Lease Question... any help would be great

fliptzer

If a lease is coming to an end, eg. a 1yr fixed private house (registered with PRTB) does the land lord have to give any notice apart from the date on the lease?

My understanding is that the date of expiration is quite clear on the lease (ie they're aware and signed it) therefore they're already on actual notice.

Couldn't find any case law as most of it seems to relate to either the landlord or tenant breaking the lease as opposed to it being expired.

Likewise does threats from one party (say by tenant - criminal damage or tenancy at sufferage) alter the position re notice?

Any help would be appriciated

dermot_sheehan

A periodic tenancy can arise if the landlord continues to accept rent after the expiration of the tenancy.

Although not strictly required, a termination notice in compliance with s. 62 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 can be served to make it clear that there is no intention that the tenancy continue as a periodic tenancy. The landlord should make clear that any rent proffered after the end of the tenancy will only be accepted as mesne rates (i.e. liquidated damages for trespass since the tenant is overholding at this stage).

fliptzer

Again my understanding is that there is no need for formal written notice (by either landlord or tenant) as once the lease is over then that’s it. Assuming the landlord does not agree to renewing the least or does not accept any further rent the tenants have to leave by the date specific on the least. I read s. 62 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 but it appears to be in relation to serving notice to quit or terminate a lease as opposed to the lease running out. Is this correct?

Furthermore what can one do is a tenant doesn’t leave after end of lease and:

1. Threatens to squat without paying rent, and

2. Threatens to damage the property, and.

3. Is seeking payment of some sort from the landlord to leave (blackmail), failing that,

4. Threatening (meritless) legal action in order to delay things (or again trying to blackmail landlord into extending lease and reducing rent).

I understand the PRTB process exists but in reality it’s useless as by the time they get round to hearing the dispute the place/house/apt is trashed and the tenants have usually disappeared.

If there is a genuine fear of damage to property and threats of intimidation by tenants can a landlord apply for an emergency injunction to get tenants out? My reckoning is, that in cases of the above, the tenant’s behaviour will disbar them from any relief or defence against such action.

Any views would be appreciated?

dermot_sheehan

There is no strict requirement but it would helpful to confirm that there is no intention that a periodic tenancy arise.

s. 182 of the Residential tenancies act bars the taking of court proceedings in an case where the tribunal can hear the case unless the damage is more then 20,000. s. 197 allows the tribunal to give interim relief.

Section 78 gives a non-exhaustive list of disputes that can be refererd to the board, and dispute is defined in Part VI as

(a) any issue arising between the parties with regard to the compliance by either with his or her obligations as landlord or tenant under the tenancy,
(b) any matter with regard to the legal relations between the parties that either or both of them requires to be determined (for example, whether the tenancy has been validly terminated),

I'm not sure if this would encompass the commission by the tenant of voluntary waste (purposively damaging the property) and therefore bar the landlord from getting injunction in the circuit court restraining the tenant from committing voluntary waste. I think the legislation is unclear on this point. It would bar an action seeking to enforce a covenant of the lease but the remedy of the landlord regarding waste is independent of the lease.

Technically a tenant not giving possession by the end of the lease is overholding rather then squating.

fliptzer

Thank you for the hypothetical analysis and I shall go on the presumption that there is no intention to create a periodic tenancy (actually it has been my experience that in most cases like this example there is clearly no intention to do so on the part of the landlord).

I note that s. 182 of the act does indeed bar court proceedings while s. 197 seems to grant relief in favour of tenants over landlords. The main difficulty is the interpretation of a lease being terminated . According to DeLondras (S.15-68) A Notice to Quit is used to terminate fixed term leases when the tenant has over-held (or in cases of a periodic tenancy, etc, as per 2004 Act) however I would argue that a tenant is already on notice re the expiration of a fixed term lease by signing it in the first place thereby not requiring the s. 62 requirements of notice (as lease has “expired” or “come to completion” as opposed to being “terminated” by either the landlord or tenant. - I can’t find a definition of the phrase “termination” of a lease in the Act to distinguish it - nor can I find any cases/sections in favour or against this argument).

Alternatively once could argue that the date of “termination” or “expiration” or whatever was agreed up when both parties entered into the contract/lease therefore both sides are on actual notice of a mutually acceptable date of “termination” (etc.) having previously both agreed upon said date - Any side later challenging such date could fail via estoppel.

Bottom line is the behaviour of some tenants surely denies them to any rights, especially any defences to landlord remedies. The huge difficulty for all landlords in similar circumstances is how long it actually takes the PRTB to hear a case and eventually decide upon it. In the meantime tenants could trash the place, run away and the landlord is in dire financial difficulty. Is it possible to get a quick injunction on a tenant to quit the premises just as overholding starts?

Would the fact that threats have been made against the landlord, financial/legal attempts at blackmail (i.e. pay us to go away and drop a false claim) and the fact that the landlord needs the property to move into, have any effect on an attempt to get such an injunction or order? (Hypothetically if landlord is selling his house and needs to move in order to avoid being homeless - a fact the tenants are aware of)?

Sorry if this is getting a bit messy but I do appreciate the suggestions as there is practically nothing in library about facts/cases like this.

dats_right

Lads, you're all missing the point and most of ye are wrong...

One of the main purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act was to give greater security to tenants in residential dwellings, Part IV of the RTA 2004 refers. This section of the Act gives a tenant who has been in continuous occupation for 6 months an entitlement as of right to a part 4 tenancy i.e. the remainder of 4 years letting and this cannot be terminated by a landlord save in very specific circumstances, the ending of a fixed term letting agreement not being one of them! So the answer to the original question is that the landlord cannot terminate the tenancy at the end of a fixed term letting e.g. 1 year, whereas the tenant can.

dermot_sheehan

There are a couple of types of dwellings in which Part IV tenancies can not arise, see section 25 of the PRTA.

Also the existence of a tenancy does not give the tenant the right to commit waste.