Renting while looking to buy

araic88 · 31-07-2014 8:21pm #1

My partner and I have been looking at houses to rent while finding the "right" house to buy. Pretty much every house on daft is being let through an agent though with a minimum of a year's lease.
Is this negotiable or do they generally only want to deal with 12 month+ leases? If you give enough notice can you leave early? We could well end up needing it for a full year but equally if we get lucky & get to buy in the near future we wouldn't.

31-07-2014 9:40pm

It is usually acceptable to give one months notice for a tenancy under 6 months long, slightly longer (5 weeks iirc) for a tenancy over 6 months, the lease may state you lose your deposit for early termination.

The landlord can't insist you pay the full 12 months or anything along those lines

araic88 · 31-07-2014 9:49pm

Augeo wrote: »

The landlord can't insist you pay the full 12 months or anything along those lines

Great! I thought maybe they could. Thanks :-)

El_Dangeroso · 31-07-2014 9:51pm

The landlord is entitled to the compensation for the out-of-pocket expenses for replacing you as a tenant, though in reality this usually means losing the deposit.

If you sign a lease you are legally obliged to complete the lease.

31-07-2014 9:54pm

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

If you sign a lease you are legally obliged to complete the lease.

Not applicable to a residential lease.

El_Dangeroso · 31-07-2014 10:16pm

Augeo wrote: »

Not applicable to a residential lease.

What makes you think that?

31-07-2014 10:31pm

Residential tenancies act

May I ask why you think I'm wrong?

drumswan · 01-08-2014 10:09am

Augeo wrote: »

The landlord can't insist you pay the full 12 months or anything along those lines

If you sign a 12 month lease you are liable for 12 months of rent.

OldMrBrennan83 · 01-08-2014 10:19am

This post has been deleted.

Eldarion · 01-08-2014 10:20am

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wrong. Unless you find someone to take over the lease from you that the landlord approves of then you can be held liable for the full term of the lease.

The_Morrigan · 01-08-2014 10:23am

Folks seriously, if you're going to come in here and give advice can you please ensure it's correct!

marathonic · 01-08-2014 10:26am

Eldarion wrote: »

Wrong. Unless you find someone to take over the lease from you that the landlord approves of then you can be held liable for the full term of the lease.

I believe the tenant isn't actually required to find the replacement - otherwise, there'd be widespread cases of tenants landing the most yobbish replacements possible knowing full well that the landlord won't want them in their house.

However, I do believe the landlord can hold the tenant liable for rent until they find a suitable replacement - but they do have to prove that they made a reasonable effort to find a replacement as quickly as possible (I suppose a daft advert at rents that aren't above market rates should meet this criteria).

In reality, the landlord is likely to just withhold the deposit because they can usually find a replacement within the timeframe that the deposit would cover and the hassle involved in chasing a tenant up for the excess, if any, wouldn't be worthwhile.

drumswan · 01-08-2014 10:37am

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is just ridiculous. People genuinely have no idea how tenancy law works.

01-08-2014 4:09pm

It's all there in black and white, citizens advice website has it in plain English...... Some laughable claims being thrown around as fact here.

Mrs OBumble · 01-08-2014 4:15pm

Augeo wrote: »

It's all there in black and white, citizens advice website has it in plain English...... Some laughable claims being thrown around as fact here.

Could you give us some links, perhaps?

TheBandicoot · 01-08-2014 4:22pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Could you give us some links, perhaps?

In fairness, if you read http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html, it has a table of notice periods and then says

If tenants have a fixed-term agreement or a lease, they are also subject to the terms of this agreement. This means they may lose their deposit if they leave before the term stated in the lease, even if they give the correct amount of notice.

I don't believe that it is true- if you terminate a fixed term lease, it is mt understanding that you are obliged to pay the remaining rent.. but this page appears to say differently.

01-08-2014 4:32pm

That page is fact.... Some landlords like people to think differently.

Eldarion · 01-08-2014 4:33pm

TheBandicoot wrote: »

I don't believe that it is true- if you terminate a fixed term lease, it is mt understanding that you are obliged to pay the remaining rent.. but this page appears to say differently.

If tenants have a fixed-term agreement or a lease, they are also subject to the terms of this agreement. This means they may lose their deposit if they leave before the term stated in the lease, even if they give the correct amount of notice.

Ah, so this is where the confusion is coming from. Gonna make an attempt here as to why this means nothing of the sort.

If tenants have a fixed-term agreement or a lease, they are also subject to the terms of this agreement.

Everything after this line may as well be anecdotal and is simply trying to explain the bolded statement.

This means they may lose their deposit if they leave before the term stated in the lease, even if they give the correct amount of notice.

Eldarion · 01-08-2014 4:37pm

Augeo wrote: »

That page is fact.... Some landlords like people to think differently.

Yes, the page is fact. Your interpretation of the page is what's flawed.

01-08-2014 4:39pm

Eldarian, do you think one is to give the required notice and still be liable to pay rent to the amount of the remaining lease? No lease can rule over law.

TheBandicoot · 01-08-2014 4:40pm

I think perhaps the word 'also' there confuses the matter. If it just said 'Tenants in a fixed-term agreement are subject to the notice periods laid out in that agreement' as a seperate paragraph, it would be clearer.

L1011 · 01-08-2014 4:45pm

Augeo wrote: »

Eldarian, do you think one is to give the required notice and still be liable to pay rent to the amount of the remaining lease? No lease can rule over law.

The law handles the lease terms. You are wrong and are referencing documents thst confirm that you're wrong.

01-08-2014 4:53pm

MYOB wrote: »

The law handles the lease terms. You are wrong and are referencing documents thst confirm that you're wrong.

I can assure you I am not wrong, do you honestly think when tenants give notice they than pay up the lease as they vacate so the landlord can rent the place out again?

Many landlords never recoup rent that's owed to them legally, there is no legal obligation to pay rent to the lease when vacated, it's terribly simple but not common knowledge, most folks don't know their rights, as illustrated here by yourself and others.

Eldarion · 01-08-2014 5:00pm

Augeo wrote: »

Eldarian, do you think one is to give the required notice and still be liable to pay rent to the amount of the remaining lease? No lease can rule over law.

TheBandicoot wrote: »

I think perhaps the word 'also' there confuses the matter. If it just said 'Tenants in a fixed-term agreement are subject to the notice periods laid out in that agreement' as a seperate paragraph, it would be clearer.

Notice periods have no bearing on a lease. Notice only relates to terminating a tenancy. The notice period is determined by the length of tenancy.

Example: A tenant has been renting an apartment for 3 years.

Scenario 1: Tenant signs a year long lease at the beginning of his tenancy, after it elapses he remains in the property under Part 4 tenancy. 3 years and 6 months in he decides he wishes to terminate the tenancy, he now gives 56 days notice since he has been in the property longer than 2 years. He is liable for rent for this period of 56 days.

Scenario 2: Tenant signs a year long lease at the beginning of his tenancy, after it elapses he signs another year long lease at the beginning of year 2, and he does this again at the beginning of year 3. 3 years and 6 months in he decides he wishes to terminate the tenancy, he is still liable for rent for the remaining 6 months of the lease agreement. He can avoid this by reaching an agreement with the landlord to amicable break the lease, or he can find someone to take over the remainder of the lease for him.

L1011 · 01-08-2014 5:03pm

Augeo wrote: »

I can assure you I am not wrong, do you honestly think when tenants give notice they than pay up the lease as they vacate so the landlord can rent the place out again?

Many landlords never recoup rent that's owed to them legally, there is no legal obligation to pay rent to the lease when vacated, it's terribly simple but not common knowledge, most folks don't know their rights, as illustrated here by yourself and others.

You can keep saying that but it doesn't change reality - you are entirely wrong here. You even linked to documents confirming that.

The_Morrigan · 01-08-2014 5:06pm

Augeo wrote: »

I can assure you I am not wrong, do you honestly think when tenants give notice they than pay up the lease as they vacate so the landlord can rent the place out again?

Many landlords never recoup rent that's owed to them legally, there is no legal obligation to pay rent to the lease when vacated, it's terribly simple but not common knowledge, most folks don't know their rights, as illustrated here by yourself and others.

What tenants do and what they are supposed to do are completely different. Tenants are not supposed to use their deposit as their last month rent - it's illegal, yet they do. Landlords are not supposed to withhold deposits without valid reason, yet it happens. Landlords are not supposed to illegal evict tenants - yet it happens. Tenants are not supposed to stop paying rent and remain in the property - but it happens. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Just because people do something doesn't mean it is either legal or right.

A fixed term lease is just that, the tenants must adhere to the terms of it for the duration of the lease. However, they can re-assign it and find new tenants, they can sub-let with the landlords permission or they can come to an agreement with the landlord to end the tenancy early - once it is a mutually agreed event. They cannot just up sticks and leave with a months notice and 99% of fixed term leases do not have a break clause anyway to allow for a notice period to be given to terminate early.

Now, I'd please urge you to stop posting nonsense.

01-08-2014 5:06pm

Absolutely laughable gents, I feel sorry for the OP as they well think ye are correct.

L1011 · 01-08-2014 5:08pm

Augeo wrote: »

Absolutely laughable gents, I feel sorry for the OP as they well think ye are correct.

We are. You are giving dangerous inaccurate advice

01-08-2014 5:15pm

Nothing in a lease over rules the law, you are legally entitled to give notice and leave. Any tenancy over 6 months is a part 4 tenancy.

L1011 · 01-08-2014 5:17pm

Augeo wrote: »

Nothing in a lease over rules the law, you are legally entitled to give notice and leave. Any tenancy over 6 months is a part 4 tenancy.

This is untrue. Please provide an actual source for where you've got this notion from.

01-08-2014 5:19pm

MYOB wrote: »

This is untrue. Please provide an actual source for where you've got this notion from.

It has already been provided by another poster. I suggest you read it, carefully and thoroughly.

L1011 · 01-08-2014 5:21pm

Augeo wrote: »

It has already been provided by another poster. I suggest you read it, carefully and thoroughly.

You clearly haven't read it as you've managed to convince yourself of contents that don't exist.

The_Morrigan · 01-08-2014 5:26pm

Augeo; this is a dangerous thing you're spouting here and I'm going to ask you to stop posting.
I've already put a mod warning in this thread that people should only post correct advice & you are not.

Please do not post in this thread again.

01-08-2014 5:29pm

MYOB wrote: »

You clearly haven't read it as you've managed to convince yourself of contents that don't exist.

Chaps, a fixed term contract not including the legal notice period does not negate the tenants right to those periods.

The_Morrigan · 01-08-2014 5:30pm

OP - the PRTB have some information on terminating a fixed term lease; it can be found here.
The acquirement of Part IV rights run alongside the lease, so that when the lease expires you have already clocked up your Part IV rights for 6 months - therefore you do not at that stage need to execute another fixed term lease and you can follow the rules for Part IV.

You could talk to your landlord and explain the situation to them about your plans, they may be willing to negotiate the contract with you.

L1011 · 01-08-2014 5:31pm

Augeo wrote: »

Chaps, a fixed term contract not including the legal notice period does not negate the tenants right to those periods.

The fixed term itself does. You misunderstand this horribly and are spouting dangerous nonsense as a result. Please go actually read the sources you've attempted to cite.

quadrifoglio verde · 01-08-2014 7:16pm

To the op, might be an idea offering to pay slightly higher rent, if you can avoid having a 12 month lease. When you meet the landlord explain that you're currently house hunting and willing to offer 10% more. In the current market I can't see many landlords objecting to that. They get the rent they'll probably get next year this year.

It is my understanding that If you break a 12 month lease you're liable for the outstanding rent, however this is only applicable if the landlord can't replace you with new tenants at the same market rate. However the landlord has to be able to show that he made as much effort as reasonably possible to get new tenants. Also I think it's a prtb decision if the tenant is liable or not.

Happy to be proven wrong but that was my understanding of it.

The_Morrigan · 01-08-2014 7:20pm

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

To the op, might be an idea offering to pay slightly higher rent, if you can avoid having a 12 month lease. When you meet the landlord explain that you're currently house hunting and willing to offer 10% more. In the current market I can't see many landlords objecting to that. They get the rent they'll probably get next year this year.

It is my understanding that If you break a 12 month lease you're liable for the outstanding rent, however this is only applicable if the landlord can't replace you with new tenants at the same market rate. However the landlord has to be able to show that he made as much effort as reasonably possible to get new tenants. Also I think it's a prtb decision if the tenant is liable or not.

Happy to be proven wrong but that was my understanding of it.

It's usual to see them both take reasonable steps to mitigate any loss.
For instance, the tenants may find a replacement tenant and the landlord may veto them - the original tenants are free to walk away in that instance.

The original tenants may pay any rent that is due while the landlord is looking for a new tenant, but once a new tenant is found they are removed from their obligations under the lease.

Also worth noting that both parties may be happy to rescind the agreement at any point and not hold the other person liable under it. It's all about being reasonable towards the other party.

quadrifoglio verde · 01-08-2014 7:26pm

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It's usual to see them both take reasonable steps to mitigate any loss.
For instance, the tenants may find a replacement tenant and the landlord may veto them - the original tenants are free to walk away in that instance.

The original tenants may pay any rent that is due while the landlord is looking for a new tenant, but once a new tenant is found they are removed from their obligations under the lease.

Also worth noting that both parties may be happy to rescind the agreement at any point and not hold the other person liable under it. It's all about being reasonable towards the other party.

So if a tenant signs a lease and walks away 6 months later and the rent in the area is now 20% less, the previous tenant isn't liable for the difference? Bit unfair on the landlord.

I agree with you on your last point, although if it was me, I'd rather ask the landlord at the outset and come to an agreement where both were happy.

The_Morrigan · 01-08-2014 7:29pm

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

So if a tenant signs a lease and walks away 6 months later and the rent in the area is now 20% less, the previous tenant isn't liable for the difference? Bit unfair on the landlord.

It would depend on whether they sublet (and make up the difference), re-assign the lease, or it the landlord has the new tenants sign a new lease.

quadrifoglio verde · 01-08-2014 7:31pm

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It would depend on whether they sublet (and make up the difference), re-assign the lease, or it the landlord has the new tenants sign a new lease.

But what happens say old tenant who upped and left 6 months in was paying 1k and landlord can only get new tenants willing to pay 800.
I take it in this case the deposit can be used to cover the loss of rent to the landlord, but it wouldn't fully?

The_Morrigan · 01-08-2014 7:40pm

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

But what happens say old tenant who upped and left 6 months in was paying 1k and landlord can only get new tenants willing to pay 800.
I take it in this case the deposit can be used to cover the loss of rent to the landlord, but it wouldn't fully?

Depends whats in the lease or agreed between everyone.

Renting while looking to buy

Comments