Giving notice of part 4 AFTER lease is up?

Smyth

Signed a 12 month lease with an agency last Feb and have been there since.

The property is in the middle of a sale to some investment company and one of their stipulations is that they need some plumbing fixed before signing. I got this info from the agency rep. They're a good agency and i don't think they're screwing us around, but I want to be on the safe side.

The lease was up at the start of Feb. It's not something I was thinking about so when it came round, I gave them a call to see if they were sending out new contracts. They said they'll probably go out at the end of this month once the work was completed, but can't do it before that.

I hadn't planned on that and I know that you need to let the landlord know a month before the lease is up that you will continue to stay there. But It's now 15 days after the lease was up and I'm not sure where I stand.

Does notifying them now still hold up? I don't want to hang around waiting for their deal to go through. I'd like some security on my end.

Thanks in advance

Michael D Not Higgins

Your Part 4 rights are automatic, don't worry about it you are already covered. The new owners are bound by the tenancy in place and the security of tenure of the existing tenancy, if buying with sitting tenants.

dennyk

That actually brings up some interesting questions; I know that the tenant is responsible for costs incurred by the landlord as a result of failure to notify the landlord of their intent to remain at least one month before the end of the fixed term. Say the landlord sold the property as vacant due to the lack of notification and the resulting assumption that the tenant would not remain after the fixed term, and the sale then fell through when the buyer found out the tenant was actually staying...could the tenant be held responsible for the costs involved in the failed sale?

What if the buyer chose to complete the sale but insisted on a lower price due to the sitting tenant and the landlord agreed; could the tenant be held responsible for that difference in price?

Or would none of that matter because it would have been the landlord's responsibility to ensure the unit was actually physically vacant prior to agreeing to a sale, rather than just assuming it would be by the time possession changed hands?

Would be an interesting case to see argued in court, I'd think...

Michael D Not Higgins

They would need to terminate the tenancy in line with the RTA. Assuming the tenants have left would be incorrect on both seller and buyer's part.

Browney7

dennyk wrote: »

That actually brings up some interesting questions; I know that the tenant is responsible for costs incurred by the landlord as a result of failure to notify the landlord of their intent to remain at least one month before the end of the fixed term. Say the landlord sold the property as vacant due to the lack of notification and the resulting assumption that the tenant would not remain after the fixed term, and the sale then fell through when the buyer found out the tenant was actually staying...could the tenant be held responsible for the costs involved in the failed sale?

What if the buyer chose to complete the sale but insisted on a lower price due to the sitting tenant and the landlord agreed; could the tenant be held responsible for that difference in price?

Or would none of that matter because it would have been the landlord's responsibility to ensure the unit was actually physically vacant prior to agreeing to a sale, rather than just assuming it would be by the time possession changed hands?

Would be an interesting case to see argued in court, I'd think...

I'd be willing to bet heavily that no judge in the country would find against the tenant here. Someone selling an asset worth a few hundred thousand and running a business off it not checking with the tenant what they plan on doing?