Am I being unreasonable?

Ken79

NewCorkLad wrote: »

I love this steamroll business. You have had 3 months to find somewhere and you have not viewed a single house after agreeing that you would look for alternative accommodation. I know their is a rental crisis in Dublin but not 1 house worth viewing.

I'm not in Dublin, I live in the country side. There are houses but nothing even remotely suitable. Remember I work from home, I need an office I can work in. We need space for the dogs.

So far all that has come up have been terrible. Killing thing is I knew the rental shortage was coming so I got a longer lease and now I'm supposed to suffer because the landlord can't hold up their end of the bargain? Think again.

drumswan

cursai wrote: »

I sense a strong sense of entitlement!

It probably stems from the legally binding contract he signed that lays out those entitlements.

cursai

Ken79 wrote: »

I'm not in Dublin, I live in the country side. There are houses but nothing even remotely suitable. Remember I work from home, I need an office I can work in. We need space for the dogs.

So far all that has come up have been terrible. Killing thing is I knew the rental shortage was coming so I got a longer lease and now I'm supposed to suffer because the landlord can't hold up their end of the bargain? Think again.

Annnnnnnd I'm done with this thread!

D3PO

Ken79 wrote: »

I want to stay until my lease is over. This is a good compromise for her. Up to a max of 2 grand for buying out a lease? If anything I'm being way overgenerous considering I have her over a barrel. Understand that, if I asked for 5 grand cash she will give it to me because she has no choice but I'm not because that would be greedy.


Remember, we could find a place next month or the month after. We cannot afford to wait until March because the houses are not there and we will have to take the first suitable one that comes along. Come March we will have to contend with letting agents and their bi-monthly inspections which I find intolerable.

well go do whatever you want. Your entitled to, but if you cant see your attitude stinks then your really persona non grata as far as Im concerned.

anybody who says I have her over a barrel and asks are they being unreasonable in the same breath really either ris a troll or has a serious self awareness issue.

Oh btw can you tell me the name of your company please ? If you conduct your business like you do your private life Id like to make sure we don't cross paths as your not the kind of person Id have any interest in dealing with.

drumswan

D3PO wrote: »

well go do whatever you want. Your entitled to, but if you cant see your attitude stinks then your really persona non grata as far as Im concerned.

anybody who says I have her over a barrel and asks are they being unreasonable in the same breath really either ris a troll or has a serious self awareness issue.

Oh btw can you tell me the name of your company please ? If you conduct your business like you do your private life Id like to make sure we don't cross paths as your not the kind of person Id have any interest in dealing with.

Why do you keep personalising the argument? Nobody cares about your opinion of the OPs conduct. He is perfectly entitled to insist that the other party agree to her contracted obligations. If she wants to negotiate out of that agreement thats fine.

If this was a landlord insisting that the tenant hold up his end of the agreement nobody would blink, its considered totally the norm, and rightly so.

Ken79

D3PO wrote: »

I don't see anybody in disagreement that the OP should expect some form of compensation to lease their lease early.

Theres a difference in this and the view that the OP wants to get everything they can. That is where the issue is.

Back to the Ops question are they being reasonable ? I don't believe they are.

It be reasonable to say to the LL look I have 11 months left on my contract, the only properties I see due to the market are €200 a month more than Im paying. I don't feel I should be out of pocket, and a move will equally incure me moving expenses and a loss of 1 - 2 days work as I work form home.

My proposal is you return my deposit plus €200 x 11 so Im not at the loss for increased rent I will have to pay, plus you pay for the movers which I have a quote for X at and also you cover mmmy lost of earnings of X.

If you do this then Im willing to move.

That's reasonable. Telling the LL I want all my rent free until I find somewhere I deem suitable (leaving the LL open to the OP taking the piss and taking the 11 months to find something Ie paying no more rent) that's a joke and in no way reasonable.

being reasonable is finding compromise. The OPs position is to screw the LL for every penny not to prevent themselves from being at a loss. That's what makes it unreasonable.

So I'm being greedy but I am asking for far less than what you are suggesting would be fair?

I said I'd be out by end of march at the latest. At most it's 4x750 plus my deposit back from them. If we can't find a house until last minute. Imagine if I were to say this is going to cost me x amount of hours way from my work (and yes, work is that crazy right now)? And you are right, my rent will go up though probably by no more than €100 and then I will have to rent a van to move all my stuff (after 10 years I have a lot). And what about the stress of having a deadline to move - that worth nothing?


The more I think about it the more I think I'm being more of a soft arse than a mercenary.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I am a renter, not a landlord. Contractual issues aside, If my landlord needed to sell the house , had told me about it for a long time , I had months of notice that it could be sold and then finally was given 8 weeks to pack up and go , I would have left before the 8 weeks even finished, and kept paying rent until the day I had a new house to go to.

The most I would ever expect from a landlord in this scenario is perhaps a week of leeway from when I started paying rent on a new property to when I could get all my stuff moved over. That would be reasonable in my book.

The OP incorrectly views this property as their home, which it is not. OP your treating it like somebody is booting you out of somewhere you were going to be forever , if you channeled as much of your emotional anger into finding a new house rather than trying to fcuk over a woman who's about to lose hers , I'm sure you'd be fine.

Apologies for assuming you were a landlord.

From another thread on evictions:

"It really sickens me with these protests and the socialists getting involved. Its simple - pay for your house or get out"

Not much sympathy there, and a whole heap of respect for upholding contracts no matter the consequences.

I really am not sure what the difference is and why suddenly the OP should be putting themselves out for the sake of a landlord in financial difficulties.

Perhaps you can explain?

D3PO

drumswan wrote: »

Why do you keep personalising the argument? Nobody cares about your opinion of the OPs conduct.

do you have a comprehension problem ?

Do you actually understand the thread title ?

How can somebody answer the thread title without applying their opinion ? This isn't a theoretical thread its about the OP so therefore it is a personal discussion.

Hence why the argument as you call it or as I call it measured response is personalised.

So perhaps you should get to grip with the dynamics of this thread rather than taking humbrance to my replies.

Lemming

Ken; not having gotten to page 9 yet (I'm on 7) there is indeed something that you have overlooked ....

If the sale falls through, and you still haven't found somewhere by March, expect reprisals of the financial kind and a complete lack of goodwill in future. So should the above come to pass, your attempt to extort - and lets not cut about the bush here, it is what it is - will end up with you losing money instead. Like others have said; Karma's a b1tch.

IMO you are being extremely unreasonable. To the letter of the law yes, but remember the old adage of those that live by the sword will die by it.

Ken79

D3PO wrote: »

well go do whatever you want. Your entitled to, but if you cant see your attitude stinks then your really persona non grata as far as Im concerned.

anybody who says I have her over a barrel and asks are they being unreasonable in the same breath really either ris a troll or has a serious self awareness issue.

Oh btw can you tell me the name of your company please ? If you conduct your business like you do your private life Id like to make sure we don't cross paths as your not the kind of person Id have any interest in dealing with.

Actually I'm exactly the kind of person you want to work with. One who does what he says he will do, goes above and beyond to look after you but one who is shrewd enough not to go out of business half way through a job.

SteM

Ken79 wrote: »

And because they want us to leave. You glossed over that bit.

....

They don't want you to leave OP, they're being forced into selling their home because of possible bank repossession. Your situation is just an unfortunate byproduct of their unfortunate situation - only difference is you're looking to fleece them over it. Good luck with that, I wouldn't have the heart to do it myself.

You keep saying you're annoyed about the deadline like they're just doing it to annoy you - they're selling their home. Have you ever sold a house? There are deadlines involved, usually from the buyers side. It's not personal.

drumswan

Lemming wrote: »

Ken; not having gotten to page 9 yet (I'm on 7) there is indeed something that you have overlooked ....

If the sale falls through, and you still haven't found somewhere by March, expect reprisals of the financial kind and a complete lack of goodwill in future. So should the above come to pass, your attempt to extort - and lets not cut about the bush here, it is what it is - will end up with you losing money instead. Like others have said; Karma's a b1tch.

IMO you are being extremely unreasonable. To the letter of the law yes, but remember the old adage of those that live by the sword will die by it.

The landlord has made the continued tenancy nonviable already by her conduct. This is irrelevant.

D3PO

D3PO wrote: »

do you have a comprehension problem ?

Do you actually understand the thread title ?

How can somebody answer the thread title without applying their opinion ? This isn't a theoretical thread its about the OP so therefore it is a personal discussion.

Hence why the argument as you call it or as I call it measured response is personalised.

So perhaps you should get to drip with the dynamics of this thread rather than taking humbrance to my replies.

I'll answer the thread title.

I don't have a problem with the OP expecting a contract to be upheld.

This is not unreasonable. In fact, without it we would have no sort of society worth talking about.

If the landlord (or bank) wants to break the contract, they have to figure out a way to make it worthwhile.

This is how it works and always has done, I am surprised so many people find it confusing.

drumswan

SteM wrote: »

They don't want you to leave OP, they're being forced into selling their home because of possible bank repossession. Your situation is just an unfortunate byproduct of their unfortunate situation - only difference is you're looking to fleece them over it. Good luck with that, I wouldn't have the heart to do it myself.

You keep saying you're annoyed about the deadline like they're just doing it to annoy you - they're selling their home. Have you ever sold a house? There are deadlines involved, usually from the buyers side. It's not personal.

Its not 'their home' its an asset in a business. Christ.

ForEffsSake

The vitriol pro/against landlords is pretty amazing! But if you take out the emotion/morals the OP is perfectly within his rights to be peed off.
1. You sign a fixed-term lease for two years, that means two years. No breaking in the middle for house sale or moving in relatives, not allowed according to the law with fixed-term leases. Landlords and Tenants cannot mix and match Part 4 agreements with Fixed term to suit themselves.

2. OP was less than a year into lease when landlady says she needs to sell. Now that's a bit hazy because if the mortgage was being paid, then the bank would have no need to get involved. If it wasn't, the bank would repossess and all bets would be off apparently.

3. The lady cannot sell the house without stating there are tenants in-situ on a fixed term lease. Her solicitor should have made the buyer's solicitor aware of this. Who knows, the buyer may have accepted this if they were an investor or was a cash buyer.

4. The OP is legally entitled to be in the house until the end of their lease. However, the landlady has engaged with them to try and negotiate a deal to break the lease. This is where I think you misled her OP/or she got the wrong end of the stick. And it's where I have the problem with what you're doing. I know you state that you said nothing about accepting the early termination of the lease, but it may have been implied by your acceptance of the rent reduction.

IMHO the landlady went about the whole sale wrong, she may have been threatened by the bank but even that may be debatable as it would have taken a lot longer. She should never assumed vacant possession before the end of the lease.
She should broker a deal with you but for your part you should then agree to take it and not mess around.
I agree about the rental market though, where we live there is feic all to see never mind rent! So even if you are looking like mad it could take months.

Ken79

Lemming wrote: »

Ken; not having gotten to page 9 yet (I'm on 7) there is indeed something that you have overlooked ....

If the sale falls through, and you still haven't found somewhere by March, expect reprisals of the financial kind and a complete lack of goodwill in future. So should the above come to pass, your attempt to extort - and lets not cut about the bush here, it is what it is - will end up with you losing money instead. Like others have said; Karma's a b1tch.

IMO you are being extremely unreasonable. To the letter of the law yes, but remember the old adage of those that live by the sword will die by it.

There will be no reprisals on any sort. I have a contract so I'm covered financially. They mightn't like me but when will that ever matter? I'd rather be respected than liked.

Lemming

drumswan wrote: »

The landlord has made the continued tenancy nonviable already by her conduct. This is irrelevant.

Oh, it's quite relevant.

D3PO

Ken79 wrote: »

So I'm being greedy but I am asking for far less than what you are suggesting would be fair?

I said I'd be out by end of march at the latest. At most it's 4x750 plus my deposit back from them. If we can't find a house until last minute. Imagine if I were to say this is going to cost me x amount of hours way from my work (and yes, work is that crazy right now)? And you are right, my rent will go up though probably by no more than €100 and then I will have to rent a van to move all my stuff (after 10 years I have a lot). And what about the stress of having a deadline to move - that worth nothing?


The more I think about it the more I think I'm being more of a soft arse than a mercenary.

Perhaps I missed something I didn't see where you said you would be out my the end of March.

That changes the dynamic completely. I read that you said you would try to be out by the end of march but that's different to agreeing to be out the end of march..

can you clarify then what the exact proposal you put the LL was.

in terms of compensation and when you will move out etc.

Kristopherus

OP, are you working from home or are you self-employed and running your business from home?

Lemming

Ken79 wrote: »

There will be no reprisals on any sort. I have a contract so I'm covered financially. They mightn't like me but when will that ever matter? I'd rather be respected than liked.

You need somewhere to live right? Can't find anywhere, so how well do you think a rent extension will go down come end of lease? Even if she agreed (I wouldn't), how does a rather sharp rent hike sound? And that's just for starters. The LL can make your life incredibly difficult whilst still staying within the law - just like you are doing now.

Edit: and as Kristopherus has just asked; are you working from home? or running a business from home? Tread carefully if it's the latter because that would also be a breach of residential tenancy contracts. I suspect.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies for assuming you were a landlord.

From another thread on evictions:

"It really sickens me with these protests and the socialists getting involved. Its simple - pay for your house or get out"

Not much sympathy there, and a whole heap of respect for upholding contracts no matter the consequences.

I really am not sure what the difference is and why suddenly the OP should be putting themselves out for the sake of a landlord in financial difficulties.

Perhaps you can explain?

Im sympathising with the bank here more than anyone, they need the house sold, so the house is now sold. With the OP in it this delays the house going to its new owners who can actually afford to own it.

this is the problem with this country, people buying things they can't afford, and people trying to milk things for everything they can.

by no means is the landlord innocent and blameless in this whole scenario, but the OP is just making a bad scenario worse for themselves and the landlord.

Ken79

ForEffsSake wrote: »

4. The OP is legally entitled to be in the house until the end of their lease. However, the landlady has engaged with them to try and negotiate a deal to break the lease. This is where I think you misled her OP/or she got the wrong end of the stick. And it's where I have the problem with what you're doing. I know you state that you said nothing about accepting the early termination of the lease, but it may have been implied by your acceptance of the rent reduction.

No, I made sure to state clearly that it did not commit me to leaving within any sort of timeframe.
I was very clear on that because I didn't want to be in the situation I'm in now and ambiguity is the enemy of a good contract.

IMHO the landlady went about the whole sale wrong, she may have been threatened by the bank but even that may be debatable as it would have taken a lot longer. She should never assumed vacant possession before the end of the lease.
She should broker a deal with you but for your part you should then agree to take it and not mess around.
I agree about the rental market though, where we live there is feic all to see never mind rent! So even if you are looking like mad it could take months.

Thats what worries me. 3 months of looking and nothing. We're trying to start a family here and I'm trying to run a business.

Friendly and all as I am with my clients, if I agree to do something and I cannot fulfill my end of the deal, for whatever, reason I'm stuck with the bill to pay someone else to do it.
Otherwise, whats the point of a contract?

ForEffsSake

ForEffsSake wrote: »

3. The lady cannot sell the house without stating there are tenants in-situ on a fixed term lease. Her solicitor should have made the buyer's solicitor aware of this. Who knows, the buyer may have accepted this if they were an investor or was a cash buyer.

Yes - this is the actual cause of the problem.

Surely the landlord has to inform the bank and anyone instructed around selling the property that there are tenants in same with a lease for the next 11 months.

I mean, you CAN actually sell a house in that situation, or at least that is my understanding. Is that not true?

Instead she has attempted to pretend the contract doesn't exist and then guilt the tenant out of the house. Which is just idiotic.

drumswan

Lemming wrote: »

You need somewhere to live right? Can't find anywhere, so how well do you think a rent extension will go down come end of lease? Even if she agreed (I wouldn't), how does a rather sharp rent hike sound? And that's just for starters. The LL can make your life incredibly difficult whilst still staying within the law - just like you are doing no

What is a 'rent extension'? The tenancy becomes a part 4 and continues when the fixed term lease ends, after which she can move to end the tenancy under the situations provided for under part 4. The landlord is entitled to increase the rent to market levels. Do you think this is some kind of threat? Its what practically every landlord does already.

But frankly, the LL has soured the relationship here and the OP will be moving on anyway, what she thinks of him personally is hardly relevant.

Ken79

Lemming wrote: »

You need somewhere to live right? Can't find anywhere, so how well do you think a rent extension will go down come end of lease? Even if she agreed (I wouldn't), how does a rather sharp rent hike sound? And that's just for starters. The LL can make your life incredibly difficult whilst still staying within the law - just like you are doing now.

Edit: and as Kristopherus has just asked; are you working from home? or running a business from home? Tread carefully if it's the latter because that would also be a breach of residential tenancy contracts. I suspect.

I work from home. I run my business from somewhere else. I'm safe and the landlord knows the situation so no wool over anyones eyes.

D3PO

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll answer the thread title.

I don't have a problem with the OP expecting a contract to be upheld.

This is not unreasonable. In fact, without it we would have no sort of society worth talking about.


If the landlord (or bank) wants to break the contract, they have to figure out a way to make it worthwhile.

This is how it works and always has done, I am surprised so many people find it confusing.

your actually skirting around the context of the thread title.

nobody argues the OP should not expect the contract to be upheld, nobody argues that the LL shouldn't compensate in some way the OP to insulate them against loss in the situation.

its actually a very simplistic question when you break it down and the answer is a personal one.

there is no right and wrong answer to what are reasonable demands and what are not.

I speak as a non tenant and non landlord so with a level of impartiality as I see it. My view is as valid as yours in that regard.

I would argue that given more people on this thread are of the opinion that the OP is unreasonable would suggest that yes infact they are. As the reasonable approach would be something the majority of people would take.

as there is an implied understanding that being reasonable is doing what most people would.

Ken79

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes - this is the actual cause of the problem.

Surely the landlord has to inform the bank and anyone instructed around selling the property that there are tenants in same with a lease for the next 11 months.

I mean, you CAN actually sell a house in that situation, or at least that is my understanding. Is that not true?

Instead she has attempted to pretend the contract doesn't exist and then guilt the tenant out of the house. Which is just idiotic.

This is exactly what happened. I don't think the purchasers are aware that there is a rental agreement in place on the property.
They know we are here but the estate agent was under the impression (he told us) that we can be evicted with 8 weeks notice so thats what they told the buyers.

Killing thing is I told the estate agent and he didn't care.

Lemming

drumswan wrote: »

What is a 'rent extension'?

/sigh

The tenant wishes to remain on part 4 whislt still looking for somewhere 'suitable' with the LL willing to oblige. All the LL has to do is serve termination to co-incide with end of lease and the OP is in exactly the position they're pleading the poor mouth over; "being turfed out of their home with nowhere else to go".

Like I said; lack of goodwill going forward. Commercial transactions are not popularity contests, but common sense and goodwill can go a long way to avoiding unnecessary cost and hassle. The OP is showing none, and will receive none in turn should matters pan out inconveniently.

Sala

The OP does not have to leave if he has a fixed term contract. The landlord cannot serve a valid notice to quit. The landlord and tenant can mutually agree to end this early, on whatever terms they can agree. I see no problem with the OP looking to be compensated for the early termination of the lease. The buyers obviously want vacant possession

Although if he is running a business from home is is potentially in breach of the lease

anonyanony

drumswan wrote: »

What is a 'rent extension'? The tenancy becomes a part 4 and continues when the fixed term lease ends, after which she can move to end the tenancy under the situations provided for under part 4. The landlord is entitled to increase the rent to market levels. Do you think this is some kind of threat? Its what practically every landlord does already.

But frankly, the LL has soured the relationship here and the OP will be moving on anyway, what she thinks of him personally is hardly relevant.

Rent review at the end of 12 months even if he has a lease for another year LL can raise the rent to market value and as it's an in demand area could be costly, OP then has to pay the increase if reasonable or he breaks the lease and would be evicted.