Notice period when breaking Lease

Hi,
Have been asked question and I don't know the answer, and was wondering if anyone can answer it.

Tenant moved into property in Ireland in Jan 2009 signed a 1 year lease paid €700 a month

In Jan 2010 Tenant in discussion with Landlord to renew for another year .
Landlord wanted to raise rent to €800 a month . Eventually after one month back and forth with tenant still in property paying €700 a month. Tenant and Landlord agreed and signed another 1 year lease starting in Mar-2010 for €750 a month.

Then Tenants decides they want to leave end Jun-2010 , what notice period do the tenants have to provide to the Landlord, 28 days, 35 days or 42 days.

Regards, Jumper1

Are you aware that this is 2013, and you're referring to 2010. Is this correct ??

Hi , thanks for getting back to me ,yes referring to 2010 . Just want to be able to go back with answer, should it be 28, 35 or 42 .

Regards,

Well, in an unprofessional opinion, I would say that it's the shorter of the notice period as the tenant was in occupation for over a year previously. I don't understand why a new lease was entered into as same was unnecessary and the tenancy should have continued on with only an increase in rent.

After all that, I do stand to be corrected.

Thanks again .
What I would have thought was notice required would have been 42 days as tenant was in continuous occupation from Jan 20009 to June 2010 which is > 1 year and less than 2 years which as per PTRB would require 42 days notice .

Or does notice period required revert back to zero(0-6 months 28 days) for each new yearly contract signed even though tenant is is continuous occupation

Regards, Jumper1

The best way to find the correct answer is to contact the PRTB and your question will be clarified. Regardless if there remains any claim outstanding such a period of time has lapsed, it will be hard to pursue, IMO.

As I understand you question, the tenant had an initial one year lease; subsequently, he signed a second fixed term lease and wants to vacate several months into the second lease agreement.

A tenant who is in a fixed term lease cannot just give any period of notice and leave - he is in a fixed term lease. If he did so, he would be in breach of his obligations to remain in the property and pay the rent until the expiry of said lease.

The same applies to a landlord, he cannot break a fixed term lease, for example, if he wants to move back into the property.

However, Irish law, in its infinite wisdom, gives the tenant the right to vacate the property and pass all his obligations to a replacement tenant - this is called an assignment of the lease. A landlord has no such option to regain possession of his property and must wait until the fixed term lease expires.

If a tenant decides break a fixed term lease and leave without assigning the lease, he is liable to forfeit his deposit - for breach of contract and to compensate the landlord for rent lost, expenses of finding a new tenant, which may include estate agents fees etc.

As regards the assignment, the tenant must seek permission from the landlord to assign the lease and it is the tenants responsibility to find the new tenant and pay any costs involved. The landlord may vet or reference any prospective new tenant as to the tenant in the same way as he did the vacating tenant and may refuse anyone who does not meet his vetting criteria.

If a landlord refuses an assignment, the tenant may leave, giving 28 days written notice and have his deposit returned in full (excepting any damage).

The notice periods that all posters have given only apply in the case of a Part 4 tenancy - where any fixed term lease has expired and the tenant has remained in the property under Part 4 laws.

facetious said:

If a landlord refuses an assignment, the tenant may leave, giving 28 days written notice and have his deposit returned in full (excepting any damage).

Click to expand...

There is no mention of any assignment in this case.

mercman said:

There is no mention of any assignment in this case.

Click to expand...

My understanding of the OP's post was what the notice period for leaving a property in which the tenant had lived for between one and two years. Again, as I understand the OP's post, the tenant had signed a fixed term lease (starting Mar 2010) and wanted to vacate in June of 2010 - that is some 3+ months into the second fixed term.

Thus, as it is a fixed term contract, the tenant is not entitled to break the lease and leave - there is no notice period.

I was pointing out that if the tenant wishes to leave and retain his deposit, he may assign the lease (with the landlord's permission) and retain his deposit. In this case, also, there is no "notice period" because the replacement tenant moves in (in theory) when the vacating tenant moves out. There is no break in the agreement and there is an assignment where the names on the lease are changed by a deed of assignment.

If a landlord refuses an assignment, the tenant is free to leave giving 28 days notice, irrespective of how long the tenant has been in the property.

mercman said:

Well, in an unprofessional opinion, I would say that it's the shorter of the notice period as the tenant was in occupation for over a year previously. I don't understand why a new lease was entered into as same was unnecessary and the tenancy should have continued on with only an increase in rent.

After all that, I do stand to be corrected.

Click to expand...

A tenant would sign a second (or third) fixed term agreement if the tenant wants the security of not being evicted under one of the six grounds available to the landlord under a Part 4 tenancy -which it would have been if he had not sign another fixed term agreement. The advantage of a fixed term agreement is that the landlord may only evict a tenant who is in breach of his obligations and for no other reason whatsoever.

Hi, thanks for coming back on this .

Yes I think I understand it now.

Thanks for all your help , much appreciated

Regards, Jumper1