Am I being unreasonable?

Ken79

Ken79 wrote: »

It's then at the latest. If they want no deal then it'll be whenever we find a new home.

Killing thing is they probably won't get us out any sooner with the proposal I offered but if they need a deadline and the pressure it puts me under then I'm going to charge.

You would expect some houses to com up early next year but what if they don't and I agree to a date? I wouldn't overhold. It's not how I do business and my word comes with a price.

You'll find a house easily enough I think.

Knock on a few doors and ask if they'd mind moving out in a couple of months. Maybe offer them a few hundred under the going rate as rent.

They're Irish and pretty easy going so they'll probably say yes. I mean, you've given them plenty of warning.

drumswan

ec18 wrote: »

legalities aside, based on the thread title. Yes I think you are being unreasonable.

Rightly or wrongly your landlord had inferred your co operation when you agreed to viewings being held and even compensated you with reduced rent. If you had been upfront about your intention to enforce the legality of the fixed term lease this situation could possible have been avoided.

You didnt read the thread. He has stated repeatedly that he was clear that he would not agree to move before the lease was up.

anonyanony wrote: »

This is my biggest problem with how OP went about it, he should have been firm from the get go and not allowed viewings

Tend to agree. Best course of action is not to try to accommodate a landlord outside your legal obligations, ever. No good can come of it. Landlord-tenant relationship should be defined by the legal minimums and nothing else.

Ken79

ec18 wrote: »

legalities aside, based on the thread title. Yes I think you are being unreasonable.

Rightly or wrongly your landlord had inferred your co operation when you agreed to viewings being held and even compensated you with reduced rent. If you had been upfront about your intention to enforce the legality of the fixed term lease this situation could possible have been avoided.

Wrong.

Since I explicitly stated that I was not agreeing to be out withing any sort of timeframe, there can be no inferral.

In fact I went so far as to relay the advice I received from Threshold stating that our lease remains valid to explain that we do not have to move at all if we don't want to. I said I would as soon as we found a place and that has not changed.

The change they are now seeking is to impose a deadline and that will cost them.

anonyanony

Ken79 wrote: »

Wrong.

Since I explicitly stated that I was not agreeing to be out withing any sort of timeframe, there can be no inferral.

In fact I went so far as to relay the advice I received from Threshold stating that our lease remains valid to explain that we do not have to move at all if we don't want to. I said I would as soon as we found a place and that has not changed.

The change they are now seeking is to impose a deadline and that will cost them.

You should have denied the viewings altogether.

Ken79

Field east wrote: »

Ken 79, at 12.53 to-day. you said the lease is a fixed term one and not a part 4. Is this lease registered with the PRTB and if not is it registered with anyone else. If reg with a regulated body or recognised agent , did you get a receipt?

Not registered but thats the landlords responsibility not mine so it's not an issue for me.

All payments are by bank transfer so there is a money trail but no rent book or receipts have been provided.

Ken79

anonyanony wrote: »

You should have denied the viewings altogether.

No. They need to get out from under this mess and I wouldn't stop that from happening. I'm even willing to move (killing thing is I said I wouldn't charge them a penny for it - not for the cost of moving or the loss of work) but only if allowed do it in our own time. Which is as soon as possible because we have been looking.

My issue comes with them sending me an illegal eviction notice despite all that I have told them about them not having the right to do that.

I understand they need a deadline but that will put me under serious pressure so it is only under those circumstances that i will charge them.

They can always back off and let us get on with it with no guaranteed vacancy date and thats fine by me.

amdublin

How many weeks notice (I. E. Not illegal) are/were you looking for?

Ken79

anonyanony wrote: »

You should have denied the viewings altogether.

No. They need to get out from under this mess and I wouldn't stop that from happening. I'm even willing to move (killing thing is I said I wouldn't charge them a penny for it - not for the cost of moving or the loss of work) but only if allowed do it in our own time. Which is as soon as possible because we have been looking.

My issue comes with them sending me an illegal eviction notice despite all that I have told them about them not having the right to do that.

I understand they need a deadline but that will put me under serious pressure so it is only under those circumstances that i will charge them.

They can always back off and let us get on with it with no guaranteed vacancy date and thats fine by me. We are doing our best for them and that will not change no matter what. But nice is not a pushover.

ec18

Ken79 wrote: »

Wrong.

Since I explicitly stated that I was not agreeing to be out withing any sort of timeframe, there can be no inferral.

In fact I went so far as to relay the advice I received from Threshold stating that our lease remains valid to explain that we do not have to move at all if we don't want to. I said I would as soon as we found a place and that has not changed.

The change they are now seeking is to impose a deadline and that will cost them.

my point is that even though you may believe you were clear about not moving before the end of the lease is that there was an inferral of....co operation. Instead by allowing viewings you have created the current situation.

If you told them no you cannot hold viewings we are staying till the end of out fixed term lease then the current situation is avoided. But you didn't

Ken79

amdublin wrote: »

How many weeks notice (I. E. Not illegal) are/were you looking for?

End of march at the latest. We'd hope to be gone well before then for reason stated earlier in the thread but if I am going to accept a deadline the soonest I will accept without compensation is then.

Pinkycharm

Ken79 wrote: »

End of march at the latest. We'd hope to be gone well before then for reason stated earlier in the thread but if I am going to accept a deadline the soonest I will accept without compensation is then.

Did she tell you when the sale had to close?

Always look for rent receipts, even if its just an email of monies received.

You'd need them to apply for a mortgage.

ec18

ec18 wrote: »

my point is that even though you may believe you were clear about not moving before the end of the lease is that there was an inferral of....co operation. Instead by allowing viewings you have created the current situation.

If you told them no you cannot hold viewings we are staying till the end of out fixed term lease then the current situation is avoided. But you didn't

I think that is a little unfair.

Let us not forget that many people (investors for example) buy houses with sitting tenants.

Is the OP supposed to figure out exactly who is viewing and why?

Sala

ec18 wrote: »

my point is that even though you may believe you were clear about not moving before the end of the lease is that there was an inferral of....co operation. Instead by allowing viewings you have created the current situation.

If you told them no you cannot hold viewings we are staying till the end of out fixed term lease then the current situation is avoided. But you didn't

I disagree. He agreed to facilitate viewings for a reduced rent. That is all. There was no guarantee the house would sell quickly. If the house hadn't sold, Ken would still be tied into the contract until the end of the lease and be obliged to pay full rent.

Ken79

ec18 wrote: »

my point is that even though you may believe you were clear about not moving before the end of the lease is that there was an inferral of....co operation. Instead by allowing viewings you have created the current situation.

If you told them no you cannot hold viewings we are staying till the end of out fixed term lease then the current situation is avoided. But you didn't

I believe I was clear because I wrote it down explicitly. It wasn in teh same english I'm writing here with no fancy language.

And we are cooperating and will continue to do so regardless of what happens. Were there any suitable properties already we'd be gone because it is hard enough on them already.

But that doesn't make it my fault or mean I have to accept being turfed out of my home when I clearly stated that was not an option.

Like I said, my issue is with the deadline and I am seriously worried about the possibility that we won't find anywhere.

quietsailor

You've talked about or alluded to your business several times in the thread op. From those comments I get the feeling a lot of your work is based on the appearance of being an honest person - stuff like; if I can't complete the contract I have to pay someone to do it.

You've also said while the landlord lives abroad there father or father in law lives opposite you.

Do you think a family member of someone your causing stress to is going to sing your praises or are they going to warn people about you. They can tell the absolute truth and still damn you in other people's eyes "yeah they believe in contracts alright - especially when it suits them and they get money out of it, if they can get you over a barrel (your words I believe) they'll take more money" that's what you want to do but if as a customer of yours I'd be very worried to hear that from a local.

You may cause more damage to your business in the long run than good to your bank balance. Most people hate gougers and your even painting yourself as one of those when I read your replies.

Ken79

Sala wrote: »

I disagree. He agreed to facilitate viewings for a reduced rent. That is all. There was no guarantee the house would sell quickly. If the house hadn't sold, Ken would still be tied into the contract until the end of the lease and be obliged to pay full rent.

Actually, I made it clear in the agreement that we wanted the freedom to start looking for a new home as this is no longer a viable long term home. I said we wouldn't even charge them anything for the early termination of the lease. But only if no deadline was imposed.


At the time I thought, "great, I'll do what I did here and name my price because we are seriously good tenants to have". It's worked a few times now but this time there is nothing to bargain with - there are no houses.

Ken79

quietsailor wrote: »

You've talked about or alluded to your business several times in the thread op. From those comments I get the feeling a lot of your work is based on the appearance of being an honest person - stuff like; if I can't complete the contract I have to pay someone to do it.

You've also said while the landlord lives abroad there father or father in law lives opposite you.

Do you think a family member of someone your causing stress to is going to sing your praises or are they going to warn people about you. They can tell the absolute truth and still damn you in other people's eyes "yeah they believe in contracts alright - especially when it suits them and they get money out of it, if they can get you over a barrel (your words I believe) they'll take more money" that's what you want to do but if as a customer of yours I'd be very worried to hear that from a local.

You may cause more damage to your business in the long run than good to your bank balance. Most people hate gougers and your even painting yourself as one of those when I read your replies.

You can't help gossip. You can make sure there's no truth in the gossip.

Ken79

Pinkycharm wrote: »

Did she tell you when the sale had to close?

Always look for rent receipts, even if its just an email of monies received.

You'd need them to apply for a mortgage.

No, she didn't actually and I never thought to ask.

ec18

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that is a little unfair.

Let us not forget that many people (investors for example) buy houses with sitting tenants.

Is the OP supposed to figure out exactly who is viewing and why?

no of course not but the assumption should be that an owner occupier was buying as it sounds like the OP is living in the country side from some of their posts.

Sala wrote: »

I disagree. He agreed to facilitate viewings for a reduced rent. That is all. There was no guarantee the house would sell quickly. If the house hadn't sold, Ken would still be tied into the contract until the end of the lease and be obliged to pay full rent.

The point of the guarantee that it would sell quickly is moot, since the OP has said there is a lack of supply in the area. But allowing viewings created this scenario. Allowing viewings in the belief that it would be a slow sale and everything would continue as normal at the reduced rate doesn't match the prudent way the OP comes across

ice.cube

Why rent a property on a fixed term 2 year lease to then be hit with fears of repossession 11 months later, it just doesnt add up in my mind.

Ken79

ec18 wrote: »

no of course not but the assumption should be that an owner occupier was buying as it sounds like the OP is living in the country side from some of their posts.



The point of the guarantee that it would sell quickly is moot, since the OP has said there is a lack of supply in the area. But allowing viewings created this scenario. Allowing viewings in the belief that it would be a slow sale and everything would continue as normal at the reduced rate doesn't match the prudent way the OP comes across

Look, many people buy houses and are happy to have renters there for a while. Who or why was none of my business. Getting a reduced rent to make up for the intrusion into my privacy was.

I could have said no. But then the bank would have been involved. This way they can still keep the bank out of it.

And they will clear their mortgage by the way. Far as I can gather, it's not the mortgage thats the problem, it's the interest rates. Or so I assumed once I heard start mortgages were involved.
But thats only speculation on my part.

quietsailor

quietsailor wrote: »

You've talked about or alluded to your business several times in the thread op. From those comments I get the feeling a lot of your work is based on the appearance of being an honest person - stuff like; if I can't complete the contract I have to pay someone to do it.

You've also said while the landlord lives abroad there father or father in law lives opposite you.

Do you think a family member of someone your causing stress to is going to sing your praises or are they going to warn people about you. They can tell the absolute truth and still damn you in other people's eyes "yeah they believe in contracts alright - especially when it suits them and they get money out of it, if they can get you over a barrel (your words I believe) they'll take more money" that's what you want to do but if as a customer of yours I'd be very worried to hear that from a local.

You may cause more damage to your business in the long run than good to your bank balance. Most people hate gougers and your even painting yourself as one of those when I read your replies.

Again, let's apply this logic to a tenant asking the landlord to reduce their rent.

If landlord quite rightly refuses, tenant then badmouths landlord around the town about how mean they are by insisting a contract be honoured.

Sounds a bit odd when you put it like that doesn't it?

Ken79

ice.cube wrote: »

Why rent a property on a fixed term 2 year lease to then be hit with fears of repossession 11 months later, it just doesnt add up in my mind.

Thats the question, isn't it?
This free rent is immaterial if they aren't using it to pay the mortgage.

quietsailor

Ken79 wrote: »

No, she didn't actually and I never thought to ask.

Do you think she's going to feel in any way obliged to facilitate you in this? 99% of people won't so already you may have caused yourself trouble for when you want to get a mortgage - if your talking about renting your next house then you might not apply for a mortgage in the near future. The landlord will be gone abroad and you'll be left arguing with a bank that it really was rent payments - that could stop a mortgage application and the banks are being very tight on applications now.

I can't multi quote on the phone so in answer to your comment about making sure gossip isn't true - everything I said above is taken from what you typed - so your not going to come across as a decent honourable businessman, rather a cute hoor out for the main chance ie not someone to trust in a business arrangement as if circumstances change you'll use it to your advantage

drumswan

quietsailor wrote: »

Do you think she's going to feel in any way obliged to facilitate you in this? 99% of people won't so already you may have caused yourself trouble for when you want to get a mortgage - if your talking about renting your next house then you might not apply for a mortgage in the near future. The landlord will be gone abroad and you'll be left arguing with a bank that it really was rent payments - that could stop a mortgage application and the banks are being very tight on applications now.

There are electronic payment trails to show for a mortgage, not sure what you are talking about.

I can't multi quote on the phone so in answer to your comment about making sure gossip isn't true - everything I said above is taken from what you typed - so your not going to come across as a decent honourable businessman, rather a cute hoor out for the main chance ie not someone to trust in a business arrangement as if circumstances change you'll use it to your advantage

More of this karma bull. People just cant bear to see an uppity tenant looking to assert their rights, and keep coming up with increasingly ludicrous scenarios in which the tenant will pay dearly for it all. Its like bloody Tess of the D'Urbervilles in here.

bren2002

I hope you are fully tax compliant if your landlord lives abroad. You could be stung for a large tax bill if not. The landlord could also use this as a tactic against you.

By the way, to answer your question - yes you are being unreasonable.

quietsailor

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, let's apply this logic to a tenant asking the landlord to reduce their rent.

If landlord quite rightly refuses, tenant then badmouths landlord around the town about how mean they are by insisting a contract be honoured.

Sounds a bit odd when you put it like that doesn't it?

Nope. Doesn't sound odd at all. I'd say it'd happen in most cases. The thing is we're not talking about most cases - we're talking about one specific case, the OPs, and if their business depends on the appearance of complete trust and decency this looks bad for the OP. Look at the thread title - even the OP thinks what they're doing doesn't look right. Otherwise this thread wouldn't exist would it?

Ken79

quietsailor wrote: »

Do you think she's going to feel in any way obliged to facilitate you in this? 99% of people won't so already you may have caused yourself trouble for when you want to get a mortgage - if your talking about renting your next house then you might not apply for a mortgage in the near future. The landlord will be gone abroad and you'll be left arguing with a bank that it really was rent payments - that could stop a mortgage application and the banks are being very tight on applications now.

We have a contract, we have a paper trail with the same amount going out every month and we have confirmation on numerous occasions that she received the rent.
I'm not worried about getting a mortgage - my wife is in a very secure job, we have cash and I'm starting to do quite well and building a good reputation for honesty and hard work.

All I need now is for house prices to drop to a level or my deposit to increase to a level where I am satisfied that I can handled interest rate variations going forward.

Feck sake, we even paid for our wedding in cash and thats coming out of a few bad years. We'll do fine because we manage our affairs.

I can't multi quote on the phone so in answer to your comment about making sure gossip isn't true - everything I said above is taken from what you typed - so your not going to come across as a decent honourable businessman, rather a cute hoor out for the main chance ie not someone to trust in a business arrangement as if circumstances change you'll use it to your advantage

To be honest if you think I'm being a cute hoor then you are either very naive, wholly subservient or you are approaching this from a biased perspective.

If you actually read my contributions you will see that I have gone over and above what I need to do. They are imposing a deadline which will put me under serious pressure and I'm not even going for what I can get - I'm going for what I think is fair and reasonable and which won't hurt them in any way. A few months potential free rent on a house that will be empty anyway pending a sale and a deadline that isn't far enough away to perturb most buyers with an option to reduce that deadline.

If I was gouging I'd ask for and get far more.

_Kaiser_

Just to pick up on a few points from early in the thread...

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I don't know if your landlord is in the right or not, but I feel very sorry having to deal with you OP. You seem to be mostly interested in just lining your pockets.

To be fair to the OP, there's a lot of landlords out to do exactly the same - ESPECIALLY at the moment!

The OP has been a model tenant by all accounts and even helped the LL out with viewings and even advance rent in the past to be flexible which is a lot more than most tenants will do.

The OP may seem "harsh" but in reality he's just being professional rather than going along with the usual "make it up as we go" approach that passes as renting (and pretty much everything else!) in this country.

Why shouldn't he make a few quid out of it? He's the one being massively inconvenienced and who'll have to stump up deposits, moving expenses, utility connection charges/deposits etc etc as a result of this.

D3PO wrote: »

Right you just answered your own question. Your trying to screw somebody in a vulnerable position for as much as you can get. Yep that's pretty unreasonable.

Karmas a bitch just remember that.

Karma shmarma! :pac:

In the real world there are plenty of tenants who are being screwed over at the moment by opportunistic landlords who see a chance to make a quick buck in the current property bubble.

Bottom line, the LL is losing a house, the OP and his partner are losing their home. There's no comparison really and it's only fair they should have enough time to find somewhere else. 8 weeks coming up to Christmas is nowhere near enough time in the current market.

Ken79

quietsailor wrote: »

Nope. Doesn't sound odd at all. I'd say it'd happen in most cases. The thing is we're not talking about most cases - we're talking about one specific case, the OPs, and if their business depends on the appearance of complete trust and decency this looks bad for the OP. Look at the thread title - even the OP thinks what they're doing doesn't look right. Otherwise this thread wouldn't exist would it?

Actually it would because it has been very useful to explore the potential avenues of criticism and to help me view this from a few different angles.

None of them have really held any water though and the most interesting criticism turned out to be from a guy who thought I was asking far more than I am. It even transpired he would have asked for far more.

At the end of the I'm only looking after my family and anyone who objects to that probably views renters as parasites anyway.