Landlord wants to keep my deposit

[Mrs Vimes]

As I understand it a landlord can ask a tenant to sign a new fixed-term lease when the original one expires but if the tenant refuses then he has Part IV rights anyway.

I'm not sure why a tenant would sign a new lease which really only assures him that the landlord won't evict him even on the grounds allowed by Part IV (needing house for family, etc) but costs the tenant his right to terminate the lease with appropriate notice.

I suspect that the tenant in this case wasn't aware that he could stay on under Part IV and that is why he signed the second lease.

Does ignorance of your rights without signing a contract means the contract you sign is void?

Sybil

 

[oldnick]

Good- we're getting close to an answer to the whole question of tenants breaking a lease. Something that no poster so far has given a clear defintive legal answer.

 

[Bronte]

Good- we're getting close to an answer to the whole question of tenants breaking a lease. Something that no poster so far has given a clear defintive legal answer.

I wouldn't have an answer on this because I don't have leases. When my tenant's are leaving I just give them back the deposit if there is no damage.

 

[bugler]

Good- we're getting close to an answer to the whole question of tenants breaking a lease. Something that no poster so far has given a clear defintive legal answer.

It's simple enough - Knuttell has provided most if not all of the answers.

If there is no lease, or if a lease has lapsed and the tenancy is then Part IV, then the RTA periods of notice apply.

If there is a fixed term lease, then assuming there are no break clauses, then the tenant cannot just decide to leave midway through, nor can the landlord decide he wants the dwelling back because he wants to sell etc. A fixed term is a fixed term.

The only way out for a tenant is to find someone willing to sublet, to whom they can assign the remainder of the lease. This isn't a general, common sense thing, the right to assign the lease is actually provided for in the legislation. If the tenant requests permission to assign the lease to someone and the landlord refuses then the tenant can serve notice of termination and they are entitled to their deposit back.

I'm not sure why a tenant would sign a new lease which really only assures him that the landlord won't evict him even on the grounds allowed by Part IV (needing house for family, etc) but costs the tenant his right to terminate the lease with appropriate notice.

Simple - if you want true security of tenure as a tenant then you need a fixed term lease. What use is the RTA "security of tenure"? Under it you're out if:

The landlord wants to sell.
The landlord wants the house for himself or a family member.
The landlord wants to alter the purpose of the property.

among others. The RTA itself gives no real security of tenure to tenants, because if a landlord wants to end the tenancy he has a range of options open to him. In any case, wanting to sell and wanting the house for personal or family use are probably the two main reasons a landlord would want the dwelling back, and the RTA caters well for them in this respect.

If you as a tenant are flexible, and like the idea of being able to move at fairly short notice, then Part IV may be a good idea. But you need to be aware that it affords the landlord flexibility also.

There is general ignorance of obligations and entitlements from both landlords and tenants in Ireland, an educational campaign is well overdue. Tenants and landlords witholding rents/deposits because they don't understand the law isn't doing the renting sector any good at all.

 

[oldnick]

Bugler -this is my confusion which I've asked about a couple of times.

As per post 21 (Mrs Vimes) and, in more detail, as per knuttell's post 13 about second fixed term leases where, despite there being a second fixed term lease, the "PRTB ruled that tenants enjoyed protection of Part 4 tenancy, regardless of the nature of the fixed term lease".

That suggests that ,yes, in the first fixed term lease the tenant and landlord must stick to the term of the lease. But after the expiry of that lease if the landlord wants a second fixed term lease - even if the tenant signs it - it makes no difference - the tenant is "protected".

Is that the case or not ?

 

[bugler]

As I understand it:

Tenants get Part IV protection after 6 months of a tenancy, whether the tenancy was subject to a lease or not. So if you have been in situ for 6 month you have Part IV - it matters not a bit whether you've ever signed a lease or have signed 2 leases.

But Part IV is only of any 'use' where you are outside of a lease agreement. The second lease would stand, and must be adhered to. People then may claim that they have a "statutory right" to serve notice, and that the lease cannot contradict that, but it seems it is interpreted that there is no "right" to terminate, rather there is a "obligation" to serve appropriate notice where governed by Part IV only. The RTA is not designed to make private agreements redundant. Tenants should realise they can secure greater security of tenure via a lease, but this comes with responsiblities. Likewise landlords should be aware that they can secure greater piece of mind with a fixed term lease, but they sacrifice the freedom to do as they choose with the dwelling.

Very few, if any, of these type of cases ever get near a court, so making definitive proclamations can be difficult. But I'd be confident of what I have asserted above based off the published advice of Threshold and the PRTB, and the latters published decisions in their cases.

Lastly, and to labour my point, I know..

the tenant is "protected"

The only thing protecting tenants in this country is a lease. Part IV gives no protection. It may give the right to leave a dwelling early, but that doesn't qualify as protection in my book.

 

[Bronte]

The only thing protecting tenants in this country is a lease. .

I would dispute this. Tenant's have the protection of the Act.

 

[bugler]

I would dispute this. Tenant's have the protection of the Act.

Yes, statutory minimums. They stop the landlord heating the place with an oven (well, in most cases..)

But I was referring to security of tenure, and how Part IV tenants are "protected" as mentioned earlier in the thread, which they are not. Part IV security of tenure is worth far less than a lease's security of tenure.

 

[alex24]

yes, yes knuttel I get the moral aspect. It's the legal point I'm unsure about .

According to a" Guide to Residential Tenancies Act from Dept Environment"
" tenancies will be terminated by means of a notice of termination regardless of why the termination is happening...Tenants need not give a reason for terminating."

Periods of notice are then listed e.g.1-2 years -42 days notice.

So, it is clear there that a tenant can legally break a lease....

Now, I gather this does not apply to a fixed term lease. That is why i asked the question - can a landlord keep on renewing a fixed term lease and thus avoid the RTA rules. You replied that you remembered a case where it was ruled a landlord cannot do so.

Sorry -but still confused -there seem to be two different answers on this.

The statutory notice contained in the RTA is applicable when people are not in a lease. Under section 58 of RTA notice can not be served during a fixed term contract (lease). This also applies to landlords though and they can't rely on Section 34 to give notice if they are in a lease.