What are the rules if I want my tenant to move out?

lg01

I have a property which has been rented out for some time with the same tenant. I would like to get him to move out - but he's done nothing terribly wrong per se. I'm guessing I cannot just turf him out - but what exactly are the rules here? Can you simply tell a tenant you want the place back and he has to move somewhere else or how does it work? He's unemployed and on rent allowance.

godtabh

good luck getting him out!

Musketeer4

You can get a tenant out if you are selling the property or if you or a family member are moving back in there. Best of luck in getting rid of him.

Michael D Not Higgins

You must have a valid reason to terminate a Part 4 tenancy and give the required notice. Every 4 years a further Part 4 tenancy starts and you have 6 months in which you may issue notice of termination without a reason and give the required notice. This is the only case you can get rid of a tenant just because you want to.

The notice periods are below

Length of tenancy Notice that the landlord must give
Less than 6 months 4 weeks (28 days)
6 months or longer but less than 1 year 5 weeks (35 days)
1 year or longer but less than 2 years 6 weeks (42 days)
2 years or longer but less than 3 years 8 weeks (56 days)
3 years or longer but less than 4 years 12 weeks (84 days)
4 years or longer but less than 5 years 16 weeks (112 days)
5 years or longer but less than 6 years 20 weeks (140 days)
6 years or longer but less than 7 years 24 weeks (168 days)
7 years or longer but less than 8 years 28 weeks (196 days)
8 years or longer 32 weeks (224 days)

SarahS2013

All of the reasons and notice periods for this are here:
http://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/how-your-landlord-may-end-your-tenancy/

Exactly how long has he been there? This is important as if by any chance he is in the first 6 months of his second Part 4 tenancy (i.e. He has been there between 4 years and 4 and a half years) then you do not have to give a reaosn. This is however subject to the proper notice been given as per link above.

Other than that its:
Termination due to rent arrears
Breach of obligations
Needed for family member
Selling
Substantial refurbishment
Change of use of the property

the_syco

Increase the rent, and hope he doesn't decided to stop paying rent, and just live there rent free until you evict him in a years time after a lengthily and costly court process, after which you may get €5 a month for the next century or so...

dudara

Some specific details on how long the tenant has been in situ will help

pc7

dudara wrote: »

Some specific details on how long the tenant has been in situ will help

Also why you want them out? If it is for yourself to have the house etc. that changes things greatly. If you just want more money and don't think they'll pay it then things can become a lot more difficult.

rawn

If he has done nothing wrong and you don't need to sell or move in yourself, why do you want to kick him out?

Musketeer4

Maybe he wants to get a working professional in the house rather than some dosser drawing the scratch who'll be putting more wear and tear on the house.
LLing is a business not a charity.

rawn

Musketeer4 wrote:

Maybe he wants to get a working professional in the house rather than some dosser drawing the scratch who'll be putting more wear and tear on the house. LLing is a business not a charity.

I never said it was, but he never mentioned a reason for wanting him out, which is relevant to the procedure for eviction.

Nice attitude, btw.

Speedwell

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Maybe he wants to get a working professional in the house rather than some dosser drawing the scratch who'll be putting more wear and tear on the house.
LLing is a business not a charity.

Funny, I don't see any of those things on the list of acceptable reasons to end a tenancy.

bobmalooka

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Maybe he wants to get a working professional in the house rather than some dosser drawing the scratch who'll be putting more wear and tear on the house.
LLing is a business not a charity.

OP stated there was nothing wrong with the tenant so no suggestion of excessive W&T.

Although no such thing exists, it's either W&T or damage. A LL who understands the business or a working professional for that matter wouldn't get such a simple concept wrong.

Edit: also where in the country is there work for professionals and places to rent under the rent allowance threshold?

The_Conductor

OP- why do you want to end the tenancy?
You need to let the posters know- as it is very pertinent to the advice you may be given.

maximum12

The_Conductor wrote: »

You need to let the posters know- as it is very pertinent to the advice you may be given.

And very pertinent to the abuse you will receive

lg01

Thanks all, yes I thought this was the case. Unusual situation but a family member used to manage the property for me and did a deal with the tenant whereby they gave them a lease saying the rent was lower than it actually was for the social welfare. Presumably as they would not get it approved in the first place - and the tenant topped it up themselves. It seems they then last year told the welfare that the rent was raised to its current level. Also unknown to me. Now when I try to have a rent review they say I can't as the rent was raised last year (which is wasn't). I would certainly not have done this myself but whats done is done. It's also against the rules for a landlord to do this so I doubt I want to draw attention to it. I don't want to throw the guy out even if I could - which I cant. But I'm losing money and I'm annoyed. Is there anything I can do?

rawn

Sorry I think your hands are pretty much tied until the 2 years is up from when he said you raised it. Very sneaky of him... You could let him know soon that you will be raising the rent by X amount as soon as you're allowed, at least then he has a year roughly to find somewhere new if he can't pay it - rather then him overholding if he can't find anywhere.

The_Conductor

One last avenue you could explore- is was the rent properly advised to the Residential Tenancy Board- when the tenancy was registered- or was the lower amount advised to them. If the rent (the complete rent) was properly advised to the RTB and returned in your tax return- you have a legitimate argument that you have not in fact had a rent review- despite what the guys in DSP would like you and the tenant to believe.

Check your records- and then confirm this with the RTB- and if the rent level was properly notified to them at the outset- you can in fact legitimately review it now- despite the protestations of the DSP and the tenant.

Be very careful how you word this- as you do not want to end up on the wrong side of a RTB Tribunal over the whole mess. Make sure you are 100% certain of facts- make a mistake here- and you'll have a judgement against you.

Aside from a rent review- there isn't really anything you can do at this stage- unless you or a family member *legitimately* want to move into the property. (alternatively- if you were to dispose of the property- the tenant could also be given legitimate notice to quit- however, in neither case can you say you're doing it- and not follow through). Also- if you are selling the property- have the viewings of a vacant, refurbished property- on average you'll get 20% more for a clean refurbished, property- than one with a sitting tenant).

Vis-a-vis you making a loss on the property- unfortunately- thats the nature of the game- its far from unusual to make a loss- and regardless of what you do, Revenue will want their pound of flesh ahead of anyone else, yourself included.

Its a mess- created by your 'helpful' family member who agreed to this hairbrained scheme- which was then compounded by the tenant deciding on what was best for them..........

Go- check what rent was advised to the RTB- and play it from there...........

pc7

How long is the tenant there? If your part 4 is almost up then in the first 6 months of new lease you can end with notice. (116 days)

lg01

The_Conductor wrote: »

One last avenue you could explore- is was the rent properly advised to the Residential Tenancy Board- when the tenancy was registered- or was the lower amount advised to them. If the rent (the complete rent) was properly advised to the RTB and returned in your tax return- you have a legitimate argument that you have not in fact had a rent review- despite what the guys in DSP would like you and the tenant to believe.

I'm not sure I want to go down this route as I'd fear it will give me more pain than anything else, I don't want to risk it. I do not want a tribunal as you say... The deal was done, it was against the rules, we were just desperate to get someone into the place so I guess the decision was made.

pc7 wrote: »

How long is the tenant there? If your part 4 is almost up then in the first 6 months of new lease you can end with notice. (116 days)

Interesting, they are there about 4 years at this stage. This might work. How do I find out more about this? Thanks

pc7

lg01 wrote: »

Interesting, they are there about 4 years at this stage. This might work. How do I find out more about this? Thanks

Check your original lease (or prtb registration date of tenancy), if they are in the first 6 months of new 4 year cycle you will be able to give notice.
from site 'The landlord can terminate the tenancy without specifying grounds during the first 6 months'
full details on part 4 can be found here https://www.irishlandlord.com/tips-advice_item/prtb-rtb-explained/

Michael D Not Higgins

lg01 wrote: »

Interesting, they are there about 4 years at this stage. This might work. How do I find out more about this? Thanks

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

"When the 4-year cycle of the tenancy has ended, a new tenancy starts, known as a further Part 4 tenancy. As at the start of your original tenancy, your landlord may end this tenancy at any time during the next 6 months without having to give a reason – though you must now get 112 days’ notice (16 weeks). After 6 months you again acquire security of tenure and you are now 6 months into a further 4-year cycle."

Also as I explained in my first response.

lg01

lg01 wrote: »

Interesting, they are there about 4 years at this stage. This might work. How do I find out more about this? Thanks

If they are living there over 4 years but not more than 4 years and 6 months then you can give them notice to move out without reason.

lg01

Ok, seems like I'm in luck. I don't seem to have the original lease (it may be somewhere) but from my bank statements I can see the first payment was just over 4 years ago. So I can simply serve them notice (with the proper notice period) and they have to move out? Do I risk them digging their heels in and making things difficult for me? I don't think they will do that but I have to be prepared...

Michael D Not Higgins

lg01 wrote: »

Ok, seems like I'm in luck. I don't seem to have the original lease (it may be somewhere) but from my bank statements I can see the first payment was just over 4 years ago. So I can simply serve them notice (with the proper notice period) and they have to move out?

Yes, 16 weeks notice.

Do I risk them digging their heels in and making things difficult for me? I don't think they will do that but I have to be prepared...

Yes it's a risk and it could take a year or two to get rid of them if they become stubborn.

The_Conductor

lg01 wrote: »

Ok, seems like I'm in luck. I don't seem to have the original lease (it may be somewhere) but from my bank statements I can see the first payment was just over 4 years ago. So I can simply serve them notice (with the proper notice period) and they have to move out? Do I risk them digging their heels in and making things difficult for me? I don't think they will do that but I have to be prepared...

They've already dug in their heels and made life difficult for you- by divulging the silly 'arrangement' your relation agreed with them at the outset.

You've nothing to loose here (the council are paying the rent- its not that the tenant is going to stop paying- making an assumption you're being paid directly?)

pc7

lg01 wrote: »

Ok, seems like I'm in luck. I don't seem to have the original lease (it may be somewhere) but from my bank statements I can see the first payment was just over 4 years ago. So I can simply serve them notice (with the proper notice period) and they have to move out? Do I risk them digging their heels in and making things difficult for me? I don't think they will do that but I have to be prepared...

No one can say for sure, but just follow the steps as outlined as closely as you can so that you have everything correct incase you need to go the RTB route. They have draft termination letters you can copy, either have it delivered by registered post or when you give it to them, text them there and then confirming you've handed it over and ask them to reply confirming same. Depending on the relationship you've had to date only you know. What is renting like in your area? How hard will it be for them to find a similar property? Would you let them stay if they agreed to a rent rise? These are things to consider.

pc7

The_Conductor wrote: »

You've nothing to loose here (the council are paying the rent- its not that the tenant is going to stop paying- making an assumption you're being paid directly?)

Are the council paying direct to LL? or to tenant to give to LL? sorry if I missed it.

_Kaiser_

godtabh wrote: »

good luck getting him out!

the_syco wrote: »

Increase the rent, and hope he doesn't decided to stop paying rent, and just live there rent free until you evict him in a years time after a lengthily and costly court process, after which you may get €5 a month for the next century or so...

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Maybe he wants to get a working professional in the house rather than some dosser drawing the scratch who'll be putting more wear and tear on the house.
LLing is a business not a charity.

And this is the problem with this forum....

What evidence do ye have that the OP's tenant fits the above description? Indeed, the OP himself says that the tenant has done nothing wrong.

The landlord bias on this forum is obvious and skews any reasonable discussion as it is. I understand the reasoning behind the statements above but ye are the first to complain if a tenant (who's been burned before) withhold's the last month's rent for example.. but are they not just protecting themselves too?

In short, you can't have it both ways - if you want good tenants who'll respect you and your properties, might I suggest you return the favor? Landlording/renting isn't a "cushy easy number" (for EITHER side) no matter how much ye might want it to be and good faith, respect and common decency are prerequisites from both sides.

If you just want to "collect the cash" then maybe being a LL isn't for you,

Butters1979

lg01 wrote: »

Thanks all, yes I thought this was the case. Unusual situation but a family member used to manage the property for me and did a deal with the tenant whereby they gave them a lease saying the rent was lower than it actually was for the social welfare. Presumably as they would not get it approved in the first place - and the tenant topped it up themselves. It seems they then last year told the welfare that the rent was raised to its current level. Also unknown to me. Now when I try to have a rent review they say I can't as the rent was raised last year (which is wasn't). I would certainly not have done this myself but whats done is done. It's also against the rules for a landlord to do this so I doubt I want to draw attention to it. I don't want to throw the guy out even if I could - which I cant. But I'm losing money and I'm annoyed. Is there anything I can do?

So you tried to con social welfare and this is what you got.

rawn

Butters1979 wrote:

So you tried to con social welfare and this is what you got.

Tbh the SW are well aware that these practices are happening and are turning a blind eye, otherwise the homelessness problem would be twice as bad

Butters1979

rawn wrote: »

Tbh the SW are well aware that these practices are happening and are turning a blind eye, otherwise the homelessness problem would be twice as bad

I'm not saying the rules here are correct, but don't blatantly break them then complain when it comes back to bite you.

The_Conductor

Butters1979 wrote: »

I'm not saying the rules here are correct, but don't blatantly break them then complain when it comes back to bite you.

How are you to know that the tenant didn't instigate this- and presented it to Social Welfare down the road as a fait accompli, which is when DSP classified it as a rent increase- that they would cover..........

The whole mess might have been avoided- if the tenant had made a case to DSP for an exception to the ceiling at the outset- on the basis they weren't able to find suitable accommodation within the rent limits- DSP (via Community Welfare Officers) were making exceptions left right and centre. The tenants who didn't have exceptions- were the unusual ones- not those with exceptions.

dogbert27

So
1. You had a house to rent for X amount of euro
2. Potential Tenant couldn't get X amount of euro for rent allowance so your family member gave him a lease saying the rent is Y euro and the tenant then got rent allowance for Y euro.
3. Your family member and the tenant verbally agreed that the tenant would make up the difference to pay X euro rent that you wanted.
4. Tenant doesn't want to top up the rent anymore so took it upon himself to go to SW and say the rent has been raised and he is now getting the full X euro rent paid by SW
5. You now think you should be getting Z amount of euro in rent but because the tenant has already gone to SW and said the rent was increased you can't ask the same tenant to pay more.

So first of all he has an original signed lease saying that his rent is only Y euro. That's all he should legally have been paying. When you made your tax returns for the last four years did you declare Y euros or X euros as the amount of money being received in rent?

Second, how did he go to SW and say his rent has been increased to X euro without a new lease to prove the rent increase?

Third, you don't have the original lease to hand only bank statements to show he's there just over 4 years. He could say that he paid you cash in hand before receiving the rent allowance. Have you got a rent book?

The whole thing seems like a complete mess. If the rent he's paying you is not enough to cover the mortgage on the property and you're topping it up then yes you're losing money on potentially receiving more rent from a new tenant.

How much money do you think you're losing out by? 50 euro a month, 100 euro a month?

It all seems a complete mess and it may just be worth your while to ride this out one more year with this tenant when you can do another rent review and legitimately increase the rent.

Butters1979

The_Conductor wrote: »

How are you to know that the tenant didn't instigate this- and presented it to Social Welfare down the road as a fait accompli, which is when DSP classified it as a rent increase- that they would cover..........

lg01 wrote: »

Unusual situation but a family member used to manage the property for me and did a deal with the tenant whereby they gave them a lease saying the rent was lower than it actually was for the social welfare.

They both agreed to it, OP or whoever was running the show at the start, did everything dodgy and i wonder if there is more to the story. Either way, their fault.

Mrs OBumble

Mmmm. Your relative and the tenant are both parties to welfare fraud.

Can you prove that you didn't know about it to begin with? Possibly you can, because you have the bank records showing you were being paid the full amount from the beginning. (Did the money come in one payment from the tenant each month, or were there separate transactions from the tenant and council?)

If so, then you may have some leverage over the tenant by suggesting that you will report this fraud to Welfare, unless they move out. Something to be aware of: this is a closed system, they need to have somewhere to go. Without a good reference from you, they will find it very difficult to find somewhere to go, so they will stay. So you may find that you need to phrase your reference in a certain way.

GeorgeOrwell

Have you registered this tenancy with the PRTB?

If not, you've broken the law.

Have you or your family member tried to pull a fast one with the Welfare system?

If so, you've broken another law.

If you decide to try to evict the tenant for any unlawful reason, then you will have broken yet another law.

My advice - for what it's worth - is to be a professional landlord. If you decide to try to get rid of your tenant, your three breaches of the law will be taken into consideration and you're likely to find yourself in deep, deep water.

GeorgeOrwell

Also, as someone earlier asked, how much rental income did you declare to the Revenue? This will have a bearing on the result of the PRTB case which your tenant will inevitably take against you, and which you will also inevitably lose!

Sarn

I can't see how the tenant could take a case to RTB if the tenancy is not renewed after the 4 year period and correct notice is given.

lg01

Butters1979 wrote: »

So you tried to con social welfare and this is what you got.

Let me be very clear here - this was the tenants idea - he was conning the social welfare - my relative simply agreed to it to "do him a favour" - which were the words from my tenant last week when I found out. My relative is very old, easily led, and certainly did not know how bad a decision this was. I certainly would not have done this myself. But it was my fault for not being involved and its my responsibility now.

The tenant definitely contacted the welfare 1 year ago and pretended the rent was being raised to get more money - I had not raised the rent and I had no idea he was doing this. I have not raised the rent a penny from 4 years ago when he moved in and the rental market was in the bin - it's now come back up and he's paying 35% less than market rates.

I've been paying my tax returns 100% properly on the full amount. He's been paying me the rent himself from his account each week, I have all the records. I may be able to locate the original lease but I need to go searching.

Anyway, if the law says I'm perfectly within my rights to ask a tenant to leave after 4 years - then it should be pretty straight forward. Thanks for all the advice.

Tigger

dogbert27 wrote: »

So
1. You had a house to rent for X amount of euro
2. Potential Tenant couldn't get X amount of euro for rent allowance so your family member gave him a lease saying the rent is Y euro and the tenant then got rent allowance for Y euro.
3. Your family member and the tenant verbally agreed that the tenant would make up the difference to pay X euro rent that you wanted.
4. Tenant doesn't want to top up the rent anymore so took it upon himself to go to SW and say the rent has been raised and he is now getting the full X euro rent paid by SW
5. You now think you should be getting Z amount of euro in rent but because the tenant has already gone to SW and said the rent was increased you can't ask the same tenant to pay more.

So first of all he has an original signed lease saying that his rent is only Y euro. That's all he should legally have been paying. When you made your tax returns for the last four years did you declare Y euros or X euros as the amount of money being received in rent?

Second, how did he go to SW and say his rent has been increased to X euro without a new lease to prove the rent increase?

Third, you don't have the original lease to hand only bank statements to show he's there just over 4 years. He could say that he paid you cash in hand before receiving the rent allowance. Have you got a rent book?

The whole thing seems like a complete mess. If the rent he's paying you is not enough to cover the mortgage on the property and you're topping it up then yes you're losing money on potentially receiving more rent from a new tenant.

How much money do you think you're losing out by? 50 euro a month, 100 euro a month?

It all seems a complete mess and it may just be worth your while to ride this out one more year with this tenant when you can do another rent review and legitimately increase the rent.

also did you declare the correct value to revenue
cos if you didnt i would not pick at the scab, if you did then turf him out for being cheeky

dogbert27

lg01 wrote: »

Butters1979 wrote: »

So you tried to con social welfare and this is what you got.

Let me be very clear here - this was the tenants idea - he was conning the social welfare - my relative simply agreed to it to "do him a favour" - which were the words from my tenant last week when I found out. My relative is very old, easily led, and certainly did not know how bad a decision this was. I certainly would not have done this myself. But it was my fault for not being involved and its my responsibility now.

The tenant definitely contacted the welfare 1 year ago and pretended the rent was being raised to get more money - I had not raised the rent and I had no idea he was doing this. I have not raised the rent a penny from 4 years ago when he moved in and the rental market was in the bin - it's now come back up and he's paying 35% less than market rates.

I've been paying my tax returns 100% properly on the full amount. He's been paying me the rent himself from his account each week, I have all the records. I may be able to locate the original lease but I need to go searching.

Anyway, if the law says I'm perfectly within my rights to ask a tenant to leave after 4 years - then it should be pretty straight forward. Thanks for all the advice.

It's not just after 4 years though. It's between 4 years and 4.5 years so you really need to get your hands on the original lease to verify the start date instead of just making an assumption.

foggy_lad

Also when giving the notice of termination the notice period must be "within" the first 6 months of the further part4 tenancy, so if the notice required is 16 weeks then you must give notice no later than the 10th week of the further part4 tenancy.

El_Duderino 09

GeorgeOrwell wrote:

My advice - for what it's worth - is to be a professional landlord. If you decide to try to get rid of your tenant, your three breaches of the law will be taken into consideration and you're likely to find yourself in deep, deep water.

Ah here. If I was in the OP's shoes, I'd want to evict the tenant who was taken on by someone else in some kind of shady deal, and replace them with someone if my choosing, on legal terms. It sounds like OP is in luck as they are in the window where they can legally evict the tenant.

Go easy.

Mrs OBumble

lg01 wrote: »

Let me be very clear here - this was the tenants idea - he was conning the social welfare - my relative simply agreed to it to "do him a favour" - which were the words from my tenant last week when I found out. My relative is very old, easily led, and certainly did not know how bad a decision this was. I certainly would not have done this myself. But it was my fault for not being involved and its my responsibility now.

The tenant definitely contacted the welfare 1 year ago and pretended the rent was being raised to get more money - I had not raised the rent and I had no idea he was doing this. I have not raised the rent a penny from 4 years ago when he moved in and the rental market was in the bin - it's now come back up and he's paying 35% less than market rates.

Careful now.

Your relative didn't simply agree: they also filled in paperwork for welfare declaring that the rent was at the lower level, or at least signed paperwork that the tenant filled in for them. And oldness does not exempt people from following the law.

Also, your tenant didn't just tell welfare that the rent had gone up: if welfare accepted the tenant's word, there would be rent increases from here to the moon. There must have have been some paperwork from you or your relative, advising of the rent increase and the day it is effective from. Mmmm... unless the tenant forged it??? In that case, it could be even more incentive for them to move out as requested instead of overholding.