Selling property notice

corrado20t

Hi my tenant got a property from DCC im happy for her (gave very little notice). I have decided to sell property. Now the co signee wants to stay on renting.
Lease started august 2016.
Is the notice period 180 days?

accensi0n

Yes.

perfectkama

Its 180+ a couple of days to make sure it cannot be rejected these long unfair notices need a little bit extra.

https://www.rtb.ie/ending-a-tenancy/notice-periods-that-a-landlord-should-give

As the tenant is on a 4 year part just send the notice of termination "before a further part 4 commences" issue before there august deadline.

https://www.rtb.ie/forms-documents

accensi0n

perfectkama wrote: »

As the tenant is on a 4 year part just send the notice of termination "before a further part 4 commences" issue before there august deadline.

That doesn't make much of a difference now. I believe that was in relation to being able to end a tenancy without having to give a reason within the first 6 months of a new cycle.
But that has been done away with, and a valid reason needs to be provided regardless.

Claw Hammer

You can let the co-signee stay on at the full rent and refuse to approve and co-tenant. That will get rid of them faster.

corrado20t

Many thanks for help. Can i serve notice today or do i have to wait till 20 july (covid restrictions stopping evictions)

accensi0n

corrado20t wrote: »

Many thanks for help. Can i serve notice today or do i have to wait till 20 july (covid restrictions stopping evictions)

From what I've read, you need to wait until after the emergency period before you can even serve the notice of termination.

Pkiernan

You can't serve notice while the emergency covid legislation is in place.

Claw Hammer

You can tell the co-signee you want the full rent if the co-signee is staying on. You also say that no one else is allowed lie in the place. the co-signee will move of their own accord. No need for notice.

Pkiernan

From the RTB FAQ:

The tenant has received a notice of termination during the emergency period stating that the landlord wishes to sell the rental property. Is this notice valid?

No, landlords are not allowed to serve any notices of termination during the emergency period.

Tenants should contact their landlord to inform them of the emergency legislation and that notices of termination cannot be served starting from 27 March 2020 until 20 July 2020. If an issue persists, the tenant can contact the RTB to lodge a dispute resolution case, if required, here

Pkiernan

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You can tell the co-signee you want the full rent if the co-signee is staying on. You also say that no one else is allowed lie in the place. the co-signee will move of their own accord. No need for notice.

You can't do the. The person breaking g the lease is entitled to find someone to replace them


LL getting screwed over again

Claw Hammer

Pkiernan wrote: »

You can't do the. The person breaking g the lease is entitled to find someone to replace them

No, they are not. The person leaving has no right to impose anyone on the landlord. They can propose an assignee but the landlord is under no obligation to accept the proposed assignee.

Pkiernan

Claw Hammer wrote: »

No, they are not. The person leaving has no right to impose anyone on the landlord. They can propose an assignee but the landlord is under no obligation to accept the proposed assignee.

You're wrong.

Claw Hammer

Pkiernan wrote: »

You're wrong.

Under what provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act?

dennyk

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You can tell the co-signee you want the full rent if the co-signee is staying on. You also say that no one else is allowed lie in the place. the co-signee will move of their own accord. No need for notice.

The co-signee can bring in a licensee without needing the landlord's permission; they only have to notify the landlord and provide the licensee's name.

davindub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You can tell the co-signee you want the full rent if the co-signee is staying on. You also say that no one else is allowed lie in the place. the co-signee will move of their own accord. No need for notice.

Nonsense. You cannot tell a tenant to be honest at home.

Nor can you stop them from taking in licensee's.

Even if some idiot sticks it in the lease...

accensi0n

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You can tell the co-signee you want the full rent if the co-signee is staying on. You also say that no one else is allowed lie in the place. the co-signee will move of their own accord. No need for notice.

There's absolutely a need for notice imo. The remaining tenant may be willing to continue paying the rent by themselves.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Nor can you stop them from taking in licensee's.

Even if some idiot sticks it in the lease...

The RTB appears to disagrees with you:

https://www.rtb.ie/beginning-a-tenancy/types-of-tenancies-and-agreements/subletting-and-assignment

“ Subletting can only take place with the consent of the landlord.”

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

The RTB appears to disagrees with you:

https://www.rtb.ie/beginning-a-tenancy/types-of-tenancies-and-agreements/subletting-and-assignment

“ Subletting can only take place with the consent of the landlord.”

A sublet does not refer to license.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

A sublet does not refer to license.

The lead tenant sublet under a licensee agreement as the licensee is paying rent to lead tenant. As far as I’m aware, after a certain period the licensee can apply to be a tenant.

A license just refers to the fact that the tenant shares with the LL/lead tenant whom he/she pays rent to. But the lead tenant is still subletting the room to the licensee.

Going back to what CH posted, the LL has the right to refuse assignment, whether the LL can force the remaining tenant to pay the whole rent having refused assignment, well, I’m sure CH has his own way to confirming that, I’m not so sure the LL can.

Pkiernan

For the duration of the emergency legislation the remaining tenant cant be forced to go anywhere , no matter how much of the rent is unpaid.

Not sure how people fail to understand that.

Claw Hammer

dennyk wrote: »

The co-signee can bring in a licensee without needing the landlord's permission; they only have to notify the landlord and provide the licensee's name.

Under what provisions of the Act?

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

The lead tenant sublet under a licensee agreement as the licensee is paying rent to lead tenant. As far as I’m aware, after a certain period the licensee can apply to be a tenant.

A license just refers to the fact that the tenant shares with the LL/lead tenant whom he/she pays rent to. But the lead tenant is still subletting the room to the licensee.

Going back to what CH posted, the LL has the right to refuse assignment, whether the LL can force the remaining tenant to pay the whole rent having refused assignment, well, I’m sure CH has his own way to confirming that, I’m not so sure the LL can.

"Sublet" has a legal definition and does not refer to licensees in any form. There is a lot of information regarding this available online and that is easy to establish.

Assignment also refers to the lease.

Fian

Pkiernan wrote: »

You can't do the. The person breaking g the lease is entitled to find someone to replace them


LL getting screwed over again

You are wrong.

The landlord can absolutely prevent anyone else from living in their property. Any competently drafter lease will prevent tenants from taking in licencees on anything other than a very short term basis without payment. The consent of the landlord is required to take on a paying licencee. The other tenant is entitled to stay on but at the full rent.

If a landlord unreasonably refuses to allow a tenant to assign a lease to a replacement this provides a basis for the tenant to serve notice and leave the tenancy notwitstanding the term of the lease. this is not the same as an obligation to allow the tenant to assign their lease to a person of their choosing.

Of course as you point out no notice of termination can be served for any reason atm, at least until the 20th of July.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

"Sublet" has a legal definition and does not refer to licensees in any form. There is a lot of information regarding this available online and that is easy to establish.

Assignment also refers to the lease.

Subletting is the act of a tenant letting a room in the property they are renting, licence is the type of letting. A tenant must get consent to sublet, irrespective of whether it is under license.

Claw Hammer

Pkiernan wrote: »

For the duration of the emergency legislation the remaining tenant cant be forced to go anywhere , no matter how much of the rent is unpaid.

Not sure how people fail to understand that.

The tenant is giving notice. He can be told to give vacant possession or continue to be liable for the full rent. When the emergency period ends the tenant may find himself liable to be evicted for not paying the full rent. This is not a question of giving notice or evicting it is a question of helping the remaining occupant come to a decision to depart voluntarily.

Not sure how people fail to understand that.

dennyk

Dav010 wrote: »

Subletting is the act of a tenant letting a room in the property they are renting, licence is the type of letting. A tenant must get consent to sublet, irrespective of whether it is under license.

Subletting specifically refers to a tenant in a rental property letting the entire property out to a sub-tenant while no longer residing in said property themselves. This is in contrast to assignment, which is having the primary tenancy transferred to another tenant directly. In the case of subletting, the original tenant is still the tenant of the landlord and is fully responsible for paying the rent to the landlord and ensuring that the subletting occupant doesn't violate the tenancy agreement, while in the case of assignment, the original tenant is no longer involved at all and the assignee becomes the direct tenant of the landlord.

Taking in a licensee renting a room in your rented accommodation is not subletting under the RTA.

Claw Hammer

dennyk wrote: »

Subletting specifically refers to a tenant in a rental property letting the entire property out to a sub-tenant while no longer residing in said property themselves. This is in contrast to assignment, which is having the primary tenancy transferred to another tenant directly. In the case of subletting, the original tenant is still the tenant of the landlord and is fully responsible for paying the rent to the landlord and ensuring that the subletting occupant doesn't violate the tenancy agreement, while in the case of assignment, the original tenant is no longer involved at all and the assignee becomes the direct tenant of the landlord.

Taking in a licensee renting a room in your rented accommodation is not subletting under the RTA.

Where in the RTA does it say that? You have yet to produce a source for any of your propositions.

dennyk

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Where in the RTA does it say that? You have yet to produce a source for any of your propositions.

The RTA doesn't specifically address the matter of licensees renting rooms in private rental accommodation as far as I know, but it does define sub-tenancies:

“tenancy” includes a periodic tenancy and a tenancy for a fixed term, whether oral or in writing or implied, and, where the context so admits, includes a sub-tenancy and a tenancy or sub-tenancy that has been terminated;

Section 32 further clarifies that a sub-tenancy cannot be created for part of the dwelling in question (e.g. you cannot "sublet" a single room in your rented house to a "sub-tenant"; such an arrangement would not be a tenancy by law).

The Act doesn't explicitly define the term "sublet"/"sub-let", but its use in context clearly refers to a tenant moving out and subletting the entire property to a sub-tenant (thus creating a sub-tenancy). Such an action does require the written permission of the landlord (and a tenant can terminate a fixed term lease if the landlord "unreasonably" withholds said permission).

The RTB also defines a sub-tenancy in this FAQ:

What is a sub-tenancy?
When a tenant moves out of a dwelling and becomes landlord (in effect) to a new sub-tenant. That tenant must obtain the consent of his or her landlord before creating a sub-tenancy. The tenancy commencement date will be the same date as the date that the original tenancy commenced on.

The RTB also published a leaflet "Licensees in Private Rented Accommodation" which covers the topic in great detail. Unfortunately, after their latest web site redesign, the old link to that publication is now broken and I have not been able to find a current link. I was able to find a copy floating around here, however. That leaflet specifically addressed the common confusion between license agreements and sublets:

Licensing arrangements in private rented dwellings are often confused with sub-lettings and assignments. The difference is that when a tenant assigns or sublets their rental accommodation, they no longer live in it whereas a licensee shares the accommodation with the tenant.

It also addressed the matter of the landlord having no control over their tenant entering into a license agreement with a licensee:

Licensees in private rented accommodation are not tenants as there has been no tenancy entered into by them with the landlord. While the tenant is under a statutory obligation to inform the landlord of the identity of any person resident in (rather than just visiting) the dwelling, the landlord will not be in a position to accept or veto the individual concerned in the way that he/she could with a prospective tenant.

Claw Hammer

You have confirmed that a tenant cannot sublet of the accommodation whilst living in it and need the consent of the landlord to do it if they move out. The existing tenant. If the tenant leaves as the the case here, they can't leave a subtenant or assignee them without the consent of the landlord.
the issue now is what the continuing tenant can do to stay in the place. Very little at all unless he is willing to accept paying for the entire rent.
You have not produced any link from the RTA to show a tenant can ring in a licencee of their own volition and the landlord can do nothing. If the person coming is is a licencee that is subletting part of the accommodation to that person.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

Subletting is the act of a tenant letting a room in the property they are renting, licence is the type of letting. A tenant must get consent to sublet, irrespective of whether it is under license.

Nice definition but it's not an English one or a legal one.

Lease vs license.

"Let" specifically refers to a lease and not to a license. Very very basic stuff here, but you do know why you cannot create a legal lease at all whilst living in the same unit?

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Nice definition but it's not an English one or a legal one.

Lease vs license.

"Let" specifically refers to a lease and not to a license. Very very basic stuff here, but you do know why you cannot create a legal lease at all whilst living in the same unit?

Where is that specific reference?

“Letting” seems to be defined as the renting of a property, it does not specify the type of rental, whether it is a tenancy as defined by the RTB, or a licence agreement etc, but as it is very very basic stuff, you will no doubt show the specific reference.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

Where is that specific reference?

“Letting” seems to be defined as the renting of a property, it does not specify the type of rental, whether it is a tenancy as defined by the RTB, or a licence agreement etc, but as it is very very basic stuff, you will no doubt show the specific reference.

https://www.rtb.ie/beginning-a-tenancy/types-of-tenancies-and-agreements/subletting-and-assignment

10 seconds to dig this out.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

https://www.rtb.ie/beginning-a-tenancy/types-of-tenancies-and-agreements/subletting-and-assignment

10 seconds to dig this out.

That is subletting, not “let”.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

That is subletting, not “let”.

Yes, "sub" & "let".

Anyway, I've shown you a definition for subletting you can use.

corrado20t

Many thanks for all your help. With the extension of the restrictions. So does that mean i cannot give notice to them till they are lifted?

Pkiernan

corrado20t wrote: »

Many thanks for all your help. With the extension of the restrictions. So does that mean i cannot give notice to them till they are lifted?

Yes.
No notice may be served as per RTB website.

Total violation of property rights to appease the ultra hard left

Fran_AZNEU

Hello All,

Hope you all are well, didn’t want to open a new thread and this one seems the closest to my questions

Background

1 – I rented two rooms in my house as a landlord living in the house

2 – That’s falls in RTB as licence a room, outside part 4

3 – Now all tenants left, The Last one before the summer this year  

4 – The house is vacant I moved somewhere else

5 – I am selling the house

6 – The layer is asking to disclose all my past tenants' information to add to the contract ( see below point 8)

 7 – I clarified that there were licences, not RTB tenancy agreements therefore outside part 4

8  - Lawer still insisting see note here:

" ....The legal basis is that they (the Buyers)  must ensure that there is no other party that might have an interest in the property – in Ireland tenants gain rights after a certain period of time.

 The purchaser’s solicitor will require this information.

 I understand the tenants were there under licence.

 You do not have to give names of the tenants but please state the terms of the licences – I understand there were four tenants so please state the length of the terms i.e. when they started and when they ended, the rent payable, whether any deposit was paid etc.

 This is one of a completely standard set of requisitions for Sale contracts where there were tenants in the property within the last two years.

 This information will be required to enter into the contract....."

9- I am very confused with this as the house is vacant and do not see the need to disclose tenants & rents information for such a vague concern “that there is no other party that might have an interest in the property” – particularly since the house is vacant and prior agreement fall outside part 4, that I do understand represents a set of T&Cs that must be satisfied as per RTB guidelines but not for licence a room

 Any insights will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Fran 

3DataModem

The buyer is ensuring there is no RPZ rent cap on the property. Perfectly standard these days, as a purchased vacant properly might still have a tenancy from 18 months ago that sets the RPZ cap. Very important to get this right.

If some old roommate of yours can make a claim they were a tenant of some kind or otherwise subject to the RTB retrospectively, then the value of the property may be dramatically lower to an investor due to the RPTZ.

Fran_AZNEU

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121375160#Comment_121375160

Hi, Sorry to bother you again, many thanks for the response. These disclosures will need to be placed in the contract anyway if the house is purchased to be occupied by the new owners with no investment intent but just as their new family home?

3DataModem

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121376547#Comment_121376547

That's a question for your own solicitor.

mrslancaster

If there was a tenancy agreement it should have been registered with rtb.

Would the solicitor be satisfied with a letter/email from rtb to confirm that the property is not on their database and was not registered as a rental in the last two years?

meijin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121398849#Comment_121398849

in principle: even if the tenancy was not registered with RTB, that doesn't prove that there was no tenancy

(OK, it wasn't in this case, as it was room renting with the owner.)

mrslancaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121399497#Comment_121399497

Just curious about this but how do sellers prove there was no tenancy when selling a property that they don't currently live in other than confirming there was no tenancy agreement registered with the rtb ?

Whether it is the sellers only property, or a second or third property, how else do they prove it had no tenants? A property could be vacant if the seller was abroad or renting elsewhere themselves, or a holiday home, or used by kids, or empty because the owner didn't want to be a landlord etc., many different reasons. Surely any person claiming to have tenancy rights would need proof of that with some legal paperwork from the rtb or the courts.

meijin

• I don't think you can prove that you had no tenants, it's just a declaration
• I suppose the tenancy can be proven by a lease, rent payments, utility bills

3DataModem

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121400112#Comment_121400112

You can put it in the contracts, and indemnify the purchaser.