12+6 month lease

fasttalkerchat

When I moved into my apartment I knew that I would be here 18 months. I'm only in this town for university so will be moving out after that. I offered to sign an 18 month contract to get lower rent but they gave me the rental rate that I wanted and said the 18 month contract wasn't necessary.
I signed a 12 month contract.
I heard that some agencies ask you to sign a new 12 month contract once the current one expired. I thought that you had a rolling 1 month contract after it expired.

What is the story with this?

odds_on

If you do not sign a new lease at the end of the first 12 months, you have a Part 4 tenancy and can leave with 42 days written notice. However, the agents may insist on a new fixed term contract but IMHO, they cannot really enforce it if you do not sign it. You will still be protected under Part 4 as you can remain in the property for up to 4 years without signing a new lease.

fasttalkerchat

odds_on wrote: »

If you do not sign a new lease at the end of the first 12 months, you have a Part 4 tenancy and can leave with 42 days written notice. However, the agents may insist on a new fixed term contract but IMHO, they cannot really enforce it if you do not sign it. You will still be protected under Part 4 as you can remain in the property for up to 4 years without signing a new lease.

Ah that's spot on then. And are we still entitled to the full deposit back after the 18 months? (or even after the 12)

not even wrong

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Ah that's spot on then. And are we still entitled to the full deposit back after the 18 months? (or even after the 12)

Yes. You can't lose your deposit for asserting your Part 4 rights.

You also should notify the landlord some time between months 9 and 11 of the lease that you intend to stay on under Part 4 after the 12 month fixed term expires.

djimi

odds_on wrote: »

If you do not sign a new lease at the end of the first 12 months, you have a Part 4 tenancy and can leave with 42 days written notice. However, the agents may insist on a new fixed term contract but IMHO, they cannot really enforce it if you do not sign it. You will still be protected under Part 4 as you can remain in the property for up to 4 years without signing a new lease.

Surely if the landlord wants you to sign a new fixed term lease and you do not agree then they can ask you to leave?

not even wrong

djimi wrote: »

Surely if the landlord wants you to sign a new fixed term lease and you do not agree then they can ask you to leave?

No, there is no obligation on the tenant to sign a new lease once they have a Part 4 tenancy. The landlord cannot make you move out except on one of the specific grounds set out in the Residential Tenancies Act.

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

Surely if the landlord wants you to sign a new fixed term lease and you do not agree then they can ask you to leave?

They can ask the tenant to leave, but they will need grounds to remove or force an eviction of the tenant. Anyway, what reasonable landlord would object to a good tenant staying on longer if it is not going to cost him much - a re-registration fee but no advertising/agents costs for a new tenant.

djimi

So essentially a fixed term lease is a 4 year lease for the tenant (provided its longer than a 6 month fixed term), and there is nothing the landlord can do about it unless he can trigger one of the break clauses of the part 4 in order to remove the tenant? I find that utterly amazing that the landlord does not have the power to ask a tenant to leave at the end of a fixed term lease if they do not wish to sign a further fixed term lease.

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

So essentially a fixed term lease is a 4 year lease for the tenant (provided its longer than a 6 month fixed term), and there is nothing the landlord can do about it unless he can trigger one of the break clauses of the part 4 in order to remove the tenant? I find that utterly amazing that the landlord does not have the power to ask a tenant to leave at the end of a fixed term lease if they do not wish to sign a further fixed term lease.

This is one of the main reasons that the RTA 2004 was introduced - to give the tenant more security of tenure.

Why would a landlord want to remove a tenant who is paying rent and keeping the terms and conditions of the lease. If he wants to sell the property or live in it himself (or a close family member) under a Part 4 lease he can remove the tenant, under a fixed term lease, he cannot unless he has an appropriate break clause in place. On the landlord's side, the problem with a Part 4 is that the tenant can leave with the appropriate notice. If it is a good landlord, the tenant will usually stay. It's usually the naff landlords and crappy properties that the tenants want to leave.

Pkiernan

djimi wrote: »

Surely if the landlord wants you to sign a new fixed term lease and you do not agree then they can ask you to leave?

No, because we live in a left-wing looney country where landlords have no real rights under the law.

And if you believe otherwise look up any PTRB case where a landlord has come out even after a tenant has fooked him over. You'll be looking for a long time.

Funny how the socialists forget that without landlords, a lot of people would have no place to live. (Except for council flats - and we all know how lovely they are...)

fasttalkerchat

Pkiernan wrote: »

Funny how the socialists forget that without landlords, a lot of people would have no place to live. (Except for council flats - and we all know how lovely they are...)

Not sure if I agree. Being a landlord is making a profit from other people's misfortune in most cases. Landlords make money from those who can't afford to buy a house and it's (outside a recession) easy money and a guaranteed profit.

The_Conductor

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Not sure if I agree. Being a landlord is making a profit from other people's misfortune in most cases. Landlords make money from those who can't afford to buy a house and it's (outside a recession) easy money and a guaranteed profit.

Sigh.....
Being a landlord is providing a service like any other service.
I don't expect to get free internet- nor do I expect a free roof over my head.
A landlord will naturally, like any other business, try to make a profit- they would be clinically insane if they didn't.
It is not other people's misfortune that they cannot afford to buy a house- in most countries, they rent- it enables mobility, and in general people can rent properties far more salubrious than they could ever reasonably expect to buy were they in the market to buy property.

It is *not* easy money- its incredibly difficult- and over the past 4 years there are precious few landlords who have consistently turned a profit- look at the 17.6 billion of outstanding mortgage loans to btl landlords in Bank of Ireland alone as an example.

Professional landlords who are competent at their chosen profession, and have good tenants- are good to their tenants and can make a living letting property- but we really have to get over this bee lots of people have in their bonnets about landlords and renting property.

It is not normal for most people, especially younger people, to expect to buy a house and to live their forever after. There is no such thing as a job for life- and even relatively secure jobs require mobility- often on an international level. In most countries people rent until they're fully settled in an area and confident that they'll not move again- often this could be approaching retirement (looking at Germany as an example).

Its not easy money- and you're certainly not guaranteed a profit by any means. Professional landlords are professional in their dealings with tenants and the management of their properties. Ireland has had a mushrooming of hobby landlords which is an entirely different story- and often its people's experiences of these part-time landlords that seriously colour their impressions of the entire industry.

We do seriously need to get over our insistence on buying property though- thats what has this poor little country up the creek the way we are..........

djimi

odds_on wrote: »

This is one of the main reasons that the RTA 2004 was introduced - to give the tenant more security of tenure.

Why would a landlord want to remove a tenant who is paying rent and keeping the terms and conditions of the lease. If he wants to sell the property or live in it himself (or a close family member) under a Part 4 lease he can remove the tenant, under a fixed term lease, he cannot unless he has an appropriate break clause in place. On the landlord's side, the problem with a Part 4 is that the tenant can leave with the appropriate notice. If it is a good landlord, the tenant will usually stay. It's usually the naff landlords and crappy properties that the tenants want to leave.

Im all for giving tenants more rights and security, but the way I see it a tenancy is an agreement from both sides, and if one side does not wish to continue the terms of that agreement, ie to sign a fixed term lease, then the other party should surely have the power to end the agreement, ie ask the tenant to leave? It just seems very strange to me that a landlord has so little control over their own property past the initial lease being signed.

As for why a landlord might want a tenant to leave if they dont sign a further fixed term, well for me it would simply be about security. On a part 4 a tenant can leave with a little over a months notice. On a fixed term the landlord has a more security.

odds_on

Pkiernan wrote: »

No, because we live in a left-wing looney country where landlords have no real rights under the law.

And if you believe otherwise look up any PTRB case where a landlord has come out even after a tenant has fooked him over. You'll be looking for a long time.

Funny how the socialists forget that without landlords, a lot of people would have no place to live. (Except for council flats - and we all know how lovely they are...)

Landlords have the rights under the RTA 2004. However, landlords, who are "in business" and should therefore know all the law pertaining to that business. However, many, to their detriment, fail to do proper detailed entry inventories and exit inventories and therefore lose claims with the PRTB for lack of valid evidence.

DR1130/2008
The Respondent Tenant shall pay €8,365 to the Applicant Landlord within five days from the date of issue of this Order, being €4,365 for rent arrears and €4,000 for damages in respect of the breach of the Respondent Tenants obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2004 in respect of the tenancy

DR576/2008
The Respondent Tenant shall pay €15,865 to the Applicant Landlord within 5 days of the date of issue of this Order, being arrears of rent totalling €10,865 and €5,000 damages for breach of Tenants obligations under Section 16 (f) of the Act, together with failure to pay the rent in respect of the tenancy

DR376/2007
The Respondent Tenant shall pay the sum of €9,706.90 to the Applicant Landlord within 21 days of the date of issue of this order, being €2,353 for arrears of rent plus €556.60 for cleaning costs, plus €5,177.30 for repairs and damages in excess of normal wear and tear and €1,620 in respect of bank charges due to late fees

L1011

Pkiernan wrote: »

No, because we live in a left-wing looney country where landlords have no real rights under the law.

And if you believe otherwise look up any PTRB case where a landlord has come out even after a tenant has fooked him over. You'll be looking for a long time.

Funny how the socialists forget that without landlords, a lot of people would have no place to live. (Except for council flats - and we all know how lovely they are...)

Funny how you don't appear to realise that in countries with far stronger tenants rights, more people rent and there are more landlords...

We only have our still incredibly weak tenancy protections because so few people ever rented long term until recently.

not even wrong

djimi wrote: »

Im all for giving tenants more rights and security

Clearly you're not.

but the way I see it a tenancy is an agreement from both sides, and if one side does not wish to continue the terms of that agreement, ie to sign a fixed term lease, then the other party should surely have the power to end the agreement, ie ask the tenant to leave?

No because by the nature of the situation the landlord is in a much more powerful position than the tenant. If the tenant leaves without notice the landlord is only out a month's rent; if the landlord makes the tenant leave without notice the tenant is sleeping on the streets. The Residential Tenancies Act aims to redress this imbalance.

(this is the same reason we have employment rights law, where on the face of it a contract is equal but in reality the two parties have very different influence)

djimi

not even wrong wrote: »

Clearly you're not.

No because by the nature of the situation the landlord is in a much more powerful position than the tenant. If the tenant leaves without notice the landlord is only out a month's rent; if the landlord makes the tenant leave without notice the tenant is sleeping on the streets. The Residential Tenancies Act aims to redress this imbalance.

(this is the same reason we have employment rights law, where on the face of it a contract is equal but in reality the two parties have very different influence)

Im talking purely about in the case of where the lease has expired and both parties want to proceed in different ways. I have absolutely no problem with the part 4 tenancy or the security which it affords tenants, but in my mind when a fixed term lease expires and a tenant decides not to sign another one against the landlords wishes then I would see it as a natural end to the agreement and the landlord should have the right to ask a tenant to leave. In other words, I find it odd that the landlord does not have the right to accept or reject the tenant automatically going onto a part 4 tenancy at the end of a fixed term lease.

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

Im talking purely about in the case of where the lease has expired and both parties want to proceed in different ways. I have absolutely no problem with the part 4 tenancy or the security which it affords tenants, but in my mind when a fixed term lease expires and a tenant decides not to sign another one against the landlords wishes then I would see it as a natural end to the agreement and the landlord should have the right to ask a tenant to leave. In other words, I find it odd that the landlord does not have the right to accept or reject the tenant automatically going onto a part 4 tenancy at the end of a fixed term lease.

I absolutely follow your reasoning and I used to have the same opinion. However, a landlord is in the business of renting out property and, as I said before, why would he want to remove (evict) a tenant who wants to stay. If the tenant has breached the terms and conditions of the lease, that may give the landlord the right to evict the tenant. However, a tenant who wants to stay does the landlord a service in that the landlord's costs are reduced in not having to find a new tenant, no void period etc.

When a tenant signs a 12 month fixed term lease, the landlord knows (or should know) that after six months in occupancy the tenant gains the right to stay for a further 3.5 years. It is not as though this comes out of the blue for the landlord - it is enshrined in law and the landlord should know that.

Therefore, a 12 month fixed term lease is fixed for 12 months but is actually a contract for 4 years - either by renewed fixed term leases or by a Part 4 lease.

If the landlord wants to regain possession of his property at the end of twelve months he has several options he can use but he must think of that when the lease is first created (two leases of six months, for example, but not to the same tenant for if the same tenant stays for a second six month term he therefore gains Part 4 rights.

Pkiernan

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Not sure if I agree. Being a landlord is making a profit from other people's misfortune in most cases. Landlords make money from those who can't afford to buy a house and it's (outside a recession) easy money and a guaranteed profit.

Obviously you've never rented out a property.

Funny, when I left home, I was "misfortunate", I simply didn't have the money as a graduate to buy a home, so I rented until such time as I was able to purchase 7 years later.

If you follow the rules, being a landlord is quite difficult.

In my case, I had a tenant who abandoned the property (trashing it in the process) owing 2 grand in rent, about 2 grand in damages and a month to get it back on the market.
Although theoretically possible to evict, in reality it is not possible to evict a tenant in less than 12 months, during which time you wont be getting any rent.

This is what I mean by landlords having no rights under the law.

Would you left wingers really like to see our government responsible for all housing for the "misfortunate" as you put it? They are doing such a good job with everything else.

Pkiernan

not even wrong wrote: »

...if the landlord makes the tenant leave without notice the tenant is sleeping on the streets. The Residential Tenancies Act aims to redress this imbalance.

(this is the same reason we have employment rights law, where on the face of it a contract is equal but in reality the two parties have very different influence)

sigh...

fasttalkerchat

Pkiernan wrote: »

Obviously you've never rented out a property.

Funny, when I left home, I was "misfortunate", I simply didn't have the money as a graduate to buy a home, so I rented until such time as I was able to purchase 7 years later.

Would you left wingers really like to see our government responsible for all housing for the "misfortunate" as you put it? They are doing such a good job with everything else.

I'm sitting in my rented apartment right now actually. Since I'm studying in another town it didn't make sense to buy a house. I'm paying someone else's mortgage but what choice do I have?
In a few years I will buy my first house but for less fortunate people my age they will spend their whole lives paying for someone else's house.

djimi

odds_on wrote: »

I absolutely follow your reasoning and I used to have the same opinion. However, a landlord is in the business of renting out property and, as I said before, why would he want to remove (evict) a tenant who wants to stay. If the tenant has breached the terms and conditions of the lease, that may give the landlord the right to evict the tenant. However, a tenant who wants to stay does the landlord a service in that the landlord's costs are reduced in not having to find a new tenant, no void period etc.

...

I suppose youre probably right; if its a good tenant then it doesnt make much difference to the landlord either way. Only benefit I can think is that a fixed term lease gives the landlord the security of knowing that the tenant is there for another 6/12 months or however long, and it allows them to plan the short term future of the property, rather than having the uncertainty of the tenant being able to leave with a little over a months notice.

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

I suppose youre probably right; if its a good tenant then it doesnt make much difference to the landlord either way. Only benefit I can think is that a fixed term lease gives the landlord the security of knowing that the tenant is there for another 6/12 months or however long, and it allows them to plan the short term future of the property, rather than having the uncertainty of the tenant being able to leave with a little over a months notice.

Personally, I used to think that at the end of a fixed term lease that was that - lease ended, tenant must leave unless a new agreement was made. But the RTA 2004 and Part 4 tenancies put an end to that as I have now learnt, having been corrected by various posters on various boards and forums (and reading PRTB dispute resolutions). It took me quite a while to fully understand and to get to grips with how a Part 4 worked while running along side a fixed term lease. I think I have it worked out now!!

The tenant can always assign a fixed term lease to get out of the contract whereas a landlord cannot - unless he has a suitable break clause, which very few landlords have.

not even wrong

djimi wrote: »

in my mind when a fixed term lease expires and a tenant decides not to sign another one against the landlords wishes then I would see it as a natural end to the agreement and the landlord should have the right to ask a tenant to leave.

You haven't thought this all the way through. If this was the case then no tenant would ever get a Part 4 tenancy because when the fixed term lease expired the landlord could simply threaten to kick them out if they didn't sign another fixed-term lease.

Pkiernan

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I'm sitting in my rented apartment right now actually. Since I'm studying in another town it didn't make sense to buy a house. I'm paying someone else's mortgage but what choice do I have?
In a few years I will buy my first house but for less fortunate people my age they will spend their whole lives paying for someone else's house.

You misunderstand.

Obviously you have never rented out a property you own to some dirtbag tenant.

When you get to the stage in your life when you can, I wish you all the best.

Also, your left wind tendencies will dissipate as you grow older.

You will less likely to side with the poor downtrodden proletariat when they torn the door off your fridge, not cleaned the kitchen in 12 months, broken the boiler etc etc.

fasttalkerchat

Pkiernan wrote: »

You will less likely to side with the poor downtrodden proletariat when they torn the door off your fridge, not cleaned the kitchen in 12 months, broken the boiler etc etc.

That's a totally different story. When a tenant has purposefully damaged a house or generally left the place in a state there should be more rights for landlords.

Every house I have lived in has been left in a better condition than when I moved in and I haven't had any problems with landlords. My current one I haven't actually met or spoken to and when I had problems with the oil heating (no heat or hot water for 4 days!) I couldn't get in touch with him. I ended up having to get it sorted myself and send him a bill. His crap that was left in the spare room sat in the shared entrance hall until a neighbour threw it out etc. etc.
In this case the landlord is not providing a service, he is just getting his mortgage paid for him.