Rights to take back Property that I rented out

bmwguy

I'm wondering if anyone can help me, I rented out my main (and only) property earlier this year 4 months ago but my circumstances have changed and I would like to move back into it ASAP. The tenants have been fine, but I read that they get security of tenure after 6 months in that they can stay for 4 years. Am I within my rights to demand the property back and what obligations do I have to them? They signed a 1 year lease and I used a letting agent, so guess I have obligation to them too. We're all on pretty good terms at the moment and I dont want to turf them out, but there are plenty of similar properties in the area with the same letting agent.

maddog

Under the tencencies residential act you have the right to end the lease and move back in to your property, you agent should know about and how to do this!

Bren

OwaynOTT

if they are there less than 6 months, I think you only need to give 30 days notice.

nibtrix

If they signed a one year lease then you have no right to ask them to leave until it is up (unless they are not paying their rent or are breaking the terms of their lease).

A fixed term lease supersedes the part 4 tenancy and wanting to move back in is not a valid reason to break the lease.

Your best option is to ask them if they are willing to leave, and if you're decent you will offer them some compensation such as a month rent free while they look for somewhere.

If they choose not to leave there is nothing you can do about it.

bmwguy

Thanks for the replies thats pretty much what I thought, I will get in touch with agent on Monday to get the ball rolling on it.

nibtrix

bmwguy wrote: »

Thanks for the replies thats pretty much what I thought, I will get in touch with agent on Monday to get the ball rolling on it.

Did you read my reply? The other posters are incorrect. A fixed term lease is just that, fixed term. You will be depending on the kindness of your tenants in this situation.

bmwguy

nibtrix wrote: »

Did you read my reply? The other posters are incorrect. A fixed term lease is just that, fixed term. You will be depending on the kindness of your tenants in this situation.

No sorry I posted before I saw your reply. This does change things. I will contact agent anyway to see what can be worked out and have a read of the lease. There are clauses in some leases for extenuating circumstances such as needing property back for personal or family use. Not sure about my own lease with them. I would be prepared to offer compensation for hardship incurred such as a months free rent if necessary.

djimi

There is absolutely nothing that you can write into a lease that changes the fact that the tenants are there for the duration of the fixed term and there is nothing that you can do to ask them to vacate. Even if you have such a clause written into the lease it has no legal standing whatsoever.

The only hope that you have is to offer compenstation to the tenants if they vacate. To be honest a months free rent is probably not going to cut the mustard; this has come up on here before and the general consensus from most tenants is that they would be looking for something in the region of 2-3 months rent back and full deposit without question before they would consider moving out during a fixed term lease. See what you can negotiate with your tenants, but remember they hold all the cards here and if they say that they are not moving then they are not moving, end of story.

bmwguy

Ok this gets interesting now! I'm seeing contadictory evidence online, but does a fixed term lease overrule the residential properties act? Can anyone link to this? I might have a look in legal forum too

D3PO

djimi is right. You cannot force them to leave, if your all on good terms Im sure you can work out something but if I were the tennant id be looking for 2 months rent free and deposit back on echanging of keys to consider it.

Marcusm

Tbh, no one here can be as explicit as they are implying. As the tenant has not yet reached 6 months tenure, they have not acquired part 4 rights so the governing document as regards tenure is the lease. As none of us has had sight of it, we cannot be definitive as to its terms; even "fixed" term leases may include provisions for early termination in specified circumstances. Accordingly, you should review the lease. If no such provision is included, seek to come o terms with your tenants. If they are uk accommodating, you will need to wait util the expiry of the fixed term as you can usurp their part 4 rights if you intend to reoccupy the property.

bmwguy

One more thing comes to mind. And before I sound like I'm being harsh I will deal with this compassionately, nobody will be on the street and I will give them time. I employed the services of an agent, but I never saw or signed the lease myself. Nor did I sign any agreement with the agent. Amateur I know!! But should I have been given the lease to sign?

djimi

As far as Im aware if the agent is employed to act on your behalf then they can sign the lease on your behalf, but on that point I am not 100% certain.

bmwguy

Ok thanks for the help everyone I will see what can be done. At the end of the day I want to do this amicably, after all there is more to life than sticking rigidly to law! We're all nice people and we'll settle something between us, if its not to be its not to be

jd83

The letting agent will have signed the lease as an agent acting on your behalf, if its a fixed term lease, your only option is to make an offer to them to leave e.g a few months free rent and deposit back.

odds_on

bmwguy wrote: »

One more thing comes to mind. And before I sound like I'm being harsh I will deal with this compassionately, nobody will be on the street and I will give them time. I employed the services of an agent, but I never saw or signed the lease myself. Nor did I sign any agreement with the agent. Amateur I know!! But should I have been given the lease to sign?

A verbal agreement for a fixed term has as much right as a written agreement - however, a verbal agreement is more difficult to prove - your word against theirs. As the majority of first leases are for fixed terms, I think you may have difficulty proving otherwise and I'm sure the agent will not want to commit perjury.

As most posters are suggesting, your only option is to buy out the lease by offering a financial inducement - but it is up to the tenant to accept or refuse your terms - the tenant is in the driving seat.

djimi

bmwguy wrote: »

Ok thanks for the help everyone I will see what can be done. At the end of the day I want to do this amicably, after all there is more to life than sticking rigidly to law! We're all nice people and we'll settle something between us, if its not to be its not to be

You might think that there is more to life than sticking rigidly to the law, but i doubt youre tenant will agree once they find out that youre trying to kick them out of their home!

odds_on

Perhaps the OP should read some of the PRTB adjudication and tribunal decisions as regards illegal eviction:

Some in brief:

R59/2011/DR1751/2010
Appellant Landlords shall pay the sum of €9,000 to the Respondent Tenants within 21 days being damages for unlawful termination of their fixed term tenancy of the dwelling

TR10/DR1463/2009
€6,250 in general damages for illegal eviction for the pain and upset that the unlawful eviction would have caused to the tenant and her family and return of €1,250 Deposit less the sum of €420 for the repairs

DR1267/2008
Landlords shall pay the total sum of €3,000 for illegal eviction, deposit retention and breach of landlord obligations

DR1573/2008
The Respondent Landlord shall pay €3,000 for illegally and unlawfully evicting the Applicant Tenant from the above premises; €450 retained security deposit and €240 for damage caused to Applicant Tenants belongings

The OP should also be aware that persistent attempts to try to get the tenant to vacate (even with a buy-out option) could be harassment of the tenant and disruption of the tenant's peaceful enjoyment of the dwelling which if proved in a claim with the PRTB could also be very costly.

Milk & Honey

There is usually a clause in the mortgage deed stating that the property cannot be leased without the consent of the bank. Show this to the tenants and explain that the bank has not consented to the lease and it is now void.

leeomurchu

Afaik.

If it's your sole residence and you have nowhere else to live you do have a right to end the tennancy agreement and move back into the property.

Ask at your local citizens advice centre they'll set you straight.

Bigcheeze

leeomurchu wrote: »

Afaik.

If it's your sole residence and you have nowhere else to live you do have a right to end the tennancy agreement and move back into the property.

Ask at your local citizens advice centre they'll set you straight.

You're wrong. The tenant has a lease. At the end of the lease the OP may give the tenant notice because he wants to move back in.

leeomurchu

Bigcheeze wrote: »

You're wrong. The tenant has a lease. At the end of the lease the OP may give the tenant notice because he wants to move back in.

What experience are you basing this on that you're so definite?

Bigcheeze

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There is usually a clause in the mortgage deed stating that the property cannot be leased without the consent of the bank. Show this to the tenants and explain that the bank has not consented to the lease and it is now void.

That's really a matter for the OP and his bank. The tenant is protected by legislation. The legislation overrides whatever a mortgage agreement between a bank and individual might say.

Bigcheeze

leeomurchu wrote: »

What experience are you basing this on that you're so definite?

It's clear from the law, citizens information ,threshold, this thread and the dozens of other threads on boards on this very subject.

Bigcheeze

djimi wrote: »

You might think that there is more to life than sticking rigidly to the law, but i doubt youre tenant will agree once they find out that youre trying to kick them out of their home!

In fairness to the OP, he came here looking for information and nowhere does he suggest that he's going to attempt to do anything illegal. There's nothing wrong with asking the tenant if he's willing to terminate the lease by mutual consent. It may suit both of them.

leeomurchu

Bigcheeze wrote: »

It's clear from the law, citizens information ,threshold, this thread and the dozens of other threads on boards on this very subject.

So you have no professional qualification to clarify this so you might possibly be wrong is what you're saying.

Best get some proper legal advice OP I think you'll only find opinions on here and as we all now the law is interpreted differently by different parties.

Maybe ring the PRTB and ask them directly might be your best bet.

djimi

Bigcheeze wrote: »

In fairness to the OP, he came here looking for information and nowhere does he suggest that he's going to attempt to do anything illegal. There's nothing wrong with asking the tenant if he's willing to terminate the lease by mutual consent. It may suit both of them.

Dont get me wrong; I agree, by all means test the waters and ask the question. But the OP saying things like "there is more to life than sticking rigidly to law" suggets a somewhat flippant attitude to the situation, and it is important that they understand that they have absolutely no legal standing here whatsoever. Its entirely up to the tenant and if they say no from the off then there is nothing that the OP can do about it.

Its entirely possible (extremely likely I would have said) that the tenant will tell the OP where to go with themselves, and the OP needs to be prepared for this. Best case scenario it is most likely going to cost them several months rent to get the tenant to agree to move out early.

djimi

leeomurchu wrote: »

So you have no professional qualification to clarify this so you might possibly be wrong is what you're saying.

Best get some proper legal advice OP I think you'll only find opinions on here and as we all now the law is interpreted differently by different parties.

Maybe ring the PRTB and ask them directly might be your best bet.

The OP is free to seek all the legal advise they like, but in this case you are wrong; they have no legal right to insist that the tenant moves out of the property before the lease is up, irrespective of whether the OP needs the property for themselves or not.

djimi

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There is usually a clause in the mortgage deed stating that the property cannot be leased without the consent of the bank. Show this to the tenants and explain that the bank has not consented to the lease and it is now void.

I would love to see something legal to back this up, because I would be utterly amazed if the OP could use this as a way of voiding a fixed term lease with a tenant. Of couse, I could be wrong about that, but I would doubt very much that the landlords standing with the bank overrides tenancy laws.

leeomurchu

djimi wrote: »

The OP is free to seek all the legal advise they like, but in this case you are wrong; they have no legal right to insist that the tenant moves out of the property before the lease is up, irrespective of whether the OP needs the property for themselves or not.

Again what is your qualification to prove this.

Ye are all just saying I'm wrong where I didn't state anything of fact I clearly expressed an opinion.

Would either of ye like to provide a link to back up your statement of fact seeing as ye both appear to be so definite on it.

djimi

leeomurchu wrote: »

Again what is you qualification to prove this.

Ye are all just saying I'm wrong where I didn't state anything of fact I clearly expressed and opinion.

Would either of ye like to provide a link to back up your statement of fact seeing as ye both appear to be so definite on it.

Go read up on citizens information of the tenancy act if you want to see the legal proof.

leeomurchu

Sure why would I want to that and waste my time.

Ye are making statements on fact I'm just asking for proof seeing as how ye were so quick to dismiss my opinion.

I would've thought someone making such a definite answer would have the information to hand.

I'm not doubting either of ye by the way but I'm yet to see any evidence to prove your point.

djimi

To be honest Im not bothered digging through the tenancy act/citizens information website on a Sunday morning. Youre the one who made the original statement; if you want it proved right or wrong go dig up the proof yourself.

Milk & Honey

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/print.html
PART 4

Security of Tenure

Chapter 1

Preliminary


26.—Nothing in this Part operates to derogate from any rights the tenant enjoys for the time being (by reason of the tenancy concerned) that are more beneficial for the tenant than those created by this Part.

PART 5

Tenancy Terminations — Notice Periods and other Procedural Requirements

Chapter 1

Scope of Part and interpretation provisions
58.—(1) From the relevant date, a tenancy of a dwelling may not be terminated by the landlord or the tenant by means of a notice of forfeiture, a re-entry or any other process or procedure not provided by this Part.

(2) Accordingly, the termination by the landlord or the tenant of—

(a) more beneficial rights referred to in section 26 that the tenant enjoys under a tenancy than those created by Part 4, or

(b) a tenancy to which section 25 applies,

must be effected by means of a notice of termination that complies with this Part.

(3) Each of the following—

(a) a tenancy referred to in subsection (2)(a) (unless it expressly excludes this means of termination),

(b) a tenancy referred to in subsection (2)(b), and

(c) a tenancy of a dwelling created before or after the relevant date in so far as its operation is not affected by Part 4,

shall be construed as including a term enabling its termination by means of a notice of termination that complies with this Part (but, in the case of a tenancy that is for a fixed period, unless it provides otherwise, only where there has been a failure by the party in relation to whom the notice is served to comply with any obligations of the tenancy).

leeomurchu

djimi wrote: »

To be honest Im not bothered digging through the tenancy act/citizens information website on a Sunday morning. Youre the one who made the original statement; if you want it proved right or wrong go dig up the proof yourself.

I didn't make any statement nor did I disagree with your statement.

I meerly passed an opinion which I clearly pointed out.

You jumped up and dismissed it I'm just curious to see if you had something to back up your definite unqualified response, which apparently you dont.

I'm beginning to find boards full of these professionals who rehash other unqualified posts from other threads and cast them off as their own. I was just wondering if you could provide some accurate information or were you just another of these posters.

If you're no more qualfied than someone else too pass an opinion don't be so quick to dismiss a post.

leeomurchu

Thanks Milk & Honey. I wonder is there a case for exceptional circumstances?

hdowney

I thought section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act had a provision for when the Landlord needed to move back in themselves/move family members in etc? I think that something about Sec 34 has to have been written into the lease from the beginning mind you, and since the OP hasn't even seen the lease goodness knows if there is anything in it about Sec 34.

leeomurchu

hdowney wrote: »

I thought section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act had a provision for when the Landlord needed to move back in themselves/move family members in etc? I think that something about Sec 34 has to have been written into the lease from the beginning mind you, and since the OP hasn't even seen the lease goodness knows if there is anything in it about Sec 34.

I think a standard agents lease would have this included or a reference to the resedential tenancies act.

I wasn't sure if this applied to a one off house to let or an investment property but I've been told I'm wrong more than once

Yawns

But doesn't section 34 only apply to a part 4 tenancy? So if I understand it, a landlord can write that provision into a lease in an attempt to have a way out, but if it came to court it would mean nothing with regards to the fixed term lease. It's more of a chance that the tenant will just see it and believe it. Afaik the only way to break a fixed term lease is by mutual consent of both tenant & landlord. If a tenant breaks early without agreement, he can be liable for the remaining amount of the fixed lease. If a landlord breaks early without agreement, he can find himself liable for damages to the tenant.

Agent J

Just to clarify this for people.

The 2004 Act sets out the minimum level of rights.

A lease can only add to that.

So a one year fixed term is on top of those rights. Unless the tenant is in violation of the lease itself then the 1 year term is solid.

djimi is pretty much bang on with their posts.

Milk & Honey - There isn't a hope of being able to use a mortgage clause to get out of a lease. The tenant signed in good faith. That could potentially leave the Landlord open to being sued for signing an agreement they knew to be in bad faith. Igornance or using an agent would be no defence for that.

I would stand corrected if there is any reference to that happening in recent times with reguard to residential property but i doubt it

Agent J

leeomurchu wrote: »

Sure why would I want to that and waste my time.

Wow. Seriously? You make a statement, have it challeneged & you consider checking it out yourself for it's own validity a waste of time?

That's speaks volumes of anything you have to say.

Btw this is your original statement. Couching it in "Afaik" & calling it an opinion still doesn't remove the fact that it is a statement.

leeomurchu wrote: »

Afaik.

If it's your sole residence and you have nowhere else to live you do have a right to end the tennancy agreement and move back into the property.

leeomurchu

Agent J wrote: »

Wow. Seriously? You make a statement, have it challeneged & you consider checking it out yourself for it's own validity a waste of time?

That's speaks volumes of anything you have to say.

Btw this is your original statement. Couching it in "Afaik" & calling it an opinion still doesn't remove the fact that it is a statement.

No it is called passing an informal opinion. where as a statement would be more formal.

My opinion wasn't challenged. I was firmly told I was in the wrong.

Why would the onus be on me to prove I am in the wrong. where's the logic in that :eek: This speaks volumes about yourself.

Couching Seriously!!

So to surmise your post atacking me is both pointless and inane.

Perhaps you might take a look at yourself before passing opinion on others and might I ask what are you qualifications to be posting such knowledgeable information?

hdowney

Ah here lads/lassies whatever yiz are. I am no mod but seriously the sniping does no-one any favours. This forum is just about asking advice and the like, but obviously when doing something in relation to a lease - which is a legal document - it is obviously best to seek legal advice from someone in the know, which I am sorry but none of us on here is. We are just people, some who may have been in similar circumstances to the various people asking the question, but that doesn't make us qualified. The OP can ask advice, and we can give advice as we know it - which may or may not be right - the onus is on the OP to check that they are doing everything by the book.

But yea, attacking each other over differences of opinions - and that is all it is from either side, an opinion, possibly based on something that you have read but an opinion none the less - is pointless and completely de-rails the thread.

OP I think your best bet is to start with the agent who handled the lease for you, if they are in the business they should have an idea of what your options are, and also what the tenants may be likely to say to being asked would they vacate early. Also you say that the agents have other properties, so if the agents can go in with an offer of another property in the same location it might help.

Milk & Honey

hdowney wrote: »

I thought section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act had a provision for when the Landlord needed to move back in themselves/move family members in etc? I think that something about Sec 34 has to have been written into the lease from the beginning mind you, and since the OP hasn't even seen the lease goodness knows if there is anything in it about Sec 34.

Section 34 cant apply when the tenant has more beneficial terms under the lease. All the leases usually say is that the Residential tenancies Acts applies to the letting. Very few tenants would take a lease that leaves them open to being given notice after a few months.

Agent J

leeomurchu wrote: »

No it is called passing an informal opinion. where as a statement would be more formal.

It's a statement.

See Merriam Webster & Oxford below for definitions

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statement
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/statement



The rest is semantics

The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the statement in the first place. You will save yourself an awful lot of hassle if you bear this in mind.

You either defend it or give up on it. Nothing wrong with giving up on it.

The reason i zero'd in on this because you were quite dismissive of other people without anything to back up your own position.You were giving out bad information. You weren't even bothered to check if you were right or wrong. It's not up for others to disprove you. You should at least be willing to do a little checking yourself before asking anyone else for proof/backup.

Anyway. I appear to have dragged this off topic enough. Apologies to everyone.

leeomurchu

Agent J wrote: »

It's a statement.

See Merriam Webster & Oxford below for definitions

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statement
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/statement



The rest is semantics

The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the statement in the first place. You will save yourself an awful lot of hassle if you bear this in mind.

You either defend it or give up on it. Nothing wrong with giving up on it.

The reason i zero'd in on this because you were quite dismissive of other people without anything to back up your own position.You were giving out bad information. You weren't even bothered to check if you were right or wrong. It's not up for others to disprove you. You should at least be willing to do a little checking yourself before asking anyone else for proof/backup.

Anyway. I appear to have dragged this off topic enough. Apologies to everyone.

I also googled the definition and found the contrary but figured why be childish and post definitions.

I wasn't dismissive if you actually read my posts you will notice I point out that I don't disagree with the posters but that I was looking for information regarding the issue.

As yet you haven't made me aware of you position to be casting such expert opinion.

This has gone on long enough and you are taking it to a childish level in attacking me which I've made reference of.

By all means continue with your tirade as it is amusing in it's oddity. :pac:

Milk & Honey

leeomurchu wrote: »

Thanks Milk & Honey. I wonder is there a case for exceptional circumstances?

There is no provision in the legislation for it. Both parties enter into a contract, and give rights to each other. Even if there was a case for exceptional circumstances it would be meaningless in the context of a 1 year lease. The tenant would be entitled to reasonable notice, to dispute the notice and wait for enforcement. the 1 year would be long gone.

bmwguy

Hi OP here, this caused serious rows that I didnt expect about morality and legality! I am not going to harrass them out if their home and I'm not going to push it if I have no rights, they are 2 single women and a daughter who are keeping my house well and pay their rent. I do know there are landlords from hell out there but I'm not 1 of them. What I will probably do is explain that I will be moving back in the summer after the 12 months and they wont be there for much longer, so if they want to move out early if they see somewhere they like they should take it. I would be prepared to compensate

Agent J

bmwguy wrote: »

. What I will probably do is explain that I will be moving back in the summer after the 12 months and they wont be there for much longer, so if they want to move out early if they see somewhere they like they should take it. I would be prepared to compensate

That's actually a good idea. Let them know that the lease won't be renewed beyond the one year so they know where they stand. And you also let them know if they want to break the lease themselves you will be more than happy to let them.

bmwguy

Thats what I will do so. There are plenty of rentals available and I do think this is fair. From reading up I agree with posters that have said there is no way of legally breaking a fixed term lease, (well there prob is but that would potentially leave the solicitors as the only winners) so I'll try the mutual agreement approach.

Victor

Agent J and leeomurchu, less of the bickering and rules lawyering please.

Moderator