Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin Lease Issues

Options
  • 25-06-2016 10:34am
    #1
    perhapsmaybe
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭


    So I have a bit of an issue. I live in Dublin and my lease expires in 1 month. I have been offered a new lease which I would have to sign next week but I would like to move closer to the city. Do I

    a- Reject the lease and try and find somewhere within the next month and run the risk of not finding anywhere in time ( hostel life for a while )
    b- Sign the new lease and keep looking for somewhere closer anyway and forgo my deposit


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    B.


  • Options
    #3
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    Neither.


    You're there over 6 months I assume? So you tell your landlord you want to stay on under a Part 4 Tenancy. You're already on Part 4 once you've been there over six months.



    Your landlord cannot refuse to allow you part 4. The only reasons he can evict you are: he or a family member moving back in, major renovation work or if he's selling up.


    So stay on with no lease, because you don't need one. When you find a place, give correct notice (it's not 28 days, Google part 4 Tenancy notice periods because I can't remember), and you're done.


  • Options
    #4
    perhapsmaybe
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭perhapsmaybe


    Penny Tration wrote: »
    Neither.


    You're there over 6 months I assume? So you tell your landlord you want to stay on under a Part 4 Tenancy. You're already on Part 4 once you've been there over six months.



    Your landlord cannot refuse to allow you part 4. The only reasons he can evict you are: he or a family member moving back in, major renovation work or if he's selling up.


    So stay on with no lease, because you don't need one. When you find a place, give correct notice (it's not 28 days, Google part 4 Tenancy notice periods because I can't remember), and you're done.

    I've been here a year so the lease is for the next year. The landlord currently lives in the house ( I think ) but thats for the short term also.


  • Options
    #5
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    perhapsmaybe wrote: »
    I've been here a year so the lease is for the next year. The landlord currently lives in the house ( I think ) but thats for the short term also.

    As said, you are on Part 4, you don't need to sign a lease anymore and cannot be evicted because of it.


  • Options
    #6
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    perhapsmaybe wrote: »
    I've been here a year so the lease is for the next year. The landlord currently lives in the house ( I think ) but thats for the short term also.

    Wait, your landlord lives with you?


    You're not a tenant so, you're a licensee and essentially have no rights. Option b, so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    perhapsmaybe
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭perhapsmaybe


    Penny Tration wrote: »
    Neither.


    You're there over 6 months I assume? So you tell your landlord you want to stay on under a Part 4 Tenancy. You're already on Part 4 once you've been there over six months.



    Your landlord cannot refuse to allow you part 4. The only reasons he can evict you are: he or a family member moving back in, major renovation work or if he's selling up.


    So stay on with no lease, because you don't need one. When you find a place, give correct notice (it's not 28 days, Google part 4 Tenancy notice periods because I can't remember), and you're done.

    I've been here 11 months so the lease is for the next year. The landlord currently lives in the house ( I think ) but thats for the short term also.


  • Options
    #8
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    As said, you are on Part 4, you don't need to sign a lease anymore and cannot be evicted because of it.

    He said the landlord also lives there, so he's not on Part 4


  • Options
    #9
    perhapsmaybe
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭perhapsmaybe


    Penny Tration wrote: »
    Wait, your landlord lives with you?


    You're not a tenant so, you're a licensee and essentially have no rights. Option b, so.

    Yeah option B sounds the way to go. Cheers!


  • Options
    #10
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    If you live with landlord you are not a tenant and have no tenant rights.

    Don't forgo the deposit. Talk to your landlord today and say you plan to leave on date XYZ and you will want your deposit back on the day you leave.


  • Options
    #11
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,944 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    perhapsmaybe wrote: »
    I've been here 11 months so the lease is for the next year. The landlord currently lives in the house ( I think ) but thats for the short term also.

    How do you not know if you live with your landlord?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    biko wrote: »
    If you live with landlord you are not a tenant and have no tenant rights.

    Don't forgo the deposit. Talk to your landlord today and say you plan to leave on date XYZ and you will want your deposit back on the day you leave.

    And if he can't find suitable accommodation in that time and the landlord lines up a new lodger?


  • Options
    #13
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,935 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Thread moved to Accommodation & Property. Please note the change in charter.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #14
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    biko wrote: »
    If you live with landlord you are not a tenant and have no tenant rights.

    Don't forgo the deposit. Talk to your landlord today and say you plan to leave on date XYZ and you will want your deposit back on the day you leave.

    If you live with the landlord and have a written agreement you are covered by the RTA.


  • Options
    #15
    Hollister11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Hollister11


    Taken from the Threshold website.

    Part 4 Tenancy

    If you have been renting for at least 6 months and haven't been given a written notice of termination, you automatically acquire the legal right to remain for a further three and a half years. This is called a 'Part 4 Tenancy'.

    Part 4 tenancies can only be ended on specific grounds set out in the Residential Tenancies Act and the longer you are in the tenancy the more notice that you have to be given.

    If you are in a tenancy and do not have a fixed term lease then, after 6 months in your tenancy, you have automatic security of tenure under Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.

    Claiming a Part 4 tenancy at the end of a lease
    If you have a fixed-term contract or lease and wish to remain in the property under the rights acquired under Part 4, you must notify your landlord of your intention to stay in the property between 3 months and 1 month before the expiry of your fixed-term tenancy or lease agreement. You may download the template opposite to do this. If you fail to do this you do not lose your right to a Part 4 tenancy but you may have to compensate the landlord for any financial loss incurred because you did not notify them of your intention to remain in the tenancy.

    Once your lease expires there is no obligation on you to sign another lease.


  • Options
    #16
    RossieMan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,766 ✭✭✭RossieMan


    .....but he's not a tenant.


  • Options
    #17
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    Licencee op as others stated you have no rights.

    The owner could say to you tomorrow I want you out tomorrow and nothing you can do.


  • Options
    #18
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Hollister11 wrote: »
    Taken from the Threshold website.

    It is different when the landlord lives in the dwelling.


  • Options
    #19
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,280 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    OP- as the owner lives in the property- you essentially have no rights whatsoever. The owner appears to be unfamiliar with the law- and is offering you rights by means of a 'lease'. Any rights you may have- are only those conferred to you in the 'lease' the owner gives you- you have no rights under the Residential Tenancies Act.

    I'd sign whatever the lease is- but be cognisant of the fact that its simply a contract between you and the owner- nothing else. It is not enforceable by either you or the owner- other than as a contractual agreement under law- and is not the purvue of the Residential Tenancies Board.

    You have no rights in law- other than those afforded to you in the 'lease' the owner is offering you. Personally- in your situation- unless I was planning to move immediately- I'd bite off the owner's hand in my haste to sign whatever rights they were willing to impart to me.


  • Options
    #20
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    OP- as the owner lives in the property- you essentially have no rights whatsoever. The owner appears to be unfamiliar with the law- and is offering you rights by means of a 'lease'. Any rights you may have- are only those conferred to you in the 'lease' the owner gives you- you have no rights under the Residential Tenancies Act.

    I'd sign whatever the lease is- but be cognisant of the fact that its simply a contract between you and the owner- nothing else. It is not enforceable by either you or the owner- other than as a contractual agreement under law- and is not the purvue of the Residential Tenancies Board.

    You have no rights in law- other than those afforded to you in the 'lease' the owner is offering you. Personally- in your situation- unless I was planning to move immediately- I'd bite off the owner's hand in my haste to sign whatever rights they were willing to impart to me.
    Residential Tenancies Act 2004
    (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act applies to every dwelling, the subject of a tenancy (including a tenancy created before the passing of this Act).

    (2) Subject to section 4 (2), this Act does not apply to any of the following dwellings—
    (h) a dwelling within which the spouse, parent or child of the landlord resides and no lease or tenancy agreement in writing has been entered into by any person resident in the dwelling,


    The o/p has a written agreement therefore he is covered by the Act whether or not the landlord lives there!


  • Options
    #21
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,280 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Its a written agreement- it is not a tenancy in law.
    Given the owner lives in the property- it is specifically excluded under Section 4 (2) (h) - the written agreement notwithstanding.

    As a contractual undertaking between the two parties- not covered under the amended Residential Tenancies Act- it is a civil matter between the pair of them.

    Just because the owner gives the person a 'lease' to sign- if they live there- it is not enforceable as a legal tenancy- and is specifically excluded from the RTA. Any rights offered to the person in their 'lease' are specific to the lease- and not in either taking from or addition to, those granted under the amended Residential Tenancies Act- which does not apply.

    The owner living in the property- is the key to all of this. Were they not- of course it would be a tenancy- however, they are.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Its a written agreement- it is not a tenancy in law.
    Given the owner lives in the property- it is specifically excluded under Section 4 (2) (h) - the written agreement notwithstanding.

    As a contractual undertaking between the two parties- not covered under the amended Residential Tenancies Act- it is a civil matter between the pair of them.

    Just because the owner gives the person a 'lease' to sign- if they live there- it is not enforceable as a legal tenancy- and is specifically excluded from the RTA. Any rights offered to the person in their 'lease' are specific to the lease- and not in either taking from or addition to, those granted under the amended Residential Tenancies Act- which does not apply.

    The owner living in the property- is the key to all of this. Were they not- of course it would be a tenancy- however, they are.
    The written agreement brings it under the act because of Section 4 2 h. It is only if no person residing in the house has a written agreement does the Act not apply. You are obviously misconstruing the Act.


  • Options
    #23
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,280 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    The written agreement brings it under the act because of Section 4 2 h. It is only if no person residing in the house has a written agreement does the Act not apply. You are obviously misconstruing the Act.

    Talk to anyone in the Residential Tenancies Board.
    Once they hear its an Owner Occupier situation- they immediately drop it like a hot potato. They insist it is not their purvue.
    You can suggest I'm misconstruing it to your heart's content- the facts on the ground are that the agency charged with enforcing the Residential Tenancies Act (as amended)- will not bring a case in the situation as outlined.


  • Options
    #24
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Talk to anyone in the Residential Tenancies Board.
    Once they hear its an Owner Occupier situation- they immediately drop it like a hot potato. They insist it is not their purvue.
    You can suggest I'm misconstruing it to your heart's content- the facts on the ground are that the agency charged with enforcing the Residential Tenancies Act (as amended)- will not bring a case in the situation as outlined.

    That is hearsay. The Act itself is very clear. The agency has made many mistakes in the past and has lost High Court cases in which it wrongly applied provisions of the Act. The o/p can bring a claim and force the RTB to act.


  • Options
    #25
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,231 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    The written agreement brings it under the act because of Section 4 2 h. It is only if no person residing in the house has a written agreement does the Act not apply. You are obviously misconstruing the Act.

    4ensic15

    You are quoting the wrong exception; that exception applies for spouse or relative occupation and is subject to the written agreement carve out. The previous exception relates to occupation by the land lord and is not subject to the written agreement carve out.


  • Options
    #26
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,280 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    That is hearsay. The Act itself is very clear. The agency has made many mistakes in the past and has lost High Court cases in which it wrongly applied provisions of the Act. The o/p can bring a claim and force the RTB to act.

    Hearsay? Its crystal clear.........


  • Options
    #27
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Marcusm wrote: »
    4ensic15

    You are quoting the wrong exception; that exception applies for spouse or relative occupation and is subject to the written agreement carve out. The previous exception relates to occupation by the land lord and is not subject to the written agreement carve out.

    Well spotted!


  • Options
    #28
    newacc2015
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭newacc2015


    4ensic15 wrote: »

    The o/p has a written agreement therefore he is covered by the Act whether or not the landlord lives there!

    A contract is a just a piece of paper unless it is legally binding. The fact if you dont have exclusive use of the property, you have a licensee agreement and not a vanilla rental agreement. If OP went to the RTB, regardless of the fact he has a contract. They will say the LL lived there and therefore it was a licensee arrangement and not a tenancy agreement


  • Options
    #29
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    newacc2015 wrote: »
    A contract is a just a piece of paper unless it is legally binding. The fact if you dont have exclusive use of the property, you have a licensee agreement and not a vanilla rental agreement. If OP went to the RTB, regardless of the fact he has a contract. They will say the LL lived there and therefore it was a licensee arrangement and not a tenancy agreement

    A contract is not a piece of paper. A contract is a metaphysical object. Unless there is an intention to create legal relations a contract cannot be formed.


Advertisement