit. Pretty simple - by law I can do this and have my deposit returned. And I presently have a few interested parties willing to take the place on.

So: I submitted a letter notifying the letting agents of my request to assign the lease. They have agreed to this over the phone but on the condition that they meet the "replacements" first. I have no problem with this BUT I have requested that they first submit in writing their acceptance to allow the lease to be assigned in the first place. They are refusing to do this.

I'm pretty sure that the PRTB Act requires the landlord to either accept or reject the request for assignment of a lease. The reason I want their approval in writing is that I need to be fully covered: without their officially accepting this they can simply reject every proposed replacement I put forward - and all the while I'm continuing to pay the rent!

Anyone know if they are obliged to do this if I request it? (I do know that if a landlord rejects this request the tenant can serve notice of termination and get full deposit back).

Other things:

1. On top of my lease, I signed a page of additional terms drawn up by the letting agents. They never sent me a copy of this with my lease, and they have essential refused to send it to me after multiple requests. Is this reason enough to terminate a lease?

2. What is the actual liklihood of my being pursued for the rent owing on the remainder of the lease if I simply break it? Anyone have any idea if landlord's have much success pursuing such cases?

Appreciate any imput at all!

D3PO

why should they send you a letter accepting the assignees without meeting them.

your request is unreasonable. yes you are entitled to removed yourself fomr the lease by reassigning it but they are also entitled to vet the new proposed tennants.

i mean jeez you could be trying to move drug dealers in for all they know.

MCMT

D3PO wrote: »

why should they send you a letter accepting the assignees without meeting them.

your request is unreasonable. yes you are entitled to removed yourself fomr the lease by reassigning it but they are also entitled to vet the new proposed tennants.

i mean jeez you could be trying to move drug dealers in for all they know.

I know what I wrote is complicated, but what you've stated is not what I'm implying here. Of course the landlord must and should vet all potential tenants. I'm perfectly happy for that to happen and I myself have been vetting tenants with this in mind.

But what I am saying is this: unless the landlord agrees to the idea of assigning the lease in writing, I have no evidence that they have agreed to allow me to do so even before tenants are put forward for consideration. Hence I can put forward as many suitable tenants as I wish, they can be vetted by the landlord, and then rejected - and when I whinge to the PRTB there is nothing there in print to say that they actually agreed to this.

In essense: if I am required to provide written notice of my request to assign my lease, why is the landlord not doing the same?

Furthermore: if a tenant, or any party in a legal contract, requests to communicate in writing they must by law oblige.

This + refusing to fax me a copy of part of my lease + insiting that every discussion happens only over the phone = a very suspicious, cautious and infuriated tenant.

Make sense?

D3PO

maybe im not getting your point. if they send you a letter accepting then they have no recourse in terms of rejecting a tennant due to vetting.

I think your over thinking this one. They seem to be amenable to what your suggesting but want to do due dilligence.

maybe if you ask them for a letter stating they are willing to consider your request dependant on the caliber of person put forward then they will probably do it for you

MCMT

D3PO wrote: »

maybe im not getting your point. if they send you a letter accepting then they have no recourse in terms of rejecting a tennant due to vetting.

I think your over thinking this one. They seem to be amenable to what your suggesting but want to do due dilligence.

maybe if you ask them for a letter stating they are willing to consider your request dependant on the caliber of person put forward then they will probably do it for you

I think you are probably correct re over thinking. :rolleyes:

However, in the context where they have not been amenable re providing me with documents I am entitled to/they are required to provide, refusing to communicate with me in writing, and providing misleading information over the telephone - I sort of want some kind of assurance that all the effort I'm going to will actually be acknowledged should it be required.

I did asked them for what you suggested but they insisted I was being "a troublemaker" and only wanted to do things on my own terms! (They've also fired a few personal jibes at me over the telephone).

I must sound like a complete bollocks but this is the first time I've ever been in such a situation (and I've been renting for close to a decade, both here and Canada). I've been perfectly affable with them the entire time, have made every effort to resolve the situation so that the landlord won't lose any rent, but I feel they're trying to bully me into doing things on their terms so that should anything go wrong I'll be held liable.

I intend to lodge a complaint directly with the landlord (who, in my brief dealings with, has seemed decent). Do you know - even if this whole thing is resolved fine - if there is anywhere I can lodge a formal complaint about them?

Max Power1

D3PO wrote: »

maybe im not getting your point. if they send you a letter accepting then they have no recourse in terms of rejecting a tennant due to vetting.

I think your over thinking this one. They seem to be amenable to what your suggesting but want to do due dilligence.

maybe if you ask them for a letter stating they are willing to consider your request dependant on the caliber of person put forward then they will probably do it for you

what he wants is a letter to state that they agree in principle to a re-assignment, subject to vetting the candidates

MCMT

Max Power1 wrote: »

what he wants is a letter to state that they agree in principle to a re-assignment, subject to vetting the candidates

Beautifully put!

Would you like to represent me? You'll have to deal with an obnoxious suit and the occasional personal insult....

D3PO

Max Power1 wrote: »

what he wants is a letter to state that they agree in principle to a re-assignment, subject to vetting the candidates

whtat the op said "I have requested that they first submit in writing their acceptance to allow the lease to be assigned in the first place. "

and asking them to send something in writing subject to vetting the candidates are very different things in my eyes, im sure its the same for them.

I cant profess to knowing if contratul oarties legally have to respond in writing if requested to do so as the op suggests, but just to add to that you will find most leases are from the landlord to the tennant and not the EA so even still they wouldnt be obliged.

Im not trying to piss you off OP im just trying to say that I think you are being a little paranoid here, and granted reading some of the stuff on here you probably have some reason to be, but I try to look at things form both parties side.

they are probably just as paranoid that you want a legally binding letter and then turn up with some knacker of a tennant to take over and put them in a situation that disadvantages them when they refuse to transfer the lease to said person. Im not suggesting you would im just saying thats most likely what they are trying to protect themselves from.

D3PO

MCMT wrote: »

I think you are probably correct re over thinking. :rolleyes:

if you dont want peoples comments then why post ? :rolleyes:

Jadaol

talk to your landlord directly. These people are hired by him and if they're obstructing possible new tenants when he could be left high and dry then he'll want to know.

MCMT

D3PO wrote: »

if you dont want peoples comments then why post ? :rolleyes:

I did ask for people's opinions. And thanks for yours.

Simply illustrating the lengths I was being forced to nit-pick over this whole thing.

In nearly a decade of renting I have never had any trouble with a landlord/property management company. I insist on being respected by my landlords and having my contract with them respected and vice versa, but otherwise I'm a pretty easy going person. If a "situation" can be resolved informally over a face to face discussion, that's always the route I'll opt to take.

But this has been going on for way too long and frankly I'm suspicious of the manner in which the company has been conducting itself. Hence my overzealous recourse to the law - I just want to be covered in case of another mishap.

MCMT

Jadaol wrote: »

talk to your landlord directly. These people are hired by him and if they're obstructing possible new tenants when he could be left high and dry then he'll want to know.

I've tried to.

She made it clear from the beginning that I deal directly with the company, unless there's an emergency etc. So until recently I've respected her wishes.

But after it was clear that the company would not conduct their business with me in writing, were withholding the additional terms of my contract etc. I left a message on her phone asking her to speak with them. I apologised profusely for dragging her into this etc etc. Her response: a text message saying she had left a message with the co. So, I called them back some hours later and asked if they had received this message. Their response: no.

This was yesterday. After talks broke down again over the phone and I was called a "trouble maker", I text my landylady very sincerely: apologised again, asked for a meeting in person that evening or over the weekend so I could present my case to her...no response.

The most frustrating thing is that SHE LIVES IN THE HOUSE NEXTDOOR TO ME! I respect her personal space so I'm not going to march over there, but why she couldn't even meet me for five minutes is baffling. I mean, I am accusing the people she pays to represent her of mismanaging one of her clients (as well as withholding documents that they are obliged to provide upon request). For christ sake: if I am simply a trouble maker she'll know right off the bat and can simply refer me back to the company. Is it too much trouble to hear me out for five minutes!?!

This has my head done in. To be honest, I just want rid of the place at this point. I'd love to do that and lodge a complaint about the conduct of the company afterwards...but there is no where to do so! Hence my jabbering away on the boards.

the_syco

MCMT wrote: »

The most frustrating thing is that SHE LIVES IN THE HOUSE NEXTDOOR TO ME! I respect her personal space so I'm not going to march over there

Why not? She may be taking the fact that you don't wish to talk to her face, but rather you contact her by text and by phone. If I were in her place, I'd think it strange that you never just knocked on the door, as opposed to sending texts, etc.

MCMT

the_syco wrote: »

Why not? She may be taking the fact that you don't wish to talk to her face, but rather you contact her by text and by phone. If I were in her place, I'd think it strange that you never just knocked on the door, as opposed to sending texts, etc.

But like I said, I am asking her to meet with me, i.e. I have requested a meeting face to face. I'm not forcing her to do so by landing on her door step. She asked me to deal directly with the company so I'm attempting to respect her wishes as much as I can.

I could march nextdoor and bang on her door but I won't for two reasons: 1) in my few dealings with her she has always been polite and respectful of my privacy, and 2) if I piss her off in any way then this is certainly a lost cause.

Re texts - any time I have called her, she does not answer but instead sends a text. So it is more a case of my submitting to her mode of communication rather than she to mine.

antoinolachtnai

There is no difference of substance between you and the landlord who is represented by the agent.

You can't force them to write a letter, any more than they can force you to write a letter promising not to move out without giving notice.

Antoin.

MCMT

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is no difference of substance between you and the landlord who is represented by the agent.

You can't force them to write a letter, any more than they can force you to write a letter promising not to move out without giving notice.

Antoin.

Of course not. It wouldn't be worth the trouble of finding a pistol for the job.

Nevertheless, if any party in a contract requests that all correspondance be served in writing, they must be obliged.

You can't force them to do it - any more than you can force them to adhere to any of their contractual responsibilities - but they would be very, very foolish not to. At the end of the day, I have a wealth of evidence in writing (all delivered via registered post) and they have nothing. It might not come to it, but if the PRTB gets involved these guys won't have a leg to stand on because they didn't put a thing down in writing (even though I asked them too - in writing!).

Given that this is a property agency that surely must be acquainted with the law, I'm finding it pretty surprising.