Rented house -Landlord terminated lease to sell property - Short Term Lease offered

James2020App

Long story short rented a house for a number of years up until last December. Landlord provided a termination to the lease on basis they were to sell the house.



Was always on good terms with the landlord, never had any issues with him. As part of the termination, it was stated that if the landlord did not sell the house within nine months he had to offer it back to myself to rent.



Got notification that landlord is going to offer a short-term lease to me for a period of two months starting next week.



I do want the house back but a two month period is not any good to me.


Part of me thinks that it is a cute way for the landlord to meet the criteria to offer the property back to me within the nine month period and meet his legal requirements. If I agree to the two month lease period, this lease will not be a Part IV lease and will give the Landlord an oppurtunity to give me a 28 day notice period at the end of it.



I have rang Threshold and they said there is very little that can be done, and it seems to be a bit of a loophole in the legislation. Offer a really short term lease, after renting a property for years. Most tenants would refuse it and it meets the landlord's requirements. If I accept it, the landlord can simply end it within 28 days for any reason at all. Then I am on the hunt again, and that is frustrating.



Has anyone been in a similar situation, or can offer any advice at all?

Fian

Seems far more likely that the landlord continues to intend to sell the property but is offering it to you in the short term ahead of the sale progressing, rther than that this is some sort of trick.

If I were selling a property I would want to wait a few months until things have stabilised a bit more after Covid.

Ofc there may be more information grounding your suspicions than you mentioned.

dennyk

That is an interesting one, because the requirement for the landlord to offer you a tenancy after nine months isn't actually in the law itself in the case of a termination because the owner intends to sell. Instead, Section 56 (3) (b) allows the Tribunal to order the landlord to allow you to "resume possession of the dwelling concerned" if "an enforceable agreement of the type referred to in that paragraph (referring to paragraph 3 of Section 34) is not entered into within the period specified therein". However, that is only one possible remedy; the Tribunal could instead order the landlord to pay you damages (or they could order both damages and resumption of possession). This is different than the requirements in Paragraph 4, 5, and 6 of Section 34 (landlord requires use of the property for themselves or a family member, landlord intends to substantially refurbish the property, or landlord intends to change the use of the property), which do explicitly require the landlord to "offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling" under certain conditions.

Technically speaking, the landlord here is in violation of the RTA by virtue of not selling the property in question, regardless of whether they subsequently offered you a tenancy or not. You could bring a case to the RTB and seek a determination allowing you to "resume possession" of the property. It's not clear from the law whether such a resumption of possession would also confer your prior Part 4 rights, or whether it would be considered a new tenancy, however. I'd imagine that the RTB would not look kindly on a landlord who responds to such a direction for resumption of possession by immediately seeking to terminate the tenant's resumed occupation, though, as that would rather defeat the purpose of that remedy. I'd be curious to know the outcome of any cases involving such circumstances before the Tribunal...

Deeec

dennyk wrote: »

That is an interesting one, because the requirement for the landlord to offer you a tenancy after nine months isn't actually in the law itself in the case of a termination because the owner intends to sell. Instead, Section 56 (3) (b) allows the Tribunal to order the landlord to allow you to "resume possession of the dwelling concerned" if "an enforceable agreement of the type referred to in that paragraph (referring to paragraph 3 of Section 34) is not entered into within the period specified therein". However, that is only one possible remedy; the Tribunal could instead order the landlord to pay you damages (or they could order both damages and resumption of possession). This is different than the requirements in Paragraph 4, 5, and 6 of Section 34 (landlord requires use of the property for themselves or a family member, landlord intends to substantially refurbish the property, or landlord intends to change the use of the property), which do explicitly require the landlord to "offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling" under certain conditions.

Technically speaking, the landlord here is in violation of the RTA by virtue of not selling the property in question, regardless of whether they subsequently offered you a tenancy or not. You could bring a case to the RTB and seek a determination allowing you to "resume possession" of the property. It's not clear from the law whether such a resumption of possession would also confer your prior Part 4 rights, or whether it would be considered a new tenancy, however. I'd imagine that the RTB would not look kindly on a landlord who responds to such a direction for resumption of possession by immediately seeking to terminate the tenant's resumed occupation, though, as that would rather defeat the purpose of that remedy. I'd be curious to know the outcome of any cases involving such circumstances before the Tribunal...

I cant see how the landlord could be in violation by not selling the property. It is my understanding from the OP that the property is still for sale and the landlord has still every intention of selling the property

OP I know its not a great situation for you but It does sounds like the landlord is trying to do you a favour by offering you a temporary place to live. Also where are you living now?

James2020App

Thanks for the seperate replies guys, I do appreciate them.

The property has not been put on the market at all. It neither was placed on Daft nor was a sign put outside it, so pretty sure it was never for sale.

It is my understanding that the new lease would be a new standalone lease, that would not be considered a Part IV lease at all. As it would be a seperate lease from the previously entered into and subsequently terminated lease.

I have returned to living with parents for the last number of months. The rent was somewhat below the current going market rate, and was being increased annually with RPZ increases etc.

As mentioned I have discussed with Tulsa, but was told that the landlord is entitled to do what they want as all they had to do was offer the house, which they have already done. What would you recommend me to do at this point? Should I go to RTB or attempt to get the advice of a solicitor or something else?

Deeec

James2020App wrote: »

Thanks for the seperate replies guys, I do appreciate them.

The property has not been put on the market at all. It neither was placed on Daft nor was a sign put outside it, so pretty sure it was never for sale.

It is my understanding that the new lease would be a new standalone lease, that would not be considered a Part IV lease at all. As it would be a seperate lease from the previously entered into and subsequently terminated lease.

I have returned to living with parents for the last number of months. The rent was somewhat below the current going market rate, and was being increased annually with RPZ increases etc.

As mentioned I have discussed with Tulsa, but was told that the landlord is entitled to do what they want as all they had to do was offer the house, which they have already done. What would you recommend me to do at this point? Should I go to RTB or attempt to get the advice of a solicitor or something else?

If he never actually put the property up for sale than I think you have a valid complaint. You have to weigh up though if its worth the hassle of going to RTB with this and probably finding that the good relationship you had with the landlord is gone. Personally I would try to find somewhere else if I were you.

The Student

James2020App wrote: »

Thanks for the seperate replies guys, I do appreciate them.

The property has not been put on the market at all. It neither was placed on Daft nor was a sign put outside it, so pretty sure it was never for sale.

It is my understanding that the new lease would be a new standalone lease, that would not be considered a Part IV lease at all. As it would be a seperate lease from the previously entered into and subsequently terminated lease.

I have returned to living with parents for the last number of months. The rent was somewhat below the current going market rate, and was being increased annually with RPZ increases etc.

As mentioned I have discussed with Tulsa, but was told that the landlord is entitled to do what they want as all they had to do was offer the house, which they have already done. What would you recommend me to do at this point? Should I go to RTB or attempt to get the advice of a solicitor or something else?

The rent from what I understand must remain under the rpz legislation so offering it to someone new or even to you on another lease is still on the original rate plus 4% etc.

If he wanted to rent it again and you had a good relationship with the landlord you would be the perfect tenant.

MacDanger

James2020App wrote: »

Thanks for the seperate replies guys, I do appreciate them.

The property has not been put on the market at all. It neither was placed on Daft nor was a sign put outside it, so pretty sure it was never for sale.

It is my understanding that the new lease would be a new standalone lease, that would not be considered a Part IV lease at all. As it would be a seperate lease from the previously entered into and subsequently terminated lease.

I have returned to living with parents for the last number of months. The rent was somewhat below the current going market rate, and was being increased annually with RPZ increases etc.

As mentioned I have discussed with Tulsa, but was told that the landlord is entitled to do what they want as all they had to do was offer the house, which they have already done. What would you recommend me to do at this point? Should I go to RTB or attempt to get the advice of a solicitor or something else?

I would email the LL and ask him if he's putting it up for sale or not so that you have it clearly in writing about what he's doing / intends to do. Specifically, ask him if this offer is to fulfill his obligations under the RTA or is this separate from that. If he says that this is fulfilling his obligations under the RTA with this offer, I'd accept and also raise a case with the RTB

James2020App

I think I have three options really:

1) Ignore the email and just move on and forget about this house.

2) Bring the case to the RTB as a dispute. My main issue of the dispute would be "selling the property" reason on the notice of termination was inaccurate.

3) Accept the short-term lease. From reading the Residential Tenancy Act S35(6) it appears that if you get offered back the property, it affectively acts as if it is one continuous lease from the initial lease to the subsequent short term lease. At least this is my reading of this legislation:

" If an offer such as is referred to in paragraph 4(b), 5(b) or 6(b) of the Table is accepted (with reference to the original part iv lease) by the former tenant concerned (the “accepter”)—

(a) the resulting agreement is enforceable by the accepter (as well as by the offeror), and

(b) occupation by the accepter under the tenancy created in favour of him or her on foot of that agreement shall, together with his or her occupation under the former tenancy, be regarded, for the purposes of this Act, as continuous occupation by the accepter under the one tenancy."

It is not however totally clear cut. Which option would you advise that I go after?

Fian

If you want to continue to live there you should accept the lease.

You are correct that this and previous occupation will operate as continuous occupation - so that you will have security of tenure (subject to the ordinary reasons for termination) assuming that cumulatively your occupation exceeds 6 months - you will have a statutory tenancy pursuant to part IV of the Act.