New landlord, tenant in situ, rights.

Jmccoy1

Hi folks,

A person very dear to me in Dublin could potentially find herself in a bit of a predicament soon. The apartment which she rents and lives in with her young child for the past five years has been sold, with tenant in situ. Before the sale her previous landlord had increased her rent by €50 per month. This increase has brought her to the threshold of what she can and can't afford, it's affordable now but an increase would be out of her reach. The new landlord has requested to see the lease that she has from the previous landlord. I fear that he might be trying to find a way to break her lease or increase her rent. Also she has had a family member who has fallen on hard times stay with her for quiet a while, this was brought up with her in the presence of the new landlord by the building manager. Said family member has been encouraged to move on for some time too. The building manager, who also owns a few apartments in the block, remarked in front of the new landlord that her rent was on the lower end of what was achieved in the block too. She knows this is not true and reckons the building manager is trying to inflate rents within the building. Any idea where she stands regarding the rent. Does the 2 year no increase rule apply given there is a new landlord ? Could having the family member lodge there fall back on her ? Does the building manager have any right to stick his nose in ? Could the new landlord give her notice ?

Michael D Not Higgins

The tenancy transfers and all associated rights. They are entitled to the 2 year period before the rent can be reviewed again. The new landlord can only give notice with regard to the termination reasons allowed under Part 4 of the RTA 2004, unless within the first 6 months of a further Part 4 tenancy which recurs every 4 years.

How long has she been living there?

Jmccoy1

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The tenancy transfers and all associated rights. They are entitled to the 2 year period before the rent can be reviewed again. The new landlord can only give notice with regard to the termination reasons allowed under Part 4 of the RTA 2004, unless within the first 6 months of a further Part 4 tenancy which recurs every 4 years.

How long has she been living there?

Hi, thanks for your reply. She's been living there five years.

Michael D Not Higgins

Jmccoy1 wrote: »

Hi, thanks for your reply. She's been living there five years.

Minimum notice would be 140 days and she can only be given notice for one of 6 reasons:

If you do not comply with the obligations of the tenancy
If the property is no longer suited to your needs (for example, if it is overcrowded)
If the landlord intends to sell the property within 3 months
or for the following 3 specific reasons:

If the landlord needs the property for their own use or for an immediate family member (this only applies to private landlords)
If the landlord intends to refurbish the property substantially
If the landlord plans to change the business use of the property (for example, convert it to office use)

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

the_syco

Jmccoy1 wrote: »

Before the sale her previous landlord had increased her rent by €50 per month. This increase has brought her to the threshold of what she can and can't afford, it's affordable now but an increase would be out of her reach.

Jmccoy1 wrote: »

Also she has had a family member who has fallen on hard times stay with her for quiet a while, this was brought up with her in the presence of the new landlord by the building manager.

To confirm; she's not on rent allowance, etc? If she's not, cool, but if she is, the extra family member may go against her if she's gets lone parent allowance, and this may be the angle the building manager is trying to work.

seamus

the_syco wrote: »

To confirm; she's not on rent allowance, etc? If she's not, cool, but if she is, the extra family member may go against her if she's gets lone parent allowance, and this may be the angle the building manager is trying to work.

Nah, lone parent allowance is only affected if your spouse/partner lives with you.

More than likely the angle here is the obligation on tenants to notify the landlord if anyone else is going to be living in the property. Failure to do so could be construed as a breach of the lease and be grounds for termination (with sufficient notice).

foggy_lad

Would it be in breach of data protection regulations for the Landlord to be talking about the tenancy with the building manager?

Ms Doubtfire1

I'd be very interested as well to hear peoples thoughts on this question as I might be in the same situation in a few months time.

4ensic15

First of all she should not show the lease to the new LL. If he doesn't know when the tenancy started he won't be able to register it. He also won't know when the current rent began and so will have to wait 2 years to increase the rent.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

First of all she should not show the lease to the new LL. If he doesn't know when the tenancy started he won't be able to register it. He also won't know when the current rent began and so will have to wait 2 years to increase the rent.

I would be very surprised if he wasn't legally entitled to see the lease that he is bound by.

A tenant acting like that would get my back up instantly and I'd be finding a way to get rid of them asap for acting the pup.

Mrs OBumble

foggy_lad wrote: »

Would it be in breach of data protection regulations for the Landlord to be talking about the tenancy with the building manager?

No. The building manager needs information boutique the tenants and tenancies in order to obtain his/her job.

For example to report in whether there appear to be more people living in the property than the lease allows.

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

First of all she should not show the lease to the new LL. If he doesn't know when the tenancy started he won't be able to register it. He also won't know when the current rent began and so will have to wait 2 years to increase the rent.

I agree 100% with Nox on this one.
The tenant has rights- which the new landlord is bound to commit to.
If the tenant starts acting the maggot at the outset- and there are clear and irrefutable reasons to terminate the lease (the extra family member being present other than on an occasional visit)- the new landlord may simply serve her with the requisite notice- and she is out.........

With respect of the increase in rent- and the building manager stating that it is at the lower scale of achievable rents for the building- the going rate is simply what another prospective tenant would pay- not what the current tenants are paying. Using what others are currently paying- as opposed to what the most recent units were let for- is going down a dangerous path that has the potential to backfire.

Its a messy situation- if the new landlord is an investor and intends to run the property as a residential letting- as opposed to their own dwelling- there is absolutely no reason that the current tenant could not start off on a sound footing with their new landlord- and become a long term tenant for them. However- acting the maggot and generally getting the landlord's goat- will mean the landlord will in all probability bide his or her time until they can legitimately issue a termination of lease on the tenant (one manner of doing so- would most probably be the aforementioned additional family member who has taken up residence in the unit............)

newacc2015

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

For example to report in whether there appear to be more people living in the property than the lease allows.

I dont know what point you are trying to make. But a lease is a lease on a property. It cant be a lease allowing 5 people to live to a house and when there is 6 the lease is null-void. A lease doesnt work like that. You are merely renting a house and the number in the place is irrelevant.

newacc2015

newacc2015 wrote: »

I dont know what point you are trying to make. But a lease is a lease on a property. It cant be a lease allowing 5 people to live to a house and when there is 6 the lease is null-void. A lease doesnt work like that. You are merely renting a house and the number in the place is irrelevant.

Incorrect, a lease can and most definitely should specify the number of people who live in a house or apartment.

I know a number people who have this stipulation in their lease. One instance where two couples are living in a large two bed apartment and when they get inspected they have to hide stuff to make it look like there is only the two of them living there as place was let to them as being strictly for a couple or two single people but no more than two in the apartment*.

*This is an over the top example that I am using to show the point.

Graham

newacc2015 wrote: »

I dont know what point you are trying to make. But a lease is a lease on a property. It cant be a lease allowing 5 people to live to a house and when there is 6 the lease is null-void. A lease doesnt work like that. You are merely renting a house and the number in the place is irrelevant.

Most residential leases I've encountered name specific occupants with a stipulation that any additions/amendments to the occupants are subject to approval by the landlord.

The_Conductor

newacc2015 wrote: »

I dont know what point you are trying to make. But a lease is a lease on a property. It cant be a lease allowing 5 people to live to a house and when there is 6 the lease is null-void. A lease doesnt work like that. You are merely renting a house and the number in the place is irrelevant.

I'm simply going to echo what the others are saying.
The OP is talking about an apartment in a multiunit building.
Inevitably- these are held in common with a long term lease issued to the purchaser/owner of the building.
Regardless of what the tenant has in their lease- the dwelling itself remains subject to the terms of the lease granted to the landlord- which itself normally stipulates the number of occupants of the different dwelling types, occasional visitors, parking etc etc.

In most cases where a landlord is letting an apartment- he/she copies and pastes conditions from the building lease- into the model lease- so you end up with a hybrid lease for the tenant- this is entirely normal...........

If a landlord is letting a property on which they have freehold possession- which is a different kettle of fish- they will still normally stipulate that the property is being let to a particular person (and/or group of people) and tenancy other than occasional visitors- is subject to the prior approval of the landlord. Aside from anything else- the landlord needs to know who is present in the property- for any of a long list of reasons (including to assist emergency services, if required). It also assists a landlord- if there is an issue with either the property- or the tenants- if they are able to contact the residents and resolve whatever the issue is..........

Another issue- has been a recent thriving trade in subletting among tenants (one 'tenant' was highlighted at a recent RTB meeting- as being the listed tenant in 31 separate properties in West Dublin and North Kildare- in no case was the landlord aware of this when they were contacted for information by the RTB..........) Aside from anything else- this may invalidate landlord's insurance- if the property is sublet to tenants who may or may not be subject to the same terms as the original tenants (and who may have no rights whatsoever under tenancy legislation- if anything were to go wrong).

Its a messy situation- however, leases spell out these things- for very good reasons- its not simply a landlord being an arse.........

If a tenant has an elderly family member who will be coming to stay with them- they need to make sure the landlord is aware of and in agreement with this- there are minimum standards both for rental property, and for property in general- having an additional person present may breach these terms.

seamus

Graham wrote: »

Most residential leases I've encountered name specific occupants with a stipulation that any additions/amendments to the occupants are subject to approval by the landlord.

This is in fact written in law.

Tenants are obliged to tell landlords who is living in the property. This implies that if someone moves in or out of the property, permanently or temporarily*, the tenant is legally obliged to tell the landlord.

*"Living" being someone's primary residence for any period of time, whether it's a few weeks or a few years. People staying overnight wouldn't count as "living" there.

spaceHopper

I had to call the RTB about a tenant in my Fathers place, They had an extra person living there. From what they told me, her new LL would have to give her a written notices that she is in breach of her lease and give her a reasonable time to rectify it. If she does they can do no more.

If she is worried I'd put in a call to them and maybe they can set her mind at ease. In reality the new LL could be a fine and leave her alone.