Landlord terminating tenancy because of pet

Marnock

I have been in a rented house on a Fixed 2 year unfurnished tenancy since last July 2013.
When I moved in I got permission from the agent to have a dog on the property and the owner had agreed they had had a dog so it would not be a problem BUT when the standard lease was signed this was not in it. It did say 3.16 Not to keep any animals or birds etc..

In January 2014, the agent approached to ask would I leave early as the landlord wanted to return for One month's free rental. I said no, I had gone to great expense moving in and wanted to stay.
A few weeks later they offered me Two month's free rental. I again said no.

Shortly afterwards the agent called one evening to say the landlord had been in the area and I had a dog and they were terminating the lease. He issued a termination letter giving me 28 days to leave.
Following this the agent has informed me that the landlord is willing to let me stay till end of May 2014 and if I leave earlier rent will be repaid. However, the agent is insisting on me agreeing to vacate the property on 31st May and signing a letter to this effect. The letter make no reference to the reason why I am vacating.
The agent is emailing and calling every day looking for the letter to be signed even when I was in UK while my mother was dying and when I was there for my mothers funeral.
During the 28 days notice my mother passed away overseas and I was not able to appeal to the PTRB. I want to leave but am reluctant to sign anything and do not want to leave till I find a suitable house in the area as my kids are in school in the area etc and that was why I asked for a min of 2 years lease.

What are my options? What advice has anyone got.

Cuddlesworth

Marnock wrote: »

What are my options? What advice has anyone got.

Don't sign anything. The reality is that if your landlord actually wants to evict you, it will take them the guts of a year. The process for them is, PRTB judgement(up to six months), court case with successful judgement(6 months+), trip to the sheriff to enforce the court order(at least 3 months).

From the sounds of it, if you present your case well to the PRTB and include the harassment and bully tactics of the landlord and agent, its unlikely they will not have to pay you some form of compensation as well as losing the judgement for eviction.

Ken.

Keep all emails and texts. Back up everything.

the groutch

this "agent", are they acting as both management agent for the management company (apartment owners), and as a letting agent for your landlord?
is the whole building still owned by the developer?

Marnock

Thanks Ken,
They have been very careful not to put anything in writing. All phone calls. The letter they want me to sign says :

Name
Address
Date

Re Termination of lease at xxxxxxx

I, xxxx agree to vacate xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx no later than May 31st 2014

I understand I am free to vacate the property at any time between now and 31st May 2014 without penalty. Any rent paid will be refunded pro rata.

Signed ..........

dubrov

It's clear the landlord wants to evict you in an underhand way but I'm not sure that the PRTB would be on your side.
It will be your word against his and it seems the only relevant proof will be the signed lease indicating that pets are not allowed.

Marnock

It is a Letting agent and this is a semi detached house. The agent is very apologetic and has said he has said I am model tenant but he is under pressure from the landlord. The landlord moved abroad but their child has not settled and hence they wish to return.

Jaybor

As long as he goes by the correct procedures to ask you to vacate. You must go by the lease you signed.
Anything else is just your word against his. You do not have any chance at all of the PRTB finding for you from what I have read in this thread.
Any potential new landlord will ask you for a reference from this landlord and in future you will probably need to supply references from your last two or even three landlords. This landlord will then be perfectly entitled to say you were a very difficult tenant and that when he looked for possession of the property back you made life very difficult for him. Any new potential landlord will hear that and run.
Is that really the way you want to play it?

foggy_lad

Marnock wrote: »

I have been in a rented house on a Fixed 2 year unfurnished tenancy since last July 2013.
When I moved in I got permission from the agent to have a dog on the property and the owner had agreed they had had a dog so it would not be a problem BUT when the standard lease was signed this was not in it. It did say 3.16 Not to keep any animals or birds etc..

In January 2014, the agent approached to ask would I leave early as the landlord wanted to return for One month's free rental. I said no, I had gone to great expense moving in and wanted to stay.
A few weeks later they offered me Two month's free rental. I again said no.

Shortly afterwards the agent called one evening to say the landlord had been in the area and I had a dog and they were terminating the lease. He issued a termination letter giving me 28 days to leave.
Following this the agent has informed me that the landlord is willing to let me stay till end of May 2014 and if I leave earlier rent will be repaid. However, the agent is insisting on me agreeing to vacate the property on 31st May and signing a letter to this effect. The letter make no reference to the reason why I am vacating.
The agent is emailing and calling every day looking for the letter to be signed even when I was in UK while my mother was dying and when I was there for my mothers funeral.
During the 28 days notice my mother passed away overseas and I was not able to appeal to the PTRB. I want to leave but am reluctant to sign anything and do not want to leave till I find a suitable house in the area as my kids are in school in the area etc and that was why I asked for a min of 2 years lease.

What are my options? What advice has anyone got.

You are on a fixed two year lease and the landlord cant get you out(without buying you out) until that lease is up, The landlord obviously knows this and is trying to trick you into signing away your rights.

What you must do now is to comply with the lease on not keeping pets, is there a relative or friend who could take the dog?

Cuddlesworth

Jaybor wrote: »

As long as he goes by the correct procedures to ask you to vacate. You must go by the lease you signed.
Anything else is just your word against his. You do not have any chance at all of the PRTB finding for you from what I have read in this thread.
Any potential new landlord will ask you for a reference from this landlord and in future you will probably need to supply references from your last two or even three landlords. This landlord will then be perfectly entitled to say you were a very difficult tenant and that when he looked for possession of the property back you made life very difficult for him. Any new potential landlord will hear that and run.
Is that really the way you want to play it?

Not to be pedantic about this but I can write up you three Landlord references if you want. With the current system in place they mean nothing.

If the landlord wanted to live in the house then maybe they should have considered not agreeing to a 2 year lease.

OP, the best option out of this would be to move but strong arm them into a agreement that is comfortable for you. EG, 3-4 months rent free or refunded. Your facing a landlord who will in reality do nothing for you from this point onwards.

Jaybor

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Not to be pedantic about this but I can write up you three Landlord references if you want. With the current system in place they mean nothing.

If the landlord wanted to live in the house then maybe they should have considered not agreeing to a 2 year lease.

OP, the best option out of this would be to move but strong arm them into a agreement that is comfortable for you. EG, 3-4 months rent free or refunded. Your facing a landlord who will in reality do nothing for you from this point onwards.

Maybe with a thick landlord you might get away with it, but there are ways of weeding people like you out that any landlord should learn before the even think about letting property.

Lemming

Jaybor wrote: »

people like you

I'm sorry but what? You're going to stand in judgement of Cuddlesworth pointing out the reality that the landlord has behaved in shocking and deceitful behaviour (with the agent as accomplice) and as it stands the odds are not good of the OP getting any positives out of the situation? That is also despite it all being of the landlords own making.

Why should the OP facilitate such absolute scumbag behaviour? Or do people like you approve of such deceitful behaviour on the part of the landlord/agent?

percy212

Ask for six months rent refund up front AND put in writing that you will move out only when you have secured a new rental. They should cover moving costs too. Otherwise its prtb and a nice long wait for the sly git. Since no complaint regarding a pet was made until now I think its obvious to all the objection is a ploy. Good luck.

Graces7

percy212 wrote: »

Ask for six months rent refund up front AND put in writing that you will move out only when you have secured a new rental. They should cover moving costs too. Otherwise its prtb and a nice long wait for the sly git. Since no complaint regarding a pet was made until now I think its obvious to all the objection is a ploy. Good luck.

perfect advice. talk to threshold too. they are acting dishonourably

incidentally i would always now ask re any rental if it may be needed by family eg returning from abroad, getting married etc as i have been caught in this kind of situation.
present landlords kids are 7 and under and no other needy family

nb have they mentioned your deposit

dubrov

Out of interest, if the tenant was to take this case to the prtb and lose would they have to cover any costs that the landlord has accrued during the case?

dubrov

Out of interest, if the tenant was to take this case to the prtb and lose would they have to cover any costs that the landlord has accrued during the case?

Cuddlesworth

dubrov wrote: »

Out of interest, if the tenant was to take this case to the prtb and lose would they have to cover any costs that the landlord has accrued during the case?

Nope. She has a lease, she disputes their reasons for trying to void it. Plus their are no prtb costs.

uberwolf

I thought that in the instance where the landlord, or a member of their family wished to return to residing in the property, that that was a legitimate grounds for terminating the lease (subject to whatever rights to notice that you've accrued)?

Jaybor

Lemming wrote: »

I'm sorry but what? You're going to stand in judgement of Cuddlesworth pointing out the reality that the landlord has behaved in shocking and deceitful behaviour (with the agent as accomplice) and as it stands the odds are not good of the OP getting any positives out of the situation? That is also despite it all being of the landlords own making.

Why should the OP facilitate such absolute scumbag behaviour? Or do people like you approve of such deceitful behaviour on the part of the landlord/agent?

Did you not read her posts?
im replying to what she posted.

Regarding the OP. It doesnt matter who is in the right or the wrong. Its whats in the lease that matters. The OP has already told us whats in the lease.

makeorbrake

Lemming wrote: »

I'm sorry but what? You're going to stand in judgement of Cuddlesworth pointing out the reality that the landlord has behaved in shocking and deceitful behaviour (with the agent as accomplice) and as it stands the odds are not good of the OP getting any positives out of the situation?

You talk of scumbag behaviour. If you take the moral highground, then take the moral highground. Jaybor is 100% right to pull you up on the idea that it's ok to fraudulently provide references. If the OP has done nothing wrong, then they can articulate their version of events to any prospective landlord, right?

nibtrix

uberwolf wrote: »

I thought that in the instance where the landlord, or a member of their family wished to return to residing in the property, that that was a legitimate grounds for terminating the lease (subject to whatever rights to notice that you've accrued)?

Not if they have a fixed term lease. Only on a part 4 tenancy can the landlord ask them to leave because they wish to return. Fixed term lease supersedes part 4 rights.

Mrs OBumble

OP, you have a lease that says "no pets". Why did you sign it when you blatantly were taking a pet into the place?

You can tell us all you want that it was agreed verbally up-front - but if was agreed, then the lease would have been changed to show this.

It wasn't. You signed anyway.

And noow you're taking the p*ss or rather, your dog is giving it to the neighbourhood).


So - no matter what the LL has done that's wrong since, you were in the wrong from the beginning.

Man up and find a new place where you can be lease-compliant.

Cuddlesworth

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

OP, you have a lease that says "no pets". Why did you sign it when you blatantly were taking a pet into the place?

You can tell us all you want that it was agreed verbally up-front - but if was agreed, then the lease would have been changed to show this.

It wasn't. You signed anyway.

And noow you're taking the p*ss or rather, your dog is giving it to the neighbourhood).


So - no matter what the LL has done that's wrong since, you were in the wrong from the beginning.

Man up and find a new place where you can be lease-compliant.

If there was implicit consent to having a dog in the house, then I'm not sure where the hatred in your post is coming from. Nearly every lease I have signed has been a copy paste job from the web with no regard to any of the clauses. In fact, most have had clauses that were illegal.

Electric

If it was agreed beforehand that you could have a pet on the property, why didn't you amend the lease to reflect this before you signed it?

rovoagho

I agree with Mrs OBumble, the landlord may be behaving like a douche but the tenant only has themselves to blame for the silly verbal agreement. They need to either pack their bags and move on or grow a pair and play them at their own game.

OP, next time you agree something out of contract, get it in the contract or walk away.

Saucy McKetchup

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If there was implicit consent to having a dog in the house, then I'm not sure where the hatred in your post is coming from. Nearly every lease I have signed has been a copy paste job from the web with no regard to any of the clauses. In fact, most have had clauses that were illegal.

Agree with the copy paste jobs with some leases these days, illegal terms in a lease has got me out of a lease on 1 occasion and could have on many more.
On the other hand it says no pets on the lease so it's either time to get rid of the dog or move out.

makeorbrake

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If there was implicit consent to having a dog in the house, then I'm not sure where the hatred in your post is coming from.

Hatred? Where is the 'hatred' expressed?

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Nearly every lease I have signed has been a copy paste job from the web with no regard to any of the clauses.

How so 'no regard'. It's a signed contract. How is there 'no regard to any of the clauses'?

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

In fact, most have had clauses that were illegal.

That's not relevant here. If the tenant is well up enough to know that specific clauses within the agreement are non-enforceable - I guess he/she can sign away. However, that's not the case with this specific clause.
People need to take personal responsibility for their own actions.

jlm29

We're you ever given the option of getting rid of the dog and staying on? Obviously I've read the thread, and I know the landlord is using the dog as an excuse.
Personally, I would approach the agent and point out that there was a misunderstanding over the issue of keeping a pet, and say that you were looking at rehousing him to gauge the reaction (as a non dog lover, I would probably follow through on this also, but obviously I know that that option wouldn't be for everyone).
The question is, could you still be evicted for breaking the terms of the least, even if the broken terms are removed? I suspect so!

No Pants

The landlord hasn't actually evicted you though, no proper notice has been given. Make other arrangements for the pet and stay put.

Mr. Incognito

Hi OP

There is a LOT of misinformation on this thread.

You are in situ since July 2013. This means you have a Part 4 Tenancy. I have acted in matters before the PRTB but usually on the behalf of the Landlord as most persons in a lease situation cannot afford representation.

Firstly. Sign NOTHING.

To serve a notice of termination must be done pursuant to the Residential tenancy Act setting out the correct notice period and the reason for the termination. The notice must include a sentence to the effect that you have the right to bring an appeal to the PRTB in relation to the Termination. If there are any technical errors in relation to the notice of termination it will be held to be invalid and the landlord can expect to pay compensation to the Tenant. Whether or not you have a dog and the landlord was on notice of it would be a matter for evidence before the Adjudicator.

Once the matter is listed the Landlord is prohibited under the Act from punishing you in any way for taking the action. This does not affect his other rights under the Act.

In your case it is clear that they are putting you under pressure to sign a notice of termination that YOU are vacating the property and not that they are terminating your lease.

I would refuse to sign anything and make an application to the PRTB for harassment by the landlord and his agent. What they are doing is very much illegal and I would keep a record of all correspondence.

Best of luck. If you have any questions feel free to PM me but I cannot give you any formal legal advice only guidance.

Here is the Act
Residental Tenancies Act 2004
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/index.html

PRTB
http://www.prtb.ie/

percy212

Great advice from Mr I above!

The_Conductor

OP- I'd echo a lot of what has been said on this thread. Note though- you have run rough-shod over the fixed term lease, by bringing a dog into the property- so don't rely on it for any rights, as you have blatantly ignored what most people would understand to be a basic tenent of most leases.

As for your deposit- once you introduce a dog into a property- its very difficult in all honesty, for you to expect it back. Normal practice is for several months deposit in cases where the property will have tenants with a dog.

You're going to have to rely on the rights you have from your acquired Part 4 tenancy.

Thomas D

You don't have to vacate. Just ignore him and stay your course. His only option is to go through the PRTB. After 18 months they might rule in his favour but they can't do anything to enforce it.

Mr. Incognito

Thomas D wrote: »

You don't have to vacate. Just ignore him and stay your course. His only option is to go through the PRTB. After 18 months they might rule in his favour but they can't do anything to enforce it.

This is incorrect. Overholding matters are prioritised. You are looking 6-8 weeks adjudication, 4-6 months Tribunal and then there is considerable delay enforcing eviction through the courts but they do enforce.

Jaybor

Thomas D wrote: »

You don't have to vacate. Just ignore him and stay your course. His only option is to go through the PRTB. After 18 months they might rule in his favour but they can't do anything to enforce it.

Posts like this are the reason deposits have got to increase to 2 or even 3 months rent. And rents will go up too so that landlords can build up a buffer against that type of behavior

nibtrix

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Hi OP

There is a LOT of misinformation on this thread.

You are in situ since July 2013. This means you have a Part 4 Tenancy.

The OP states they have a Fixed Term lease. Fixed term supersedes part 4 tenancy, i.e. is better than the rights you get in part 4 tenancy.

The landlord can not ask you to leave just because they want to move back in, unless you agree to leave for a mutually agreed compensation.

However they can start proper eviction proceedings for breaking the terms of the lease (keeping a dog, your verbal agreement means nothing).

I'd say move the dog to a friends, tell the landlord they have no right to evict you, offer to leave for 6 months rent as compensation, while giving you at least 2 months to find a place.

percy212

Well that's me terrified anyway.

Jaybor wrote: »

Posts like this are the reason deposits have got to increase to 2 or en 3 months rent. And rents will go up too so that landlords can build up a buffer against that type of behavior

Jaybor

percy212 wrote: »

Well that's me terrified anyway.

You might not be terrified, but it just makes things more difficult for honest people in general. But crack on if you must.

The sooner landlords and tenants get equal protection from scumbag elements the better it will be for everyone. Probably never happen in Ireland though.

Thomas D

Jaybor wrote: »

Posts like this are the reason deposits have got to increase to 2 or even 3 months rent. And rents will go up too so that landlords can build up a buffer against that type of behavior

It's the landlord here who is being badly behaved. Fight fire with fire,

Jaybor

Thomas D wrote: »

It's the landlord here who is being badly behaved. Fight fire with fire,

Lease was broken by the OP. OP has admitted this. What could be clearer?

Thomas D

Jaybor wrote: »

Lease was broken by the OP. OP has admitted this. What could be clearer?

The terms of the tenancy were not broken. A lying scumbag of a landlord could argue otherwise.

Mr. Incognito

nibtrix wrote: »

The OP states they have a Fixed Term lease. Fixed term supersedes part 4 tenancy, i.e. is better than the rights you get in part 4 tenancy.

The landlord can not ask you to leave just because they want to move back in, unless you agree to leave for a mutually agreed compensation.

However they can start proper eviction proceedings for breaking the terms of the lease (keeping a dog, your verbal agreement means nothing).

I'd say move the dog to a friends, tell the landlord they have no right to evict you, offer to leave for 6 months rent as compensation, while giving you at least 2 months to find a place.

I suggest you read the act. A Part 4 Tenancy is not superceded by a fixed term tenancy. A non residential fixed term tenancy is outside the act so you might be confused between the two.

The landlord needing the property for himself or a family member is one of the valid grounds to terminate a part four tenancy.

The_Morrigan

Thomas D wrote: »

The terms of the tenancy were not broken. A lying scumbag of a landlord could argue otherwise.

Stop making statements like this.

Thomas D

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Stop making statements like this.

Anyone who lies in a court to suit themselves is a scumbag.

The_Morrigan

Thomas D wrote: »

Anyone who lies in a court to suit themselves is a scumbag.

Thomas you are here long enough to know that you do not argue with a mod instruction on thread - this is a site wide rule.

If you can't abide by our charter and the site wide rules then please refrain from posting here.

Folks, back on topic now please.


Morri

Arbiter of Good Taste

Thomas D wrote: »

The terms of the tenancy were not broken. A lying scumbag of a landlord could argue otherwise.

And who is to say the LL is lying if the lease specifically states no pets? Frankly the OP was very negligent not to insist that clause be removed from the lease if he agreed otherwise with the LL.

The_Conductor

Thomas D wrote: »

Anyone who lies in a court to suit themselves is a scumbag.

Anyone who continues to argue with a moderator on-thread, despite being warned not to, both on thread, and by PM- gets a ban. Thomas D- banned for 2 weeks. Kindly rethink your participation, and follow the forum charter, should you choose to post in here again on the elapse of your ban.

Regards,

The_Conductor

iguana

OP, I'd say your best bet now is to write to/email the EA and tell them their actions to date are harassment and if it continues you will ignore any more contact of this kind from them and make a complaint of harassment to the Gardaí. Tell them that if they wish to start the eviction process you will only engage with it if it is done as set out by law but that you will then fight it through the proper legal channels, which will take quite a long time to conclude. If you have decided on a compromise by which you would be willing to leave the house sooner, give them that option then. If not just end there and do not answer any calls from them.

In future never, ever sign a lease that is at odds with your verbal agreement. I have rented numerous properties with my dogs and have never been willing to sign a lease with a clause denying me the right to have pets on the property, even though I have been assured by the agent that it was just a formality. I've always made them amend the lease before signing it. They haven't wanted the hassle but when it comes down to it on the day and they realise that I won't be signing it until it's amended, they quickly do so.

the_syco

Marnock wrote: »

Thanks Ken,
They have been very careful not to put anything in writing. All phone calls.

If they ring in future, say you're busy, and could they send the info by text/email/letter instead.

nibtrix

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I suggest you read the act. A Part 4 Tenancy is not superceded by a fixed term tenancy. A non residential fixed term tenancy is outside the act so you might be confused between the two.

The landlord needing the property for himself or a family member is one of the valid grounds to terminate a part four tenancy.

The prtb seems to think that part 4 only applies when it benefits the tenant over and above the fixed term lease. It also clearly states that "a landlord cannot rely on the provisions of Section 34, to terminate a fixed term tenancy during the fixed term."

In this case the landlord can attempt to evict as the OP broke the terms (keeping an animal) but they cannot use part 4 to claim they need the property back for personal use.

See links and details below.

http://www.prtb.ie/dispute-resolution/disputes/terminating-a-fixed-term-tenancy

FIXED TERM TENANCIES AND PART 4
The existence of a fixed term tenancy does not preclude the operation of Part 4. Part 4 runs with a fixed term tenancy, so that the continuous occupation by a tenant under a fixed term tenancy for a period of 6 months, means the tenant shall, as in normal course, become entitled to the protections of a Part 4 tenancy. In cases of fixed term tenancies however, the rights under Part 4 only apply to the extent that they benefit the tenant over and above the rights afforded to him or her under the terms of the fixed term tenancy.
TERMINATION
Part 4 Tenancies
A landlord may terminate a Part 4 tenancy, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, where any of the circumstances set out in Section 34 of the Act arise. For instance a landlord, may terminate a tenancy, in circumstances where he or she wants to live in the dwelling concerned.
A tenant can terminate a Part 4 tenancy at any time and without reason, provided he or she gives the requisite notice and complies with the provisions for termination of a tenancy under the Act, which includes the service of a valid notice of termination.
Fixed Term Tenancies
A landlord can only terminate a fixed term tenancy where the tenant has been in breach of his or her obligations. Accordingly, a landlord cannot rely on the provisions of Section 34, to terminate a fixed term tenancy during the fixed term. Following the expiration of the fixed term period however, if the tenant has exercised his rights under Part 4, to extend his tenure for the remainder of the Part 4 tenancy of 4 years, the landlord can from then on, rely on the provisions of Section 34.
Similarly, a tenant can only terminate a fixed term tenancy where there the landlord has been in breach of his or her obligations.6 In addition however, where the landlord has refused consent to an assignment or sub-let, the tenant can also terminate the tenancy, in accordance with Section 186.

Mr. Incognito

nibtrix wrote: »

The prtb seems to think that part 4 only applies when it benefits the tenant over and above the fixed term lease. It also clearly states that "a landlord cannot rely on the provisions of Section 34, to terminate a fixed term tenancy during the fixed term."

In this case the landlord can attempt to evict as the OP broke the terms (keeping an animal) but they cannot use part 4 to claim they need the property back for personal use.

See links and details below.

http://www.prtb.ie/dispute-resolution/disputes/terminating-a-fixed-term-tenancy

FIXED TERM TENANCIES AND PART 4
The existence of a fixed term tenancy does not preclude the operation of Part 4. Part 4 runs with a fixed term tenancy, so that the continuous occupation by a tenant under a fixed term tenancy for a period of 6 months, means the tenant shall, as in normal course, become entitled to the protections of a Part 4 tenancy. In cases of fixed term tenancies however, the rights under Part 4 only apply to the extent that they benefit the tenant over and above the rights afforded to him or her under the terms of the fixed term tenancy.
TERMINATION
Part 4 Tenancies
A landlord may terminate a Part 4 tenancy, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, where any of the circumstances set out in Section 34 of the Act arise. For instance a landlord, may terminate a tenancy, in circumstances where he or she wants to live in the dwelling concerned.
A tenant can terminate a Part 4 tenancy at any time and without reason, provided he or she gives the requisite notice and complies with the provisions for termination of a tenancy under the Act, which includes the service of a valid notice of termination.
Fixed Term Tenancies
A landlord can only terminate a fixed term tenancy where the tenant has been in breach of his or her obligations. Accordingly, a landlord cannot rely on the provisions of Section 34, to terminate a fixed term tenancy during the fixed term. Following the expiration of the fixed term period however, if the tenant has exercised his rights under Part 4, to extend his tenure for the remainder of the Part 4 tenancy of 4 years, the landlord can from then on, rely on the provisions of Section 34.
Similarly, a tenant can only terminate a fixed term tenancy where there the landlord has been in breach of his or her obligations.6 In addition however, where the landlord has refused consent to an assignment or sub-let, the tenant can also terminate the tenancy, in accordance with Section 186.

You might point me to the provision in the Act that reflects this.

There are restrictions for serving a rent increase notice within the first 12 months but that is it.

I assure you a landlord can terminate a tenancy under S34 for a breach or if he requires the property. Free alienation of property under the constitution trumps private contractual arrangements. The PRTB info is only a guide and is not legal advice nor is it to be relied upon.

Section 34 is invoked almost universally when a lease is in place.

You also previously said that a fixed term contract trumps a part 4 Tenancy, in fact it is the other way around when the lease is deficient. We now agree on this.

Here is the act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/print.html#sec29

Please show me where the landlord is restricted serving notice during the fixed term.