5 month lease. Issued with notice of termination before I acquired legal rights

dancingqueen

I commenced a tenancy in July, signed a five month lease.

Today I have a notice of termination just before my sixth month... Is a photocopy of a notice of termination valid?

gordongekko

What form do you expect it in?

dancingqueen

I don't usually write letters to people, photocopy it and give them a photocopy...

housetypeb

Why sign a five month lease if you weren't going to leave at the end of five months?
One could say both the landlord and tenant were being crafty.
The tenant possibly hoping to get part iv rights after six months, and the landlord taking steps to prevent this by having a 5 month lease and issuing notice to terminate before the six months rule takes effect.

Slydice

some information on the ending of tenancies and notice here
http://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/ending-your-tenancy/

Arbiter of Good Taste

Of course it's valid. The LL obviously signed it, took a copy and gave you the photocopy, keeping the original for his own records.

Mrs OBumble

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Of course it's valid. The LL obviously signed it, took a copy and gave you the photocopy, keeping the original for his own records.

Aye, I think the thread title should be Crafty Tenant, really.

dancingqueen

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Aye, I think the thread title should be Crafty Tenant, really.

I am unsure as to the nature of this comment.

I am just a little shocked to have received a termination notice three weeks before Christmas, and a month after I expressed my intention to stay as a tenant in the flat; which was accepted at the time.

I have sought advice and it appears that the landlord can be reported, for taking a deposit from me for a flat advertised for 1+ year, before a lease was signed, and then noting to me that the lease was in fact for five months.

wonski

dancingqueen wrote: »

I am unsure as to the nature of this comment.

I am just a little shocked to have received a termination notice three weeks before Christmas, and a month after I expressed my intention to stay as a tenant in the flat; which was accepted at the time.

I have sought advice and it appears that the landlord can be reported, for taking a deposit from me for a flat advertised for 1+ year, before a lease was signed, and then noting to me that the lease was in fact for five months.

You signed it. It doesn't matter what the original ad was. You should have asked for a 1 year lease when you were about to move in.

athtrasna

dancingqueen wrote: »

I am unsure as to the nature of this comment.

I am just a little shocked to have received a termination notice three weeks before Christmas, and a month after I expressed my intention to stay as a tenant in the flat; which was accepted at the time.

I have sought advice and it appears that the landlord can be reported, for taking a deposit from me for a flat advertised for 1+ year, before a lease was signed, and then noting to me that the lease was in fact for five months.

OP you originally titled this thread "crafty landlord " but in accordance with the lease you signed there's nothing crafty about it.

Sure, the timing is unfortunate but as the other poster said, you should have pushed for a longer contract before now.

The 5 month contract will become increasingly common as a way for landlords to see how they get on with tenants before they gain legal rights. Not to mention a way of getting rent increases more often.

cerastes

Reported for what exactly? You signed a lease for 5 months,how can you be surprised by this? The place may have been advertised for a year but it seems you and the landlord came to an agreement,you did sign the lease,correct? If you had an issue at the time,why didn't you raise it then?

davo10

dancingqueen wrote: »

I commenced a tenancy in July, signed a five month lease.

Op you can report the LL to whomever you want, but once you inform them of the above, the conversation will come to an abrupt end. The term of the lease you signed has expired, notice of termination was served and as you are there less than 6 months, Part 4 tenancy rights do not apply. If you are a good tenant and pay the agreed rent on time, I cannot think of a reason why the LL would want you out, is there more to this story?

Arbiter of Good Taste

dancingqueen wrote: »

I am unsure as to the nature of this comment.

I am just a little shocked to have received a termination notice three weeks before Christmas, and a month after I expressed my intention to stay as a tenant in the flat; which was accepted at the time.

I have sought advice and it appears that the landlord can be reported, for taking a deposit from me for a flat advertised for 1+ year, before a lease was signed, and then noting to me that the lease was in fact for five months.

I'm always amused at how blasé people are when it comes to signing their names to a legal document. OP the only thing shocking in this scenario is your sheer naivety. If you weren't happy with a five month lease, then why did you sign it?

<MOD SNIP >

The LL is fully entitled to ask the person to move out in this instance morals have nothing to do with it.

athtrasna

Lima your posts were deleted as unhelpful and untrue. The landlord is acting entirely legally in this case.

Mod

lima

Here is true and helpful advice to the OP:

OP, helpful advice from me would be to analyze your lease in meticulous detail in case any future landlord tries to misguide you into signing a 5 month lease when you might assume, due to initial information, that it is a longer lease. Unfortunately the fault lies with you for not reading the lease fully and for having a sense of trust in your landlord. Do not trust them under any circumstances to provide honest clarity, let this be a lesson in dealing with Irish landlords.

borderlinemeath

Some tenants would be delighted with only signing a 5 month lease, particularly if they're starting a new job or living in a new area, there's always a chance it might not work out. There's always posts on this forum about breaking leases early and trying to get out of yearly contracts.

Given that tenants have security on a tenancy for 4 years after a six month period, I think 5 month leases should become the norm. It gives both the landlord and tenant a settling in period to see whether the property is suited to the tenant and vice versa.

borderlinemeath

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Given that tenants have security on a tenancy for 4 years after a six month period, I think 5 month leases should become the norm.

True. The law of unintended consequences, everytime the market gets messed with.

cerastes

athtrasna wrote: »

OP you originally titled this thread "crafty landlord " but in accordance with the lease you signed there's nothing crafty about it.

Sure, the timing is unfortunate but as the other poster said, you should have pushed for a longer contract before now.

The 5 month contract will become increasingly common as a way for landlords to see how they get on with tenants before they gain legal rights. Not to mention a way of getting rent increases more often.

Is there even a need? A landlord could give notice before the 6 month period anyway, even if the lease was for a year.
The OP suggests the landlord was underhand, but in reality the landlord set out the duration of the lease and the OP then signed it?
I dont see the issue?
If the landlord and tenant had signed the lease for a year, the tenant (OP) could have expected they were staying a year, if the landlord then gave notice to leave prior to the 6 months, that might be considered crafty.

Gumbo

lima wrote: »

Here is true and helpful advice to the OP:

OP, helpful advice from me would be to analyze your lease in meticulous detail in case any future landlord tries to misguide you into signing a 5 month lease when you might assume, due to initial information, that it is a longer lease. Unfortunately the fault lies with you for not reading the lease fully and for having a sense of trust in your landlord. Do not trust them under any circumstances to provide honest clarity, let this be a lesson in dealing with Irish landlords.

The OP knew they were signing a 5 month lease to begin with. You obviously have a gripe with landlords that may require another thread or treatment.

4ensic15

cerastes wrote: »

Is there even a need? A landlord could give notice before the 6 month period anyway, even if the lease was for a year.
The OP suggests the landlord was underhand, but in reality the landlord set out the duration of the lease and the OP then signed it?
I dont see the issue?
If the landlord and tenant had signed the lease for a year, the tenant (OP) could have expected they were staying a year, if the landlord then gave notice to leave prior to the 6 months, that might be considered crafty.

A landlord can't end a fixed term early other than for breach of obligations by the tenant. If a lease is signed for 12 months then the tenancy must last 12 months. The PRTB even go so far as to say that the landlord can't even give notice during a fixed term.

lima

kceire wrote: »

The OP knew they were signing a 5 month lease to begin with. You obviously have a gripe with landlords that may require another thread or treatment.

The OP said:

"a month after I expressed my intention to stay as a tenant in the flat; which was accepted at the time."

So 4 months into the lease he expressed an intention to stay on, which was accepted by the landlord (verbally I imagine).

The landlord reneged on his acceptance of a lease extension, right before Christmas. That's a pretty wicked thing to do.

wonski

lima wrote: »

The OP said:

"a month after I expressed my intention to stay as a tenant in the flat; which was accepted at the time."

So 4 months into the lease he expressed an intention to stay on, which was accepted by the landlord (verbally I imagine).

The landlord reneged on his acceptance of a lease extension, right before Christmas. That's a pretty wicked thing to do.

It is a fixed term lease.

I am not sure what effect expressing ones intention to stay would have on a fixed term contract tbh.

I have received a number of tenancy agreements over last few years, and always have them ready a month or so before the end of the term.

There are advantages for both - landlord and tenant - to sign a fixed term contract. There are both bad tenants and landlords out there, OP's landlord did nothing wrong and it is the tenant's responsibility to ensure he has a place to live after his current contract expires.

cerastes

4ensic15 wrote: »

A landlord can't end a fixed term early other than for breach of obligations by the tenant. If a lease is signed for 12 months then the tenancy must last 12 months. The PRTB even go so far as to say that the landlord can't even give notice during a fixed term.

There was no mention of the lease being a fixed term and while it might seem obvious that it is or was, it might be a 5 month periodic lease.
Typically year leases are signed but they aren't necessarily fixed term, in which case the landlord could still give 28 days notice I believe up to the day before 6 months has elapsed.

4ensic15

wonski wrote: »

It is a fixed term lease.

I am not sure what effect expressing ones intention to stay would have on a fixed term contract tbh.

I have received a number of tenancy agreements over last few years, and always have them ready a month or so before the end of the term.

There are advantages for both - landlord and tenant - to sign a fixed term contract. There are both bad tenants and landlords out there, OP's landlord did nothing wrong and it is the tenant's responsibility to ensure he has a place to live after his current contract expires.

The O?p can challenge the Notice of termination.

wonski

4ensic15 wrote: »

The O?p can challenge the Notice of termination.

There is no notice required.

Fixed term is a term, no need for a notice.

That is my understanding.

4ensic15

wonski wrote: »

There is no notice required.

Fixed term is a term, no need for a notice.

That is my understanding.

That is not what the RTA says. A notice is always required. The notice must be in writing and can't be incorporated into the original lease.

wonski

cerastes wrote: »

There was no mention of the lease being a fixed term and while it might seem obvious that it is or was, it might be a 5 month periodic lease.
Typically year leases are signed but they aren't necessarily fixed term, in which case the landlord could still give 28 days notice I believe up to the day before 6 months has elapsed.

5 months lease is a fixed term lease.

It is mentioned in op.

wonski

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is not what the RTA says. A notice is always required. The notice must be in writing and can't be incorporated into the original lease.

What is RTA?

http://www.prtb.ie/dispute-resolution/disputes/terminating-a-fixed-term-tenancy

4ensic15

wonski wrote: »

What is RTA?

http://www.prtb.ie/dispute-resolution/disputes/terminating-a-fixed-term-tenancy

Residential Tenancies Act 2004 As amended. I don't know why you are linking to that page. You should read the Act itself.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/2004/0027.html#partvi-chapvii-sec112

58.—(1) From the relevant date, a tenancy of a dwelling may not be terminated by the landlord or the tenant by means of a notice of forfeiture, a re-entry or any other process or procedure not provided by this Part.

wonski

4ensic15 wrote: »

Residential Tenancies Act 2004 As amended.

Thanks. I was like what does Road Traffic Act has to do with it.

Op received notice of termination.

Case closed.

4ensic15

wonski wrote: »

Thanks. I was like what does Road Traffic Act has to do with it.

Op received notice of termination.

Case closed.

O/p can challenge the Notice. case open.

wonski

4ensic15 wrote: »

O/p can challenge the Notice. case open.

On what grounds?

4ensic15

wonski wrote: »

On what grounds?

OIn the grounds that it doesn't comply with the requirements of the Act.

castle2012

Its hard I'm sure . But reading the posts a lease is a lease and 5 months is the term . Everything seems above board . Fighting with the ll is not going to help you in the long run. I'm sure you LL need reference s etc

4ensic15

castle2012 wrote: »

Its hard I'm sure . But reading the posts a lease is a lease and 5 months is the term . Everything seems above board . Fighting with the ll is not going to help you in the long run. I'm sure you LL need reference s etc

Fighting with the LL will keep him longer in the property. If he gets the NOT struck down he will have Part 4. A LL reference after 5 months is useless anyway.

wonski

4ensic15 wrote: »

OIn the grounds that it doesn't comply with the requirements of the Act.

Sorry. I might not have a knowledge of the act you quoted.

But when I sign a 5 months lease I do expect it to last for 5 months, unless new contract is received.

Simple as that and I believe there is no comeback for op.

I will put my hands up if I am wrong.

4ensic15

wonski wrote: »

Sorry. I might not have a knowledge of the act you quoted.

But when I sign a 5 months lease I do expect it to last for 5 months, unless new contract is received.

Simple as that and I believe there is no comeback for op.

I will put my hands up if I am wrong.

You are wrong. The Act provides that when no new contract is received the tenancy becomes month to month. Notices of termination can be successfully challenged. What you believe is not relevant. What is relevant is what the law is.

Gumbo

4ensic15 wrote: »

Fighting with the LL will keep him longer in the property. If he gets the NOT struck down he will have Part 4. A LL reference after 5 months is useless anyway.

I would agree with you that even though both parties knew at the beginning it was a 5 month lease that a written letter to officially terminate the lease would still be required. But, I don't agree that if the OP fights it then the time it takes to see the outcome would qualify him for Part IV tenancy rights.

4ensic15

kceire wrote: »

I would agree with you that even though both parties knew at the beginning it was a 5 month lease that a written letter to officially terminate the lease would still be required. But, I don't agree that if the OP fights it then the time it takes to see the outcome would qualify him for Part IV tenancy rights.

If the termination notice is declared invalid, then the time which has elapsed from when he received it to the date of the determination will reckon towards part 4.

lima

wonski wrote: »

It is a fixed term lease.

I am not sure what effect expressing ones intention to stay would have on a fixed term contract tbh.

I have received a number of tenancy agreements over last few years, and always have them ready a month or so before the end of the term.

There are advantages for both - landlord and tenant - to sign a fixed term contract. There are both bad tenants and landlords out there, OP's landlord did nothing wrong and it is the tenant's responsibility to ensure he has a place to live after his current contract expires.

Again, as the OP said:

"which was accepted by the landlord "

Apparently the landlord accepted his intention to stay, but before getting it in writing or the landlord honoring it he just decided to kick him out on the street (presumably in order to squeeze more money from another young person just trying to start out in life)

wonski

lima wrote: »

Again, as the OP said:

"which was accepted by the landlord "

Apparently the landlord accepted his intention to stay, but before getting it in writing or the landlord honoring it he just decided to kick him out on the street (presumably in order to squeeze more money from another young person just trying to start out in life)

You see, I like facts. I don't mind being wrong, as long as I learn something new in the process.

You like drama - landlords sending people on the streets in order to keep their profits flowing and allowing them to leave a life of footballers.

Presumably.

4ensic15

wonski wrote: »

You see, I like facts. I don't mind being wrong, as long as I learn something new in the process.

You like drama - landlords sending people on the streets in order to keep their profits flowing and allowing them to leave a life of footballers.

Presumably.

We have only heard one side of the story. On Irish Landlord there might be a landlord saying he has the tenant from hell in on a 5 month lease.

lima

wonski wrote: »

You see, I like facts. I don't mind being wrong, as long as I learn something new in the process.

You like drama - landlords sending people on the streets in order to keep their profits flowing and allowing them to leave a life of footballers.

Presumably.

Ok..

It appears he got screwed over here. He knew it was a 5month lease, but told the landlord he wanted to extend. The landlord said ok. Then he got a letter saying he had to leave after 5 months.

Those are the 'facts' we have in this situation.

Now you tell me whether the landlord is a stand up guy.

davo10

lima wrote: »

Ok..

It appears he got screwed over here. He knew it was a 5month lease, but told the landlord he wanted to extend. The landlord said ok. Then he got a letter saying he had to leave after 5 months.

Those are the 'facts' we have in this situation.

Now you tell me whether the landlord is a stand up guy.

He got notice that he has to leave at the end of the lease agreement which the op signed. Something is not right here, why would the LL want the op out after 5 months if he was a good tenant paying rent?

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

He got notice that he has to leave at the end of the lease agreement which the op signed. Something is not right here, why would the LL want the op out after 5 months if he was a good tenant paying rent?

So that he can re-let the property at a higher rent?

wonski

lima wrote: »

Ok..

It appears he got screwed over here. He knew it was a 5month lease, but told the landlord he wanted to extend. The landlord said ok. Then he got a letter saying he had to leave after 5 months.

Those are the 'facts' we have in this situation.

Now you tell me whether the landlord is a stand up guy.

We don't know if the landlord said ok.

All we know is that the tenant said so.

Why would the landlord took a risk of getting new tenant instead of extending current lease?

Surely rents didn't go up that much in such a short time.

I have my ideas...

lima

wonski wrote: »

We don't know if the landlord said ok.

All we know is that the tenant said so.

Why would the landlord took a risk of getting new tenant instead of extending current lease?

Surely rents didn't go up that much in such a short time.

I have my ideas...

Yeah we don't know, I'd imagine it would be hard to get someone over Christmas so it's risking a vacant month but based on the information available we can only make assumptions.. I'm sure there's more to it as you say

cerastes

wonski wrote: »

5 months lease is a fixed term lease.

It is mentioned in op.

No it wasn't, here's what they said below, it could have been a 5 month periodic lease, it may be a fixed term, but only the OP can confirm that, it certainly doesn't say it in the OP

dancingqueen wrote: »

I commenced a tenancy in July, signed a five month lease.

Today I have a notice of termination just before my sixth month... Is a photocopy of a notice of termination valid?

Nothing mentioned about a fixed term

wonski wrote: »

There is no notice required.

Fixed term is a term, no need for a notice.

That is my understanding.

Id tend to agree with that, the landlord can reasonably expect a tenant to leave at the end of a fixed term, assuming this is a fixed term (OP can clarify). Although to be clear, I think it would be better to give a notice of termination, really it was the OP who should have given the landlord a notice that they intended to stay on, but as they had not acquired Part 4 rights, they would have no right to stay even if they wanted to.
Either way, unlike at the end of a more usual fixed term (a year), where a tenant would have acquired part 4 rights, this is less than 6 months, whether it is a periodic or fixed term, part 4 rights do not exist, so the tenant cannot rely on them.
The tenant would have to inform the landlord of their intention to stay no later than a month prior to the end date of the fixed term, however, as above unlike a more usual fixed term, as part 4 rights have not been acquired, the tenant has no rights to and the landlord has no obligation to let the tenant stay.

4ensic15 wrote: »

O/p can challenge the Notice. case open.

How? part 4 rights dont exist, they have not been present 6 months

4ensic15 wrote: »

OIn the grounds that it doesn't comply with the requirements of the Act.

Doesnt comply with what? they haven't gained part 4 rights, they signed as lease for 5 months and now have been given a notice of termination.
Even threshold says it.
http://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/how-your-landlord-may-end-your-tenancy/

4ensic15 wrote: »

Fighting with the LL will keep him longer in the property. If he gets the NOT struck down he will have Part 4. A LL reference after 5 months is useless anyway.

He has been given his notice, overholding after that to cross the 6 month time doesn't give them Part 4 rights.

4ensic15 wrote: »

You are wrong. The Act provides that when no new contract is received the tenancy becomes month to month. Notices of termination can be successfully challenged. What you believe is not relevant. What is relevant is what the law is.

No new contract? the OP received a termination notice, thats clarification of no continuation of the lease.

lima wrote: »

Again, as the OP said:

"which was accepted by the landlord "

Apparently the landlord accepted his intention to stay, but before getting it in writing or the landlord honoring it he just decided to kick him out on the street (presumably in order to squeeze more money from another young person just trying to start out in life)

which we have the tenants say so that is the case.
You can presume all you like, but the agreement the OP signed was for the time he stated, its not early so I cant understand the surprise he is being told its finished.

lima wrote: »

Ok..

It appears he got screwed over here. He knew it was a 5month lease, but told the landlord he wanted to extend. The landlord said ok. Then he got a letter saying he had to leave after 5 months.

Those are the 'facts' we have in this situation.

Now you tell me whether the landlord is a stand up guy.

That may have been said or it may not, or it may have been misinterpreted!
We dont know, it may have been, okaaaaayy??? while landlord scratched their head and pointed at the 5 month time period on the lease.
We dont have access to the facts unless we see a copy of the lease, hear a recording of the conversation and see some footage, even then.

Why would a landlord want someone out before they acquired part 4 rights unless there was a reason, either the landlord didnt like the tenant for some reason and he doesnt have to give a reason before 6 months (even if there was a years lease which was periodic) or he wanted access to the property for themselves for some reason and intentionally set the date to reflect that, rather than signing a years periodic lease and surprising the tenant by asking them to move anytime prior to 6 months.

4ensic15 wrote: »

So that he can re-let the property at a higher rent?

Speculation, maybe they need it for themself for some reason.

lima wrote: »

Yeah we don't know, I'd imagine it would be hard to get someone over Christmas so it's risking a vacant month but based on the information available we can only make assumptions.. I'm sure there's more to it as you say

It's a s possible they want it themself or want access to it for themself or someone they know, so it may not be vacant, whats clear is, this was arranged upfront, its not liek the landlord gave them years lease and then pulled the rug from under them!

4ensic15

cerastes wrote: »

Nothing mentioned about a fixed term

5 months is a fixed term!

cerastes wrote: »

How? part 4 rights dont exist, they have not been present 6 months

The only difference between Part 4 and non part 4 is that the landlord doesn't have to give a reason. He still has to issue a notice of termination.

cerastes wrote: »

Doesnt comply with what? they haven't gained part 4 rights, they signed as lease for 5 months and now have been given a notice of termination.
Even threshold says it.
http://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/how-your-landlord-may-end-your-tenancy/

There are numerous formalities to be complied with even if it is not a part 4. Threshold says the landlord can terminate but he still has to follow all the formalities. Many Notices are struck down because of failure to follow the formalities. Example.
http://www.irishlandlord.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3193&page=2

cerastes wrote: »

He has been given his notice, overholding after that to cross the 6 month time doesn't give them Part 4 rights.

If the notice is struck down as invalid it doesn't amount to overholding.

cerastes wrote: »

No new contract? the OP received a termination notice, thats clarification of no continuation of the lease.

It doesn't mean the termination notice is valid. The op can challenge it.

invalid it doesn't amount to overholding.

cerastes wrote: »

which we have the tenants say so that is the case.
You can presume all you like, but the agreement the OP signed was for the time he stated, its not early so I cant understand the surprise he is being told its finished.

Irrespective of what happened the tenant can challenge the notice and if successful will get part 4.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the notice is struck down as invalid it doesn't amount to overholding.

On what basis is the notice invalid?