Implications of LL not registering with PTRB

a_l_a_n

Sorry if it has been answered before, but what are the implications of renting a place which is not registered with the PRTB?

What are the best and worst implications of this? Does it mean I can break the lease without issue but that I have no recourse if the landlord fails to maintain the place, or what?

Is it illegal for them not to register? Does it in fact give me a stick to beat them with if they step out of line?

Paulw

a_l_a_n wrote: »

What are the best and worst implications of this? Does it mean I can break the lease without issue but that I have no recourse if the landlord fails to maintain the place, or what?

Is it illegal for them not to register? Does it in fact give me a stick to beat them with if they step out of line?

No, it certainly does not mean you can break the lease. They can still take legal action against you.

Yes, it is illegal for them not to register.

No, it doesn't give you any stick at all.

Your lease is still a legally binding contract, and can be enforced by the PRTB, even without it being registered.

Agent J

Paulw wrote: »

No, it certainly does not mean you can break the lease. They can still take legal action against you.

True, but they would have to go through the courts for it.

Paulw wrote: »

Your lease is still a legally binding contract,

True. In theory anyway. Getting that contract enforced by the LL is now a different matter.

Paulw wrote: »

and can be enforced by the PRTB, even without it being registered.

The landlord cannot take a case if they have not registered though. The tennant can. The PRTB will not do a damn thing for a LL which hasnt registered.

This doesnt give the tennant the right to do what they like. Cases for criminal damage and such will still go through court.

However it does give you one very large stick to beat the landlord with .
If they hold back the deposit, you just threaten to take a PRTB case. As soon as it goes they want to know what the LL didnt register. The LL risks a 5k fine. Its probably cheaper for them in the long run to pay back the deposit.

I would keep this option in reserve and to be used only if things go really south.


In pratice, Not registering doesnt really effect you as a tennant. You can still take a case if something happen. The landlord though kinda hamstrings themselves and really should register.

a_l_a_n

Hi,

Yes I was thinking along the lines of what Agent J just said.

I would just like to make clear that I don't plan on being anything other than a wonderful tenant!

I just wanted to ensure I would have all the same rights as I would were the landlord registered, which seems to be the case.

Beyond that I am wondering if it is in fact advantageous for me to have them unregistered. From what I read there is a hefty upfront fine plus a big daily fine if you get caught with an unregistered rental property. Furthermore I suspect that one of the reasons for not registering may be the intention to evade tax.

Cumulatively they seem like one hell of a barrel to have your landlord over should you wish to leave early and get your deposit back, or should they refuse to maintain the property to your standard, or should the arrangement just generally go very sour.

The only drawback I can think of for the tenant is that they may not be able to claim their rental tax credit because doing so would alert the revenue to the landlords shenanigans.

Am I missing something? Should I be more wary of someone who tells me they aren't registering with PRTB.

Agent J

Nothing the landlord does can stop you claiming tax either. Personal experience on this one.

That is not affected.

It is more advantageous for the Tenant for the Landlord not to register.

I really dont know why the LL wouldnt. It is illegal and only hurts his position in any action they might take.

a_l_a_n

Agent J wrote: »

Nothing the landlord does can stop you claiming tax either. Personal experience on this one.

That is not affected.

It is more advantageous for the Tenant for the Landlord not to register.

I really dont know why the LL wouldnt. It is illegal and only hurts his position in any action they might take.

My guesses are tax evasion and that section 4 thing (or whatever its called) which makes it difficult to get rid of a tenant after more than 6 months ...

Agent J

a_l_a_n wrote: »

My guesses are tax evasion and that section 4 thing (or whatever its called) which makes it difficult to get rid of a tenant after more than 6 months ...

The section 4 thing is irrelvant though. If you sign a lease and they register then the section 4 thing doesnt come into it.

a_l_a_n

Agent J wrote: »

The section 4 thing is irrelvant though. If you sign a lease and they register then the section 4 thing doesnt come into it.

Hmm ... so that leaves us with tax evasion? Anyone get a better explanation for not registering? The fee is negligeable.

The_Conductor

a_l_a_n wrote: »

Anyone get a better explanation for not registering? The fee is negligeable.

Some people are simply disorganised- and would leave their heads at home in the morning, but for the fact its screwed onto their shoulders. I'm guessing there are lots of landlords out there who have either 'not gotten around to doing it'- or in a significant number of cases, are wholly ignorant of their obligations (you'd be surprised at the number of part-time property speculators cum landlords, who seriously haven't a notion what they're doing........)

Victor

Is the landlord required to register?

If you are a lodger, not a tenant, the landlord doesn't need to register.

a_l_a_n

Victor wrote: »

Is the landlord required to register?

If you are a lodger, not a tenant, the landlord doesn't need to register.

I am a prospective tenant, so yes they are required to, and they are aware of it, but they do not intend to.

BC

It costs money to register with the PRTB and in my experience they are absolutely useless. The landlord may have just decided not to bother and accept and penalites that come with that.