Covid tenant issues.

handlemaster

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/our-tenant-refuses-to-move-from-our-holiday-home-now-we-can-t-use-it-1.4352581?mode=amp


Good article in the Times today regarding a tenant using covid as an excuse not to move out. I guess we will see alot more of this going on over the next year. Landlords have now another plate to spin in the air.

Ap2020

What the landlord was doing in this situation was always asking for trouble. Depending on move in dates, the covid changes may have saved them if the tenant has only been there since, say, late October.

If you have a holiday home that you rent out you need that lease to be shorter than six months, otherwise your tenant will gain part 4 rights and the entire process for an eviction, which can ultimately end in the district court, has to be gone through. The tenant doesn't need any particular excuse in those circumstances, only the belief that your claim to want the property back for your own use is not genuine.

stinkbomb

What makes you think its an "excuse"? It's not like covid hasn't affected peoples lives. The tenant has every right to stay in the property, and would have done if covid had never happened.
What you have here is an amateur landlord who doesn't know what they are doing and has been lucky up until now.

handlemaster

stinkbomb wrote: »

What makes you think its an "excuse"? It's not like covid hasn't affected peoples lives. The tenant has every right to stay in the property, and would have done if covid had never happened.
What you have here is an amateur landlord who doesn't know what they are doing and has been lucky up until now.

The tenant agreed to a contract of 9 months. Now is using covid as an excuse. They signed a contract for 9 months.

handlemaster

handlemaster wrote: »

The tenant agreed to a contract of 9 months. Now is using covid as an excuse. They signed a contract for 9 months.

Have to agree with the others, once the LL agreed a lease over 6 months, he/she has to accept that the tenant has part 4 rights. The tenants legal rights under the RTA trump any term clause in the letting agreement.

eleventh

It's an example of a landlord with enough experience but yet is ignorant of the law, dealing with a tenant who's not honest.
In other words, a rare case. Vast majority of tenants are honest, the last thing they'd want is to create a conflict.

beauf

stinkbomb wrote: »

What makes you think its an "excuse"? It's not like covid hasn't affected peoples lives. The tenant has every right to stay in the property, and would have done if covid had never happened.
What you have here is an amateur landlord who doesn't know what they are doing and has been lucky up until now.

..and people are baffled why so many properties are left empty...

beauf

Landlords have to realise the govt doesn't want to build or supply housing. They are making it the Landlords problem, so the Govt don't have to deal with it. Or pay for it in many cases, not this one as far as we know.

The vast majority of tenancies do not end up in over staying. But if they do the landlord is in their own. So you have factor that in any financial planning.

brisan

beauf wrote: »

..and people are baffled why so many properties are left empty...

The landlord didn’t know the law
Had it handy for a few years renting out for 9 months of the year
Is he even registered with the RTB as he was legally obliged to do
Did he even know it existed ?
Did he care or did he think I’ll get someone to pay the mortgage on my holiday home so I can use it for free for 3 months of the year ?
If he was that should have been his first port of call
Was he paying taxes ??
He should have rented the property out for 5and a half months a year but obviously wanted the extra 3 and a half months rent
His ignorance of law has now come back to bite him on the ass
Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law
Tenants have rights as well
Maybe too many rights at times and some do take the mickey but those rights were conferred for very good reasons

beauf

The reason was people got kicked out for no reason and because there is no supply they couldn't find anywhere else.

Many years later and this tenant still has the same issue. No supply can't move anywhere else. So all those holiday homes and fair deal homes all remain empty.

At some point you'd hope someone will join the dots.

handlemaster

brisan wrote: »

The landlord didn’t know the law
Had it handy for a few years renting out for 9 months of the year
Is he even registered with the RTB as he was legally obliged to do
Did he even know it existed ?
Did he care or did he think I’ll get someone to pay the mortgage on my holiday home so I can use it for free for 3 months of the year ?
If he was that should have been his first port of call
Was he paying taxes ??
He should have rented the property out for 5and a half months a year but obviously wanted the extra 3 and a half months rent
His ignorance of law has now come back to bite him on the ass
Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law
Tenants have rights as well
Maybe too many rights at times and some do take the mickey but those rights were conferred for very good reasons

Why ask if the landlord was registered, paying taxes etc. This always seems to be an easy go to statement of attack on landlords. The LL should have realised that the tenant would have rights after 6 months, thst was a big mistake.But equally the tenant should be honoring the contract that they signed. It was clear from the outset it was for 9 months only.

brisan

brisan wrote: »

The landlord didn’t know the law
Had it handy for a few years renting out for 9 months of the year
Is he even registered with the RTB as he was legally obliged to do
Did he even know it existed ?
Did he care or did he think I’ll get someone to pay the mortgage on my holiday home so I can use it for free for 3 months of the year ?
If he was that should have been his first port of call
Was he paying taxes ??
He should have rented the property out for 5and a half months a year but obviously wanted the extra 3 and a half months rent
His ignorance of law has now come back to bite him on the ass
Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law
Tenants have rights as well
Maybe too many rights at times and some do take the mickey but those rights were conferred for very good reasons

If your questions are meant to be rhetorical, you are making a lot of baseless assumptions. The LLs tax affairs are not the concern of the tenant, their rights are not affected by them. The tenant is not “paying the landlords mortgage”, they are paying to rent the house, whether the LL has a mortgage or not is immaterial.

While I am in agreement with you that the LL has only his/herself to blame in this situation, and it could be a harsh lesson to learn, speculating about any other aspect of the LLs standing with the RTB and Revenue is trite.

beauf

The whys aren't important. The fact is the legislation and the rules make it nonviable to rent short term and even long term is now high risk, with little protection for the LL.

If you want to increase supply that would seem to be counter intuitive. But thats what people seem to want.

brisan

Dav010 wrote: »

If your questions are meant to be rhetorical, you are making a lot of baseless assumptions. The LLs tax affairs are not the concern of the tenant, their rights are not affected by them. The tenant is not “paying the landlords mortgage”, they are paying to rent the house, whether the LL has a mortgage or not is immaterial.

While I am in agreement with you that the LL has only his/herself to blame in this situation, and it could be a harsh lesson to learn, speculating about any other aspect of the LLs standing with the RTB and Revenue is trite.

Why did the landlord go to the papers
Surely the RTB is the first port of call , hence why I asked did he know it existed
I am sure there are a few accidental landlords who are not registered
If you ring the RTB as a landlord or a tenant the first question they will ask is. Is the property registered
If you’re a landlord you will have to register to make a complaint
If the property is not registered the tenant will still be able to make a complaint but the landlord will be chased to register
Unless the whole article is a fabrication to fill paper space which is not beyond the bounds of possibility

brisan

brisan wrote: »

Why did the landlord go to the papers
Surely the RTB is the first port of call , hence why I asked did he know it existed
I am sure there are a few accidental landlords who are not registered
If you ring the RTB as a landlord or a tenant the first question they will ask is. Is the property registered
If you’re a landlord you will have to register to make a complaint
If the property is not registered the tenant will still be able to make a complaint but the landlord will be chased to register
Unless the whole article is a fabrication to fill paper space which is not beyond the bounds of possibility

I suspect that letters like this to the papers are not always bone fide. A few years ago, some letters in Ben Dunnes’s column bore a striking resemblance to opening posts on this very site.

But leaving that aside, it isn’t uncommon for people to post on Boards.ie looking for advice, at the same time as getting advice from both solicitors and/or RTB. It is a free resource.

beauf

I assume because it's just dawned on them why during a housing crisis it makes more sense to leave a place like this empty, if you aren't using it full time.

ted1

stinkbomb wrote: »

What makes you think its an "excuse"? It's not like covid hasn't affected peoples lives. The tenant has every right to stay in the property, and would have done if covid had never happened.
What you have here is an amateur landlord who doesn't know what they are doing and has been lucky up until now.

No he does not have a right as it’s needed for family use

ted1

brisan wrote: »

The landlord didn’t know the law
Had it handy for a few years renting out for 9 months of the year
Is he even registered with the RTB as he was legally obliged to do

Does he need to?
I’d say he may be exempt. A 9 month holiday let or perhaps online
https://www.rtb.ie/register-a-tenancy/is-your-property-exempt-from-registration

brisan

ted1 wrote: »

Does he need to?
I’d say he may be exempt. A 9 month holiday let or perhaps online
https://www.rtb.ie/register-a-tenancy/is-your-property-exempt-from-registration

Under what section there would he be exempt ?
Would you normally issue a lease for a holiday letting no matter how long the let
In his original letter the landlord says he made it clear it was a 9 month tenancy

brisan

brisan wrote: »

Under what section there would he be exempt ?
Would you normally issue a lease for a holiday letting no matter how long the let
In his original letter the landlord says he made it clear it was a 9 month tenancy

There is no mention of a written lease in the letter.

stinkbomb

ted1 wrote: »

No he does not have a right as it’s needed for family use

No, thats not the case. It's not needed for family use, as a home. It's wanted for family use, as a holiday getaway.

The facts are simple: The tenant was there more than 6 months and acquired part 4 rights to stay. The landlord was either ignorant of the rules or thought s'he would get away with it.
The tenant did nothing wrong, simply used the rights given to him/her in law.

ted1

stinkbomb wrote: »

No, thats not the case. It's not needed for family use, as a home. It's wanted for family use, as a holiday getaway.

The facts are simple: The tenant was there more than 6 months and acquired part 4 rights to stay. The landlord was either ignorant of the rules or thought s'he would get away with it.
The tenant did nothing wrong, simply used the rights given to him/her in law.

And he can be evicted as it’s needed for family use. He can be offered it back once the family are finished

mrslancaster

Dav010 wrote: »

Have to agree with the others, once the LL agreed a lease over 6 months, he/she has to accept that the tenant has part 4 rights. The tenants legal rights under the RTA trump any term clause in the letting agreement.

Can I ask what would be the situation if the OP or any 'LL had a fixed term lease for less than 6 months and the tenant refused to leave when the time was up. Would the tenant still gain part4 rights?

brisan

Dav010 wrote: »

There is no mention of a written lease in the letter.

He stated that the tenant was informed it was a 9 month TENANCY

How many landlords actually issue a lease nowadays
Either in paper form or an online lease ???

brisan

brisan wrote: »

He stated that the tenant was informed it was a 9 month TENANCY

How many landlords actually issue a lease nowadays
Either in paper form or an online lease ???

I would suspect most.

ted1

brisan wrote: »

He stated that the tenant was informed it was a 9 month TENANCY

How many landlords actually issue a lease nowadays
Either in paper form or an online lease ???

Most would.

stinkbomb

ted1 wrote: »

And he can be evicted as it’s needed for family use. He can be offered it back once the family are finished

Again, you are wrong. It is not NEEDED for family use, its WANTED for family use, as a temporary holiday home. That is not a valid reason for eviction under the rules.

stinkbomb

brisan wrote: »

He stated that the tenant was informed it was a 9 month TENANCY

How many landlords actually issue a lease nowadays
Either in paper form or an online lease ???

Pretty much all of them.

Spanish Eyes

Even if the tenancy was less than six months, surely the process to evict if they overhold or do not pay is the same.

The only thing here is the fact that tenants of less than six month lease need no reason for eviction, and do not gain Part 4 rights. But for the owner/landlord the problem is still the same surely.

brisan

stinkbomb wrote: »

Pretty much all of them.

I thought as much
We used to give one and so did my brothers
However I know two who dont and never have

neris

Doesnt sound to far off the story line in the Ross OCarroll Kelly podcast/column from last weekends times

ted1

stinkbomb wrote: »

Again, you are wrong. It is not NEEDED for family use, its WANTED for family use, as a temporary holiday home. That is not a valid reason for eviction under the rules.

It’s Needed.

stinkbomb

ted1 wrote: »

It’s Needed.

It's not though. Nobody needs a holiday home.

beauf

stinkbomb wrote: »

It's not though. Nobody needs a holiday home.

Not even the tenant?

ted1

stinkbomb wrote: »

It's not though. Nobody needs a holiday home.

They need it to live in for several months.

brisan

ted1 wrote: »

They need it to live in for several months.

They want to live in it not need
They could just stay where they spend the other 9 months of the year unless they have rented that out for 3 months

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

They need it to live in for several months.

I would imagine that to be a tough sell, it says they look forward to going there every year. It sounds like an elective move rather than a necessary one.

ted1

Dav010 wrote: »

I would imagine that to be a tough sell, it says they look forward to going there every year. It sounds like an elective move rather than a necessary one.

It’s needed for the family. When are moves not elective?
You could say that sons and daughters elect to go to go college so don’t need the family apartment near the college.

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

It’s needed for the family. When are moves not elective?
You could say that sons and daughters elect to go to go college so don’t need the family apartment near the college.

I suppose if there was a dispute you would have to put your case to the RTB as to why you needed it. I suspect a close family member needing it when going to college rather than having to rent another property would be looked on more favourably than a couple wanting to go to their holiday home every year for 3 months while still having their own home to live in the other 9.

stinkbomb

The RTB are never going to accept that it is "needed for family use" when its for use as a holiday home. That is not a need. It's not comparable to living in it to go to college, at all.

Nobody "needs" a holiday home, when they already have a home. You don't get to turf a tenant out of their legal home so you can go on holiday.

brisan

stinkbomb wrote: »

The RTB are never going to accept that it is "needed for family use" when its for use as a holiday home. That is not a need. It's not comparable to living in it to go to college, at all.

Nobody "needs" a holiday home, when they already have a home. You don't get to turf a tenant out of their legal home so you can go on holiday.

In the good old days landlords could do whatever the hell they wanted to
Some lads miss those days

brisan

brisan wrote: »

In the good old days landlords could do whatever the hell they wanted to
Some lads miss those days

This isn’t the typical LL - Tenant situation though. The tenant knew from the outset that the agreement was for 9 months only and that the owner wanted use of the holiday home for the other 3 months. In this case, the owner wants only what was agreed, unfortunately, whether through ignorance of the relevant law, or misjudging the type of person they were renting to, they find that the agreement is not being honoured and they cannot use their house.

beauf

The knock on effect of this will be people will keep property empty than do short lets, in a housing crisis.

In fact people won't re-purpose any other type of accommodation for long term lets, due to overstays.

stinkbomb

Dav010 wrote: »

This isn’t the typical LL - Tenant situation though. The tenant knew from the outset that the agreement was for 9 months only and that the owner wanted use of the holiday home for the other 3 months. In this case, the owner wants only what was agreed, unfortunately, whether through ignorance of the relevant law, or misjudging the type of person they were renting to, they find that the agreement is not being honoured and they cannot use their house.

The landlord should have known that it didn't matter if the tenancy was for 9 months, the tenant acquired part4 rights after 6 months.

There's too much judgement about the tenant, of whom we know nothing, there is every reason to think they had good intentions to leave after 9 months, but covid has made changes for a lot of people. It's likely their position changed. All the did is what they were legally allowed to do.

The tenant MAY be in the wrong, we don't know. We DO know the landlord was defintely in the wrong.

stinkbomb

beauf wrote: »

The knock on effect of this will be people will keep property empty than do short lets, in a housing crisis.

In fact people won't re-purpose any other type of accommodation for long term lets, due to overstays.

Short lets are of no use in a housing crisis. Homeless people don't want a 6 month or 9 month rental, they want a home.
There is no knock on effect from this other to reinforce part4 rights for tenants, which is only right.

What does it have to do with repurposing for long term lets?

beauf

Blows this out of the water...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/vacant-property-owners-need-to-answer-ireland-s-call-1.4213995

If you don't want a short term let, don't move into one. Its the Govt remit to provide long term social housing.

People are starting to be asked for 3 and 4 months rent as a deposit. Which is the norm in some countries. But this is likely to become more common.

beauf

stinkbomb wrote: »

The landlord should have known that it didn't matter if the tenancy was for 9 months, the tenant acquired part4 rights after 6 months.

There's too much judgement about the tenant, of whom we know nothing, there is every reason to think they had good intentions to leave after 9 months, but covid has made changes for a lot of people. It's likely their position changed. All the did is what they were legally allowed to do.

The tenant MAY be in the wrong, we don't know. We DO know the landlord was defintely in the wrong.

When covid happened, tourism collapsed. There was empty tourism accommodation all over the place. Any overseas workers moved home instantly, as did students.
You can imagine it was hard to find any alternatives at that time.

So looking like no holidays for 6 yrs so. Is that the only time the LL can end the tenancy. Might as well sell it.

brisan

beauf wrote: »

Blows this out of the water...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/vacant-property-owners-need-to-answer-ireland-s-call-1.4213995

If you don't want a short term let, don't move into one. Its the Govt remit to provide long term social housing.

People are starting to be asked for 3 and 4 months rent as a deposit. Which is the norm in some countries. But this is likely to become more common.

people may be asked fo4r 3 or 4 months deposit but I doubt very much many will agree to it when the vast majority of rentals only ask for 1 month

beauf

Things change

stinkbomb

beauf wrote: »

Blows this out of the water...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/vacant-property-owners-need-to-answer-ireland-s-call-1.4213995

If you don't want a short term let, don't move into one. Its the Govt remit to provide long term social housing.

People are starting to be asked for 3 and 4 months rent as a deposit. Which is the norm in some countries. But this is likely to become more common.

You might want a short term let and then some unexpected thing could happen, you know like a global pandemic that changed life as we know it for many people? Do you find it so hard to imagine that someones plans to move out changed, and they had no choice but to stay (which they were legally fine to do so)?

stinkbomb

stinkbomb wrote: »

The landlord should have known that it didn't matter if the tenancy was for 9 months, the tenant acquired part4 rights after 6 months.

There's too much judgement about the tenant, of whom we know nothing, there is every reason to think they had good intentions to leave after 9 months, but covid has made changes for a lot of people. It's likely their position changed. All the did is what they were legally allowed to do.

The tenant MAY be in the wrong, we don't know. We DO know the landlord was defintely in the wrong.

The LL should have known, but no doubt he/she thought they were dealing with an honourable person who would leave at the agreed time. Lesson learned, I doubt he/she will let their house again.

We know that the tenant knew it was a letting for 9 months only, the tenant is relying on legal entitlement rather than the terms they agreed with the owner.