Terminated tenancy due to Landlord selling - Property now up for rent

Crash

Hi folks, looking for a bit of info here - we had a fixed term tenancy on an apartment, the LL informed us that the property would be up for sale in negotiation with the bank, and they required vacant possession before putting it up on the market.

We agreed a 1 month extension past the end of our fixed term tenancy, and found somewhere else and moved out. We have in writing a notice of termination stating that the reason for termination is due to plans to sell. Now, less than three days after handing back the keys, I find the property up for let on Daft at increased rent (about 500 euro a month over what we were paying).

Has the landlord broken the original grounds for termination here? To be honest, i'm furious as the amount of time and effort and stress that we went through as a result of trying to find somewhere suitable was ridiculous, whereas if this was their intention we could have discussed an increased rent reasonably between both parties.

Frynge

Would it be possible that the increased rent advertised could make the property more valueable.

Gasherbraun

Basically in these circumstances if the property becomes available for re-letting then the previous tenant must be given first refusal to resume the tenancy so yes the landlord is in breach here. I do not have time to check but I am fairly certain this would be at the previous rental amount not the enhanced amount.

Please note though that our recent experience has shown that if there is a bank involved then some rules seem to go out the window.

drumswan

Looks like an illegal eviction to me. Contact the PRTB

whippet

So we can assume that you were pay approx €500 less than the market rate.

Out of curiosity if the LL made an approach to increase the rent by €500pm at the end of the fixed term would you have agreed to it?

I'd imagine the tenancy would have been ended either way. Maybe, he had a sale lined up and it fell through during your notice period?

OldNotWIse

Crash wrote: »

Hi folks, looking for a bit of info here - we had a fixed term tenancy on an apartment, the LL informed us that the property would be up for sale in negotiation with the bank, and they required vacant possession before putting it up on the market.

We agreed a 1 month extension past the end of our fixed term tenancy, and found somewhere else and moved out. We have in writing a notice of termination stating that the reason for termination is due to plans to sell. Now, less than three days after handing back the keys, I find the property up for let on Daft at increased rent (about 500 euro a month over what we were paying).

Has the landlord broken the original grounds for termination here? To be honest, i'm furious as the amount of time and effort and stress that we went through as a result of trying to find somewhere suitable was ridiculous, whereas if this was their intention we could have discussed an increased rent reasonably between both parties.

afaik if this happens, tenant is entitled to recover possession

wonski

drumswan wrote: »

Looks like an illegal eviction to me. Contact the PRTB

Wouldn't call it eviction since it was a fixed term tenancy.

Still a bit dodgy a current tenant wasn't offered another contract.
Quick call to PRTB should answer that question.

techdiver

The landlord used a notice of sale to force the tenant to move out. He then placed the property for rent again. This is illegal and not the first I've heard of such moves in the last few months. The same thing happened to a work colleague of mine.

Seems landlords that see higher rents available and that cannot force a rent review as one has already happened in the last few months, are using this tactic to "evict" sitting tenants and get new ones in at a higher rent rate.

OP, I would report the landlord to the PRTB immediately.

Crash

whippet wrote: »

So we can assume that you were pay approx €500 less than the market rate.

Out of curiosity if the LL made an approach to increase the rent by €500pm at the end of the fixed term would you have agreed to it?

I'd imagine the tenancy would have been ended either way. Maybe, he had a sale lined up and it fell through during your notice period?

Not really - possibly (judging by where we're renting now) 200-250 under market rate, which we'd have discussed and considered. 500 is overpriced and, having followed which properties rented at what prices around there (and what we discussed with landlords of other similar properties), will probably go for around 10-15% less than that. We'd have considered continuing the lease, considering the pain we had finding a reasonably good quality place anywhere nearby.

Property had not been listed as of our moving out date, so unlikely a sale was planned and subsequently fell through. As it stands it looks very much to me like either 1) Landlord change of mind in the last month or 2) sly and pointless method of getting rid of us as sitting tenants. Which I don't fully understand as we had been nothing but accommodating towards the landlord, and the apartment is in picture perfect condition after two years letting it.

Anyhow, sent in a query to the PRTB to clarify. Thanks for the advice and comments folks.

Nash Bridges

What is the level of effort or proof that would be required by a landlord to legitimately allow for vacancy for the sale of a property?

E.g.
1) Attempted sale that fell through or did not get offers.
2) Started sale process (engage solicitor/auctioneer) but changed their mind.
3) Thought about it but changed their mind.

From what OP said however this case sounds like a sly way of getting rid of tenants.

Paulownia

Put yourself in the landlord's shoes if you can. I'd say that the landlord was under pressure from the bank on repayments and that you were paying under the odds in rent. By getting rid of you and putting a tenant in who is paying the going rate makes the property more valuable and more attractive to a potential purchasers, but also perhaps if he gets a tenant paying the going rate he will be able to do a deal with the bank on his loan and hold on to the property that he invested his money in, probably at Celtic Tiger prices.
We are all entitled to do the best we can for ourselves, and when times are tough charity begins at home.

RustyNut

Paulownia wrote: »

We are all entitled to do the best we can for ourselves, and when times are tough charity begins at home.

Only if its legal.

techdiver

Paulownia wrote: »

Put yourself in the landlord's shoes if you can. I'd say that the landlord was under pressure from the bank on repayments and that you were paying under the odds in rent. By getting rid of you and putting a tenant in who is paying the going rate makes the property more valuable and more attractive to a potential purchasers, but also perhaps if he gets a tenant paying the going rate he will be able to do a deal with the bank on his loan and hold on to the property that he invested his money in, probably at Celtic Tiger prices.
We are all entitled to do the best we can for ourselves, and when times are tough charity begins at home.

The landlord entered into a legally binding contract with the tenant and used a brake clause fraudulently.

This is why renting in Ireland is so bemoaned, due to the fact that tenants have to deal with amateurs and "cute hoors" who do not take their responsibilities seriously. This gives all landlords a bad name, despite the fact that there are many excellent ones.

If the landlord has a problem with the bank, he needs to deal with the bank. It is none of the tenants responsibility. When he bought the property and for how much is irrelevant and does not change the legal position.

Paulownia

We do not know he was breaking the law at all. It is suggested he was by the ex tenant.
For all we know the landlord is up to his hocks in negative equity, the government is throwing all sorts of charges and obligations at landlords at the moment, the most recent being property tax. As we all know the law leans towards the tenant in Irish law. Property rental is a nightmare for landlords here with a high incidence of non payment of rent, damage to property etc, I wouldn't be a landlord to save my life in Ireland. I was merely suggesting that the ex tenant might consider the facts, why you think that is less justified than your statement that the landlords position was not the tenants responsability I'm not sure.

Paulownia

Having read the whole thing again, the tenant states that he was at the end of his fixed term tenancy so either party was entitled to call a halt.

Crash

Just to clarify - we extended as a part 4 tenancy for another month and then left. Equally, my understanding is that part 4 rules on termination of tenancy still exist upon finishing a fixed term contract. Judging from here: 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.

Now, i'm not here to argue the rights or wrongs of that from a landlords point of view, but I am interested from a legal point of view.

Equally Paulownia, I have not suggested anything, simply laid out the situation as is. As much as, in your words, have a responsibility to put myself in the shoes of the landlord, such duty of care is two way, and the landlord must consider my personal well being and other issues I may be suffering from.

Or else we can dispense with that crap and simply deal with discussing what is described in law for situations such as this.

drumswan

Paulownia wrote: »

Having read the whole thing again, the tenant states that he was at the end of his fixed term tenancy so either party was entitled to call a halt.

Eh, no.

Mrs OBumble

Just because the house it up for rent on DAFT does not actually prove that it will be rented out again.

The LL could be testing the market, as part of gathering information for the sale process.

OP, I'm sure you're furious - but realistically, what do you hope to achieve from this? Monetary compensation? (If there a law which provides for that? Honor and glory of socking it to the LL (great .. if that's what you really want)?

While the LL's actions may be illegal, the amount it might cost you to prove that, at the standard of proof required, could be high.

Personally, I'd be inclined to just let it go, secure in the knowledge that karma is a bitch.

drumswan

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Personally, I'd be inclined to just let it go, secure in the knowledge that karma is a bitch.

I dont think so. If the landlord broke the law and caused huge disruption in the OPs life as a result, he should be looking to go legal, beit via the PRTB or another route. Illegal evictions carry 5 figure compensation figures last time I checked.

That said, I would suggest that the OP might need to wait until the landlord actually rents the place first, a daft ad doesnt really mean much.

dissed doc

What we need is the ability for a landlord to be forced to rent his property and relinquish all rights to ownership in order to protect the needy and vulnerable, for example, grown adults renting apartments who need the state´s protection.

It doesn´t matter that a landlord can choose to sell the property, give proper notice , 28 days for example, and then change his mind during that month. Changing your mind must be made illegal. Somehow, someone owes somebody compensation.

How soon after the notice period was it listed for rent? Thinking about selling for a few weeks, lets say mid February. After a few weeks you decide to do it, give notice from start of march for the required month to end the tenancy at the end of April. Then, the tenants move out, you have already had second thoughts. It´s now start of may or mid May and you put it back up for rent.

If the OP wasn´t uniquely positioned to consider only his own perspective, what has happened is completely reasonable, because you could go from selling to not selling in two months. I think that is reasonable.

Or else in magic land, where landlords are evil ne'er do-wells , the tenant should be allowed prevent a landlord from considering his own property. It is only fair and just. Paranoia must prevail.

No Pants

Crash wrote: »

less than three days after handing back the keys, I find the property up for let on Daft at increased rent

Grab a screenshot of the ad, get your paperwork together and contact the PRTB.

Thomas D

Paulownia wrote: »

Put yourself in the landlord's shoes if you can..

Put yourself in the tenants shoes if you can. He was illegally kicked out of his home. Everything else pales in comparison.

dissed doc

Thomas D wrote: »

Put yourself in the tenants shoes if you can. He was illegally kicked out of his home. Everything else pales in comparison.

What's illegal? Grounds for termination of the tenancy is completely legal.

Landlord is also completely free to change his mind what, a month or 2 later.

Are we now punishing changes of mind and thought is a crime now eh?

Do you want a pint? Yes? But a few minutes later you decide, no, you don't. That is now illegal?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

dissed doc wrote: »

Do you want a pint? Yes? But a few minutes later you decide, no, you don't. That is now illegal?

I'm embarrassed for you.

Paulownia

I sometimes wonder how people would behave if their positions were reversed. If all tenants were landlords and all landlords were tenants, would it be a perfect world.
Unfortunately landlords have to buy the property, pay the taxes and repairs on the property, pay tax on the income from the property AND it can't be easy judging by all the repossessions at the moment.
On the other hand the tenant who rents the property from the owner somehow l sees the property as theirs for as long as they choose to stay there.
It is a tough one for everyone but who would be a landlord?
It seems logical to me having read this thread why so many properties remain empty and are not let by their owners

Pawwed Rig

If the landlord wanted to up the rent all he had to do was a rent review at the end of the fixed term contract. An increase to market rates would be seen as a perfectly reasonable adjustment. I am not sure why the LL would remove sitting tenants to increase the rent as there is no need unless there are other issues here which we are not aware of.

Sure LLs are under pressure at the moment but so are alot of people, it doesn't mean we can ignore the laws of the land.

But OP to answer your question the LL cannot termnate your contract for an illegal reason.

Grandpa Hassan

We don't know that it was an illegal reason. Maybe the LL had a sale fall through, or change his mind. It happens.

Windy Arbour

Crash wrote: »

Hi folks, looking for a bit of info here - we had a fixed term tenancy on an apartment, the LL informed us that the property would be up for sale in negotiation with the bank, and they required vacant possession before putting it up on the market.

We agreed a 1 month extension past the end of our fixed term tenancy, and found somewhere else and moved out. We have in writing a notice of termination stating that the reason for termination is due to plans to sell. Now, less than three days after handing back the keys, I find the property up for let on Daft at increased rent (about 500 euro a month over what we were paying).

Has the landlord broken the original grounds for termination here? To be honest, i'm furious as the amount of time and effort and stress that we went through as a result of trying to find somewhere suitable was ridiculous, whereas if this was their intention we could have discussed an increased rent reasonably between both parties.

Sounds like you have been fraudulently evicted. Contact the Gardai.

the world wonders

dissed doc wrote: »

What's illegal? Grounds for termination of the tenancy is completely legal.

Landlord is also completely free to change his mind what, a month or 2 later.

Are we now punishing changes of mind and thought is a crime now eh?

Do you want a pint? Yes? But a few minutes later you decide, no, you don't. That is now illegal?

If the landlord genuinely did intend to sell the property within the next three months, then they will have no problem proving that by displaying their communications with valuers/estate agents about the sale. A PRTB hearing will hear evidence from both sides and sort it all out.

drumswan

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

We don't know that it was an illegal reason. Maybe the LL had a sale fall through, or change his mind. It happens.

Lads he isn't selling a second hand phone on adverts. This is someone's home we are talking about.

The landlord will have no bother proving that he genuinely attempted to sell the house in the three days between the eviction and listing it for rent I'm sure.

Grandpa Hassan

How do you know that the owner wasn't trying to sell it before the eviction? We don't know enough either way. The OP will have to take a case to the PTRB, and maybe the LL is not able to prove anything. Or maybe he is. Then you are in a debate about what is a reasonable amount of time to change your mind. We do not know that it is as cut and dried as the OP makes out. Meanwhile the OP is living somewhere else, so the case would be taken purely to punish the LL, and the OP risks it not being found in their favour.

Thomas D

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

How do you know that the owner wasn't trying to sell it before the eviction? We don't know enough either way. The OP will have to take a case to the PTRB, and maybe the LL is not able to prove anything. Or maybe he is. Then you are in a debate about what is a reasonable amount of time to change your mind. We do not know that it is as cut and dried as the OP makes out. Meanwhile the OP is living somewhere else, so the case would be taken purely to punish the LL, and the OP risks it not being found in their favour.

6 months is reasonable and the tenants have to be offereed first refusal. They would also have to adhere to rules on rental increases if the last change was less than 12 months tenancy previous.

drumswan

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

so the case would be taken purely to punish the LL

That's generally how the legal system is supposed to work when someone breaks the law.

Grandpa Hassan

Thomas D wrote: »

6 months is reasonable and the tenants have to be offereed first refusal. They would also have to adhere to rules on rental increases if the last change was less than 12 months tenancy previous.

Is that first refusal and period acceptable to change ones mind enshrined in law?

Grandpa Hassan

drumswan wrote: »

That's generally how the legal system is supposed to work when someone breaks the law.

And what benefit to the OP to take a case that may or may not be cut and dried as the OP suggests? They are already living somewhere else.

drumswan

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

And what benefit to the OP to take a case that may or may not be cut and dried as the OP suggests? They are already living somewhere else.

Considerable financial benefit via compensation. The benefit to the rest of us is obvious - a deterrent to landlords using the loopholes of selling the house or moving in a family member illegally to evict sitting tenants.

Diane Selwyn

Crash wrote: »

Hi folks, looking for a bit of info here - we had a fixed term tenancy on an apartment, the LL informed us that the property would be up for sale in negotiation with the bank, and they required vacant possession before putting it up on the market.

I wonder if the bank refused the LL permission to sell? It still puts you in the middle and is probably still not legal but maybe explains why he did it anyway.

Pawwed Rig

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

And what benefit to the OP to take a case that may or may not be cut and dried as the OP suggests? They are already living somewhere else.

Financial compensation for the hassle? Also a sense of justice. Punishing someone for breaking the law? All good reasons imho

gaius c

Windy Arbour wrote: »

Sounds like you have been fraudulently evicted. Contact the Gardai.

No PRTB.

gaius c

P.S. Might be the bank who "own" the property now and they are renting it out. As mentioned earlier, a lot of rules go out the window when a bank is involved.

However... Your notice of termination is from the landlord, not the bank.

dissed doc

If notice was served properly for a legitimate reason, then everything has been done properly. It's none of the OPs concern if the landlord later decides to re-rent the property, paint it a different colour or sit around naked.

Is it the landlords property? Yes. Can he within law give notice to terminate a tenancy based on intention to sell? Yes. All within the law.

The self-righteousness of some posters here is a real eye opener at times.

No law has been broken.

Pawwed Rig

dissed doc wrote: »

No law has been broken.

In your opinion but unfortunately the RT act of 2004 does not agree with you.

Crash wrote: »

Now, less than three days after handing back the keys, I find the property up for let on Daft at increased rent (about 500 euro a month over what we were paying).

The OP said that vacant possession was required prior to putting the house on the market. Within 3 days of moving out, the house was advertised on Daft. 3 days is not a reasonable period to try to sell a house. If the house is re let at the higher price then the landlord is in breach of the act and a law has been broken and the tenancy was terminated illegally. The tenant is therefore entitled to make a claim for illegal eviction under the 2004 act and be compensated accordingly (the compensation amounts often end up being 5 figure settlements). The OP needs to wait and see if the property is re let. This can be checked on the PRTB website if the LL registers it or else the OP can just pop around (to collect their mail) and chat to the new occupiers. If it is re let under the same landlord then the OP will most likely win a subsequent case. Cha ching

drumswan

dissed doc wrote: »

If notice was served properly for a legitimate reason, then everything has been done properly. It's none of the OPs concern if the landlord later decides to re-rent the property, paint it a different colour or sit around naked.

I'm afraid not chief, tenants actually have rights in this country. If you want to be free to do what you like with a property then don't rent it to someone else.

Is it the landlords property? Yes. Can he within law give notice to terminate a tenancy based on intention to sell? Yes. All within the law.

The self-righteousness of some posters here is a real eye opener at times.

No law has been broken.

If there was no intention to sell then the law has been broken.

dissed doc

drumswan wrote: »

I'm afraid not chief, tenants actually have rights in this country. If you want to be free to do what you like with a property then don't rent it to someone else.



If there was no intention to sell then the law has been broken.

If he intended to sell, served notice as per the law, and the tenancy ended as per the law, the landlord can do as he likes with the property.

Once the tenancy has ended, which it did, within the law, the OP has no further business. I refer to the Moving On act of 1997, the case of Grow Up vs. Sore Loser.

The tenancy had expired. The landlord can choose to do what he wants from the moment the tenancy expired.

Let's ask the OP: did the apartment get readvertised during his own period of tenancy? Or, as is what appears to be the case, the apartment was readvertised after the OPs tenancy ended.

Where is the law determining how strongly you intend to do something. Does it mean feelings in your head? Casually looking at estate agents? Talking with the auctioneers? Contracting the auctioneers? This is fantastic stuff, legislating the degree to which someone may or may not have intended to possibly do something. MY god.

drumswan

dissed doc wrote: »

If he intended to sell, served notice as per the law, and the tenancy ended as per the law, the landlord can do as he likes with the property.

You ain't getting it lad. If there was no intention to sell then the law was broken. Re listing the property to rent and going on to rent it without attempting to sell would be concrete proof that there was no intention to sell, and that the law was broken, in both the letter and the spirit. The RTA and the PRTB exist to put an end to this cute hoorism in the landlord sector, with many give figure fines handed out annually.

Unfortunately some landlords think they are feudal lords, not operating a business with legal obligations.

The_Morrigan

dissed doc wrote: »

If he intended to sell, served notice as per the law, and the tenancy ended as per the law, the landlord can do as he likes with the property.

Once the tenancy has ended, which it did, within the law, the OP has no further business. I refer to the Moving On act of 1997, the case of Grow Up vs. Sore Loser.

The tenancy had expired. The landlord can choose to do what he wants from the moment the tenancy expired.

Let's ask the OP: did the apartment get readvertised during his own period of tenancy? Or, as is what appears to be the case, the apartment was readvertised after the OPs tenancy ended.

Where is the law determining how strongly you intend to do something. Does it mean feelings in your head? Casually looking at estate agents? Talking with the auctioneers? Contracting the auctioneers? This is fantastic stuff, legislating the degree to which someone may or may not have intended to possibly do something. MY god.

Could you cut out the trolling....Thanks.

dissed doc

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Could you cut out the trolling....Thanks.

I disagree with the argument that has been put forward by many other posters that someone is breaking the law by changing their mind about selling their property, with the previous tenancy having already ended appropriately.

Calling that trolling, is actually trolling.

Show me the legislation that says a landlord cannot change his mind on a vacant property he owns about selling or renting. #

The tenancy ended, the property becomes vacant. Landlord can do what he likes, as thankfully the fascist-leftists cannot as yet force a private person to sell or let a property which has no sitting tenant or active tenancy.

The_Morrigan

dissed doc wrote: »

I disagree with the argument that has been put forward by many other posters that someone is breaking the law by changing their mind about selling their property, with the previous tenancy having already ended appropriately.

Calling that trolling, is actually trolling.

Show me the legislation that says a landlord cannot change his mind on a vacant property he owns about selling or renting. #

The tenancy ended, the property becomes vacant. Landlord can do what he likes, as thankfully the fascist-leftists cannot as yet force a private person to sell or let a property which has no sitting tenant or active tenancy.

Don't argue a mod instruction on thread, it's a breach of the charter.

Grandpa Hassan

Is there a law that says that 1. The evicted tenant should get first refusal and 2. Prescribes a time limit for mind changing.

We don't know whether the LL had been trying to sell the house before the eviction, and the OP does not know whether the situation is as cut and dried as they think it is. It makes no sense for the LL to do what they did, which makes me think that there is more to the story. They are already loving somewhere else so this is not a dispute about a withheld deposit or the likes.

Thomas D

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Is there a law that says that 1. The evicted tenant should get first refusal and 2. Prescribes a time limit for mind changing.

We don't know whether the LL had been trying to sell the house before the eviction, and the OP does not know whether the situation is as cut and dried as they think it is. It makes no sense for the LL to do what they did, which makes me think that there is more to the story. They are already loving somewhere else so this is not a dispute about a withheld deposit or the likes.

The PRTB adjudicate on the spirit of the law. Legislation is not there to describe every possible permutation and punishment.

drumswan

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

It makes no sense for the LL to do what they did, which makes me think that there is more to the story.

If it is the case that the LL cannot seek another rent increase for 12 or part thereof calendar months, then the temptation to evict and re-lease in a rapidly rising market is obvious.