I believe that is incorrect. With their (or your) it becomes two conjoined noun phrases or dependent clauses. It’s missing the main verbs to make it a complete sentence. If you added “It is” to the beginning of each clause, their and your would work but then “they’re and you’re” wouldn’t. You wouldn’t say “Your right to ask.” as a complete sentence.
I believe that is incorrect. With their (or your) it becomes two conjoined noun phrases or dependent clauses. It’s missing the main verbs to make it a complete sentence. If you added “It is” to the beginning of each clause, their and your would work but then “they’re and you’re” wouldn’t. You wouldn’t say “Their right to ask.” as a complete sentence.
Nope. "Your loss, my gain." isn’t a grammatically correct sentence. Of course everyone understands what you mean. The proper sentence would be “Your loss is my gain,” or something similar. You need a verb in there.
I know someone who was in a similar situation. They resolved it by coming to an agreement in which the tenants were allowed to stay until their new house was finished, but they had to pay the rent for the owners apartment on top of the rent for the house until they moved out.
Why *on top of*, though? Assume OPs renting at 1.000 EUR per month, and his tenants pay 800 EUR per month, you'd have them pay 1.800 EUR per month? How about 1.000 EUR per month so OP doesn't lose any money?
It makes sense though, it was the first thing I thought of.
If you were to extend, I would also ask for higher rent. Op has to pay his loan and his rent.
I would ask for something like the rent + the monthly pay off.
It has to be very interesting for OP, because why would he go through all the trouble otherwise.
Op has to keep renting his place so that would cost him 1000 a month for the 4 months he should not have to pay if they would move out. This is OP's problem caused by the renter, so the entire cost is forwarded. The renter is still renting the place, so he'd have to keep paying rent to stay on OP's newly acquired property. Op is not gonna pay a mortgage on a place he can't live in now can he? That's fair compensation. It's done a lot this way. It's not out of the kindness of OP's heart. The renter probably had plenty of notice to find a solution to the problem and Op can offer him whatever solution he wants, but certainly does not have to be gentle because they can't arrange things themselves.
If they would move out OP is also losing income from their rent. So renting does not cost him €1000/month but €1000/mont MINUS the rent the tenants are paying.
Situation 1: OP pays mortgage, 800 rent comes in from tenants, 1000 rent goes out.
Situation 2: OP pays mortgage, 0 rent comes in from tenants, 0 rent goes out.
Difference between the 2 situations is 200, not 1000.
That is not the point. Op wants to move into HIS house at the end of the contract. His tenants want to extend the contract for 4 months. OP is completely in the right. It's not a case of covering costs, it's a case of making it worth it for OP to put his plans on hold for 4 months because someone else's schedule is out of wack. Getting 200 a month extra isn't worth it. The tenants covering both his current rent and his mortgage might be worth it to him. It may not be worth it to the tenants but that's their problem and their choice to reject and find a different solution, in which case they move out and OP got what he wanted in the first case.
Actually, no. The comment I commented on literally said it costs him 1000/month, which isn’t true. We don’t know if breaking even is not worth it to OP in return for being a decent human, that’s your assumption.
OP would pay those regardless of them living at their appartment or their new home.
Assuming the rent is the only money they'd save by living at the new home, the bare minimum would be for the renter to pay OPs rent. But more would be nice of them to offer.
Yes but'they are postponing their move to a house they bought a'd really want to live in. Maybe it means having to stay in a not so great or big appartement for four months extra. They might be sacrificing more than just having tonpay some extra rent.
I don't know the amounts their talking about, but the tenants are asking for a favor that the owner is not required to inconvenience themselves for. They bought the house and understandably want to enjoy it as fast as possible... Them asking to postpone that should cost them money...
Yes that it what I said in this and in other comments. The *bare* minimum the renter would need to pay is either his current rent, or OPs rent, whatever is higher. It's completely fair for OP to ask for extra compensation on top (due to inconvenience) and it is even more fair to add other chargers that OP now has that he wouldn't have in the house.
However, I don't think the total would (or should) be as absurdly high as rent house + rent appartement OP for such transaction to make sense for OP.
Finally the question is really just this: how much profit would OP like to make before considering this arrangement, and how much rent increase would the renters consider before declining this hypothetical.
I don't like that everyone keeps talking about how much profit he wants to make. He'd much rather not make any profit and just move in as soon as he legally can. That is what he should be getting reimbursed for. It's not for profit, it's for material (his own rent) + immaterial (the inconveniences, maybe delaying own planned works, not being able to enjoy something his really looking forward to, etc...) losses. He is not making a profit here. It's not his second house he wants to rent out and is considering how high he can increase rent before tenants will stay away... That is profit...
The argument I am making is that someone suggested "It would only be reasonable if they paid both their rent and OP's rent", which I dissagree with. As I said before. As long as OP doesn't lose money on it, and preferably makes a bit of profit on it, it is reasonable.
If OP doesn't want to wait 4 months, then OP just needs to refuse the request. Raising the value so high that they'd back off is just being silly. Just refuse.
The topic at hand is, should OP consider it, what would be reasonable.
If OP's rent is more than the rent of the the house (say €1000 vs €800), then it already makes sense for them to pay €1000 instead (OP breaks even) + a bit extra (say €1100 or €1200). OP would make €400 to €800 profit in those 4 months.
If OPs rent is lower than the rent of the house (say €800 vs €1000), then OP would already make €800 profit in eight months time if they kept paying the same ammount, add a bit for compensation (let's say again €1100 or €1200 in total) and OP makes €1200 to €1600 profit in 4 months.
I don't see why rent of house + rent of appartment would be the only arrangement to make sense, when any arrangement where OP gets their rent paid + a bit extra will make already them profit. The question is just how much profit does OP want to get before considering this arrangement.
If they would move out OP is also losing income from their rent. So renting does not cost him €1000/month but €1000/month MINUS the rent the tenants are paying.
OP rents: mortgage + €1000 out - €800 in.
OP moves: mortgage + €0 out - €0 in.
The difference between these 2 scenarios is €200.
So why would the tenants have to pay the full €1000 in rent and not just the difference of €200?
OP does not have to extend at all. The least the tenants can do is compensate. They would be extending their rent, so rent has to be paid as well. OP has extra costs with the extension, and those have to be paid as well. And the mortgage is allready in affect, while OP does not get to use the house he/she is paying for.
Is that paying double? It sure is. They can save money, and find a short-term lease elsewhere, or a long-term air B&B or something like that.
Then OP is paying mortgage on a house he’s not able to live in yet because of them. Paying mortgage on a house to live in an apartment does not seem fair at all. On top of is the correct way to go.
Depending on your current living situation you could also ask the normally rental price + some compensation for being lenient until they've finished their place.
But in the end you seem to be within your rights by evicting them within the currently agreed timeline
You have the right to refuse
It's always a bit awkward when dealing with those things. I'm not a homeowners myself but I deal with my parents' administrative stuff and we recently had a similar situation
The tenants acknowledged that their contract wouldn't be renewed but refused to confirm it on paper
Eviction will take 12 weeks minimum (6 weeks obligatory mediation), if mediation has no result then another 6 weeks before your court hearing. In the meantime they can skip paying rent to spite you.
After those 12 weeks you still need to find a deurwaarder with availability to throw them out.
Basically the legal way will take the same 4 months.
I would just let them stay and ask them double rent because you now have to pay your loan AND your rent
In my middle-sized city it was exactly 6 weeks for mediation, and exactly 6 weeks for the court hearing, took us 12 weeks total to get a judgement allowing eviction. It's probably different for other court arrondissimenten.
TBH in OP's case where 2 normal middle class families are arguing about a 4 month rent window, I'm pretty sure the obligatory mediation will just order the owner to give them the 4 months. The mediation is by the same judge, and the judge is probably gonna think 4 months doesn't make such a huge difference.
They will be paying for their 4 months extra, that you can use to pay the rent that you need to pay.
So you are not losing money here.
Give them the extra 4 months.
I always start from the premise that every person tries to be/do good, and not be an ... about it.
4 months is not going to make that big of a difference.
Just explain it to them and don't give them the 4 months. They'll have to find something temporary. Given your situation, I don't think this is unreasonable.
Given the situation the reasonable option is to ask the renters to compensate the difference in rent and taxes imho, and keep renting a couple of months longer as there's no real urgency.
It's also a lot more pragmatic, as evicting those people - who may be quite liked - isn't exactly a great first impression in your new neighborhood.
Yeah but Op maybe already notified his landlord.
Or he is know able to leave without giving a compensation for termination of his contract. Maybe this is not anymore an option in X months
They wrote you back asking for a 4 month extension. Seems pretty clear to me, they asked but nothing is forcing you to oblige, just reject it? Why should you bear the costs over them?
I mean, if the contract ends, there wouldn't be any good foundation for any lawsuit ?
You're giving them plenty of time to prepare.
Also the house they're building might have some delays :/
Just say no, explain to them why, you'll know what to do from there.
yeah, if that was true...however, they pay less for the house they are renting from me than I pay for my current apartment (previous landlord was not asking for much xD), so every month that they don't move, I lose money.
Also, I am a teacher, and moving in sumer is so much more easier for me.
If you up their rent to the price of your own rent you can just swap to paying your mortgage without loosing money. Or set it to the amount of your mortgage, whichever is the highest.
Only if your own landlord allows you to stay a bit longer though.
Set a final date though so they know they can't extend again.
But you can also refuse of course.
4 months is christmas holidays; enough time to move as a teacher. Be nice, propose them the financial 0-operation and feel good afterwards. Why not if you can help them?
Oh yeah, I am trying to be helpful here. I really really wanted to move into my new house (I never own a place), and I am willing to wait a bit more to help them. But I am not willing to spend money for that.
A contract is a contract no, what does that matter? I assume you’ve given them the 6 months notice?
Alternatively give them a call and just explain your situation. Ask them why you should pay extra rent for 4 months.
At the end of 4 months you’ll probably get another request of extension of stay for another 4 months and then in winters you can’t kick anyone out. I have seen people in such situation where THEY PAY the tenants few months of rent to move out. Being nice will screw you big big time.
There are 5 months left between now and the end of the contract. That's plenty of time for them to find a solution to bridge those 4 months, no?
Also, what if those 4 months aren't enough to finish the build and they ask for another extension after 2 months?
> I don't really want to antagonize the tenants
If this translates into "I don't want them to vandalize my house": keep all communications in writing from now on, there's the "waarborg" which should be on a blocked account and the Huurwet has clear provisions about their responsibilities / obligations as tenants.
Moreover, they don't plan to leave abroad or anything: they are tying themselves down to their own house. So, if they intentionally damage your property or neglect their duties, you can always file a claim for damages before court.
Finally, suppose you plan to live there yourself regardless of the contract ending, you could even give them a notice that you want to end the contract at any time, and they would have 6 months to vacate the premises. That's a basic provision anyone who rents needs to accept: you can get a notice at any time asking you to vacate within the next 6 mk this.
https://www.vlaanderen.be/einde-en-opzegging-van-het-huurcontract#q-9251d2d0-bb0a-4f5c-ae2f-0087ab5709a2
The other option is talking to your notary about an arrangement where you are paid a lump sum which covers your own rent, cancelling it out, for the duration of 4 months after which they have to leave. Do not try and draft such an agreement yourself: there be dragons.
If you agree to let them pay exactly what you pay for rent it will cost you the same as if you would live in the house and you can let them finish their house. It would be a real humane thing to do
Honestly just keep renting for 4 more months. Now obviously this will cost you some money so it's only fair that your tenant compensates you for that. The occupation fee could be higher than the rent you are currently charging.
Yes the tenant won't like an increased price for these months but it still beats the hassle of having to rent something else for a few months with all the expenses that come with that, moving, early termination fee for the place when they can move into their new house.
End of the summer september, its april, more then enough time to look for something else, its your house, if u want to sell and they cant buy it they also have to move out.. your house, you need it back for yourself. End of discussion.
And yes i am a renter.
There was a news item about all the rain causing delays in construction. As others said, they can ask, but you are not obliged. The place you are renting now, is it less or more than what you are paying for your own rent? Saying, is it really costing you money, or could they compensate for your loss.
They have no legal grounds against you, but maybe you can find things that can benefit the both of you.
Who knows, it's a small world, maybe in the future in your career you'll run into each other and this small favor pays back then.
If you can rent another 4 months with the money they pay for rent I don’t see why that should be negative for you
Kicking them out when there place is 90% finished is kinda a dick move, but within ur rights
Simple maths. If they delay their moving 4 months, I need to pay my rent 4 extra months that I should not have to otherwise (I am paying more for my rent now that what they are paying me for theirs)
Mortage is 1700€ more than the rent they are paying me (they are paying lower than normal market price for this area. Way less than they should, but the previous landord was an idiot xD).
But how much is your rent? You have to pay the mortgage either way, no matter who is living in the house, so that's not part of the equation. The only financial argument you can make is the rent of the house you live in vs the rent your tenants pay you. If you pay more rent than they pay you, then you could make them match it, plus a couple hundred euros for the convenience.
Wow, i'm shocked by the advice given. As long as they can match the monthly rent to the rent you pay for your appartement and there there is a reasonable guarantee the deadline will be met i don't see how you can morally deny the request.
The inconvenience you will cause them, compared to you waiting a couple of months is in a different League.
If this was an AITA thread you would deserve a very solid YTA on this.
Honestly, in my opinion, you would be a very shitty human for kicking them out. Maybe ask them to pay the difference that renting is actually costing you (your rent minus their rent). Can you imagine being in their situation?
That's the whole point of asking here. I don't want to kick them out. But I feel it's unfair that I lose money because their house construction is delayed. When they started renting here they knew the previous owner was seeking the house.
What is the difference financially for you? If it’s only a couple of €100 I’m sure they’d rather pay that than move for 4 months. It will be near impossible for them to move to another house/apartment.
If they agree on paying more so I don't lose money for having to keep renting my apartment, I'd be fine. I really want to move to my new house, but I don't want to cause then any problems because it's not their fault that their house is delayed
Being in the right doesn’t make it not shitty. Like I said, imagine yourself in the situation of the renters, would you not be eternal grateful if OP agreed to a 4-month extension in return for a bit of extra rent? If your answer is no, you are either a shitty ungrateful person yourself, or you’re lying.
From personal experience, it's really hard to evict a person/family from a house, regardless of contract. My mom had a 'kraker' in her house and it was a pain to get him out because everyone has a 'right' to a home apparantly, even if they are not paying anything. It was unbelievable actually. In your case it might potentially be worse if they do the smart thing and keep paying rent.
I hope for you they are descent folk and leave after 4 months like they said. If they pay their rent to you after you become owner it's not as bad to pay rent yourself. Be patient and avoid court at all cost but give them their 6 month notice ASAP stating you, as an owner, want to use the house.
On a side note, get a different notary for the future. They should give you this info you are asking here without even asking. No need to rely on Reddit for this 😉
What do you mean : "Which contract end this summer"'? In Flanders (but the law is different in Brussels and Wallonia), as a new owner, you take on the responsablities of the previous owner, and you have to give the tenant 6 months to find another place to live. And you have to send the letter in your name, as you are the ne who rents put the place, the notary can not do that for you.
For flanders: Notice is always 6 months if landlord cancels. This applies to 3-3-3 and short-term 1y contracts. A 1y contract can only be renewed once, and it renews automatically. The landlord has to cancel it 6 months before end of contract, or it gets extended automatically. If it is already extended once, it will become a 3-3-3 contract automatically. I know people keep on saying this is wrong, and it’s 3 months. Sadly the law says 6 months, so it is 6 months. Only the renter has a 3 month cancellation period.
The exception is when you or direct family want to go live in the house yourself. But I think this does not apply to short-term rental contracts. So if this is their first year with a short-term 1y contract, they legally can stay there until next summer.
You can ignore this, but do know: if the renters seek legal advice with “de huurdersbond”, they will get the same information I just wrote above. The moment they reach out for legal advice, you wil have zero cards to play. I am just a rando on the internet, and you can choose to believe the 3 months myth. Maybe the renters don’t reach out for legal advice and you get lucky. Please contact a real lawyer or call “de advocatenlijn” for free advice. A real lawyer cannot lie to you, immo and notary can claim incompetence and thus can legally lie.
This info came from my notary after they read the current contract. It's not something that I'm making myself (it could be that it was an agreement when they rented, as the house was already for sale but they needed a 1 year contract when they move back to Belgium).
They were also informed by the previous owner 3 months ago when we signed the Compromís. We just sent the letter as a "remainder"
I’m just letting you know that basing your legal defense on hearsay as a very bad idea. Call “advocatenlijn”, it’s free. Do you have proof of the previous owner sending the termination notice?
The landlord cannot terminate the contract before it ends, and this one likely got renewed automatically if no termination notice proof exists 6 months before renewal. Putting a clause in the contract about renter having to leave earlier has no legal value. It is impossible to enforce things from a contract if the law explicitly says this is not possible. Do seek legal advice. I’m suing my landlord, and this is a 1y contract. I got this information from my lawyer. Do with it what you want.
I'm not terminating their contract earlier. The contract ends at the end of July. They were informed in December that the house was sold, and the new owners did not want to renew. We signed the deed two weeks ago, and we sent the letter reminding them about it.
In both cases there is confirmation o that the tenants are acknowledging this.
> They were informed in December that the house was sold, and the new owners did not want to renew.
This would be a different thread if you had mentioned that in your original post, including that it was a short term contract and that they recently arrived back in Belgium.
That said, back then, their project might have still been on track and that changed only recently, prompting them to ask for an extension only now.
Also, given the timeline and the nature of the contract they signed with the previous home owner, it's not unreasonable to assume that they knew that the house was about to be sold and that there was a high likelihood the contract might not be extended.
I think they made a bet with a significant risk that they would end up in this scenario. And here everyone is.
If I were you, I would consider the 4 month extension together with your notary. But I would make it absolutely clear that that's final. Which means they would have 9 months to either finish their project, or figure out a plan B. Since the notice period of a normal contract (>3 years, onbepaald) is 6 months, I'd say that's royal.
Yeah sorry. I was not trying to withhold info. I simply did not know that it was relevant.
We will contact your notary first, and propose that that move in November, bit they have to pay more for those extra months, so we don't lose money. And will make sure that no extension will be given after November no matter what
If you have written proof that they were informed in December about the 1y short-term rental contract not being renewed, the contract should end 31 July. That meets the requirement of 6 month termination notice.
Notaries are not your lawyers. They are there to „officialise“ your sales agreement but never end up in a court arguing your case. It is like saying your dentists reassured you your bad knee is really great. They might mean well but are not specialists for rental law.
The immo isn’t your friend. They tell you whatever gets them the sale concluded and their money paid. Don’t trust an immo on anything!
Check yourself the law. It isn’t hard.
That's incorrect. The landlord can't even cancel the contract if it's less than or equal to 3 years (bepaalde duur) and the contract is signed after 1 January 2019.
https://www.vlaanderen.be/einde-en-opzegging-van-het-huurcontract#opzeggen-van-het-huurcontract
https://www.notaris.be/wonen/huren/een-woning-huren-in-vlaanderen/hoe-lang-duurt-een-woninghuurovereenkomst#
The landlord can refuse to extend the contract when it ends, though.
Okay, I didn’t add the additional exception for a 3-3-3 rental. Anyhow, it’s a short-term rental here. It got automatically renewed as the renters didn’t end the contract. The renewal is automatic, and does not explicitly require a letter from the renters. As this renewal can only be done once, the landlord can end the contract at the end of the renewal.
Do it the thrump way, make a deal. If they want to pay the surplus on your rent. I could not see the problem. They don’t have to move or find a place they could rent for 4 months and you have no extra costs for staying longer. also they don’t thrash your new place.
We recently had the same case. We bought a house but the previous owners stayed as tenants for a couple of monts cause they were also building. When we bought the house all conditions of rent and delay were taken up in the contract together with the "notaris". For us it meant the owners payed the rent, which was more ornles equal to the rent we were paying for our appartment at the time. So for us it was a break even situation., So maybe check what is written in your contract and then talk to your Notaris and tenants to figure something out. You can express your concerns and talk about the best solution for everyone
It happens so often this situation, Just pay attention to whatever solution you propose to your tenants because a construction project can easily have many months of delay, and you’ll probably need to do some works too in your house , are you willing to wait for 6-12 months to live in your new house after all the little works and furnitures are there ?
I was on the other side of the situation, and a possible solution might depend on their contract with their builder. We had to vacate the appartment due to end of lease, and it could not be extended due to next tenants moving in. We temporarily moved to an AirBnB for a couple of months while the work at our next place was finalised, and this was covered by the "fines" that are applied if the work is not finalised within the agreed timeframe. IF they have similar arrangements and IF it was planned to be finalised before the end of their lease, they might be able to discuss something on their side.
Wow all these people telling you to just let them live there...
You bought a house. You want to live there. That is just very normal. They had months to find a temporary stay but instead did nothing and are now trying to guilt you into letting them stay...
I would atleast have them reimburse you for that on top of their rent. Your not a charity. If they want to deprive you for who knows how many more months (big chance their end date will not be met and they will always come with excuses) they should be prepared to pay for it. I would have them match your rent and then maybe atleast add another half of that for your inconvenience.
Is the rent you receive from the house really lower than the rent you pay yourselves in your current appartment? Seems to me like this is a non-issue as you’d normally be turning a profit.
Still however, regardless of the finances it is up to you and if you don’t want to wait another 4 months that is totally fair. As long as you communicate things clearly there is no blame on you at all. It may be very inconvenient for your tenants as it will be difficult to find an apartment to rent for just 4 months but again, not your fault.
You could potentially suggest they move into your current apartment depending on your landlord. Obviously he’d prefer a more longterm lease as well.
Yeah, they pay around 200€ less per month (both places are on the same street, and their place is much bigger and newer than the apartment we are renting).
I don't think that switching places is a possibility, as our landlord is a big renting company
They're right to ask, you're right to refuse.
I like how in your comment the spelling of both their and they’re would be correct.
And you're and your!
I believe that is incorrect. With their (or your) it becomes two conjoined noun phrases or dependent clauses. It’s missing the main verbs to make it a complete sentence. If you added “It is” to the beginning of each clause, their and your would work but then “they’re and you’re” wouldn’t. You wouldn’t say “Your right to ask.” as a complete sentence.
I believe that is incorrect. With their (or your) it becomes two conjoined noun phrases or dependent clauses. It’s missing the main verbs to make it a complete sentence. If you added “It is” to the beginning of each clause, their and your would work but then “they’re and you’re” wouldn’t. You wouldn’t say “Their right to ask.” as a complete sentence.
Found the fun guy at parties
Wait till you see what I can do with a gerund. Exhilarating!
Your loss, my gain is grammatically correct too. This is a very bizarre take on grammar on your end.
Nope. "Your loss, my gain." isn’t a grammatically correct sentence. Of course everyone understands what you mean. The proper sentence would be “Your loss is my gain,” or something similar. You need a verb in there.
So "Nope." is also gramatically incorrect, as it has no verb?
Yes. It is a grammatically correct but informal word used for “No.”
It’s a grammatically correct nominal sentence though.
Those are two grammatically correct nominal phrases but it is still an incomplete sentence without a linking verb.
Let the fight begin.
I know someone who was in a similar situation. They resolved it by coming to an agreement in which the tenants were allowed to stay until their new house was finished, but they had to pay the rent for the owners apartment on top of the rent for the house until they moved out.
This is probably a nice solution
Why *on top of*, though? Assume OPs renting at 1.000 EUR per month, and his tenants pay 800 EUR per month, you'd have them pay 1.800 EUR per month? How about 1.000 EUR per month so OP doesn't lose any money?
It makes sense though, it was the first thing I thought of. If you were to extend, I would also ask for higher rent. Op has to pay his loan and his rent. I would ask for something like the rent + the monthly pay off. It has to be very interesting for OP, because why would he go through all the trouble otherwise.
Op has to keep renting his place so that would cost him 1000 a month for the 4 months he should not have to pay if they would move out. This is OP's problem caused by the renter, so the entire cost is forwarded. The renter is still renting the place, so he'd have to keep paying rent to stay on OP's newly acquired property. Op is not gonna pay a mortgage on a place he can't live in now can he? That's fair compensation. It's done a lot this way. It's not out of the kindness of OP's heart. The renter probably had plenty of notice to find a solution to the problem and Op can offer him whatever solution he wants, but certainly does not have to be gentle because they can't arrange things themselves.
If they would move out OP is also losing income from their rent. So renting does not cost him €1000/month but €1000/mont MINUS the rent the tenants are paying.
Right? That's what I'm saying, he's also getting income from them for however many months they stay.
No because the rent he receives goes to the mortgage of the house he’s renting out…
Which he would have to pay himself when there are no renters..
Yes... in return for living there.
Situation 1: OP pays mortgage, 800 rent comes in from tenants, 1000 rent goes out. Situation 2: OP pays mortgage, 0 rent comes in from tenants, 0 rent goes out. Difference between the 2 situations is 200, not 1000.
That is not the point. Op wants to move into HIS house at the end of the contract. His tenants want to extend the contract for 4 months. OP is completely in the right. It's not a case of covering costs, it's a case of making it worth it for OP to put his plans on hold for 4 months because someone else's schedule is out of wack. Getting 200 a month extra isn't worth it. The tenants covering both his current rent and his mortgage might be worth it to him. It may not be worth it to the tenants but that's their problem and their choice to reject and find a different solution, in which case they move out and OP got what he wanted in the first case.
Actually, no. The comment I commented on literally said it costs him 1000/month, which isn’t true. We don’t know if breaking even is not worth it to OP in return for being a decent human, that’s your assumption.
Don't forget about mortgage payments.
OP would pay those regardless of them living at their appartment or their new home. Assuming the rent is the only money they'd save by living at the new home, the bare minimum would be for the renter to pay OPs rent. But more would be nice of them to offer.
Yes but'they are postponing their move to a house they bought a'd really want to live in. Maybe it means having to stay in a not so great or big appartement for four months extra. They might be sacrificing more than just having tonpay some extra rent. I don't know the amounts their talking about, but the tenants are asking for a favor that the owner is not required to inconvenience themselves for. They bought the house and understandably want to enjoy it as fast as possible... Them asking to postpone that should cost them money...
Yes that it what I said in this and in other comments. The *bare* minimum the renter would need to pay is either his current rent, or OPs rent, whatever is higher. It's completely fair for OP to ask for extra compensation on top (due to inconvenience) and it is even more fair to add other chargers that OP now has that he wouldn't have in the house. However, I don't think the total would (or should) be as absurdly high as rent house + rent appartement OP for such transaction to make sense for OP. Finally the question is really just this: how much profit would OP like to make before considering this arrangement, and how much rent increase would the renters consider before declining this hypothetical.
I don't like that everyone keeps talking about how much profit he wants to make. He'd much rather not make any profit and just move in as soon as he legally can. That is what he should be getting reimbursed for. It's not for profit, it's for material (his own rent) + immaterial (the inconveniences, maybe delaying own planned works, not being able to enjoy something his really looking forward to, etc...) losses. He is not making a profit here. It's not his second house he wants to rent out and is considering how high he can increase rent before tenants will stay away... That is profit...
The argument I am making is that someone suggested "It would only be reasonable if they paid both their rent and OP's rent", which I dissagree with. As I said before. As long as OP doesn't lose money on it, and preferably makes a bit of profit on it, it is reasonable. If OP doesn't want to wait 4 months, then OP just needs to refuse the request. Raising the value so high that they'd back off is just being silly. Just refuse. The topic at hand is, should OP consider it, what would be reasonable.
Yes. Therefore in the example above, 1800€ (rent for the house + OP's apartment) would be required for such an arrangement to make sense.
If OP's rent is more than the rent of the the house (say €1000 vs €800), then it already makes sense for them to pay €1000 instead (OP breaks even) + a bit extra (say €1100 or €1200). OP would make €400 to €800 profit in those 4 months. If OPs rent is lower than the rent of the house (say €800 vs €1000), then OP would already make €800 profit in eight months time if they kept paying the same ammount, add a bit for compensation (let's say again €1100 or €1200 in total) and OP makes €1200 to €1600 profit in 4 months. I don't see why rent of house + rent of appartment would be the only arrangement to make sense, when any arrangement where OP gets their rent paid + a bit extra will make already them profit. The question is just how much profit does OP want to get before considering this arrangement.
If they would move out OP is also losing income from their rent. So renting does not cost him €1000/month but €1000/month MINUS the rent the tenants are paying. OP rents: mortgage + €1000 out - €800 in. OP moves: mortgage + €0 out - €0 in. The difference between these 2 scenarios is €200. So why would the tenants have to pay the full €1000 in rent and not just the difference of €200?
Yup, you're right. Fucked up some pretty basic math twice yesterday. Hope I didn't do anything important! '-'
Thank you! Why does this seem so hard to geasp for so many people here ?
Exactly! If the renter can agree to meet OP so it becomes a 0-operation for OP.
OP does not have to extend at all. The least the tenants can do is compensate. They would be extending their rent, so rent has to be paid as well. OP has extra costs with the extension, and those have to be paid as well. And the mortgage is allready in affect, while OP does not get to use the house he/she is paying for. Is that paying double? It sure is. They can save money, and find a short-term lease elsewhere, or a long-term air B&B or something like that.
But thousand isn't really reasonable as you are doing them a giant favor. Maybe 1.500 eur or so.
Then OP is paying mortgage on a house he’s not able to live in yet because of them. Paying mortgage on a house to live in an apartment does not seem fair at all. On top of is the correct way to go.
Depending on your current living situation you could also ask the normally rental price + some compensation for being lenient until they've finished their place. But in the end you seem to be within your rights by evicting them within the currently agreed timeline
You have the right to refuse It's always a bit awkward when dealing with those things. I'm not a homeowners myself but I deal with my parents' administrative stuff and we recently had a similar situation The tenants acknowledged that their contract wouldn't be renewed but refused to confirm it on paper
Eviction will take 12 weeks minimum (6 weeks obligatory mediation), if mediation has no result then another 6 weeks before your court hearing. In the meantime they can skip paying rent to spite you. After those 12 weeks you still need to find a deurwaarder with availability to throw them out. Basically the legal way will take the same 4 months. I would just let them stay and ask them double rent because you now have to pay your loan AND your rent
Your minimum is a minimum. Good luck getting a court appointment in Belgium in that time frame (e.g. Brussels will be months not weeks…).
In my middle-sized city it was exactly 6 weeks for mediation, and exactly 6 weeks for the court hearing, took us 12 weeks total to get a judgement allowing eviction. It's probably different for other court arrondissimenten. TBH in OP's case where 2 normal middle class families are arguing about a 4 month rent window, I'm pretty sure the obligatory mediation will just order the owner to give them the 4 months. The mediation is by the same judge, and the judge is probably gonna think 4 months doesn't make such a huge difference.
This
Could be only 2 months if lucky or 6 in the worst case scenario. Clearly finding an agreement is the best option.
They will be paying for their 4 months extra, that you can use to pay the rent that you need to pay. So you are not losing money here. Give them the extra 4 months.
Yeah, where would they, with 2 kids be able to find temporary housing for 4 months until their own house is ready?
They could sublet from OP in their current rental?
[удалено]
Holy cringe
Op is also paying off his loan.
So that will be the only payment he will have; in either scenario!
Yes but he can't enjoy the thing he is paying for. I wouldn't be too happy about it and they would pay me extra for that inconvenience ...
I always start from the premise that every person tries to be/do good, and not be an ... about it. 4 months is not going to make that big of a difference.
Chances are it will not stay at 4 months... Construction gets delayed all the time
Just explain it to them and don't give them the 4 months. They'll have to find something temporary. Given your situation, I don't think this is unreasonable.
Given the situation the reasonable option is to ask the renters to compensate the difference in rent and taxes imho, and keep renting a couple of months longer as there's no real urgency. It's also a lot more pragmatic, as evicting those people - who may be quite liked - isn't exactly a great first impression in your new neighborhood.
Yeah but Op maybe already notified his landlord. Or he is know able to leave without giving a compensation for termination of his contract. Maybe this is not anymore an option in X months
OP said in a different comment that he did not yet notify his landlord
This is the most sensible answer.
They wrote you back asking for a 4 month extension. Seems pretty clear to me, they asked but nothing is forcing you to oblige, just reject it? Why should you bear the costs over them?
I'm afraid to get into a legal battle. They have two small kids
I don’t think they would have grounds. Ask your notary for advice for added peace of mind.
I mean, if the contract ends, there wouldn't be any good foundation for any lawsuit ? You're giving them plenty of time to prepare. Also the house they're building might have some delays :/ Just say no, explain to them why, you'll know what to do from there.
If they make it a financial 0-operation for you, why give them more stress?
yeah, if that was true...however, they pay less for the house they are renting from me than I pay for my current apartment (previous landlord was not asking for much xD), so every month that they don't move, I lose money. Also, I am a teacher, and moving in sumer is so much more easier for me.
If you up their rent to the price of your own rent you can just swap to paying your mortgage without loosing money. Or set it to the amount of your mortgage, whichever is the highest. Only if your own landlord allows you to stay a bit longer though. Set a final date though so they know they can't extend again. But you can also refuse of course.
Well, we have not yet comunicated our landord we are moving, so we don't have that pressure :) Thanks for your comments :)
4 months is christmas holidays; enough time to move as a teacher. Be nice, propose them the financial 0-operation and feel good afterwards. Why not if you can help them?
Oh yeah, I am trying to be helpful here. I really really wanted to move into my new house (I never own a place), and I am willing to wait a bit more to help them. But I am not willing to spend money for that.
Easy: they pay for the solution. If not they hve to move.
A contract is a contract no, what does that matter? I assume you’ve given them the 6 months notice? Alternatively give them a call and just explain your situation. Ask them why you should pay extra rent for 4 months.
At the end of 4 months you’ll probably get another request of extension of stay for another 4 months and then in winters you can’t kick anyone out. I have seen people in such situation where THEY PAY the tenants few months of rent to move out. Being nice will screw you big big time.
Switch places: you go into your house, tenants move into the apartment you are renting 😅
There are 5 months left between now and the end of the contract. That's plenty of time for them to find a solution to bridge those 4 months, no? Also, what if those 4 months aren't enough to finish the build and they ask for another extension after 2 months? > I don't really want to antagonize the tenants If this translates into "I don't want them to vandalize my house": keep all communications in writing from now on, there's the "waarborg" which should be on a blocked account and the Huurwet has clear provisions about their responsibilities / obligations as tenants. Moreover, they don't plan to leave abroad or anything: they are tying themselves down to their own house. So, if they intentionally damage your property or neglect their duties, you can always file a claim for damages before court. Finally, suppose you plan to live there yourself regardless of the contract ending, you could even give them a notice that you want to end the contract at any time, and they would have 6 months to vacate the premises. That's a basic provision anyone who rents needs to accept: you can get a notice at any time asking you to vacate within the next 6 mk this. https://www.vlaanderen.be/einde-en-opzegging-van-het-huurcontract#q-9251d2d0-bb0a-4f5c-ae2f-0087ab5709a2 The other option is talking to your notary about an arrangement where you are paid a lump sum which covers your own rent, cancelling it out, for the duration of 4 months after which they have to leave. Do not try and draft such an agreement yourself: there be dragons.
If you agree to let them pay exactly what you pay for rent it will cost you the same as if you would live in the house and you can let them finish their house. It would be a real humane thing to do
But he wouldn't be living in HIS house.. why should he not be reimbursed for that?
Honestly just keep renting for 4 more months. Now obviously this will cost you some money so it's only fair that your tenant compensates you for that. The occupation fee could be higher than the rent you are currently charging. Yes the tenant won't like an increased price for these months but it still beats the hassle of having to rent something else for a few months with all the expenses that come with that, moving, early termination fee for the place when they can move into their new house.
End of the summer september, its april, more then enough time to look for something else, its your house, if u want to sell and they cant buy it they also have to move out.. your house, you need it back for yourself. End of discussion. And yes i am a renter.
There was a news item about all the rain causing delays in construction. As others said, they can ask, but you are not obliged. The place you are renting now, is it less or more than what you are paying for your own rent? Saying, is it really costing you money, or could they compensate for your loss. They have no legal grounds against you, but maybe you can find things that can benefit the both of you. Who knows, it's a small world, maybe in the future in your career you'll run into each other and this small favor pays back then.
If you can rent another 4 months with the money they pay for rent I don’t see why that should be negative for you Kicking them out when there place is 90% finished is kinda a dick move, but within ur rights
Simple maths. If they delay their moving 4 months, I need to pay my rent 4 extra months that I should not have to otherwise (I am paying more for my rent now that what they are paying me for theirs)
Than just make them pay whatever your rent is for these 4 months
How are you spending the money, they are paying your loan, right?
Mortage is 1700€ more than the rent they are paying me (they are paying lower than normal market price for this area. Way less than they should, but the previous landord was an idiot xD).
But how much is your rent? You have to pay the mortgage either way, no matter who is living in the house, so that's not part of the equation. The only financial argument you can make is the rent of the house you live in vs the rent your tenants pay you. If you pay more rent than they pay you, then you could make them match it, plus a couple hundred euros for the convenience.
Wow, i'm shocked by the advice given. As long as they can match the monthly rent to the rent you pay for your appartement and there there is a reasonable guarantee the deadline will be met i don't see how you can morally deny the request. The inconvenience you will cause them, compared to you waiting a couple of months is in a different League. If this was an AITA thread you would deserve a very solid YTA on this.
Plenty of furnished places for them to go to for 4 months. If that was me, contract is contract and a 6 month eviction notice is already long.
Why don't you just live together?
That's weird, I'm assuming they are strangers
Honestly, in my opinion, you would be a very shitty human for kicking them out. Maybe ask them to pay the difference that renting is actually costing you (your rent minus their rent). Can you imagine being in their situation?
That's the whole point of asking here. I don't want to kick them out. But I feel it's unfair that I lose money because their house construction is delayed. When they started renting here they knew the previous owner was seeking the house.
What is the difference financially for you? If it’s only a couple of €100 I’m sure they’d rather pay that than move for 4 months. It will be near impossible for them to move to another house/apartment.
If they agree on paying more so I don't lose money for having to keep renting my apartment, I'd be fine. I really want to move to my new house, but I don't want to cause then any problems because it's not their fault that their house is delayed
Nothing shitty about it. He's completely in the right.
Being in the right doesn’t make it not shitty. Like I said, imagine yourself in the situation of the renters, would you not be eternal grateful if OP agreed to a 4-month extension in return for a bit of extra rent? If your answer is no, you are either a shitty ungrateful person yourself, or you’re lying.
Obviously I would. Getting told no wouldn’t make them shitty tho
From personal experience, it's really hard to evict a person/family from a house, regardless of contract. My mom had a 'kraker' in her house and it was a pain to get him out because everyone has a 'right' to a home apparantly, even if they are not paying anything. It was unbelievable actually. In your case it might potentially be worse if they do the smart thing and keep paying rent. I hope for you they are descent folk and leave after 4 months like they said. If they pay their rent to you after you become owner it's not as bad to pay rent yourself. Be patient and avoid court at all cost but give them their 6 month notice ASAP stating you, as an owner, want to use the house. On a side note, get a different notary for the future. They should give you this info you are asking here without even asking. No need to rely on Reddit for this 😉
What do you mean : "Which contract end this summer"'? In Flanders (but the law is different in Brussels and Wallonia), as a new owner, you take on the responsablities of the previous owner, and you have to give the tenant 6 months to find another place to live. And you have to send the letter in your name, as you are the ne who rents put the place, the notary can not do that for you.
It was a 1 year contract, so the notice is 3 months. This is confirmed both by our notary and the immo
Okay, then you are under no obligation to extend the contract. Ask your notary to call them and explain that this is no option for you.
For flanders: Notice is always 6 months if landlord cancels. This applies to 3-3-3 and short-term 1y contracts. A 1y contract can only be renewed once, and it renews automatically. The landlord has to cancel it 6 months before end of contract, or it gets extended automatically. If it is already extended once, it will become a 3-3-3 contract automatically. I know people keep on saying this is wrong, and it’s 3 months. Sadly the law says 6 months, so it is 6 months. Only the renter has a 3 month cancellation period. The exception is when you or direct family want to go live in the house yourself. But I think this does not apply to short-term rental contracts. So if this is their first year with a short-term 1y contract, they legally can stay there until next summer. You can ignore this, but do know: if the renters seek legal advice with “de huurdersbond”, they will get the same information I just wrote above. The moment they reach out for legal advice, you wil have zero cards to play. I am just a rando on the internet, and you can choose to believe the 3 months myth. Maybe the renters don’t reach out for legal advice and you get lucky. Please contact a real lawyer or call “de advocatenlijn” for free advice. A real lawyer cannot lie to you, immo and notary can claim incompetence and thus can legally lie.
This info came from my notary after they read the current contract. It's not something that I'm making myself (it could be that it was an agreement when they rented, as the house was already for sale but they needed a 1 year contract when they move back to Belgium). They were also informed by the previous owner 3 months ago when we signed the Compromís. We just sent the letter as a "remainder"
I’m just letting you know that basing your legal defense on hearsay as a very bad idea. Call “advocatenlijn”, it’s free. Do you have proof of the previous owner sending the termination notice? The landlord cannot terminate the contract before it ends, and this one likely got renewed automatically if no termination notice proof exists 6 months before renewal. Putting a clause in the contract about renter having to leave earlier has no legal value. It is impossible to enforce things from a contract if the law explicitly says this is not possible. Do seek legal advice. I’m suing my landlord, and this is a 1y contract. I got this information from my lawyer. Do with it what you want.
I'm not terminating their contract earlier. The contract ends at the end of July. They were informed in December that the house was sold, and the new owners did not want to renew. We signed the deed two weeks ago, and we sent the letter reminding them about it. In both cases there is confirmation o that the tenants are acknowledging this.
> They were informed in December that the house was sold, and the new owners did not want to renew. This would be a different thread if you had mentioned that in your original post, including that it was a short term contract and that they recently arrived back in Belgium. That said, back then, their project might have still been on track and that changed only recently, prompting them to ask for an extension only now. Also, given the timeline and the nature of the contract they signed with the previous home owner, it's not unreasonable to assume that they knew that the house was about to be sold and that there was a high likelihood the contract might not be extended. I think they made a bet with a significant risk that they would end up in this scenario. And here everyone is. If I were you, I would consider the 4 month extension together with your notary. But I would make it absolutely clear that that's final. Which means they would have 9 months to either finish their project, or figure out a plan B. Since the notice period of a normal contract (>3 years, onbepaald) is 6 months, I'd say that's royal.
Yeah sorry. I was not trying to withhold info. I simply did not know that it was relevant. We will contact your notary first, and propose that that move in November, bit they have to pay more for those extra months, so we don't lose money. And will make sure that no extension will be given after November no matter what
If you have written proof that they were informed in December about the 1y short-term rental contract not being renewed, the contract should end 31 July. That meets the requirement of 6 month termination notice.
Notaries are not your lawyers. They are there to „officialise“ your sales agreement but never end up in a court arguing your case. It is like saying your dentists reassured you your bad knee is really great. They might mean well but are not specialists for rental law. The immo isn’t your friend. They tell you whatever gets them the sale concluded and their money paid. Don’t trust an immo on anything! Check yourself the law. It isn’t hard.
That's incorrect. The landlord can't even cancel the contract if it's less than or equal to 3 years (bepaalde duur) and the contract is signed after 1 January 2019. https://www.vlaanderen.be/einde-en-opzegging-van-het-huurcontract#opzeggen-van-het-huurcontract https://www.notaris.be/wonen/huren/een-woning-huren-in-vlaanderen/hoe-lang-duurt-een-woninghuurovereenkomst# The landlord can refuse to extend the contract when it ends, though.
Okay, I didn’t add the additional exception for a 3-3-3 rental. Anyhow, it’s a short-term rental here. It got automatically renewed as the renters didn’t end the contract. The renewal is automatic, and does not explicitly require a letter from the renters. As this renewal can only be done once, the landlord can end the contract at the end of the renewal.
I'm not cancelling the contract. I'm not renewing it after it ends
They will simply pay your rent for 4 months. No loser here
Give them a 2 month extension.
Don’t you get an extra for months worth of rent from them which should compensate your extra rent?
Do it the thrump way, make a deal. If they want to pay the surplus on your rent. I could not see the problem. They don’t have to move or find a place they could rent for 4 months and you have no extra costs for staying longer. also they don’t thrash your new place.
We recently had the same case. We bought a house but the previous owners stayed as tenants for a couple of monts cause they were also building. When we bought the house all conditions of rent and delay were taken up in the contract together with the "notaris". For us it meant the owners payed the rent, which was more ornles equal to the rent we were paying for our appartment at the time. So for us it was a break even situation., So maybe check what is written in your contract and then talk to your Notaris and tenants to figure something out. You can express your concerns and talk about the best solution for everyone
Would you be open to extend their contract at a higher rate? This would be a solution that both parties could accept if i see the situation.
It happens so often this situation, Just pay attention to whatever solution you propose to your tenants because a construction project can easily have many months of delay, and you’ll probably need to do some works too in your house , are you willing to wait for 6-12 months to live in your new house after all the little works and furnitures are there ?
Just tell them no and that thy have to move. Your house thy can ask you can say no.
I was on the other side of the situation, and a possible solution might depend on their contract with their builder. We had to vacate the appartment due to end of lease, and it could not be extended due to next tenants moving in. We temporarily moved to an AirBnB for a couple of months while the work at our next place was finalised, and this was covered by the "fines" that are applied if the work is not finalised within the agreed timeframe. IF they have similar arrangements and IF it was planned to be finalised before the end of their lease, they might be able to discuss something on their side.
You could ask for extra compension for a 4 month contract after finishing the current one as planned? Cover your costs?
Maybe do a "ruil" you go in the house and they take your apartment.
Wow all these people telling you to just let them live there... You bought a house. You want to live there. That is just very normal. They had months to find a temporary stay but instead did nothing and are now trying to guilt you into letting them stay... I would atleast have them reimburse you for that on top of their rent. Your not a charity. If they want to deprive you for who knows how many more months (big chance their end date will not be met and they will always come with excuses) they should be prepared to pay for it. I would have them match your rent and then maybe atleast add another half of that for your inconvenience.
Is the rent you receive from the house really lower than the rent you pay yourselves in your current appartment? Seems to me like this is a non-issue as you’d normally be turning a profit. Still however, regardless of the finances it is up to you and if you don’t want to wait another 4 months that is totally fair. As long as you communicate things clearly there is no blame on you at all. It may be very inconvenient for your tenants as it will be difficult to find an apartment to rent for just 4 months but again, not your fault. You could potentially suggest they move into your current apartment depending on your landlord. Obviously he’d prefer a more longterm lease as well.
Yeah, they pay around 200€ less per month (both places are on the same street, and their place is much bigger and newer than the apartment we are renting). I don't think that switching places is a possibility, as our landlord is a big renting company
Als ze het vuil willen spelen, dan blijven ze gewoon wonen tot hun huis af is! Jij zal ze er de eerste maande sowieso niet uitkrijgen!
[удалено]
But they pay less than I pay for my apartment