Part 4 tenancy

LisaPol

Hi all, renting a house for the past 16 months. Just had agency on the phone, wants us to sign a new contract. I brought up staying on a part 4 tenancy and he said we can't, that they want to keep everything "straight". Do we not automatically go on to a part four after six months or so? I asked him and he said no. Asked was he sure and he said yes. Wants us to sign another year contract. I said I didn't want to as were hoping to buy within the year. Said he'd put a break clause in of 30 days notice and no forfeit of deposit. Am I right in thinking I'm correct and can stay on a part 4 without signing contracts? Or does it make any difference providing the clause is there?

D3PO

you don't have to sign a new deal your entitled to stay on part 4 rights. Tell the agency you are not signing that you are remaining on part4 rights, they cannot make you sign and cannot make you leave for not signing either.

LisaPol

D3PO wrote: »

you don't have to sign a new deal your entitled to stay on part 4 rights. Tell the agency you are not signing that you are remaining on part4 rights, they cannot make you sign and cannot make you leave for not signing either.

Thanks a mill, I thought as much! Either a clueless or a sneaky agent so!

D3PO

sneaky would be my guess

Chris_5339762

I would have said clueless.... the lack of Part 4 knowledge from letting agencies is staggering.

djimi

If they are happy to put in a 30 day break clause then why on earth do they want you to sign a further fixed term lease? The part 4 would actually give them more rights; they would be entitled to a longer notice period, and could trigger several clauses to ask you to leave should it be required, which they cannot do with a part 4 tenancy. Unless they want the break clause to be valid for the landlord also, in which case tell them where to go with themselves.

If they insist on you signing a lease please ask them to send you the relevant legalities that allows a landlord to ask a tenant to leave if they do not sign a further FTL. Id be really interested to see how they would respond.

P_1

Seems a lot of agencies are trying to make people think that their Part 4 rights don't exist lately.

LisaPol

Thanks everyone, definitely wont be signing, going to give him a ring Monday and talk to him about it. I cant believe he blatantly told me that I cant stay under a part 4, will update Monday :-)

LisaPol

So, have just had a bit of an argument with the agent. Rang and said that we had looked into things over the weekend and that we are protected under part 4 and that we don't have to sign another fixed term lease. He got defensive, said every tenant he's had resigns contracts every year. I said that this was the only tenancy we have had that we've been asked to resign. He started going on about it being a fixed term, and a fixed term is a fixed term, asked how would people ever get tenants out of their house if they didn't have a lease. I said that we had security of tenure for four years and he said I was wrong and that I definitely didn't go onto a part 4 after six months. I said I was right and that maybe things had changed lately and he should look into it. Said he studied it for five years,I told him I'd been onto threshold to have it confirmed and that I was right. Threatened with having to leave and I told him that was against the law and that if that was the case I'd be onto the prtb. Doubt ill hear anymore.

djimi

Perhaps remind him, in writing, that threatening you with eviction is both illegal and could be seen as a breech of your right to quiet enjoyment of the property.

I think Threshold may help you out and speak to the landlord/agent if necessary, so perhaps give them a call if you need to explore this route.

Also, insist that any communication from them from now on be in writing only. Do not take their calls, do not accept texts. Make sure everything that is said is down in a full paper trail.

gaius c

LisaPol wrote: »

So, have just had a bit of an argument with the agent. Rang and said that we had looked into things over the weekend and that we are protected under part 4 and that we don't have to sign another fixed term lease. He got defensive, said every tenant he's had resigns contracts every year. I said that this was the only tenancy we have had that we've been asked to resign. He started going on about it being a fixed term, and a fixed term is a fixed term, asked how would people ever get tenants out of their house if they didn't have a lease. I said that we had security of tenure for four years and he said I was wrong and that I definitely didn't go onto a part 4 after six months. I said I was right and that maybe things had changed lately and he should look into it. Said he studied it for five years,I told him I'd been onto threshold to have it confirmed and that I was right. Threatened with having to leave and I told him that was against the law and that if that was the case I'd be onto the prtb. Doubt ill hear anymore. What a dickhead.

Sounds like the beginning of the experience we had with our agents. Eventually we reported them to the guards & PRTB for harassment.

Ring threshold asap. More than likely, the agents know full well what part 4 tenancy is but are trying to bully you out of it because they'd have to give you your deposit back if you left before the lease ended. Re the promise to add a break clause, I'll believe it when I see it. They promised us a break clause and posted us a new lease (when we had already said we wouldn't sign it). When we checked, it was exactly the same as the previous lease with no break clause added.

xper

LisaPol wrote: »

Said he studied it for five years

Slow learner, bless him.

Lisa, well done for standing up to this avalanche of crap. It would be all too easy to give in to the bullying for the sake of a bit of peace and quiet. Every time a messer, be it a tenant or an agent or landlord, comes up against someone who knows how things are supposed to work and respects that, it is another small step along the long, long road toward a proper rental industry in this country.

murphaph

What a daft git. Why on earth would any decent agent be harassing paying tenants who (as far as we are to know) haven't been anything but model tenants. Beggars belief really.

The whole system needs overhauling to remove these idiots and the bad tenants with them.

Jo King

murphaph wrote: »

What a daft git. Why on earth would any decent agent be harassing paying tenants who (as far as we are to know) haven't been anything but model tenants.

1. To get his commission on the re-letting.
2 To tell his client, the landlord, that his rent is secured for another year.

LisaPol

Thanks everyone! We have always paid our rent on time, and the house is in a better condition than when we moved in, so its a bit annoying that he is upsetting the relationship like this. I havent heard anymore so Im taking it he is backing down. Heres hoping anyway! Im not a confrontational person at all so glad I didnt give in :-)

murphaph

Jo King wrote: »

1. To get his commission on the re-letting.
2 To tell his client, the landlord, that his rent is secured for another year.

The landlord is a daft git if he pays out commissions to these guys for "re-letting" an apartment with sitting tenants. Landlords should also know that these leases are barely enforceable from the landlord's side if the tenant decides to withhold last month's rent and then disappear before the lease is up.

I see your point though, there are some gullible landlords out there that are being fleeced by these agents for old rope. As soon as the sh!t really hits the fan (over holding tenant etc.) these agents are gone.

Lawrence1895

I hope, you don't mind, but I hijack the thread

I'm renting a house since May last year, I would like to stay. I am dealing with an estate agency, since the woman who owns the house lives abroad (Canada, I think).

I have downloaded a draft letter from the Citizens Information website, because I want to declare my intention to stay in the house.

Who actually should I address the letter to? 'Dear (name of the estate agent)' or 'Dear (name of the person, who owns the house)'

I haven't got the owner's address anyway, so the letter will go to the estate agent's office, but I'm confused about to whom the letter is addressed. An estate agent does not own the house, I guess.

Thanks

D3PO

Lars1916 wrote: »

I hope, you don't mind, but I hijack the thread

I'm renting a house since May last year, I would like to stay. I am dealing with an estate agency, since the woman who owns the house lives abroad (Canada, I think).

I have downloaded a draft letter from the Citizens Information website, because I want to declare my intention to stay in the house.

Who actually should I address the letter to? 'Dear (name of the estate agent)' or 'Dear (name of the person, who owns the house)'

I haven't got the owner's address anyway, so the letter will go to the estate agent's office, but I'm confused about to whom the letter is addressed. An estate agent does not own the house, I guess.

Thanks

to the EA they are your agent and as such are responsible for the property (as borne out by the fact you dont have to withold 20% rent to sent to the revenue as they have an agent)

The_Conductor

D3PO wrote: »

to the EA they are your agent and as such are responsible for the property (as borne out by the fact you dont have to withold 20% rent to sent to the revenue as they have an agent)

Lars said he was dealing with an estate agent- there is no indication whatsoever that they are considered a legal agent by the revenue commissioners and are tasked with normalising the landlord's tax affairs. Lars needs to check with the Revenue Commissioners that the tax is being paid on the rental income, and if not- he is legally obliged to deduct it and forward it to them. I'm personally not aware of any estate agent in Dublin who deal with Revenue on behalf of absentee landlords.........

xper

smccarrick wrote: »

I'm personally not aware of any estate agent in Dublin who deal with Revenue on behalf of absentee landlords.........

Given the abject level of knowledge of or compliance with the law among letting agents in this country, that doesn't say a lot!

This is what Revenue themselves say on their website:

Rent paid to non-resident landlord - If the rent is paid to an agent acting on behalf of landlord, agent is assessed on the rent.
If however the rent is paid to the landlord abroad or to an account on his behalf the tenant must deduct tax at the standard rate from the payments and remit that tax to Revenue.

... and spelt out a bit more clearly here.

So if you are paying rent directly to the agent, the landlord's tax is not your problem. You might want to check that the bank account you are paying to (assuming you are paying this way) is in fact the agent's and not the landlord's.

Lawrence1895

xper wrote: »

Given the abject level of knowledge of or compliance with the law among letting agents in this country, that doesn't say a lot!

This is what Revenue themselves say on their website:

... and spelt out a bit more clearly here.

So if you are paying rent directly to the agent, the landlord's tax is not your problem. You might want to check that the bank account you are paying to (assuming you are paying this way) is in fact the agent's and not the landlord's.

I just checked on my bank statement, it's the landlord's name coming up actually. But still, I don't have her postal address, is an estate agent obliged to give it to me anyway?

The_Conductor

xper wrote: »

Given the abject level of knowledge of or compliance with the law among letting agents in this country, that doesn't say a lot!

This is what Revenue themselves say on their website:

... and spelt out a bit more clearly here.

So if you are paying rent directly to the agent, the landlord's tax is not your problem. You might want to check that the bank account you are paying to (assuming you are paying this way) is in fact the agent's and not the landlord's.

The Revenue Commissioner's definition of an 'Agent' for tax purposes has no bearing whatsoever with an estate agent, or the services they provide to their customers. I use a tax agent- they are an accountancy firm, and they're damn good at what they do, even if they do charge an arm and a leg. They do not however provide services you'd expect from an estate agent- nor would I expect them to. They are a go between, between me and the Revenue Commissioners, and they ensure my affairs are in order, so I don't have to.

xper

You're over-thinking this, nobody is talking about a registered Tax Agent. The term agent here just refers to any Irish-based proxy for the landlord who is collecting the rent from the tenant. Its very clear from the advice on the second link I gave to the Revenue site:

Where the non-resident landlord has an agent, who is resident in the State collecting the rent, you should pay the gross rent to the agent without deduction of income tax.

The agent is then chargeable to tax on the rents as Collection Agent for the landlord and is required to submit an annual tax return and account for the tax due under Self-Assessment. Leaflet IT10 - Guide to Self-Assessment provides more detailed information.
...
Note: The agent appointed need not be a professional person, e.g.. they can be a family member or other person prepared to take on the responsibility and who undertakes to make annual tax returns and account to Revenue for any tax due.

And further clarity here in another Revenue document, Tax & Duty Manuals - Section 16, Income Tax Capital Gains Tax Corporation Tax, Part 45-01-04
The following sentence in the second paragraph of the first section is pretty unambiguous:

Where rents are paid to a person whose usual place of abode is in the State, for example to an Irish based estate agent, acting on behalf of a non-resident landlord, the tenant is not obliged or entitled to deduct income tax.