Landlord won't let me end tenancy?

KateHL

I began renting my flat in November 2015 and signed a new 12 month lease in August 2016. In February 2017 I gave my landlord 42 days notice of my intention to terminate my lease of the flat as I am moving away from the area. The landlord responded to me two weeks later saying that he did not accept my notice as I had signed a 12 month lease in August 2016. I was under the impression that as I had been renting the flat for more than six months I had acquired a Part 4 tenancy and accordingly that the mechanism for ending my tenancy was giving my landlord the requisite amount of notice under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 i.e. 42 days' notice in my case.

Am I completely mistaken in my belief that I have a Part 4 tenancy?

Thanks in advance

runawaybishop

KateHL wrote: »

I began renting my flat in November 2015 and signed a new 12 month lease in August 2016. In February 2017 I gave my landlord 42 days notice of my intention to terminate my lease of the flat as I am moving away from the area. The landlord responded to me two weeks later saying that he did not accept my notice as I had signed a 12 month lease in August 2016. I was under the impression that as I had been renting the flat for more than six months I had acquired a Part 4 tenancy and accordingly that the mechanism for ending my tenancy was giving my landlord the requisite amount of notice under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 i.e. 42 days' notice in my case.

Am I completely mistaken in my belief that I have a Part 4 tenancy?

Thanks in advance

You have part 4 but you also signed a lease.

Just get the remainer of the lease reassigned.

4ensic15

You have a part 4 tenancy. You also have a lease. The two can run together. Part 4 is about protecting you from the landlord terminating your tenancy, not about allowing you to break your agreement. You should assign your lease.

dudara

You have a Part IV tenancy but the 12 month lease also applies.

Speak to the landlord about reassigning the lease. In other words you will find a good replacement for you who will take over from you & not leave the landlord out of pocket

KateHL

Thanks for the response. So does a Part 4 tenancy not 'trump' a fixed term lease, so to speak? And by reassign do you mean sublet? Apologies for all the questions!

4ensic15

<deleted quote snipped >

If the op seeks to assign, the o/p is entitled to the deposit back. If the assignee is accepted, the new tenant pays the deposit back to the o/p. If the assignee is not accepted the tenancy ends and the o/p is entitled to the deposit.

KateHL

Is there a specific process for assigning a lease?

4ensic15

KateHL wrote: »

Thanks for the response. So does a Part 4 tenancy not 'trump' a fixed term lease, so to speak? And by reassign do you mean sublet? Apologies for all the questions!

No, it is the other way around. Part 4 is about security of tenure. You cannot have worse rights than Part 4 but you can have better. The landlord cannot use the grounds for terminating a Part 4 to avoid a fixed term lease. neither can you use part 4 to avoid your lease. Assign means to find another person to take over your lease. The procedure is you write to the landlord and say "I want X person to take over my lease from z date."

KateHL

Thanks for your help.

Boater123

4ensic15 wrote: »

... The procedure is you write to the landlord and say "I want X person to take over my lease from z date."

I thought the procedure was to write to the LL and ask permission to reassign the lease, and not to a specific person. If they say yes, it's up to the tenant to locate someone suitable that passes the LL checks.

Bit pointless getting a new tenant before asking and then find out they won't agree to reassignment.

If the LL refuses permission to reassign the lease, then the tenant can legally break the lease.

To reassign properly, a deed of re assignment is used to "transfer" the lease in to the new tenants name. Though most people just use a new lease with a new fixed term.

4ensic15

Boater123 wrote: »

I thought the procedure was to write to the LL and ask permission to reassign the lease, and not to a specific person. If they say yes, it's up to the tenant to locate someone suitable that passes the LL checks.

Bit pointless getting a new tenant before asking and then find out they won't agree to reassignment.

If the LL refuses permission to reassign the lease, then the tenant can legally break the lease.

To reassign properly, a deed of re assignment is used to "transfer" the lease in to the new tenants name. Though most people just use a new lease with a new fixed term.

How can there be a request to assign a lease unless it is to a specific person? If the landlord says "you can assign the lease to a person i approve of", that is not permission to assign. The tenant does not care if the person is acceptable to the LL. It may be better that the person is not.

Boater123

4ensic15 wrote: »

How can there be a request to assign* a lease unless it is to a specific person? If the landlord says "you can assign* the lease to a person i approve of", that is not permission to assign*. The tenant does not care if the person is acceptable to the LL. It may be better that the person is not.

Tenant:" Dear Landlord,
May I have permission to reassign (*not assign sic) the remainder of the term of my lease.
I have gone to considerable time and expense advertising, holding viewings, having people traipse through my dwelling at ungodly hours and for some reason unbeknownst to me have ended up with three prospective tenants for your consideration, who are mad enough to put up with this reassignment nonsense."

Landlord: "For some reason known only to me (probably to do with new tenant, higher rent or something), I am not in favour of reassignment . Therefore you are a silly little TT for not asking me first and putting yourself through this time wasting exercise.
For, by me refusing permission to reassign, you could have just legally broke the fixed term lease and gave the appropriate notice to leave and there is nothing I could have done."

If the LL, for some reason decides to give permission to reassign (*not assign sic) the shorter remainder of the lease, instead of a new tenant on potentially higher rent and definitely a longer term lease, then the tenant goes through the process of reassignment and puts forward potential tenants for the LL to consider.

That's how

4ensic15

Boater123 wrote: »

Tenant:" Dear Landlord,
May I have permission to reassign (*not assign sic) the remainder of the term of my lease.
I have gone to considerable time and expense advertising, holding viewings, having people traipse through my dwelling at ungodly hours and for some reason unbeknownst to me have ended up with three prospective tenants for your consideration, who are mad enough to put up with this reassignment nonsense."

Landlord: "For some reason known only to me (probably to do with new tenant, higher rent or something), I am not in favour of reassignment . Therefore you are a silly little TT for not asking me first and putting yourself through this time wasting exercise.
For, by me refusing permission to reassign, you could have just legally broke the fixed term lease and gave the appropriate notice to leave and there is nothing I could have done."

If the LL, for some reason decides to give permission to reassign (*not assign sic) the shorter remainder of the lease, instead of a new tenant on potentially higher rent and definitely a longer term lease, then the tenant goes through the process of reassignment and puts forward potential tenants for the LL to consider.

That's how

First of all, reassign is not correct. It is an assignment. Secondly, for an assignment to take place there must be an assignee. The letter must be "permission is proposed to assign the lease to x (proposed assignee). Enclosed are X's references and X is available to meet at >>>.
If I do not receive a positive reply within 7 days I will consider myself entitled to terminate the tenancy as per Section 186 RTA."

Boater123

4ensic15 wrote: »

First of all, reassign is not correct. It is an assignment. Secondly, for an assignment to take place there must be an assignee. The letter must be "permission is proposed to assign the lease to x (proposed assignee). Enclosed are X's references and X is available to meet at >>>.
If I do not receive a positive reply within 7 days I will consider myself entitled to terminate the tenancy as per Section 186 RTA."

We are talking about about asking for permission to reassign the remainder of the lease.

A tenant does not need someone lined up to ask for permission, be denied permission, or be given permission.

Only if the LL gives permission to reassign the remainder of the lease does a tenant need to get someone suitable to the LL.

If the LL refuses, what you suggest is the process, is completely unnecessary.

Why do you advise people to waste their time and money when it may not be necessary?

4ensic15

Boater123 wrote: »

We are talking about about asking for permission to reassign the remainder of the lease.

A tenant does not need someone lined up to ask for permission, be denied permission, or be given permission.

Only if the LL gives permission to reassign the remainder of the lease does a tenant need to get someone suitable to the LL.

If the LL refuses, what you suggest is the process, is completely unnecessary.

Why do you advise people to waste their time and money when it may not be necessary?

The Act does not mention reassign. It only refers to assignment. The tenant did not take an assignment in the first place.
What I am suggesting is the method which ensures compliance with the Act.
I know a tenant who wrote to his landlord asking for permission to assign his tenancy. the landlord replied saying that as he hadn't nominated a potential assignee, the question of permission couldn't arise. The tenant left and the landlord took the re-letting fee from his deposit. The tenant got nowhere with the RTB subsequently.

Boater123

4ensic15 wrote: »

The Act does not mention reassign. It only refers to assignment. The tenant did not take an assignment in the first place.
What I am suggesting is the method which ensures compliance with the Act.
I know a tenant who wrote to his landlord asking for permission to assign his tenancy. the landlord replied saying that as he hadn't nominated a potential assignee, the question of permission couldn't arise. The tenant left and the landlord took the re-letting fee from his deposit. The tenant got nowhere with the RTB subsequently.

So your "friend" requested permission to reassign, and the LL did not refuse permission.

The LL instead asked for more info before the LL would go through with it reserving their right to vet any potential new tenant. The LL therefore agreed to reassignment in principal ,without any new tenant. And the RTB agreed when your friend brought it to dispute.

Your point about needing details of a potential tenant for consideration at the time of asking for permission, is moot.

Thanks for the anecdote story.

4ensic15

Boater123 wrote: »

So your "friend" requested permission to reassign, and the LL did not refuse permission.

The LL instead asked for more info before the LL would go through with it reserving their right to vet any potential new tenant. The LL therefore agreed to reassignment in principal ,without any new tenant. And the RTB agreed when your friend brought it to dispute.

Your point about needing details of a potential tenant for consideration at the time of asking for permission, is moot.

Thanks for the anecdote story.

The landlord did not agree to anything.

Boater123

4ensic15 wrote: »

The landlord did not agree to anything.

By not refusing.

4ensic15

Boater123 wrote: »

By not refusing.

There was nothing to agree to, nor anything to refuse.

Boater123

4ensic15 wrote: »

I know a tenant who wrote to his landlord asking for permission to assign his tenancy.

4ensic15 wrote: »

There was nothing to agree to, nor anything to refuse.

Your words: the tenant asked for permission.

It was your "friend" that brought it to the RTB, you know roughly when it happened, maybe even the address of the rented property. How about backing it up with a link to the RTB determination?

4ensic15

Boater123 wrote: »

Your words: the tenant asked for permission.

He didn't have a proposed assignee so there was no request to consent to.

Boater123 wrote: »

It was your "friend" that brought it to the RTB, you know roughly when it happened, maybe even the address of the rented property. How about backing it up with a link to the RTB determination?

The claim was rejected by the RTB without a determination.

Boater123

4ensic15 wrote: »

The claim was rejected by the RTB without a determination.

Should have guessed.

Unfortunate though. If there had a determination that showed you weren't making it up as you go along, that would have shut me up.

athtrasna

Mod note

Posters are asked to remain civil when posting and to take personal disagreements to pm as they can make it off-putting to other posters who may wish to post.

4ensic15

Boater123 wrote: »

Should have guessed.

Unfortunate though. If there had a determination that showed you weren't making it up as you go along, that would have shut me up.

I'm not making anything up. Assigning of leases happens in the commercial world constantly. I know of one case where a tenant tried it, in the manner you suggested. When the RTB reject a complaint they don't issue a determination order if the complaint should never have been made to them in the first place.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

I'm not making anything up. Assigning of leases happens in the commercial world constantly. I know of one case where a tenant tried it, in the manner you suggested. When the RTB reject a complaint they don't issue a determination order if the complaint should never have been made to them in the first place.

Why bring it up if it was a commercial case?

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Why bring it up if it was a commercial case?

It was residential. What is being discussed is the mechanics of procuring an assignment of a residential lease. Assignments of commercial leases happen frequently, there are very few assignments of residential leases.

Boater123

4ensic15 wrote: »

I'm not making anything up. Assigning of leases happens in the commercial world constantly. I know of one case where a tenant tried it, in the manner you suggested. When the RTB reject a complaint they don't issue a determination order if the complaint should never have been made to them in the first place.

At the very best this was a story told to you and you are relaying it second hand, by a very biased and disgruntled tenant. Giving you leeway if things didn't ring true.

But now the story is the RTB rejected it because it wasn't within their remit. Not because of the reason you gave earlier.

I cannot comment further as this is most civility I can muster after reading this latest development.

athtrasna

Boater123 wrote: »

At the very best this was a story told to you and you are relaying it second hand, by a very biased and disgruntled tenant. Giving you leeway if things didn't ring true.

But now the story is the RTB rejected it because it wasn't within their remit. Not because of the reason you gave earlier.

I cannot comment further as this is most civility I can muster after reading this latest development.

Please take it to pm you guys.

Mod

Peregrinus

It's not possible to assign a lease unless you have someone to assign it to.

If you don't have an assignee in mind, you have no assignment to propose to the landlord, and the landlord cannot consent.

It makes sense to tell the landlord beforehand that you want to leave and you'll be looking for an assignee. If he indicates at that point that he won't agree to any assignment, regardless of who you find (he'd be very stupid to do that, but if he does) then, obviously, don't bother looking for an assignee. Terminate your lease and take the inevitable dispute to the RTB.

In the real world, the landlord will say "I await details of your proposes assignee" and may add something along the lines of "don't bother proposing anyone less financially sound than yourself". Then you go off and find your assigneee and carry on from there.

ec18

Question on re assigning a lease what happens if the landlord says that they want to find the new tenant and refuses to allow reassignment?

But also states that they will be keeping the deposit if they don't find someone.

Michael D Not Higgins

ec18 wrote: »

Question on re assigning a lease what happens if the landlord says that they want to find the new tenant and refuses to allow reassignment?

But also states that they will be keeping the deposit if they don't find someone.

RTB dispute. The landlord finding the replacement is not an assignment. They have refused an assignment and must allow the tenancy to be ended without penalty subject to correct notice.

Peregrinus

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

RTB dispute. The landlord finding the replacement is not an assignment. They have refused an assignment and must allow the tenancy to be ended without penalty subject to correct notice.

If the landlord succeeds in finding a replacement then there certainly can be an assignment. "Assignment" is simply the transfer of the tenant's rights and obligations under the lease from Tenant A to Tenant B. It's an assignment, regardless of who found Tenant B, or how.

The landlord is at liberty to reject the proposed tenant offered by Tenant A, and instead to require tenant A to assign the tenancy to someone nominated by the landlord. As long as an assignment to someone happens, Tenant A gets out of the lease and there is no penalty. Job done.

You have a problem where Tenant A proposes an assignee, the landlord refuses to accept the assignee, doesn't find another, and then seeks to penalise Tenant A for breaking the lease without assigning it. That goes to the RTB.

Michael D Not Higgins

The RTA specifically mentions assignment by the tenant. That precludes the landlord assigning a tenancy in my reading.

Peregrinus

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The RTA specifically mentions assignment by the tenant. That precludes the landlord assigning a tenancy in my reading.

The landlord can't assign a tenancy, right enough. He can't assign what he hasn't got, and it's the tenant who has the tenancy, not the landlord.

But that's not to say that the landlord can't find an assignee and suggest to the tenant that the tenancy be assigned to him. As long as the tenancy is assigned to someone the original tenant is off the hook, and a tenant refusing to assign to someone suggested by the landlord would be cutting off his own nose to spite his face. You can't refuse to assign the tenancy when asked by the landlord and then complain that the landlord wouldn't let you assign it. The RTB will point out that, far from refusing consent to assignment, the landlord asked the tenant to assign; the refusal was the tenant's, not the landlord's.

In general, finding an assignee is the tenant's problem. But if the landlord is willing to find one, and does in fact find one, why would the tenant refuse to assign to him? And, if he does refuse, why would he imagine that he could later complain that consent to assignment was refused by the landlord?

Michael D Not Higgins

Peregrinus wrote: »

The landlord can't assign a tenancy, right enough. He can't assign what he hasn't got, and it's the tenant who has the tenancy, not the landlord.

But that's not to say that the landlord can't find an assignee and suggest to the tenant that the tenancy be assigned to him. As long as the tenancy is assigned to someone the original tenant is off the hook, and a tenant refusing to assign to someone suggested by the landlord would be cutting off his own nose to spite his face. You can't refuse to assign the tenancy when asked by the landlord and then complain that the landlord wouldn't let you assign it. The RTB will point out that, far from refusing consent to assignment, the landlord asked the tenant to assign; the refusal was the tenant's, not the landlord's.

In general, finding an assignee is the tenant's problem. But if the landlord is willing to find one, and does in fact find one, why would the tenant refuse to assign to him? And, if he does refuse, why would he imagine that he could later complain that consent to assignment was refused by the landlord?

I don't envisage a problem finding a potential assignee. What I do see happening is the landlord saying they couldn't find someone soon enough then pocketing the deposit.

The way an assignment works according to the Act is the tenant proposes an assignee and the landlord can agree or disagree. Either way, the tenant should get their deposit back after following the process correctly. Sure the tenant can accept an alternative assignee proposed by the landlord but what's proposed by the landlord puts the deposit at risk.

The original question was what if the landlord wouldn't allow them to assign and wanted to find their own tenant. The tenant should not accept that and should request an assignment themselves with their own assignee. If that assignment is denied then the landlord would have to return the deposit following correct notice or argue to the RTB why that denial was reasonable.

Peregrinus

As long as the landlord received rent seamlessly - the new assignee, whoever he is, takes over paying rent from the day the old tenant stops - he's not at any loss, and I don't see any basis on which he could keep the deposit (unless there's a separate issue, e.g. damage to the premises).

The tenant's interest in the tenancy belongs to him, and if he wants to assign it to, say, Joe, he can, provided the landlord consents. The landlord can't withhold his consent unreasonably. It would be reasonable for the landlord to withhold consent if, say, Joe is an undischarged bankrupt with a record of trashing the flats he takes. But it would not be reasonable of the landlord to withhold consent to an assignment to Joe because he wants the tenant to assign to his friend Mary instead. As long as Joe is a reasonable tenant, the fact that Mary would be a more desirable tenant (in the landlord's mind, for whatever reason) is irrelevant; that wouldn't make it reasonable to refuse to consent to an assignment to Joe.

Nor, I agree, would it be reasonable to refuse to consent to the assignment to Joe because the landlord hopes to find a better assignee, but hasn't found one yet.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

As long as the landlord received rent seamlessly - the new assignee, whoever he is, takes over paying rent from the day the old tenant stops - he's not at any loss, and I don't see any basis on which he could keep the deposit (unless there's a separate issue, e.g. damage to the premises).

The tenant's interest in the tenancy belongs to him, and if he wants to assign it to, say, Joe, he can, provided the landlord consents. The landlord can't withhold his consent unreasonably. It would be reasonable for the landlord to withhold consent if, say, Joe is an undischarged bankrupt with a record of trashing the flats he takes. But it would not be reasonable of the landlord to withhold consent to an assignment to Joe because he wants the tenant to assign to his friend Mary instead. As long as Joe is a reasonable tenant, the fact that Mary would be a more desirable tenant (in the landlord's mind, for whatever reason) is irrelevant; that wouldn't make it reasonable to refuse to consent to an assignment to Joe.

Nor, I agree, would it be reasonable to refuse to consent to the assignment to Joe because the landlord hopes to find a better assignee, but hasn't found one yet.

Reasonable consent does not apply in the case of assignments under the Residential Tenancies Act. The tenant can propose Joe Knacker as assignee. If the landlord refuses the tenant can serve a notice of termination. The landlord can't withhold the deposit other than for damage or rent arrears.

ec18

Hi Again,

Sorry to bring up an old thread but the landlord has agreed to an assignment and is telling me that I will be charged for re registering the tenancy with the RTB.

I was under the impression that the RTB costs were all the landlords? Can they charge me/ with hold the cost from the deposit?

Ms Doubtfire1

nope.

Pkiernan

He can charge you this. You have broken the lease and left the landlord out of pocket to the tune of the cost of the new registration fee for the new tenancy.
It's not his fault you are breaking your lease agreement.

Michael D Not Higgins

Pkiernan wrote: »

He can charge you this. You have broken the lease and left the landlord out of pocket to the tune of the cost of the new registration fee for the new tenancy.
It's not his fault you are breaking your lease agreement.

I believe it's from contract law (could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer) that the landlord is entitled to not be at any financial loss due to breaking of the contract. This includes some caveats of mitigation of the losses incurred.

There are disputes in favour of the landlord with the RTB where the registration fee has been awarded as an allowable deduction from the deposit when a fixed term lease has been broken, although usually as a proportional amount dependent on the length of the tenancy. For example, one case had a tenant move out within a month and the entire €90 was allowed to be deducted. Another moved out after 9 months of a 24 month lease and €56.25 was allowable.

ec18, I would propose a compromise with the landlord and a proportional amount of the registration fee to be deducted.

Ms Doubtfire1

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I believe it's from contract law (could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer) that the landlord is entitled to not be at any financial loss due to breaking of the contract. This includes some caveats of mitigation of the losses incurred.

There are disputes in favour of the landlord with the RTB where the registration fee has been awarded as an allowable deduction from the deposit when a fixed term lease has been broken, although usually as a proportional amount dependent on the length of the tenancy. For example, one case had a tenant move out within a month and the entire €90 was allowed to be deducted. Another moved out after 9 months of a 24 month lease and €56.25 was allowable.

ec18, I would propose a compromise with the landlord and a proportional amount of the registration fee to be deducted.

whilst that could be true, in this case the LL has agreed to an assignment and is not out of pocket for rent.As such, there is no breach of lease and the re-registration is for the Ll as it would be if you would have staid for the duration of the tenancy.

Michael D Not Higgins

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

whilst that could be true, in this case the LL has agreed to an assignment and is not out of pocket for rent.As such, there is no breach of lease and the re-registration is for the Ll as it would be if you would have staid for the duration of the tenancy.

He's not out of pocket for rent but he is for the registration fee.

runawaybishop

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

whilst that could be true

It is true. Tenant is liable for any expenses.

godtabh

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

whilst that could be true, in this case the LL has agreed to an assignment and is not out of pocket for rent.As such, there is no breach of lease and the re-registration is for the Ll as it would be if you would have staid for the duration of the tenancy.

He is still out of pocket if he has to register.

davindub

There was no breach of contract, you used a term in the RTB act to terminate your lease. The same effect as if the lease contained the term.

Also the LL has no damages, he didn't have to pay the RTB fee when you remained in the tenancy after the original lease was up, nor on commencement of the 3rd year.

The_Conductor

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

nope.

Yes actually- as the tenant is assigning their lease to a third party.
The original RTB tenancy registration fee- is the landlord's- a subsequent fee relating to the same tenancy- is not. Similarly- if/when the landlord registers the new tenant with the RTB in their own right (after the elapse of the assignment)- that is then their (the landlord's) fee.

A landlord cannot use a lease assignment as a reason for refusing to accept the termination of a tenancy from a tenant- they are perfectly entitled to bill the tenant for any reasonable costs associated with either the lease assignment- or a reletting, within a reasonable timeframe. If the tenant disagrees- they are free to dispute the stated costs with the RTB- and it will be up to the landlord to justify them. Normally, unless all hell breaks loose, the RTB fee will be a small and reasonable component. That said- if it gets complicated- and investigation fees get tagged on etc (and I have a bill here from the RTB from January of this year myself featuring this- in my own name)- it can mount up. My Jan bill comes to 696 Euro. This is exceptional- and I'm currently disputing it (however my own claim for damage is languishing on a shelf somewhere- as the tenants have vanished and are incommunicado).

The_Conductor

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

whilst that could be true, in this case the LL has agreed to an assignment and is not out of pocket for rent.As such, there is no breach of lease and the re-registration is for the Ll as it would be if you would have staid for the duration of the tenancy.

They are not out of pocket- if there is a seamless continuation of occupation.
5 working days- in the context of Dublin, Cork or Galway- could well be 500-600 Euro.

Joe and Mary may agree to take over Olivia and John's lease- but may feck around about moving dates etc- meanwhile Olivia and John may have moved to a different county (for work or whatever). Honestly- this happens every day of the week.

The landlord is entitled to not be out of pocket relating to the assignment of the lease- this includes RTB fees, any cross-over delays- and indeed any damage over and above normal wear and tear associated with tenant no. 1.

Peregrinus

davindub wrote: »

There was no breach of contract, you used a term in the RTB act to terminate your lease . . .

He's not terminating the lease; he's assigning it.

Nevertheless, since the assignment is something he has chosen to do for his own benefit, it's reasonable that he should bear any costs resulting from the assignment. Unless the lease says otherwise, which would be surprising, or someone can point to a provision in the legislation which says the landlord must bear the cost, it's reasonable for the landlord to make his consent to the assignment conditional on the payment of any associated costs, such as fees payable to the RTB that wouldn't have to be paid if the assignment hadn't happened.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

He's not terminating the lease; he's assigning it.

Nevertheless, since the assignment is something he has chosen to do for his own benefit, it's reasonable that he should bear any costs resulting from the assignment. Unless the lease says otherwise, which would be surprising, or someone can point to a provision in the legislation which says the landlord must bear the cost, it's reasonable for the landlord to make his consent to the assignment conditional on the payment of any associated costs, such as fees payable to the RTB that wouldn't have to be paid if the assignment hadn't happened.

The legislation says that if the landlord does not consent to the assignment, the tenant may terminate the tenancy. The landlord either accepts or rejects. If he rejects the assignment, the tenant can give notice. It is clearly of benefit to the tenant to assign as he will not have to wait out the full notice period. The landlord would have to make the consent to the assignment conditional on the reasonable expenses being paid before he gives consent.
The tenant should have the choice of waiting out the notice period or paying the charge.

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

The legislation says that if the landlord does not consent to the assignment, the tenant may terminate the tenancy. The landlord either accepts or rejects. If he rejects the assignment, the tenant can give notice. It is clearly of benefit to the tenant to assign as he will not have to wait out the full notice period. The landlord would have to make the consent to the assignment conditional on the reasonable expenses being paid before he gives consent.
The tenant should have the choice of waiting out the notice period or paying the charge.

Correct.
The tenant is still liable for any costs incurred between the current tenant leaving and a new tenant taking up tenancy- to include any advertising and/or agency costs.

There is a good reason for a fixed term tenancy- however, it doesn't abdicate a tenant of all responsibility- and if a tenant knows they don't intend to stay for the duration- they really shouldn't sign one for a time frame they do not intend to keep.

Edit: Providing of course the landlord doesn't make an undue delay in trying to retenant the property.