Landlord insisting on 28 days notice despite breaking agreement - Help please

notlawna1

Hi All,

This is my first post on here after lurking for many years. I have explored and discussed this topic with many people but I thought I might get some more expert advice on here. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. I have already fully searched this forum for similar threads but couldn't find any, hence the new thread.

Here's a condensed version of my situation:

• Living with partner in house for 2.5 years. Good tenants, rent always paid and never any complaints. House kept in excellent condition. Lease lapsed from 1st year and didn't sign another.

• In June of this year we asked our landlord if our next year in the house could be confirmed. We had a chance to move into an emigrating friends house but wished to stay where we were. On the 5th of June we have an email from our landlord stating "no plans to sell the house and/or change occupancy in the coming year".

• We declined the other house and invested some money in the current place to improve it for the coming year (furniture etc.)

• One month later on Tuesday the 8th of July we received another email saying that the house was being put on the market for sale, with a first viewing on that Saturday (in 4 days time). Coincidently they waited until our July rent had been paid before sending this mail.

• We replied and told them that they broke their original agreement and that we were understandably furious. We also stated that we would begin to find another house, although this was not official notice of termination.

• We eventually found another house and gave official notice of moving out on the 23rd of July. We stated in this that our tenancy would end on the 31st of July, and that we did not believe 28 days notice to be required given the circumstances outline above.

• Landlord is now refusing to agree to this, stating that 28 days is required. They are using our deposit (€1200) as rent for the extra 3 weeks and are offering no negotiation whatsoever.

So that has brought us here, after tearing our hair out for weeks trying to resolve the situation. It is our understanding of the events that our landlords broke the agreement by selling the house despite saying (in writing) that they had no plans to. In this circumstance I would expect that the full 28 days not be required.

If anyone could possibly share any information that would be useful we would be hugely massively grateful. I am very close to sending them a solicitors letter and am happy to fight them for the deposit as the manner in which they dealt with us was horrendous, despite being loyal tenants for over 2 years.

Any suggestions on what we could do next?

Thanks a million in advance!

Ian

JoeySully

Id be refusing any viewing until the 31st of August if he is going to be that ****ty.

notlawna1

Thanks Joey - we naively allowed them to view the place while we were still there. They ran 2 viewings a week and the house is now Sale Agreed already.

All the more reason to feel hard done by.

Ian

drumswan

What a mess. Why did you serve notice when it was the landlord terminating the tenancy? The notice period for a 2.5 year tenancy is 56 days, not 28, where did the 28 day figure come from?

An email about the landlords plans means nothing, if you wish to have security of tenure for a fixed period you really need a fixed term lease. He can evict you on a part four if the property is going up for sale.

The landlord is also entitled to withhold the deposit in lieu of unpaid rent.

All you can do is let him know you will not be facilitating viewings for the period of the extra three weeks, see if he will budge.

Thoie

notlawna1 wrote: »

• We eventually found another house and gave official notice of moving out on the 23rd of July. We stated in this that our tenancy would end on the 31st of August, and that we did not believe 28 days notice to be required given the circumstances outline above.

• Landlord is now refusing to agree to this, stating that 28 days is required. They are using our deposit (€1200) as rent for the extra 3 weeks and are offering no negotiation whatsoever.

Is the second date supposed to be July instead of August (as otherwise I can't see what the problem is - you'd have given them 5 weeks' notice)?

It would be hard to prove that he had actual intention of selling the house in June and lied about it. For all anyone knows he may have just taken a notion on July 7th to sell the house and found a viewer really quickly. Unless you could find some proof (Daft archives?) that the house was offered for sale before June 4th, then you don't have much comeback on the "agreement" I'd say.

Unfortunately the landlord may be in the "right" in this situation Raise the question with the PRTB, but informing you that he was planning on selling the house wasn't a termination notice, so it looks like you're the ones terminating (even though you're only doing it because of his actions). As you're the ones terminating, then >28 days notice would be required unfortunately.

notlawna1

Hi Drumswan,

Thanks for the input. The 28 day figure is coming from the landlord in their correspondence.

You're confirming my fears having done my own reading on the PRTB site.

I think our replies overlapped but you might have seen that the house is sold already. We facilitated them viewing the place during July prior to finding out that they wouldn't accept a reduced notice period under the circumstances.

I guess what it boils down to is that we have no legal right to the return of the full deposit. I suppose we just expected that they would facilitate this given the manner in which they dealt with us. Expected them to be fair and decent under the circumstances.

Thanks again for the reply.

Ian

whippet

before you do anything rash .. you should make yourself aware of your obligations as a tenant.

You are in a part4 tenancy and there over two years .. therefore you have to give 56days notice.

If you leave and don't pay rent for the period covering the 56 days the landlord 'may' be entitled to retain your deposit to cover arrears (unpaid rent for that period)

The process for dispute resolution is via the PRTB so before going to the expense of issuing a solicitors letter see if there is any valid grounds to open a dispute with the PRTB.

A LL is entitled to change his plans with regards to selling etc at any time .. as long as what he does is legal and above board.

notlawna1

Hi Thoie,

Yep you're correct about the 31st of July. I've edited the original post.

As I said above, beginning to realise that we don't have a legal leg to stand on. Just expected more from people I guess.

Thanks a lot for your input.

Ian

notlawna1

Wow thanks for all the input everyone,

@whippet good to know regarding the 56 days point. Thank you.

Ian

drumswan

notlawna1 wrote: »

I guess what it boils down to is that we have no legal right to the return of the full deposit.

Well, you could stay in the property for the full 56 days and then have the deposit returned.

As you already have your next rental covered off, I'd make sure you retain possession for the full period, you'll be paying rent there anyway.

cpoh1

Also important to note that the landlord cant officially sell the house until you have vacated the premises. You need to be physically gone.

notlawna1

cpoh1 wrote: »

Also important to note that the landlord cant officially sell the house until you have vacated the premises. You need to be physically gone.

@cpoh1 - We're out already. Given the state of renting in Dublin at the moment we had to move quick once a suitable and affordable place came up.

drumswan

notlawna1 wrote: »

@cpoh1 - We're out already. Given the state of renting in Dublin at the moment we had to move quick once a suitable and affordable place came up.

You are not "out", you are a sitting tenant until 20th August at the earliest, according to your agreement of 28 days notice with the landlord (served on the 23rd of July).

Peterx

You've had a hard time of it with the deposit but please don't go spending the next few days of your life grimly inhabiting a house you have already moved on from as some here are suggesting. That's madness.

It's very easy for other people to spend your time.
In fact I will join their ranks - spend it out walking, enjoy the evenings, unfortunately you are not getting your deposit back.

drumswan

Peterx wrote: »

You've had a hard time of it with the deposit but please don't go spending the next few days of your life grimly inhabiting a house you have already moved on from as some here are suggesting. That's madness.

No need for grimly inhabiting anywhere, OP needs to simply retain the key.

The_Morrigan

I'm curious as to why you gave notice - the landlord informed you in July that they were selling the house. Why did the landlord not provide a notice of termination based on the provisions under a Part IV tenancy?
They would have had to give you 56 days notice.

As it stands you're liable for rent from the 23rd July + 56 days as that is the notice period you should have given. The 28 days applies to a landlord giving notice if the tenant breaches their obligations (7 days if it's anti social behaviour).

notlawna1

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I'm curious as to why you gave notice - the landlord informed you in July that they were selling the house. Why did the landlord not provide a notice of termination based on the provisions under a Part IV tenancy?

The landlord was trying her best to keep a rental income for as long as possible. She cleverly said in her email that they were "exploring the option of selling the house" and that there was a 50:50 chance of it going ahead or not. She even went so far as to suggest that "should the sale not go through your tenancy can continue as normal". A little deluded in my opinion that tenants would stay on under those conditions.

Either way, it was clever on her part. She avoided serving us with a notice by suggesting that they were only exploring a sale.

I don't believe anyone here would remain as tenants in a house which is for sale. For that reason we had no choice but to give notice, wrongly or rightly.

The_Morrigan

notlawna1 wrote: »

The landlord was trying her best to keep a rental income for as long as possible. She cleverly said in her email that they were "exploring the option of selling the house" and that there was a 50:50 chance of it going ahead or not. She even went so far as to suggest that "should the sale not go through your tenancy can continue as normal". A little deluded in my opinion that tenants would stay on under those conditions.

Either way, it was clever on her part. She avoided serving us with a notice by suggesting that they were only exploring a sale.

I don't believe anyone here would remain as tenants in a house which is for sale. For that reason we had no choice but to give notice, wrongly or rightly.

She only avoided serving you with notice because you panicked at the suggestion of a sale and decided to leave. If you had replied going ' ah thanks for the heads up, please note that viewings will not be possible this weekend, but they would be feasible at X,Y & Z'; she would have had to pull the finger out & take control of the situation.

Plenty of people remain in properties that are for sale - the sales can't go through with a sitting tenant unless it's a cash buyer; so the tenant kinda holds all the power in that regard.

notlawna1

The_Morrigan wrote: »

She only avoided serving you with notice because you panicked at the suggestion of a sale and decided to leave.

No need to get personal really I don't think. Thanks for your previous input, I can see clearly where we as tenants made some mistakes in the process.

notlawna1

The_Morrigan wrote: »

the sales can't go through with a sitting tenant unless it's a cash buyer; so the tenant kinda holds all the power in that regard.

Is this definitely the case? I was not aware of this.

The_Morrigan

notlawna1 wrote: »

Is this definitely the case? I was not aware of this.

You need vacant possession for a mortgage to be drawn down, it's usually a condition of sale.

notlawna1

The_Morrigan wrote: »

You need vacant possession for a mortgage to be drawn down, it's usually a condition of sale.

OK Thanks for that, not something I knew.

notlawna1

Thank you to everyone who took the time to reply above.

It's clear that we have no legal standing here and that our previous landlord was within their rights to act as they did. I won't proceed with solicitor's letters etc. as it seems that 56 days notice could be demanded by the landlord to the letter of the law.

As some people have said, it seems we will not be getting our deposit back.

I guess we were a little unlucky in the manner in which it played out, and I do believe that our LL could have managed the situation in a way that was more fair. However morals don't always play a big part in property sales and their prerogative was a sale.

Glad I posted this here however as it has cleared up a lot of things I wasn't clear on so one last thank you.

All the best,

Ian

Mrs OBumble

The_Morrigan wrote: »

As it stands you're liable for rent from the 23rd July + 56 days as that is the notice period you should have given.

I don't think that this the case any more, given that they have mutually (though unhappily) agreed to a shorter 28 day period.

Mrs OBumble

cpoh1 wrote: »

Also important to note that the landlord cant officially sell the house until you have vacated the premises. You need to be physically gone.

Have you got a source for this?

drumswan

notlawna1 wrote: »

Glad I posted this here however as it has cleared up a lot of things I wasn't clear on so one last thank you.

All the best,

Ian

Lesson learned, make sure you read all the available PRTB literature so you are up to speed for this tenancy. It can be easy to get caught out.

The_Morrigan

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Have you got a source for this?

It's a standard practice in Irish banking.

whippet

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Have you got a source for this?

no legal team will allow their client to complete the sales process (sign contracts) until there is vacant possession and banks will not release a mortgage on a property unless the conditions of sale require a vacant possession (unless specifically agreed .. Buy to Let etc ..)

BeatNikDub

No advice I can give you I am afraid Ian but just wanted to share my sympathy.
Sounds likes an awful situation.
I can completely understand where you are coming from. If I was renting, and after getting word from my landlord to rest any worries about possible near future moves again, then turned around a month later to say that they were selling it and viewings were starting immediately I would indeed be trying to find somewhere else to live asap. And I would be truly put out.
The rental market (if this is dublin anyway) is really tough out there and if you find somewhere then you just have to take it.
I would say if you lose the deposit then focus on the fact that at least you were lucky enough to find somewhere quickly and have a home, and a bit more knowledge going forward.
Best of luck.

drumswan

Fixed term leases have become dramatically more desirable in such a rising market

notlawna1

BeatNikDub wrote: »

No advice I can give you I am afraid Ian but just wanted to share my sympathy.

What a great reply, thanks so much.

You're correct it is Dublin so once we got a suitable place we had to move on it quickly.

I suppose we can only hope that there are fewer and fewer people out there who are willing to treat tenants like this in the future. Doing our best to forget it and move on.

The_Morrigan

notlawna1 wrote: »

What a great reply, thanks so much.

You're correct it is Dublin so once we got a suitable place we had to move on it quickly.

I suppose we can only hope that there are fewer and fewer people out there who are willing to treat tenants like this in the future. Doing our best to forget it and move on.

I know you're annoyed, but the landlord didn't do anything wrong, so it's unfair to infer the landlord treated you badly.
You got sufficient notice of viewings - which you didn't have to agree to btw.
The landlord didn't give you a termination notice, you gave them an incorrect notice to vacate.

Mrs OBumble

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It's a standard practice in Irish banking.

And so is irrelevant in the case of a cash buyer, and cannot be regarded as applying in all cases?

uberwolf

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And so is irrelevant in the case of a cash buyer, and cannot be regarded as applying in all cases?

Except that it would be a standard check by any purchasers solicitor.

OP - I wanted to express my sympathy to you. We recently went through similar except that our landlord, for all of his other failings, was very decent about our exit giving 3 months notice and effectively waived the requirement for notice on our side. Sure it suited him to have the property back in his control, but it was still decent. Especially hearing what happened to you.

The_Morrigan

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And so is irrelevant in the case of a cash buyer, and cannot be regarded as applying in all cases?

I can't comment on the best practices of Irish law firms in relation to conveyancing, so I can't answer that question.

blue4ever

I'd have rolled the dice on this and see what happens.

Tell the landlord that you're staying for 56 days and not the 28 in his email - this its you right!

notlawna1

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I know you're annoyed, but the landlord didn't do anything wrong, so it's unfair to infer the landlord treated you badly.
You got sufficient notice of viewings - which you didn't have to agree to btw.
The landlord didn't give you a termination notice, you gave them an incorrect notice to vacate.

The landlord confirmed our upcoming years tenancy, then 4 weeks later put the house on the market with 4 days notice of the first viewing (a day after out rent went in).

Sure, legally they did nothing wrong, but morally it's fairly skewed.

If you believe that this is fair treatment of a tenant then we'll have to agree to disagree!

The_Morrigan

notlawna1 wrote: »

The landlord confirmed our upcoming years tenancy, then 4 weeks later put the house on the market with 4 days notice of the first viewing (a day after out rent went in).

Sure, legally they did nothing wrong, but morally it's fairly skewed.

If you believe that this is fair treatment of a tenant then we'll have to agree to disagree!

Situations change; this time last year in the space of a month of had gone from employment stability (with verbal agreements from mangement on progress) to unemployment.

You don't know the reasons behind the decision to put the house on the market, it may not have been their decision even, it could have been the bank.
I understand you feel done by, but it's a fact of life that sh*t can happen and people have to make decisions and change to deal with it. Renting is a business, emotions do not come it, adhering to the obligations and rights of both sides is the only thing important here.

I would advise you to read up thoroughly on your tenants rights and obligations, I think the fact you didn't know you could kick back on some items or that you were expected to give a certain amount of notice was a factor in this situation.

drumswan

notlawna1 wrote: »

The landlord confirmed our upcoming years tenancy, then 4 weeks later put the house on the market with 4 days notice of the first viewing (a day after out rent went in).

Unfortunately the only thing which confirms an upcoming years tenancy is a fixed term lease covering that period.

A landlord is not your friend and shouldnt be expected to treat you "morally", he is someone with whom you have a business relationship and should be expected to treat you according to the rights and obligations set down in the Residential Tenancies Act. Its up to you understand those rights and obligations, and your own.

usernamegoes

If that was me I would tell the landlord I was going to overhold for as long as the PRTB process would allow, delay the sale and frustrate in every way I can unless he refunded my deposit.

Of course if he called my bluff I wouldn't overhold as that would be illegal.

useruser

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Renting is a business, emotions do not come it, adhering to the obligations and rights of both sides is the only thing important here.

Renting is a business? For the landlord sure, for the tenant it is their home that is in question and of course emotion comes into it. The OP has clearly been treated badly (albeit legally) by their landlord who has initially mislead and then later taken full advantage of the OPs' mistakes to squeeze out every last cent.

This is not common decency and if I were the OP I would seek to be as obstructive as possible now (within the letter of the law) in order to try and force the landlord to act with a shred of humanity.

The_Morrigan

useruser wrote: »

Renting is a business? For the landlord sure, for the tenant it is their home that is in question and of course emotion comes into it. The OP has clearly been treated badly (albeit legally) by their landlord who has initially mislead and then later taken full advantage of the OPs' mistakes to squeeze out every last cent.

This is not common decency and if I were the OP I would seek to be as obstructive as possible now (within the letter of the law) in order to try and force the landlord to act with a shred of humanity.

Yes it is a business transaction....payment of rent in exchange for use of the property.

Again...the landlord didn't do anything wrong, the OP panicked and caused the situation to unfold as it did.

useruser

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Yes it is a business transaction....payment of rent in exchange for use of the property.
Again...the landlord didn't do anything wrong, the OP panicked and caused the situation to unfold as it did.

If you don't see anything wrong (morally rather than legally) with the landlords' actions then we clearly have very different moral compasses. Assuming that the OP has accurately described the situation (and there are after all two sides to this story) then they have been treated very shabbily indeed. I would be personally ashamed to treat someone like this in a business transaction and would be livid if it happened to me.

Again...the OP was mislead and then had their ignorance of the finer points of tenancy law used against them. The entire situation could have been handled with good grace and manners by the landlord but for the sake of a few extra grubby euro they prefer this road.

The_Morrigan

useruser wrote: »

If you don't see anything wrong (morally rather than legally) with the landlords' actions then we clearly have very different moral compasses. Assuming that the OP has accurately described the situation (and there are after all two sides to this story) then they have been treated very shabbily indeed. I would be personally ashamed to treat someone like this in a business transaction and would be livid if it happened to me.

Again...the OP was mislead and then had their ignorance of the finer points of tenancy law used against them. The entire situation could have been handled with good grace and manners by the landlord but for the sake of a few extra grubby euro they prefer this road.

We aren't here to discuss the moral actions of anyone though; people come here looking for their legal rights and obligations to be clarified for them. In this case it was the OP who got it wrong.

You can feel as outraged as you like about that but moral actions don't tend to be considered.

useruser

This is a discussion forum and I sought only to offer my opinion and my support (for what it's worth) to the OP against the "rules are rules" and "sucks to be you" responses which however legally correct, I find unpleasant.

The_Morrigan wrote: »

You can feel as outraged as you like about that but moral actions don't tend to be considered.

Yes, that is sadly very clear.

The_Morrigan

useruser wrote: »

This is a discussion forum and I sought only to offer my opinion and my support (for what it's worth) to the OP against the "rules are rules" and "sucks to be you" responses which however legally correct, I find unpleasant.

That's a bit unfair - quoting the correct procedure and pointing out that it was not the landlord that was in the wrong does not equate to 'sucks to be you'.
If we only told people what they wanted to hear to make them feel better this forum & quite frankly society, would descend into madness.

useruser

The_Morrigan wrote: »

That's a bit unfair - quoting the correct procedure and pointing out that it was not the landlord that was in the wrong does not equate to 'sucks to be you'.
If we only told people what they wanted to hear to make them feel better this forum & quite frankly society, would descend into madness.

Yes, you are correct, that is unfair and I withdraw the comment, the advice that has been given has been useful and it is very important that the OP knows where they stand legally.

OP, if you are still reading then I hope that you will forgive my injudicious attempt to drive society to madness. Good luck and I nonetheless hope that you are able to legally inconvenience your landlord to the point that they are obliged to return some of your money.