Deposit & BER

hildabergman

Looking for some advice - My sister and I are currently renting in Dublin. We signed a year lease last September but due to unforseen circumstances we now have to end the lease. We gave notice at the end of April and were told we would lose our deposit, which we expected. However, The landlord has arranged for a BER assessor to come to the flat tomorrow. This means there was no BER when we signed the lease. A friend of mine thinks this makes our lease invalid and that we should receive our deposit back. Can anyone shed any light on the subject for us?

Cathmandooo

Technically yes it makes the lease invalid. But I've never heard of any cases going through under that.

It could end up going against you in that your landlord could claim for the remaining rent until Sept 2010, as per your lease.

I'd give up the deposit, you're the one pulling out of a legally binding agreement.

bugler

I do not believe there are any grounds for nullifying a lease on the basis that a BER rating was not sought and advertised by the landlord. There may be penalties for not complying but I don't see the tenant involved in this. In any case, this is Ireland and we do not enforce this type of thing anyway.

Technically yes it makes the lease invalid. But I've never heard of any cases going through under that.

Can I ask what your source for this assertion? If it makes it technically invalid then who cares if no cases have been taken on it - it's invalid.

I just don't see how this affects the lease, in the same way that I don't believe a lease is invalid in the case of the LL not being registered with the PRTB. In the latter case the LL may be called to account for non-registration, but it doesn't affect any lease agreement. I'm open to correction on either count though.

EDIT: Having read a bit, I can find no definite answer. What a surprise. There are several articles intimating it may invalidate a contract, but frankly I don't know if I trust them. It looks like you can add another grey area to tenant law in Ireland.

Cathmandooo

bugler wrote: »

Can I ask what your source for this assertion? If it makes it technically invalid then who cares if no cases have been taken on it - it's invalid.

Apologies they seem to have cleaned up the guidelines on it since last I read up on it. It used to imply that a lease would be invalid with no cert. My theory of no cases being made on it is that it depends on how the judge/adjudicator would interpret the law or guidelines.

As a Landlord:
If you lease your home to a tenant without a valid BER certificate, you are liable for a fine of up to EU5,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 months, or both fine and imprisonment. Your tenant will also not be eligible to receive rent allowance.

As a Tenant:
If you rent your home from your landlord and it does not have a valid BER certificate, you will not be eligible to receive rent allowance.

Should clear it up, taken from http://www.respondber.ie/who+needs+ber

Again OP, no I wouldn't go bringing it up.

bugler

Cathooo: I read an article or two that stated a lease may be invalid but the sources might be said to have a vested interest in pushing take up of BER certification. I think this is just another area that isn't spelled out clearly and there's no easy answer.

Cathmandooo

bugler wrote: »

Cathooo: I read an article or two that stated a lease may be invalid but the sources might be said to have a vested interest in pushing take up of BER certification. I think this is just another area that isn't spelled out clearly and there's no easy answer.

Yes definitely a grey area, that's why it matters that no cases have been brought up that I'm aware of. The website I quoted is just stating their interpretation of it, it wouldn't necessarily hold up in front of a judge.

O_cean

On :

http://www.landlordsolutions.ie/news/no-ber-certificate-may-mean-no-enforceable-contract-with-your-tenant/

Quote:

" No BER Certificate may mean no enforceable contract with your tenant".

murphaph

May

D3PO

O_cean wrote: »

On :

http://www.landlordsolutions.ie/news/no-ber-certificate-may-mean-no-enforceable-contract-with-your-tenant/

Quote:

" No BER Certificate may mean no enforceable contract with your tenant".

There is nothing nor no legal precedent that supports the idea that the lease is invalid other than people assuming that is the case which is why the above says may mean.

The lease is still enforceable until otherwise adjucated on. The OP is more than welcome to try and set that legal precedent but that will be a long and costly process for them.

As others have said. Drop it you have been irresponsible in signing a legally binding document that you think you can get out of willy nilly. Learn some responsibility and take your medicine.

Who knows, next time you sign a legally binding contract you might actually stick to it

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

As others have said. Drop it you have been irresponsible in signing a legally binding document that you think you can get out of willy nilly. Learn some responsibility and take your medicine.

Who knows, next time you sign a legally binding contract you might actually stick to it

I have to say I find this attitude both hilarious and ridiculous in equal measures. Do you honestly think that there is no legitimate reason why someone might have to seek to break a lease early for unforeseen reasons?

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

I have to say I find this attitude both hilarious and ridiculous in equal measures. Do you honestly think that there is no legitimate reason why someone might have to seek to break a lease early for unforeseen reasons?

No I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons you may have to do this, that doesn't absolve you from a legal responsibility, and there are ways to reassign your lease etc as your well aware of Djimi.

I'm sick to death with irresponsible people posting on this forum with the same theme how can I break my lease early, how can I get my deposit back.

People get up in arms (myself included) when people try to get out of a mortgage (legal contract) this is no different. People need to get real and get responsible.

if they cant they aren't capable of living on their own and should move back in with their parents until they learn how the real world works.

donutheadhomer

bugler wrote: »

I do not believe there are any grounds for nullifying a lease on the basis that a BER rating was not sought and advertised by the landlord. There may be penalties for not complying but I don't see the tenant involved in this. In any case, this is Ireland and we do not enforce this type of thing anyway.



Can I ask what your source for this assertion? If it makes it technically invalid then who cares if no cases have been taken on it - it's invalid.

I just don't see how this affects the lease, in the same way that I don't believe a lease is invalid in the case of the LL not being registered with the PRTB. In the latter case the LL may be called to account for non-registration, but it doesn't affect any lease agreement. I'm open to correction on either count though.

EDIT: Having read a bit, I can find no definite answer. What a surprise. There are several articles intimating it may invalidate a contract, but frankly I don't know if I trust them. It looks like you can add another grey area to tenant law in Ireland.

There have been some cases of PRTB ordering refunds when the landlord has advised there was a BER when none was in place

D3PO

EurasianBadger wrote: »

There have been some cases of PRTB ordering refunds when the landlord has advised there was a BER when none was in place

Tribunal numbers please.

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

No I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons you may have to do this, that doesn't absolve you from a legal responsibility, and there are ways to reassign your lease etc as your well aware of Djimi.

I'm sick to death with irresponsible people posting on this forum with the same theme how can I break my lease early, how can I get my deposit back.

People get up in arms (myself included) when people try to get out of a mortgage (legal contract) this is no different. People need to get real and get responsible.

if they cant they aren't capable of living on their own and should move back in with their parents until they learn how the real world works.

The majority of people who post on here are genuinely looking for their options and are not aware of things like reassignment. Or maybe they are just looking for confirmation/clarification of some hearsay pubtalk like the OP in this thread. Either way its not that hard just to outline the legal methods of breaking a lease, or respectfully saying that what they are suggesting is not legal, rather than kicking off and spouting on about legal repsonsibilities in a nasty and partronizing manner.

This is an advice forum after all; people come on here to get advice regarding the situation which they find themselves in, not to be abused.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

The majority of people who post on here are genuinely looking for their options and are not aware of things like reassignment. Or maybe they are just looking for confirmation/clarification of some hearsay pubtalk like the OP in this thread. Either way its not that hard just to outline the legal methods of breaking a lease, or respectfully saying that what they are suggesting is not legal, rather than kicking off and spouting on about legal repsonsibilities in a nasty and partronizing manner.

This is an advice forum after all; people come on here to get advice regarding the situation which they find themselves in, not to be abused.

its not an advice forum its a forum for discussion on all things accommodation and property which allows for opinion. You don't have to like it or accept it by my opinion is as valid as yours or anybody else's.

I have no time for people who break leases, nor do I have to. I have no time for their poor personal stories as to why they have to break their lease. Nor do I subscribe to the we don't know their circumstances response.

A legal document is a legal document, nobody has the right to flout that and nobody should accept sympathy when doing so and I find it incredulous that anybody would support that viewpoint.

Weather you sign a mortgage document or a lease you should think long and hard about what you are doing and what would happen if your personal circumstances change.

if you sign a one year lease then you better know a) your obligations b) understand what you would do if your circumstances changed and meant you had to move.

You and other regulars on here know I take a dim view of landlords who don't know their obligations, I take the same view of tenants. Renting is a two way street after all.

murphaph

djimi wrote: »

I have to say I find this attitude both hilarious and ridiculous in equal measures. Do you honestly think that there is no legitimate reason why someone might have to seek to break a lease early for unforeseen reasons?

But it's always a one way street. If a LL proposed breaking a fixed term lease because of unforeseen circumstances we'd have the usual mob on screaming about slumlords and how tenants are downtrodden etc.

Neither party should sign a contract if they cannot uphold their end of the bargain.

If someone "needs" to break a contract they have signed then they need to be ready for the financial fallout.

And yes before a certain section come on this should apply to mortgage holders in default as well etc. etc.

Citycap

EurasianBadger wrote: »

There have been some cases of PRTB ordering refunds when the landlord has advised there was a BER when none was in place

I presume you will be able to supply us with the PRTB Case No. decision

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

if you sign a one year lease then you better know a) your obligations b) understand what you would do if your circumstances changed and meant you had to move.

murphaph wrote: »

Neither party should sign a contract if they cannot uphold their end of the bargain.

If someone "needs" to break a contract they have signed then they need to be ready for the financial fallout.

This is exactly what I mean though. Nobody (or relatively few) does sign a contract with the intention of breaking it, but sometimes, for completely unforeseen reasons, **** happens and thats the situation that people find themselves in. Most posters on here will ask how to handle the situation, and even if they are asking is there a way to keep their deposit then what of it; its a lot of money at stake and I doubt either of you would just forfeit it without seeing if there was an alternative.

I agree that I can get a bit pissed at landlords in the same situation but I try to stay objective if I can. Ill usually only lose the head when its obvious that the person doesnt even know that a tenancy act exists, much less what it says. Too often though people seem to lose the head over people asking an innocent question about breaking a lease. Is there really any need to go ranting on about legal responsbilities and not signing leases you dont intend to stick to (like the majority actually do that), when it would be much easier and much more productive just to explain the options and not lose the head? Do you really think that telling someone that they shouldnt have signed a lease if they dont intend to stick to it is in any way productive and in any way helps the person out?

ayeboy

D3PO wrote: »

its not an advice forum its a forum for discussion on all things accommodation and property which allows for opinion. You don't have to like it or accept it by my opinion is as valid as yours or anybody else's.

Boards is a forum for discussion that people go to WHEN seeking advice.

People should not be subjected to vitriol when seeking such advice for two particular reasons - 1) you have no idea of the OP's personal circumstances and 2) its not very respectful.

I only had a look at this thread beacuse I've an interest in BER's but if I came here for to check a discussion on property matters and guys like you are spouting their 'opinion' then I'd stay well clear.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean though. Nobody (or relatively few) does sign a contract with the intention of breaking it, but sometimes, for completely unforeseen reasons, **** happens and thats the situation that people find themselves in. Most posters on here will ask how to handle the situation, and even if they are asking is there a way to keep their deposit then what of it; its a lot of money at stake and I doubt either of you would just forfeit it without seeing if there was an alternative.

I agree that I can get a bit pissed at landlords in the same situation but I try to stay objective if I can. Ill usually only lose the head when its obvious that the person doesnt even know that a tenancy act exists, much less what it says. Too often though people seem to lose the head over people asking an innocent question about breaking a lease. Is there really any need to go ranting on about legal responsbilities and not signing leases you dont intend to stick to (like the majority actually do that), when it would be much easier and much more productive just to explain the options and not lose the head? Do you really think that telling someone that they shouldnt have signed a lease if they dont intend to stick to it is in any way productive and in any way helps the person out?

Its as productive as molly coddling somebody who not only breaks a legal contract but has the audacity to look for some kind of loophole to get their deposit back.

I'm sorry but tenants like that are every bit as bad as slumlords. Im happy to post on here to advise and help tenants or landlords where the case arises that they deserve help but equally I will quickly call somebody out who quite frankly is acting like a child.

as for your **** happens comment. Yes it does but your a grown up you should prepare for it just because your renting and don't own a house doesn't mean you shouldn't think of the concequences of what your doing.

If this was a house owner looking for a legal loophole to get out of their neg equity mortgage would you be jumping to their defense as quickly ? I wont discriminate against one section of society over another.

Its one thing the OP leaving a tenancy early without following the proper protocol, its quite another them having the cheek to try and get their deposit back by finding a loophole.

The sooner the system here is robust enough to hit a tenant for every single penny of the rent lost whilst reletting in these kind of circumstances with little or no effort for a landlord the better. The system has to be balanced unfortunately right now it isn't.

D3PO

ayeboy wrote: »

Boards is a forum for discussion that people go to WHEN seeking advice.

People should not be subjected to vitriol when seeking such advice for two particular reasons - 1) you have no idea of the OP's personal circumstances and 2) its not very respectful.

I only had a look at this thread beacuse I've an interest in BER's but if I came here for to check a discussion on property matters and guys like you are spouting their 'opinion' then I'd stay well clear.

Explain to me what the OP's personal circumstances have to do with anything ?

Did they have to sign a lease ? No they could have found accommodation without one, they could have had a break clause inserted, and so on and so forth.

They chose to sign one they have as much sympathy from me as a home owner who flouts their financial obligations with their mortgage. (That's none if you didn't know)

As for staying clear, go right ahead that's your prerogative. Discussion with only one opinion isn't discussion at all ....

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

Its as productive as molly coddling somebody who not only breaks a legal contract but has the audacity to look for some kind of loophole to get their deposit back.
.
.
.
Its one thing the OP leaving a tenancy early without following the proper protocol, its quite another them having the cheek to try and get their deposit back by finding a loophole.

Its not a loophole; there is a legal condition which allows a tenant to break a lease and get their deposit back. Instead of spouting bile at the person asking the question, why not give them the advice that they seek?

D3PO wrote: »

as for your **** happens comment. Yes it does but your a grown up you should prepare for it just because your renting and don't own a house doesn't mean you shouldn't think of the concequences of what your doing.
.
.
.
Did they have to sign a lease ? No they could have found accommodation without one, they could have had a break clause inserted, and so on and so forth.

They chose to sign one they have as much sympathy from me as a home owner who flouts their financial obligations with their mortgage. (That's none if you didn't know)

Spoken like someone who has obviously never been a bad situation. I hope you never find yourself needing to break your lease, but if it does happen to you that something unforeseen happens then I wonder will you be so quick to follow your own advice, or will you look to find a way to minimize your loss? Only a fool would walk away from the guts of €1000 or more without exploring their options and the possibility of finding a way to get out of the lease and keep their deposit (especially since a legal route exists to do just this).

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

Its not a loophole; there is a legal condition which allows a tenant to break a lease and get their deposit back. Instead of spouting bile at the person asking the question, why not give them the advice that they seek?

They didn't ask for advise on how they could legally get out of their lease. They came on looking to find some kind of bull***t loophole to do it.


Spoken like someone who has obviously never been a bad situation. I hope you never find yourself needing to break your lease, but if it does happen to you that something unforeseen happens then I wonder will you be so quick to follow your own advice, or will you look to find a way to minimize your loss? Only a fool would walk away from the guts of €1000 or more without exploring their options and the possibility of finding a way to get out of the lease and keep their deposit (especially since a legal route exists to do just this).

Firstly I own not rent, secondly if something unforeseen did happen I would be ok as I have and did at the time of getting my mortgage. Before I did so I ensured I knew exactly what I could do in the event of losing my job, getting to sick to work, having large unexpected expense, seeing massive spikes in interest rates.

If I were renting I would do the same. How would I handle these things, what are my rights, what are my obligations.

I've said it on this forum before ignorance isn't an excuse. The OP willingly entered a legally binding contract if they didn't want to do so they could easily have found a house share or a tenancy without a lease

.

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

They didn't ask for advise on how they could legally get out of their lease. They came on looking to find some kind of bull***t loophole to do it.

I agree; what they were asking was bull**** (although it seems to be a bit of a common misconception at the moment). Would it really have been that hard to explain reassigning a lease though, rather than ranting off about legal responsibiilty? Not everyone who posts on here is looking to screw their landlord; some (probably most) are genuine and just looking for the best way out of their particular situation.

D3PO wrote: »

I've said it on this forum before ignorance isn't an excuse. The OP willingly entered a legally binding contract if they didn't want to do so they could easily have found a house share or a tenancy without a lease

The majority of people enter into contracts in good faith with the intention of fully honoring them. But as I said, sometimes **** happens. Its nice to have a little empathy sometimes, rather than just taking the "**** you, its your problem, deal with it" hard line; after all it could happen to any one of us (even if, like yourself, you think you have everything planned out to the last detail).

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

The majority of people enter into contracts in good faith with the intention of fully honoring them. But as I said, sometimes **** happens. Its nice to have a little empathy sometimes, rather than just taking the "**** you, its your problem, deal with it" hard line; after all it could happen to any one of us (even if, like yourself, you think you have everything planned out to the last detail).

The problem is Djimi that if the shoe was on the other foot you would have no empathy and have taken that position on here multiple times tbh. If it was a landlord who came on with a sob story trying to end a fixed lease you would blast him with both barrels.

You cant take one side of the argument for a tenant and the other side for a landlord.

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

The problem is Djimi that if the shoe was on the other foot you would have no empathy and have taken that position on here multiple times tbh. If it was a landlord who came on with a sob story trying to end a fixed lease you would blast him with both barrels.

You cant take one side of the argument for a tenant and the other side for a landlord.

Fair point; Im not so sympathetic towards landlords. Its a bit different for landlords though; there is no legal out for a landlord, and quite often when it comes up on here its when a landlord has already tried to issue an illegal eviction notice. I have less sympathy for the person who is supposed to be running a business but doesnt have the first clue of what they are at; maybe thats hypocritical but Im of the opinion that as a landlord it is your duty to know the law.

All I was trying to say originally was that its not fair to assume that every tenant who looks to break a lease is out to screw over their landlord and entered into the lease with a "to hell with them" attitude. There are some (probably the majority) genuine cases where people are in a situation where, through unforeseen circumstances, they are unable to honor the term of their lease and are looking for advice on how to handle it. Given that there is at least one legal way for a tenant to break their lease and keep their deposit, I feel its more productive just to explain that to them rather than shouting about responsibilities. Whether you like it or not, tenancy law in this country allows for a tenant to enter into a fixed term lease and not have to expect to honor the full term if the need arises; there is no absolute legal responsibility to see out the full term of a lease.

witchgirl26

Em hate to break up the argument but if you re-read the OP's post it sounds more like the lease was broken amicably between themselves & the landlord with the deposit forfeit. The OP then heard something about the BER cert & that the lease may not have been valid & asked for people to shed some light. Didn't seem to me to be looking for some dodgy way out of their obligations or to specifically get their deposit back but more to clarify what they'd heard.

Tbh before I first came on to this forum, I didn't know anything about re-assigning leases or that. Wasn't renting at the time so suppose I didn't need to in a sense but still I would hope that if I came on here & genuinely asked a question about having to break a lease, that I would receive some good advice & information as opposed to a lecture about recognising my legal obligations. There are genuine reasons for having to break a lease, I've seen friends have to do it & they didn't think they'd be breaking them when they signed them but sometimes things happen that change that. If someone seems to be looking to get out of it in a dodgy way, that's one thing, but I think people deserve the benefit of the doubt. Give the info first about re-assinging etc and see what their response is before you judge them.

D3PO

It is rarely the case that somebody sets out to intentionally fail to see out their lease I agree with you although it does happen mainly in cases of students taking the piss knowing they are going in may.june and signing till sept or the likes. However that doesn't absolve them.

There is a general attitude amongst people who post the kind like the OP has that it is ok to break a lease, its not, and that attitude stems from the fact that the system isn't robust enough to penalise a tenant who looks to do so.

If tenancy law, provided for the landlord to chase and enforce the financial penalties of the remainder of a lease / lost rental income and it was an easy prompt process you would be shocked at how

a) these unforeseen circumstances we hear about would drop significantly

b) how clued up tenants would actually become about their obligations and how they could legally get out of a lease if they had to.

The culture here is all wrong. The governance of renting here both in regards to landlords failing to meet their obligations and tenants doing the same is badly structured and poorly legislated for and is an incubator for bad landlords and bad tenants.

I don't subscribe to believing that only the landlord should know legally what they should be doing no more than I believe only the bank should know legally what they are doing when it comes to a mortgage document.

both are legal documents, both relate to accommodation and both have obligations for the lay person.

The end story is signing a legal document without knowing your obligations is outrageous behavior, and just because others are doing it doesn't make it right.

D3PO

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Em hate to break up the argument but if you re-read the OP's post it sounds more like the lease was broken amicably between themselves & the landlord with the deposit forfeit. The OP then heard something about the BER cert & that the lease may not have been valid & asked for people to shed some light. Didn't seem to me to be looking for some dodgy way out of their obligations or to specifically get their deposit back but more to clarify what they'd heard.

.

Yes the lease was broken amicably and the OP should have been thankful for that. Instead they are trying to find some loophole to screw the landlord for the deposit back which they have no right to get returned (unless the LL relet within the month at which point they may have an argument for part of it back)

To me that's dodgy, underhand, and scummy.

You don't honestly believe they just wanted to clarify the situation. They wanted to clarify the situation so they could try and work it to their advantage despite the fact their landlord has helped them out.

so not only did they screw him or her by breaking the lease they are looking to double up.

Besides which the question was answered very quickly. If we left this forum as a question and answer forum each thread would be about 2 posts long and the forum would die a death in no time.

witchgirl26

D3PO wrote: »

Yes the lease was broken amicably and the OP should have been thankful for that. Instead they are trying to find some loophole to screw the landlord for the deposit back which they have no right to get returned (unless the LL relet within the month at which point they may have an argument for part of it back)

To me that's dodgy, underhand, and scummy.

You don't honestly believe they just wanted to clarify the situation. They wanted to clarify the situation so they could try and work it to their advantage despite the fact their landlord has helped them out.

so not only did they screw him or her by breaking the lease they are looking to double up.

Besides which the question was answered very quickly. If we left this forum as a question and answer forum each thread would be about 2 posts long and the forum would die a death in no time.

Yes I do honestly believe that because when people replied and said that most likely wasn't a thing, do you see any post from the OP trying to loop out of it? A deposit is a lot of money & if I thought that my contract with the LL had been null & void because of something they failed to do, then yes I would too ask the question about possibly getting it back. Doesn't mean I'm searching for loopholes to screw someone over. Means I'm clarifying a situation to know where I stand.

Do you think the LL wouldn't work something to their advantage if the roles were reversed? I'm not saying that all LL's are out to get people but likewise, not all tenants are out to screw their LL's over.

I never said do a question and answer forum but just seems that the OP here is getting tarred for asking a question. Surely that's the whole point of the forums - to ask questions. And yes to discuss but without the fear that by asking something, you'll get judged as someone who wants to screw everyone over.

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

It is rarely the case that somebody sets out to intentionally fail to see out their lease I agree with you although it does happen mainly in cases of students taking the piss knowing they are going in may.june and signing till sept or the likes. However that doesn't absolve them.

There is a general attitude amongst people who post the kind like the OP has that it is ok to break a lease, its not, and that attitude stems from the fact that the system isn't robust enough to penalise a tenant who looks to do so.

If tenancy law, provided for the landlord to chase and enforce the financial penalties of the remainder of a lease / lost rental income and it was an easy prompt process you would be shocked at how

a) these unforeseen circumstances we hear about would drop significantly

b) how clued up tenants would actually become about their obligations and how they could legally get out of a lease if they had to.

The culture here is all wrong. The governance of renting here both in regards to landlords failing to meet their obligations and tenants doing the same is badly structured and poorly legislated for and is an incubator for bad landlords and bad tenants.

I don't subscribe to believing that only the landlord should know legally what they should be doing no more than I believe only the bank should know legally what they are doing when it comes to a mortgage document.

both are legal documents, both relate to accommodation and both have obligations for the lay person.

The end story is signing a legal document without knowing your obligations is outrageous behavior, and just because others are doing it doesn't make it right.

But it is okay for a tenant to break a lease, provided they follow the correct legal procedure in doing so. If the possibility of reassignment didnt exist in law then Id agree with you, but it does, so there isnt really much point in talking about legal responsibility for a tenant to see out the full term of a lease, because the reality is that legal responsibility does not exist in Irish tenancy law. Only if you are unable to reassign are you obliged to honor the full term of the lease.

D3PO wrote: »

I don't subscribe to believing that only the landlord should know legally what they should be doing no more than I believe only the bank should know legally what they are doing when it comes to a mortgage document.

I dont think that only landlords should know the law; personally I feel that any tenant who doesnt take an hour to go online and read about their rights and obligations is an absolute fool who is leaving themselves wide open to be taken for a ride. But I feel that anyone who is running any kind of business, landlords included, have a responsibility and a duty to their customers to know the laws surrounding their business and to follow them fully. Ignorance of these laws is not an excuse.

odds_on

The whole issue of a lease being invalid if no BER cert was provided before the contract agreement stems from a Law Society document to solicitors etc. regarding BER certs.

My understanding was the Law Society was advising its members as to the legal requirements in the housing market if no BER Cert was provided in the case of a house purchase. Thus, a solicitor will not allow a sale to proceed without a valid BER cert being produced (and this can delay the signing of contracts).

As regards the rental market, The Law Society stated the in the opinion of the committee set up to advise on the situation that a rental lease contract MAY be invalid if no BER cert was presented.

However, as several posters have already stated, there has been no court case to set a precedence.

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

Yes the lease was broken amicably and the OP should have been thankful for that. Instead they are trying to find some loophole to screw the landlord for the deposit back which they have no right to get returned (unless the LL relet within the month at which point they may have an argument for part of it back)

To me that's dodgy, underhand, and scummy.

They asked a question and got their answer. If their friend had been right and not having a valid BER cert did actually mean an invalid lease and their right to get their deposit back, would you still feel the same way? If the friend had told them about reassignment instead would you still say they were acting in a scummy and underhanded way coming on here seeking to clarify it?

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

.............
I dont think that only landlords should know the law; personally I feel that any tenant who doesnt take an hour to go online and read about their rights and obligations is an absolute fool who is leaving themselves wide open to be taken for a ride. But I feel that anyone who is running any kind of business, landlords included, have a responsibility and a duty to their customers to know the laws surrounding their business and to follow them fully. Ignorance of these laws is not an excuse.

Many tenants do go online and read from both the Threshold and Citizens Information sites.

Unfortunately, between not reading the full article and slightly incomplete information by said web pages, they come away with the wrong end of the stick.

Many have come on here "quoting" what they read, but the article failed to mention that there can differences between a Fixed Term lease and a Part 4 requirements, which the advising sites have failed to make clear.

One common theme is that a tenant can give the required notice and vacate - correct if it's a Part 4 tenancy, but not a fixed term tenancy.

Again, when trying to purchase an apartment last yea, I enquired of the Estate agent what type of lease the tenant had, as I would be ready to move in on completion. The answer was that it was a fixed term until a particular date but that they would be able to evict the tenant on the grounds that the landlord was selling the property. I replied that that only applies to a Part 4 tenancy, and no matter how much I tried to convince then, I was talking to a brick wall. They even produced a leaflet from one of the two mentioned sources which stated the grounds but not that it was only applicable to a Part 4 tenancy.

Needless to say, I went no further with that agent, who should have know the law.

beauf

hildabergman wrote: »

....This means there was no BER when we signed the lease. A friend of mine thinks this makes our lease invalid and that we should receive our deposit back. Can anyone shed any light on the subject for us?

Simply put it. It never been tried. It would most likely end up going to the PRTB (or further) to be settled. As a tenant you've nothing to lose by going that route.

beauf

Its interesting that there's so little interest in BER certs, a lot of interest seems to be around making leases invalid.

My own opinion is that BER system is so flawed, and so poorly understood, its mostly just another stealth tax on the LL, which in turn will push up rents. There is a cost to the LL to switching tenants. Registration, cleaning, advertising, vetting tenants etc. Costs of course have to paid out of income. Which is rent.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

They asked a question and got their answer. If their friend had been right and not having a valid BER cert did actually mean an invalid lease and their right to get their deposit back, would you still feel the same way? If the friend had told them about reassignment instead would you still say they were acting in a scummy and underhanded way coming on here seeking to clarify it?

That's a lot of if's, it would still be morally wrong in that event IMO but that's a whole different discussion.

witchgirl26

D3PO wrote: »

That's a lot of if's, it would still be morally wrong in that event IMO but that's a whole different discussion.

I'm curious to know why you think it would morally wrong if the tenant had been in the right to get their deposit back? Or is it the reassignment part?

D3PO

beauf wrote: »

Simply put it. It never been tried. It would most likely end up going to the PRTB (or further) to be settled. As a tenant you've nothing to lose by going that route.

The PRTB at a tribunal aren't in a position to challenge the legality of a lease on the grounds of the BER. This is something that would require a legal challenge.

I'm sure they would take the case and make a determination though, however it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on and wouldn't set legal precedence nor would any LL who understands the situation do anything but ignore the PRTB determination and wait for an attempt for legal enforcement of the determination.

Of course somebody on here said the PRTB have judged this to be an invalid lease in the past but then conveniently when twice asked for tribunal numbers disappeared.

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

That's a lot of if's, it would still be morally wrong in that event IMO but that's a whole different discussion.

How can something that is legally right be morally wrong?

And its not a different discussion; in either case the OP would not have known the answer; the only difference is that in this case they asked about something that wasnt correct, whereas had they asked about reassignment for example they would have been right.

D3PO

witchgirl26 wrote: »

I'm curious to know why you think it would morally wrong if the tenant had been in the right to get their deposit back? Or is it the reassignment part?

Not sure I understand what your referring to regarding re assignement and don't want to go down the road of a moral discussion. Its pretty clear the LL has been reasonable here, its also pretty clear that given the circumstance the OP should be happy to have been released from their lease with no penalty other than forfeiture of the deposit, when the LL could have insisted they stay or reassign.

There is a thing called reasonable behavior and trying to exploit a loophole if it existed (which I think we are all in agreement doesn't or certainly if it does has never been proved to thus far) is morally bankrupt.

People fail to look outside isolated incidents. This kind of behavior has a potential knock on impact to other tenants, it has the ability to cause resentment and bitterness in landlords and turn a willing helpful obliging landlord into one that does the bare minimum to act legally.

If its good enough for the tenant to exploit a legal position then they cant complain when a landlord does the same. Its a negatively perpetuating circumstance that ultimately leads to a degradation in the quality of rental accommodation on the market.

It cannot be seen as a good thing.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

How can something that is legally right be morally wrong?

Exactly the same way the cleaning discussion yesterday would be should it be allowed that anybody can write up a random invoice and for it to be accepted.

Potentially as suggested yesterday it could have legal basis in an PRTB dispute but again would you not see that (and im referring to in general not that case) as a morally wrong situation whereby a LL would essentially have carte blanche to screw a tenant for any random number they like.

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

Exactly the same way the cleaning discussion yesterday would be should it be allowed that anybody can write up a random invoice and for it to be accepted.

Potentially as suggested yesterday it could have legal basis in an PRTB dispute but again would you not see that (and im referring to in general not that case) as a morally wrong situation whereby a LL would essentially have carte blanche to screw a tenant for any random number they like.

I see where you are coming from, but ultimately you cannot say that someone who is following the law is doing something that morally wrong. In the case of the cleaning invoice yesterday, the actual amount would could be challenged either way, and even if the landlord had come out with a legitimate invoice form a cleaning company for €400 cleaning I would expect it to be disputed as being insanely high. But thats a seperate matter; if the law allowed for a landlord to bill for their own time then you cant really say that its morally wrong for them to do so.

In this case there is nothing morally wrong about using a legal clause to break a lease.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

I see where you are coming from, but ultimately you cannot say that someone who is following the law is doing something that morally wrong. .

See this is why I didn't want to get into a morals discussion :pac:

Definition ;)

Moral - founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

witchgirl26

D3PO wrote: »

Not sure I understand what your referring to regarding re assignement and don't want to go down the road of a moral discussion. Its pretty clear the LL has been reasonable here, its also pretty clear that given the circumstance the OP should be happy to have been released from their lease with no penalty other than forfeiture of the deposit, when the LL could have insisted they stay or reassign.

The reassignment bit was the 2nd part of the other question - if the person had come on asking about reassignment instead. Doesn't seem to be what you were referring to so doesn't really matter.

D3PO wrote: »

There is a thing called reasonable behavior and trying to exploit a loophole if it existed (which I think we are all in agreement doesn't or certainly if it does has never been proved to thus far) is morally bankrupt.

People fail to look outside isolated incidents. This kind of behavior has a potential knock on impact to other tenants, it has the ability to cause resentment and bitterness in landlords and turn a willing helpful obliging landlord into one that does the bare minimum to act legally.

If its good enough for the tenant to exploit a legal position then they cant complain when a landlord does the same. Its a negatively perpetuating circumstance that ultimately leads to a degradation in the quality of rental accommodation on the market.

It cannot be seen as a good thing.

I do understand where you're coming from to an extent however you were talking before about how the tenant has to recognise their legal responsibilities in relation to the lease, then surely the landlord would have to do the same. If landlords were continuously not providing BER certs (and it was the case that they had to etc) then surely the tenant would be right in pursuing that & making sure the landlord followed their legal obligations too.

Ok get it that in the case of the OP, it may be a bit bad considering the landlord has agreed to let them out of the lease early but they would legally have the right to do it. I wouldn't agree it's morally bankrupt, questionable maybe but not bankrupt. And if the money was a massive thing to the tenants involved then could see their point in trying to get some of it back.

I think that yes you would have some landlords burned by it & only doing the bare minimum however surely it would make others aware they can't get away with not doing something their required to.

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

See this is why I didn't want to get into a morals discussion :pac:

Definition ;)

Moral - founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

Its a fair point. For the most part I tend to see things as being a bit black and white (for the most part for me if its legal then morality doesnt really come into it), but I do understand that not everyone sees it the same way!

beauf

djimi wrote: »

How can something that is legally right be morally wrong?....

I don't it think that applies here.

But its quite possible for a law to be immoral depending on your viewpoint of morality. There's been some recent high profile cases, like abortion, tax avoidance, corporation and high profile personalities. Even more so if you consider examples from history or unjust regimes.

But in this case, I don't see any morality issue here. The lack of a Ber as means of invalidating an agreement, is a technicality untested in law. Forfeit of deposit, is pretty clear cut. Theres no morality involved.

Does anyone know the situation re servicing gas boilers in rented accommodation, Is it a law that the boiler (4 years old installed and supplied by board gais) has to be serviced on a yearly basis for 120euro a go. The house is fitted with 2 smoke alarms and has 2 carbon minoxide detectors operating perfectly. Any discussion on this is greatly received as I feel it may be a money racket but just wondering.

beauf

I think you need to create a new thread as its got nothing to do with this issue. However you are required to have it in "good working order". If there was a problem and someone was killed I think you'd find not having it serviced regularly would go against you. Apart from the danger to others which is obvious in itself.