Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Landlord and Tenant Law Question

  • 04-08-2010 2:26pm
    #1
    doz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 248 ✭✭


    Tenants sign a 12 month lease. After 9 months they inform the landlord of their intention to move out at the end of the 10th month. Landlord agrees to this and agrees to accept tenants' deposit in lieu of the 10th month's rent. He then actively advertises the property as being for lease and requests the tenants to be out of the property when other prospective tenants are coming to view the property. The tenants move out of the property as agreed at the end of the 10th month.
    Landlord is unable to get any new tenants for the 11th month but gets some at the start of the 12th month. He then sends a letter to the original tenants claiming the 11th month's rent, giving only two weeks for them to pay or he will inform the PRTB and add interest at 3%, in addition to 'advertising costs'.

    Surely the landlord would have no action in this case, having treated the contract as being at an end at the end of the 10th month? I would also doubt he could insist on charging interest or advertising costs?

    P.S if it is felt that this infringes forum rules, feel free to remove this thread. I am not seeking advice, merely peoples opinions. I am not one of the tenants.


Comments

  • #2
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    It comes down to what was agreed, and proving it.

    Tenants would have been very much better off to get in writing that the landlord was agreeing the surrender of the lease on the terms you describe.

    In the absence of that it comes down to he says, she says.

    I tend to think the landlord is trying it on a bit in this eh hypothetical scenario. I'd respond to his letter setting out in unhypothetically formal terms stating that he agreed to the surrender of the lease on terms including retention of deposit and that any further correspondence of this type will be forwarded to the tenants solicitor and dealt with appropriately.


  • #3
    doz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 248 ✭✭doz


    Reloc8 wrote: »
    It comes down to what was agreed, and proving it.

    Tenants would have been very much better off to get in writing that the landlord was agreeing the surrender of the lease on the terms you describe.

    In the absence of that it comes down to he says, she says.

    I tend to think the landlord is trying it on a bit in this eh hypothetical scenario. I'd respond to his letter setting out in unhypothetically formal terms stating that he agreed to the surrender of the lease on terms including retention of deposit and that any further correspondence of this type will be forwarded to the tenants solicitor and dealt with appropriately.

    It certainly would have been desirable to have got the terms in writing but i think the fact that he accepted the terms and acquiesced to them moving out might be an indication that he was treating the contract as at an end?

    Personally I think the landlord is just trying to recover because he couldn't re-let immediately and is trying to use 'scare tactics' to try and get the tenants to cough up. Apparently this sort of scenario is becoming common and i was interested to see whether any people here have suffered or had experience in relation to similar situations.


Advertisement