Tenant gives notice but after date specified doesn't move out

P

PaxmanK

Registered User
Messages
151
This question has come up and I wonder if anyone here has some answers.

Tenant gave notice that they were leaving on a certain date. Landlord has new tenants lined up for that date. Original tenants now saying their new property fell through and they are staying. But landlord wants them to leave on the date they specified in their notice.
Tenants refuse point blank.

What happens here?
First off are they entitled to stay even after they said they were leaving?
If not how does the landlord remove them?
He has already had to let down his new tenants. A family with a newborn and he is not happy at all.
 
Was everything done in writing or was it all word of mouth? If in writing, you can insist they remove themselves on the date they themselves said they were leaving and if everything's up to date and conditions of lease are all met.
 
He asked the tenant for it in writing and has his copy, but the tenant won't mobile now. They said they will move when they get a new place.
But that could be forever. And he wants them out now in line with the date they gave.
He's very annoyed to say the least and knows going through the rtb would take years if the tenant digs in.
 
noproblem said:
If in writing, you can insist they remove themselves on the date they themselves said they were leaving.
Click to expand...
Do you mean legally or morally?

I'm not aware of any legal mechanism whereby a landlord can enforce a notice of termination issued by his tenant.

I can understand the annoyance but unless the landlord has grounds for issuing his own notice of termination, I don't see that there's much that can be done.
 
Sarenco said:
I can understand the annoyance but unless the landlord has grounds for issuing his own notice of termination, I don't see that there's much that can be done.
Click to expand...

This can't be right. Could it now be called trespass? Anything? ... it's disgraceful that a landlord can be treated so abysmally.

No wonder landlords are leaving the market.
 
PaddyBloggit said:
This can't be right. Could it now be called trespass? Anything? ... it's disgraceful that a landlord can be treated so abysmally.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't say it was "right", I just can't see any basis for a landlord enforcing a notice issued by his tenant.

In the absence of any grounds for termination (e.g. non-payment of rent), I don't really see there's much the landlord can do.

It's tough on the new tenants that were lined up but, on the basis of what we've been told, the landlord doesn't seem to have incurred any losses (other than having his time wasted).

That's how I see it.
 
Sarenco said:
I just can't see any basis for a landlord enforcing a notice issued by his tenant.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that you were saying that it was right... 'twas a turn of phrase.

The tenant issued notice of termination from their side, landlord acted accordingly. Tenant should have no choice but to hit the road.

If I was the landlord I'd be bucking.
 
Last edited:
I see your point but the tenant started the ball rolling not the landlord. Just because the tenant changed his mind doesn't mean that the landlord should be messed about.

I'd still be bucking.
 
It surprises me, that anyone is surprised by the tenants actions.

The property owner is fully at the mercy of the tenant.
They know nothing will or can be done here to move them on.

Now, if I were this tenant, why would I make life difficult for myself in appeasing the property owner. Morales and the likes don't fit with the modern day rules anymore. The governing bodies have seen to this.

What doesn't surprise me is, there is not a mention of seeking assistance from the RTB.

Your still getting your rent, no point in stressing about letting the others down. It will not make an iota of a difference to the outcome.
 
PaddyBloggit said:
What's stopping the tenant doing the same thing in a few months time?
Click to expand...
Nothing.

Mind you, the next time the landlord might think twice about lining up a replacement until his current tenant has actually left. Given the current tight rental market, extended void periods are hardly much of an issue.

At least in RPZ areas, tenants are usually keen to hang onto their current tenancies for dear life. With good reason.
 
I guess it's a good thing he didn't intend to sell it.
He's very annoyed. He was actually going to give them their notice for persistent late payment of rent and they gave theirs first so he went with that.
They didn't pay their last month's rent either, so he is going to gg with eviction now as he is sure they are playing games that will end with them stopping paying rent altogether.
He really wanted them gone and thought he was blessed and getting off lightly.
Now he thinks otherwise. Probably a long road ahead now. Plus a couple with a newborn that his family know who think he is a demon landlord now too.
They did say to him last night that they would move if he paid them €5000 so that's why now he is climbing the walls as the where this will escalate to.
 
Ah, I suspected there was more to this story.

I've heard a few stories lately about tenants demanding a ransom to quit a property - I'm afraid it's a by-product of our unbalanced regulatory system which stacks the deck very much in their favour.

Your friend may well be in for a long road to finally rid himself of these troublesome tenants.

He needs to be very careful that he dots every "i" and crosses every "t" on the form and sequencing of the requisite demands and notices - one misstep and he's back to square one. They clearly know the system and will be on the lookout for any flaw they can attack.
 
I think they only recently learned how to game.the system and are now being coached and putting it into practice.
 
Sarenco said:
Do you mean legally or morally?

I'm not aware of any legal mechanism whereby a landlord can enforce a notice of termination issued by his tenant.

I can understand the annoyance but unless the landlord has grounds for issuing his own notice of termination, I don't see that there's much that can be done.
Click to expand...
The RTA is silent on this, there is a long discussion on the legal thread of another forum for a case where tenant serves the termination notice and does not vacate (clearly the tenant is taking the proverbial p...) but I do not know if I can cross link. Case law for commercial tenancies is instead very clear: if tenant serves break notice, he/she has terminated the contract and has to leave. The RTA is silent except for Section 28: "(4) Despite the fact that such a notice of termination has been so served, that condition shall be regarded as satisfied if the notice is subsequently withdrawn." where a landlord can withdraw a termination notice served in the first 6 months and part 4 applies in this way.

My suggestion to the OP that is having such a problematic tenant (a non paying tenant that is demanding ransom to go deserves every possible misfortune) is the following one:
1) open immediately a case at the RTB with the termination notice that the tenant provided and did not comply (please be careful to check first that the termination notice provided by the tenant was valid). Ask the adjudicator to apply current case law for commercial tenancies since the RTA is silent (the OP would be effectively starting a test case)
2) serve immediately a14 days rent arrears notice demanding full payment of all rent due
3) after 15 days serve a 28 days termination notice for rent arrears and add this notice and the relative warning as evidence to be sure that, either by the termination notice served by tenant or by the termination notices served for rent arrears the adjudicator issues an order to vacate.

In this way the OP will show to the nasty tenant that things are serious and the OP is not willing to pay any ransom.
 
Good post @dcheck but I wouldn't be optimistic that the RTB would apply case-law on commercial tenancies to residential tenancies. I don't think they would want to set that precedent.

I certainly agree that the wheels should be set in motion to terminate the tenancy.
 
Personally, if I were the landlord, I would be advising the current tenant that they will be liable for the costs of a hotel for the tenants who are to move in, until they have vacated the property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top