Tenant not who they said they were.

pinklady88

Hi
Looking for some advice for a neighbour. He rented out his house recently to a couple signing a years lease. As my neighbour is not from the area where house is located he asked me did I know of them or anything. The names didn't ring any bells so he went ahead and rented.
I have since found out that one of the names put on the lease is not the person's real name. The person has recently been in prison for assult, drug convictions, is banned off the road for 10 years but is still driving and any previous houses that this person has rented have been wrecked and raided for drugs on several occasions. The tenant is well known to the local guards.
My neighbour is distraught and has no idea how he will go about removing them from his house. They tenants have only been in the house less than two weeks. Any advice would be greatly appriecated.

PixelTrawler

Im certainly not an expert but surely if the lease was signed with a false name its not valid? Grounds to give notice to evict?

LionelNashe

There's the sneaky option, report him for driving while off the road. If this was a TV programme he'd have broken his parole and would go back to prison; don't know how well it would work in real life.

foggy_lad

Are they not grounds to enter the property and have the Gardai remove the person who gave false details that is living there as they are trespassing? Would this also be a criminal matter as they have given false details?

Lambofdave

To sign a legal document with false information is a very serious issue, tell your friend to contact a solicitor and get the ball rolling.

Lambofdave

foggy_lad wrote: »

Are they not grounds to enter the property and have the Gardai remove the person who gave false details that is living there as they are trespassing? Would this also be a criminal matter as they have given false details?

civil issue

Santa Cruz

foggy_lad wrote: »

Are they not grounds to enter the property and have the Gardai remove the person who gave false details that is living there as they are trespassing? Would this also be a criminal matter as they have given false details?

Why get the Gardaí to do the work for the landlord? This is a civil matter caused by a landlord who didn't do his research properly. Did he ask for I.D. and get the clients PPS No. for registering the tenancy with the P.R.T.B. or was he just going to not register and not declare the income?

He can approach the couple and give notice. If the tenancy is not registered he can't rely on PRTB helping him

beauf

Santa Cruz wrote: »

.....Did he ask for I.D. and get the clients PPS No. ......

So your thinking is, if you ask a career criminal and fraudster, for their ID and PPS they will give you their real one? Or that they won't have a cloned one.

New statistics show there are 7.2 million PPS numbers on issue while the population is just 4.58 million.

http://www.herald.ie/news/pps-tally-sparks-fear-of-massive-welfare-fraud-27984842.html

the_syco

pinklady88 wrote: »

The person has recently been in prison for assult, drug convictions, is banned off the road for 10 years but is still driving and any previous houses that this person has rented have been wrecked and raided for drugs on several occasions. The tenant is well known to the local guards.

Thread carefully. Sounds like your mate has rented his house to someone that doesn't really care about the law, so if he does something stupid, he could be in for a bad time.

On the other hand, see what happens if your mate leaves him be. I've a feeling that he may be the type of individual who'd wreck the place if he was told to leave due to any his past convictions.

road_high

Anyway your mate could thread carefully and maybe invent astory about having to move back into the house ASAP and perhaps just back them off to break the lease?. Just a thought

murphaph

Agree re: treading carefully. The guy might turn nasty so anything must be done with that in mind!

Wondering aloud:
If the occupants have used false names on a lease agreement then does a tenancy still exist? I believe it might, especially if the LL has taken at least one rent payment from them. I am not qualified enough to answer definitively and unless someone here has specific knowledge of LL/tenant law I doubt they are either.

the_syco

murphaph wrote: »

Wondering aloud:
If the occupants have used false names on a lease agreement then does a tenancy still exist? I believe it might, especially if the LL has taken at least one rent payment from them. I am not qualified enough to answer definitively and unless someone here has specific knowledge of LL/tenant law I doubt they are either.

I'm sure you could say that the original tenant is not allowed to sublet, and that the current person would have to leave?

Regards the OP, if you know any of the tenants ex-landlords, perhaps get the story from them on when things started to go bad, and why. In saying that, if you don't know them, don't say anything to them, on the off chance that word gets back to the tenant.

Boom__Boom

pinklady88 wrote: »

The person has recently been in prison for assult, drug convictions, is banned off the road for 10 years but is still driving and any previous houses that this person has rented have been wrecked and raided for drugs on several occasions. The tenant is well known to the local guards.

If they were put off the road for 10 years and are still driving, I'm sure the guards would love to know. Someone who is put off the road for 10 years isn't someone who should be driving.

If there are well known to the guards, I'm sure they would at the very least appreciate knowing where the individual in question is currently living and would be very inclined to keep an eye out when in the area. Letting them know the model of car and reg number would mean that the Guards might even be inclined to set up a "random" traffic stop in the area.

As others have said I would tread carefully.

djimi

murphaph wrote: »

Wondering aloud:
If the occupants have used false names on a lease agreement then does a tenancy still exist? I believe it might, especially if the LL has taken at least one rent payment from them. I am not qualified enough to answer definitively and unless someone here has specific knowledge of LL/tenant law I doubt they are either.

The tenancy would probably still exist but I highly doubt that the signed lease would have any legal bearing. That being the case the tenants would be on a part 4 and could be asked to leave with 28 days notice as it is in the first six months.

OP would be well advised to take legal advice on the matter however.

sunnysoutheast

djimi wrote: »

The tenancy would probably still exist but I highly doubt that the signed lease would have any legal bearing. That being the case the tenants would be on a part 4 and could be asked to leave with 28 days notice as it is in the first six months.

OP would be well advised to take legal advice on the matter however.

I read it as only one of the names as false, not sure if that makes a difference, e.g. the other party/ies could remain and claim the other person is a guest.

As I understand it this kind of "fronting" is becoming more common amongst the unhousable. This isn't going to have a happy ending.

foggy_lad

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

I read it as only one of the names as false, not sure if that makes a difference, e.g. the other party/ies could remain and claim the other person is a guest.

As I understand it this kind of "fronting" is becoming more common amongst the unhousable. This isn't going to have a happy ending.

The other person is living there full time and has moved in so can not be considered a guest! As for the tenant named on the lease, they would have broken the terms of the lease by sub-letting/moving their partner in without permission.

sunnysoutheast

foggy_lad wrote: »

The other person is living there full time and has moved in so can not be considered a guest! As for the tenant named on the lease, they would have broken the terms of the lease by sub-letting/moving their partner in without permission.

I would hazard a guess that if somebody is unconcerned about renting a property with false details then they will be even less concerned about the niceties of breaking a tenant's covenant from the lease agreement.

In reality, the OP's friend should start thinking about how much they will need to pay to buy the tenants out and compare that with the cost of going a year or so without rent, legal fees and a trashed house at the end of it.

pinklady88

Hi all, thanks for your replies and advice.

Since original post landlord has issued 28 days notice through PRTB. Have had nothing but trouble past few days. Been on to guards who say unless they catch him driving they cant do anything. Also told me to stay clear of the individual and do not confront him. If anything happens Im to ring them straight away.

Landlord also got on to guards who basically told her it was her own fault for not doing a "proper" background check. The landlord did ring a reference that was given but found out off the guards that the person is by no means a landlord but a friend of the tenant. Also, since a false name was given I don't think the landlord would have gotten very far in her search for information.

Just goes to show letting out your house can be a complicated and dangereous matter if you don't know the persons moving in. Feel so sorry for my friend and I just pray to god that they do move out when their 28 days is up. Unfortunley for me it will be a long month

Gael23

This situation would allow the landlord to cancel the lease as far as i'm aware. I would strongly suggest involving a solicitor in the process though

superleedsdub

As far as I`m aware, A landlord can break a lease within the first 6 months without specifying a reason, but needs to give due notice.

Media999

Use your bloody common sense and make some stupid excuse like "landlord lost job / wife left him and needs to move back in urgently. As a little compensation heres 500 extra quid to help in the move. please accept my apologies." wink wink And send them on to spend it on drugs.

Your signing yourself up for a lifetime of misery / smashed windows by getting the guards involved or saying you know who he is and want him out.

very easy for people here to talk **** but if they where in the situation they wouldnt be so brave.

edit - Too late.

odds_on

superleedsdub wrote: »

As far as I`m aware, A landlord can break a lease within the first 6 months without specifying a reason, but needs to give due notice.

During the first six months of a fixed term lease, a landlord may serve a notice of termination if the tenant has breached the terms of the lease WITHOUT giving any warning notice. Once the tenant has been in the property for six months, his Part 4 rights begin and a warning notice must precede any notice of termination.

With a Periodic lease (i.e. where there is no written lease and there has been no agreement as to how long the tenancy will last), the landlord may serve a NoT without any warning notice and no reason has to be given for the NoT. Once the tenant has been in the property, he automatically acquires his Part 4 rights and any NoT must comply with the RTA 2004.

Wabbit Ears

Media999 wrote: »

Use your bloody common sense and make some stupid excuse like "landlord lost job / wife left him and needs to move back in urgently. As a little compensation heres 500 extra quid to help in the move. please accept my apologies." wink wink And send them on to spend it on drugs.

Your signing yourself up for a lifetime of misery / smashed windows by getting the guards involved or saying you know who he is and want him out.

very easy for people here to talk **** but if they where in the situation they wouldnt be so brave.

edit - Too late.

+1 for common sense, make simple excuse, apologise, return full deposit, give them no reason to break anything and be done with it

yoloc

I bet hes growing grass in the spare bedrooms lol. Good luck on trying to get him out before his harvest time lol. Just leave him be untill then i suggest.

TheBoffin

Someone i know was in a similar situation where he wanted the tenants out due to complaints from neighbours of noise and build up of rubbish in the back garden. He was advised by both neighbours that the tenants were difficult to deal with face to face. My friend never met the tenants as he had the place let by an agency then handed over to him.

He got advice and then gave them the standard amount of notice they were entitled to, my friend said he was selling the house.

The week the tenants were due to move out, he arrived, took some photos and put it up online for sale for more than the property was worth.

After about a month, he took it off the market and re-let the house to someone else.

djimi

TheBoffin wrote: »

He got advice and then gave them the standard amount of notice they were entitled to, my friend said he was selling the house.

The week the tenants were due to move out, he arrived, took some photos and put it up online for sale for more than the property was worth.

After about a month, he took it off the market and re-let the house to someone else.

Im not sure that this is technically legal, and if scrutinized by the PRTB I dont think it would hold up. Whether it would go that far is questionable, but its not enough to terminate a lease because of a vague intention to sell the property; it must be because the property is actually in the process of being sold (ie a buyer has been found etc).

welkin

Everybody needs a place to live.

Maybe this guy has turned over a new leaf.

I'd recommend telling your friend to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.
However if it's noticed that he's burying bodies in the back garden then he should start becoming a little bit more suspicious

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

Im not sure that this is technically legal, and if scrutinized by the PRTB I dont think it would hold up. Whether it would go that far is questionable, but its not enough to terminate a lease because of a vague intention to sell the property; it must be because the property is actually in the process of being sold (ie a buyer has been found etc).

Absolutely correct, djimi.
Although many posters say that the landlord may serve an NoT if he intends to sell the property, the Act says that if he intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy, to complete the sale of the property. That is, he has found a seller and he has 3 months to completion - which, knowing the speed of solicitors, may be cutting it a bit fine!

sunnysoutheast

odds_on wrote: »

Absolutely correct, djimi.
Although many posters say that the landlord may serve an NoT if he intends to sell the property, the Act says that if he intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy, to complete the sale of the property. That is, he has found a seller and he has 3 months to completion - which, knowing the speed of solicitors, may be cutting it a bit fine!

The key word here being "intends", surely? The Act actually states that the landlord intends "...to enter into an enforceable agreement", i.e. signing contracts, it does not state a timescale for completion.

Given that a tenant is perfectly within their rights to refuse a viewing, I would be interested to hear how a landlord is supposed to effect a sale when prospective buyers cannot view the property.

odds_on

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

The key word here being "intends", surely? The Act actually states that the landlord intends "...to enter into an enforceable agreement", i.e. signing contracts, it does not state a timescale for completion.

Given that a tenant is perfectly within their rights to refuse a viewing, I would be interested to hear how a landlord is supposed to effect a sale when prospective buyers cannot view the property.

The time scale is "within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy".

Yes, i agree with your last paragraph.. How does a landlord wanting to sell his property organize viewings while a tenant is in situ as the tenant may refuse viewings. Though, perhaps a little financial inducement?

sunnysoutheast

odds_on wrote: »

The time scale is "within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy".

Yes, i agree with your last paragraph.. How does a landlord wanting to sell his property organize viewings while a tenant is in situ as the tenant may refuse viewings. Though, perhaps a little financial inducement?

I would expect that a landlord can issue a perfectly valid NoT if they genuinely intend to offer the property for sale, not that they have already sold it. There are a multitude of reasons why a sale will fall through.

The NoT in this case does not have to include the provision to offer to the original tenant if re-let.

djimi

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

I would expect that a landlord can issue a perfectly valid NoT if they genuinely intend to offer the property for sale, not that they have already sold it. There are a multitude of reasons why a sale will fall through.

The NoT in this case does not have to include the provision to offer to the original tenant if re-let.

The point that I was making was more to do with the comment made above, where it is very obvious that there is no intent to sell (put the house for sale at an overly high price, remove tenants, take house off market and re-let within a month). Its pretty clear that this is just a move to invoke a termination of the tenancy, and it would want to be a pretty gullible adjudicator to not see through such a play.

The actual wording from the RTA is

The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/sec0034.html

so it is quite specific on the time frame. The market in question might come into play with this one; for example if a landlord in Dublin puts a house up for sale at a realistic price then its very likely that they could find a buyer within three months, however if its somewhere like Carrick on Shannon that we are talking about then there probably isnt a snowballs chance in hell of the house being sold in three months unless its priced to be virtually given away (and even then its optimistic), so the chances of the part 4 clause coming into play are very slim.

sarkozy

Surely if the tenancy is allowed to go beyond 6 months that, invalid lease or not, the tenancy falls under Part 4 giving this person rights?

Absolutely tread carefully, get legal advice to be clear about your rights, and discretely seek advice from the local Garda station (or station to which this person is 'known') on options.

I'm also mindful of the fact that decent housing is a right and there's serious issues with the 'unhousable' (waiting lists, inadequate rent supplement budgets, etc.). It's also the case, from what I understand, that the tenant has not yet done anything to warrant action beyond falsely signing the lease.

It may even end up that this person commits a crime and is forced to leave anyway?

TheBoffin

In the case of my friend, he issued a standard notice of termination which he gave 1 month as notice. The tenants were in the house for 5 months, the tenants do not need to be provided with a reason when they are in lease for less than 6 months. My friend mentioned the house being sold purely to avoid hassle and confrontation.

djimi wrote: »

The point that I was making was more to do with the comment made above, where it is very obvious that there is no intent to sell (put the house for sale at an overly high price, remove tenants, take house off market and re-let within a month). Its pretty clear that this is just a move to invoke a termination of the tenancy, and it would want to be a pretty gullible adjudicator to not see through such a play.

The actual wording from the RTA is



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/sec0034.html

so it is quite specific on the time frame. The market in question might come into play with this one; for example if a landlord in Dublin puts a house up for sale at a realistic price then its very likely that they could find a buyer within three months, however if its somewhere like Carrick on Shannon that we are talking about then there probably isnt a snowballs chance in hell of the house being sold in three months unless its priced to be virtually given away (and even then its optimistic), so the chances of the part 4 clause coming into play are very slim.

handlemaster

Its funny to see the comments written saying the landlord can't pretend to sell etc. Its obvious the posters don't let out themselves. If they did the attitude would be different it doesn't take alot to cause tens of thousands worth of damage to a house. The comment maybe the guy has turned over a new leaf... its easy to say when its not your pocket been hit

handlemaster

Its funny to see the comments written saying the landlord can't pretend to sell etc. Its obvious the posters don't let out themselves. If they did the attitude would be different it doesn't take alot to cause tens of thousands worth of damage to a house. The comment maybe the guy has turned over a new leaf... its easy to say when its not your pocket been hit

djimi

handlemaster wrote: »

Its funny to see the comments written saying the landlord can't pretend to sell etc. Its obvious the posters don't let out themselves. If they did the attitude would be different it doesn't take alot to cause tens of thousands worth of damage to a house. The comment maybe the guy has turned over a new leaf... its easy to say when its not your pocket been hit

Im talking from a tenants point of view; if I was told to vacate because a property was up for sale then I would more than likely keep an eye out to see what the story is. If I saw the property go up for sale at an inflated price then go back on the rental market a month later after I had left then I would not be in the slightest bit impressed and would consider taking a case against the landlord. And thats coming from me as a tenant who is not inclinded to look for trouble (as opposed to the type of tenant that the OP suspects that they have).

I get where you are coming from, and in reality you do what it takes, but you have to look at it from both sides; what might seem like a clever trick to fool the system and sort a problem short term might end up being painfully transparent to both tenant and anyone else who scrutinises it (as in the example above) and could well come back to bite you in the ass.

djimi

TheBoffin wrote: »

In the case of my friend, he issued a standard notice of termination which he gave 1 month as notice. The tenants were in the house for 5 months, the tenants do not need to be provided with a reason when they are in lease for less than 6 months. My friend mentioned the house being sold purely to avoid hassle and confrontation.

Did the tenants have a fixed term lease? If not then there was no need to go through such a convoluted rigamarole just to get rid of them; 28 days notice for any reason was all that was needed.

If they were on a fixed term lease then none of what they did was legal anyway.