nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

End of initial 4 years of Part 4 tenancy - does a new period start automatically?

Bob24

Hi,

I understand that after 4 years the initial period of a Part 4 tenancy ends and a new once starts.

My question is: as long as neither the landlord not the tenant express the wish to stop the tenancy, does a new period start automatically? Or do the tenant has to explicitly send a letter to the landlord to express their wish to keep their status as a Part 4 tenant? (if yes: would that be immediately after the 4 years, or after a delay of 6 months?)

Cheers!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

pacelut

Cannot post link, but go to "threshold(dot) ie", then "advice", then "dealing-with-problems-during-your-tenancy" and finally "security-of-tenure"

pacelut

Taken from that page:

"Further Part 4 Tenancies
If you remain in your tenancy for the full period of your Part 4 tenancy, then after 4 years a new cycle begins called a 'Further Part 4 tenancy'. A landlord can terminate a Further Part 4 tenancy in the first 6 months with no reason but thereafter can only do so on one of the grounds specified in the act. A minimum of 112 days notice must be given for a tenancy of 4 years or more. "

Michael D Not Higgins

It rolls over automatically. Basically if neither tenant or landlord say anything, it continues as per usual.

Bob24

Thanks, yes I saw it there: http://www.threshold.ie/advice/dealing-with-problems-during-your-tenancy/security-of-tenure/

The only thing is they don't say if any explicit request is required from the tenant to initiate the 'Further Part 4 tenancy' or to confirm it after the initial 6 months (for the initial period, you need to send a letter at some start to claim your Part 4 tenancy and I was wondering if there is something similar there).

I was assuming if threshold/citizeninformation doesn't mention it, it is probably automatic. But with this kind of thing I don't really like assuming :-)

Baby01032012

As posters have said above - yes

Just to add from landlord perspective because it is seen as start of a new part iv / 4 year cycle tenancy will have to be registered again with prtb. Prtb send out reminders though.

Bob24

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

It rolls over automatically. Basically if neither tenant or landlord say anything, it continues as per usual.

Cheers!

So if I get it right the only effect the end of the initial period can have for me is that the landlord has a six months window following it whereby they can end the tenancy with no specific reason but with a 112 days’ notice?

Michael D Not Higgins

Bob24 wrote: »

Cheers!

So if I get it right the only effect the end of the initial period can have for me is that the landlord has a six months window following it whereby they can end the tenancy with no specific reason but with a 112 days’ notice?

Yes, exactly.

Bob24

Baby01032012 wrote: »

As posters have said above - yes

Just to add from landlord perspective because it is seen as start of a new part iv / 4 year cycle tenancy will have to be registered again with prtb. Prtb send out reminders though.

Good to know thanks, I might mention that to my landlord to make sure everything is done by the books.

Baby01032012

Bob24 wrote: »

Good to know thanks, I might mention that to my landlord to make sure everything is done by the books.

You can of course. Onus is on him to have his affairs in order though or face the penalty if not. In general whether tenancy is registered or not has no negative impact on tenant - they can still take case to prtb.

Bob24

Baby01032012 wrote: »

You can of course. Onus is on him to have his affairs in order though or face the penalty if not. In general whether tenancy is registered or not has no negative impact on tenant - they can still take case to prtb.

I might actually need a proof of PRTB registration at some point next year, so this is why I was saying it is good to know - thanks for the info.

The landlord is very good and I am pretty sure she wouldn't willingly fail to comply with her legal obligations, but I am not sure she is fully aware if this type requirement (an agent was taking care of this stuff originally but she is now handling things directly). We have good relationship, so I think I'll just trust her by default and drop her a not if I don't get a new registration certificate from the PTRB within a few weeks of the new period.

4ensic15

pacelut wrote: »

Taken from that page:

"Further Part 4 Tenancies
If you remain in your tenancy for the full period of your Part 4 tenancy, then after 4 years a new cycle begins called a 'Further Part 4 tenancy'. A landlord can terminate a Further Part 4 tenancy in the first 6 months with no reason but thereafter can only do so on one of the grounds specified in the act. A minimum of 112 days notice must be given for a tenancy of 4 years or more. "

That is not correct. A reason has to be given.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is not correct. A reason has to be given.

Whats "not correct"?

Up until the final day of the first six months of a further part 4 tenancy, the LL can terminate the tenancy for any/no reason. The LL is not required to justify the ending of the tenancy, he/she is just required to give the relevant notice in the correct timeframe before part4 rights are attained.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Whats "not correct"?

Up until the final day of the first six months of a further part 4 tenancy, the LL can terminate the tenancy for any/no reason. The LL is not required to justify the ending of the tenancy, he/she is just required to give the relevant notice in the correct timeframe before part4 rights are attained.

Not true.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7F4D66320A5B7A3880257F5C00349E68

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

Not true.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7F4D66320A5B7A3880257F5C00349E68

Read the last paragraph of the link you provided. The LL was not a named party in the appeal, the judge said the termination was valid ( a fact not disputed by the appellant) and the case was referred back to the Tribunal for consideration. It does not say that a reason MUST be given for termination to be valid, it's non inclusion may be considered a slip or omission because the RTA does not require a reason for termination in the first 6 months of a Part4 tenancy.

Text:

15. As a consequence of its finding as to the point of law raised on appeal, and mindful that the landlord was not joined to the within proceedings as a notice-party, the court will remit these proceedings to the Board for it to convene a Tenancy Tribunal to consider Ms Dunviya’s complaint afresh in light both of the within judgment and any (if any) such further representations as Ms Dunivya or Mr Gibson may make. Should the Tenancy Tribunal so convened consider it proper to invoke s.64A of the Act of 2004 it may or may not wish to note this Court’s view that (a) the omission of the reason for the termination from the notice of termination of 18th June, 2014, has not resulted in any prejudice of the type described in s.64A(a) of the Act of 2004, and (b) apart from the omission of the reason for termination, the notice of termination of 18th June, 2014, appears otherwise to be in compliance with the Act of 2004; indeed the contrary appears never to have been pleaded by Ms Dunivya.

athtrasna

Mod note : Davo10 leave the modding to the mods please. It's not up to you to tell others what to post. Thanks

Michael D Not Higgins

It's clear that the intention is that no reason is required during the first 6 months of a 4 year cycle, as explained in the guidance by both Threshold and Citizen's Information. The court has interpreted the clause in Part 5 as saying that after 6 months there must be a reason, however, I read it as after 6 months of a tenancy. In clause 41 of the RTA 2004, a further Part 4 tenancy is defined as a new tenancy and thus I would read Part 5 as having effect only after the next 6 months of that term are elapsed.

I think if the matter revolved more around this point they might have looked deeper but I think the High Court dropped the ball there.

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

It's clear that the intention is that no reason is required during the first 6 months of a 4 year cycle, as explained in the guidance by both Threshold and Citizen's Information. The court has interpreted the clause in Part 5 as saying that after 6 months there must be a reason, however, I read it as after 6 months of a tenancy. In clause 41 of the RTA 2004, a further Part 4 tenancy is defined as a new tenancy and thus I would read Part 5 as having effect only after the next 6 months of that term are elapsed.

I think if the matter revolved more around this point they might have looked deeper but I think the High Court dropped the ball there.

It can't be a new tenbancy because the notice periods increase after 5 years which if there was a new tenancy would not be the case.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

It can't be a new tenbancy because the notice periods increase after 5 years which if there was a new tenancy would not be the case.

What? The "part 5" MDNH is referring to is the part of the RTA which relates to termination and notice periods. A new tenancy begins after every 4 year cycle, that it why the tenancy can be terminated for any reason during the first six months of the new cycle. After 4 years the notice period goes to 112 days, this is the max required, it does not increase after the fifth year.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

What? The "part 5" MDNH is referring to is the part of the RTA which relates to termination and notice periods. A new tenancy begins after every 4 year cycle, that it why the tenancy can be terminated for any reason during the first six months of the new cycle. After 4 years the notice period goes to 112 days, this is the max required, it does not increase after the fifth year.

It is the same tenancy. It just loses its part 4 characteristics for a period. |As found by the High Court once 6 months have passed a reason must be given.

"5. The Tribunal conducted its hearing on 1st April, 2015. It was satisfied that the notice of termination complied fully with s.62 of the Act of 2004, with the exception of s.62(1)(e). However, the Tribunal was satisfied that a reason did not need to be given for termination as it came within the parameters of s.34(b) of the Act of 2004. Ms Dunivya has appealed against this last-mentioned finding. She claims that the Tenancy Tribunal erred in law by finding that a reason did not need to be given for the termination of her tenancy."

"11. Section 62(1) sits in Part 5. It requires that “A notice of termination to be valid shall…(e) if the duration of the tenancy is a period of more than 6 months, state (where the termination is by the landlord) the reason for the termination”. There is nothing in the Act of 2004 to suggest that this requirement does not apply to the notice of termination that is required under s.34(b).Thus the court’s answer to the question posed in the opening sentence of this judgment is that a notice of termination served on a ‘Part 4 tenant’ under s.34(b) of the Act of 2004 must state a reason for that termination."

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is the same tenancy. It just loses its part 4 characteristics for a period. |As found by the High Court once 6 months have passed a reason must be given.

"5. The Tribunal conducted its hearing on 1st April, 2015. It was satisfied that the notice of termination complied fully with s.62 of the Act of 2004, with the exception of s.62(1)(e). However, the Tribunal was satisfied that a reason did not need to be given for termination as it came within the parameters of s.34(b) of the Act of 2004. Ms Dunivya has appealed against this last-mentioned finding. She claims that the Tenancy Tribunal erred in law by finding that a reason did not need to be given for the termination of her tenancy."

"11. Section 62(1) sits in Part 5. It requires that “A notice of termination to be valid shall…(e) if the duration of the tenancy is a period of more than 6 months, state (where the termination is by the landlord) the reason for the termination”. There is nothing in the Act of 2004 to suggest that this requirement does not apply to the notice of termination that is required under s.34(b).Thus the court’s answer to the question posed in the opening sentence of this judgment is that a notice of termination served on a ‘Part 4 tenant’ under s.34(b) of the Act of 2004 must state a reason for that termination."

You do realise that the case you reference above preceeded the High Court case you referenced in your previous link, or having considered that case the High Court found that the reason for termination was not required to be included in the notice of termination and referred it back for consideration to the Tribunal.

At the end of four years a new tenancy will commence and the cycle begins again.

You stated that Pacelut/myself/ MDNH are all "not correct" and that a reason for termination is required in the first 6 months of a new 4 year cycle, can you provide a link to support that?

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

You do realise that the case you reference above preceeded the High Court case you referenced in your previous link, or having considered that case the High Court found that the reason for termination was not required to be included in the notice of termination and referred it back for consideration to the Tribunal.

At the end of four years a new tenancy will commence and the cycle begins again.

You stated that Pacelut/myself/ MDNH are all "not correct" and that a reason for termination is required in the first 6 months of a new 4 year cycle, can you provide a link to support that?

The case found that a reason was required and sent it back to the Tribunal for re-consideration on the basis that the Tribunal might overlook the absence of the reason. The case came to the High Court on a point of law only so it went back to the Tribunal to apply the law correctly, having found it was wrong. A new tenancy does not commence. It is the same tenant and same landlord.
Look at section 30 of the residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2015.
Termination by Landlord

/images/en.act.2015.0042.0001.jpg

Note that for tenancies longer that 4 years and up to 8 years the notice periods increase. It clearly means that it is the same tenancy and does not end when the 4 year cycle begins again.

Michael D Not Higgins

41. (1) If a Part 4 tenancy continues to the expiry of the 4 year period without a notice of termination under section 34 or 36 having been served in respect of it before that expiry, then a new tenancy shall, by virtue of this section, come into being between the landlord and the tenant on that expiry.

(2) Such a tenancy is referred to in this Act as a “further Part 4 tenancy”.

That's pretty clear to me. Saying it's not because the notice periods increase ignores that the Act specifically calls it a new tenancy.

This is also supported by the fact that the new tenancy has to be registered with the PRTB.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

The case found that a reason was required and sent it back to the Tribunal for re-consideration on the basis that the Tribunal might overlook the absence of the reason. The case came to the High Court on a point of law only so it went back to the Tribunal to apply the law correctly, having found it was wrong. A new tenancy does not commence. It is the same tenant and same landlord.
Look at section 30 of the residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2015.
Termination by Landlord

/images/en.act.2015.0042.0001.jpg

Note that for tenancies longer that 4 years and up to 8 years the notice periods increase. It clearly means that it is the same tenancy and does not end when the 4 year cycle begins again.

Looks like you still haven't read the last paragraph on the high court link, the judge said that as reason is not required, the Tribunal could consider its non inclusion as a slip or omission but that they may take his judgement that it should be included into consideration in future. The notice was valid and th judge did not direct it struck down, the RTA has not been amended, the PRTB/Threshold/CA websites have not carried the fact as you see it.

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

Looks like you still haven't read the last paragraph on the high court link, the judge said that as reason is not required, the Tribunal could consider its non inclusion as a slip or omission but that they may take his judgement that it should be included into consideration in future. The notice was valid and th judge did not direct it struck down.

Whether it's required or not, I will still advise that a reason isn't required during that 6 month period until a notice of termination has been deemed invalid by its omission.

davo10

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Whether it's required or not, I will still advise that a reason isn't required during that 6 month period until a notice of termination has been deemed invalid by its omission.

Yip, thats the way it works, I suspect no matter how many times we post the relevant sections of the Act, it won't be accepted by some.

GGTrek

4ensic15 wrote: »

davo10 wrote: »

What? The "part 5" MDNH is referring to is the part of the RTA which relates to termination and notice periods. A new tenancy begins after every 4 year cycle, that it why the tenancy can be terminated for any reason during the first six months of the new cycle. After 4 years the notice period goes to 112 days, this is the max required, it does not increase after the fifth year.

It is the same tenancy. It just loses its part 4 characteristics for a period. |As found by the High Court once 6 months have passed a reason must be given.

"5. The Tribunal conducted its hearing on 1st April, 2015. It was satisfied that the notice of termination complied fully with s.62 of the Act of 2004, with the exception of s.62(1)(e). However, the Tribunal was satisfied that a reason did not need to be given for termination as it came within the parameters of s.34(b) of the Act of 2004. Ms Dunivya has appealed against this last-mentioned finding. She claims that the Tenancy Tribunal erred in law by finding that a reason did not need to be given for the termination of her tenancy."

"11. Section 62(1) sits in Part 5. It requires that A notice of termination to be valid shall (e) if the duration of the tenancy is a period of more than 6 months, state (where the termination is by the landlord) the reason for the termination . There is nothing in the Act of 2004 to suggest that this requirement does not apply to the notice of termination that is required under s.34(b).Thus the court s answer to the question posed in the opening sentence of this judgment is that a notice of termination served on a Part 4 tenant under s.34(b) of the Act of 2004 must state a reason for that termination."

Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, but even though I do not like personally 4ensic15 usual priggish way of replying, in this thread he was 100% correct, while all the other posters got the interpretation of the High Court and subsequent RTB Tribunal re-hearing wrong. The main error of the landlord in the High Court case was giving notice before the Part 4 Tenancy ended (and oh dear he paid very dearly for it) withouth providing grounds of termination according to Section 34(a) and Section 62(1)(e) and the subsequent RTB Tribunal Reference No: TR1114-000936 / Case Ref No: 0714-13260 (you can download it from the RTB disputes website) it was stated:
"In our view, the Notice of Termination served in June, 2014 remains invalid for noncompliance with section 62(1)(e) of the 2004 Act despite the fact that a reason is discernible from an accompanying letter. The Tribunal is not satisfied to exercise a power under section 64A to determine that the failure to state a reason does not render the notice invalid in this case because to do so would have the effect of altering the circumstances in which a tenancy might lawfully be terminated during the currency of a dispute in a manner which interferes with vested rights and interests. The slip or
omission arising from the failure to state a reason cannot in those circumstances, in our view, properly be considered as not prejudicing in a material respect the Notice of Termination within the meaning of section 64A."
What he should have done was to wait for the end of the Part 4 Tenancy and starting from the 1st day of the Further Part 4 Tenancy provide a Termination Notice using Section 34(b) where no reason needs to be stated and provide notice required by RTA 2004 Amended in 2015. So let s review to how long is minimum security of tenure (after the first 6 months) for a Tenant in Ireland covered by RTA before a Landlord can terminate his tenancy without giving reason (which is a major exercise of the landlord s property right which would otherwise be totally eviscerated if he had to provide a reason in every termination case):

for a Part 4 tenancy 4 years + 112 days
for a Further Part 4 tenancy (excluding the first 6 months every 4 years) 8,12,16 years + 224 days

Further than 20 years and there are other laws that give further guarantees (but then a Landlord would be really dumb to let a Tenant stay 20 years without providing any termination notice linked to new tenancy agreement). In reality no sane landlord should allow the Tenant to get into a Further Part 4 tenancy: he should give notice as soon as Part 4 expires and propose a new Tenancy Agreement if he wishes to keep the tenant. All the other options are presents to the Tenants with absolutely no monetary compensation for the landlord.
Sorry for the long post but I found too much confusion on this point in this forum.

4ensic15

GGTrek wrote: »

Further than 20 years and there are other laws that give further guarantees (but then a Landlord would be really dumb to let a Tenant stay 20 years without providing any termination notice linked to new tenancy agreement). I

The 20 year protections are gone since the 2004 Act came into being. Unless the tenant had 20 years tenancy at that point they have no more protection than any other tenant, other than the benefit of the longest notice period.