Missing Landlord

qedqed

Yes a 'missing landlord' I badly need some advice on this one. I have an elderly friend who is a so called controlled tenant, for in excess of 50 years. She paid rent regularly up to approximately 8 years ago. since then she has not been able to contact the landlord or any body representing him, she has saved the rent due about 9K. This house only has an outside toilet and is badly in need of a bathroom and other repairs. What would her position be if she was able to have the work out if she was able to afford it. The rent she has saved would be only 1/3 of the cost of the work to be done. Any help would be appreciate.

Hornet

qedqed wrote: »

She paid rent regularly up to approximately 8 years ago. since then she has not been able to contact the landlord or any body representing him, she has saved the rent due about 9K.

I am not sure what her legal rights regarding the works is, if a landlord or a successor will be found again. But an interesting aspect of this is that in 4 years your friend will be able to claim the property under "squatters rights". If there is no landlord anymore and if a reasonable attempt has been made to find a landlord then her case is quite good as long as she stays in the property for then 12 years with no contract. (I found some more information here: http://www.lkshields.ie/htmdocs/publications/newsletters/update23/update23_08.htm)

But that is another 4 years away without toilet. Not a great prospect.

On the other hand, if the probability was high that your friend would own the property, maybe she or someone close would be prepared to invest the money to make the renovations since the property value after another 4 years would easily pay for the renovations. She should check the squatters rights aspect with a solicitor or other expert before relying on it!!

Grolschevik

Best bet would be to consult a solicitor on this, both on the status of your friend's tenancy, and on tracking down the owner/heirs.

the_syco

qedqed wrote: »

I have an elderly friend who is a so called controlled tenant, for in excess of 50 years.

Better talk to a solicitor about that. Read on another site that that's no longer in effect, or something, due to a 2004 act, or something

conorhal

Hornet wrote: »

I am not sure what her legal rights regarding the works is, if a landlord or a successor will be found again. But an interesting aspect of this is that in 4 years your friend will be able to claim the property under "squatters rights". If there is no landlord anymore and if a reasonable attempt has been made to find a landlord then her case is quite good as long as she stays in the property for then 12 years with no contract. (I found some more information here: http://www.lkshields.ie/htmdocs/publications/newsletters/update23/update23_08.htm)

But that is another 4 years away without toilet. Not a great prospect.

On the other hand, if the probability was high that your friend would own the property, maybe she or someone close would be prepared to invest the money to make the renovations since the property value after another 4 years would easily pay for the renovations. She should check the squatters rights aspect with a solicitor or other expert before relying on it!!

I'd go this route. The landlord is in breach of so may requirements to provide suitable accommodation that he could be prosecuted at this stage.
If I were the tenant, I'd spend that 9 grand on a new indoor bathroom for starters, and then wait 4 years and apply for ownership of the property under squatters rights. If a landlord reappears,they will just have to accept that any rent that was due has been spent on an essential upgrade (in the absense of the tenents ability to contact the landlord) to their property and they can write off the rent due as a cost that they would have to have incurred anyway ….or explain to the PTRB why they are content to allow an elderly tenant live in Victorian conditions.

cynder

could the landlord be dead?

Kosseegan

The PRTB has nothing to do with controlled tenancies.

antoinolachtnai

I would be inclined to do the critical things.

But this is really one for a trip to the solicitor.

Old controlled tenancies do stand, as I understand it. No new ones are being created.

bobbysands81

qedqed wrote: »

Yes a 'missing landlord' I badly need some advice on this one. I have an elderly friend who is a so called controlled tenant, for in excess of 50 years.

Based on the amount of rent that is paid by your friend it most definitely sounds like they are living in a formerly rent controlled dwelling.

Rent controlled tenancies are still around, there are very few of them left though. I also think that if the landlord is dead then the property ceases to be a formerly rent controlled dwelling. I also think if rent is not paid then the protected tenancy might also fall by the wayside. I would contact a solicitor that deals with this kind of thing.

The Rent Tribunal are the folks that deal with these tenancies and they are now part of the Private Residential Tenancies Board - link here - http://public.prtb.ie/renttribunal.htm

the_syco

conorhal wrote: »

If a landlord reappears,they will just have to accept that any rent that was due has been spent on an essential upgrade (in the absense of the tenents ability to contact the landlord) to their property and they can write off the rent due as a cost that they would have to have incurred anyway ….or explain to the PTRB why they are content to allow an elderly tenant live in Victorian conditions.

If the landlord reappears, why would she not owe him rent?. As for anything broken, the landlord can claim she never told him. Also, how's her memory? If the landlord sent her a letter 10 or 15 years ago with a change of address, would she remember having it?

And as said, the landlord could be dead.

bobbysands81

Kosseegan wrote: »

The PRTB has nothing to do with controlled tenancies.

They do buddy - click on this and scroll down the page - http://public.prtb.ie/

antoinolachtnai

Well, the PRTB runs the Rent Tribunal, it's involved in that respect.

Is worth reading http://public.prtb.ie/RentTribunal/A%20Brief%20Guide%20to%20the%20Rent%20Tribunal.pdf

The problem is that the tenant has two very practical problems which she needs to resolve. 1. She needs repairs done. 2. she needs improvements made.

the_syco

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The problem is that the tenant has two very practical problems which she needs to resolve. 1. She needs repairs done. 2. she needs improvements made.

Spend €9,000 on getting them fixed, and possibly get thrown out when the landlords next of kin inherits the property. It'd be best to not do any repairs until the solicitor finds out what's the story.

antoinolachtnai

Well, no, they can't throw her out. It's a controlled property. If she has been there for since before 1984, and can prove it, there is very little doubt about that.

But she should talk to a solicitor.

qedqed

Hornet wrote: »

I am not sure what her legal rights regarding the works is, if a landlord or a successor will be found again. But an interesting aspect of this is that in 4 years your friend will be able to claim the property under "squatters rights". If there is no landlord anymore and if a reasonable attempt has been made to find a landlord then her case is quite good as long as she stays in the property for then 12 years with no contract. (I found some more information here: http://www.lkshields.ie/htmdocs/publications/newsletters/update23/update23_08.htm)

But that is another 4 years away without toilet. Not a great prospect.

On the other hand, if the probability was high that your friend would own the property, maybe she or someone close would be prepared to invest the money to make the renovations since the property value after another 4 years would easily pay for the renovations. She should check the squatters rights aspect with a solicitor or other expert before relying on it!!

Thanks Hornet, Your reference to LK.S makes very interesting reading. She has little or no interest in owning the house, but she is very worried what would happen to her if this LL reappears. From your posting and the many others for which I am grateful I feel happier now in advising her to make an inside bathroom using the rent she holds and some of her own limited resources and not to worry about the LL. Thanks.

antoinolachtnai

I think you are right, but it is important that she understands the financial implications of this.

The repairs and improvements are quite separate things. It looks to me like the landlord is not required to make improvements, or if he does, he is entitled to increase the rent. (He is required to make repairs however.)

In practice, if this were the case, this would mean that the landlord, if he/she were to come back, would be entitled to the back-rent, with only the cost of repairs deducted. The tenant would not be entitled to deduct the cost of the improvements (i.e, moving the bathroom indoors).

I think your advice to her is still basically good, because having an indoor bathroom is well worth it, even if it costs a few thousand euros. But it is important that she understands what the downside of the situation is, just in case the unexpected happens and the landlord's successor rolls up one day.

qedqed

Conorhal, Thanks for your comments I think that's the way to go. With her limited resources I just wanted to reassure and help her as well as I could. This is a most unusual situation which I never heard of before. He did call to collect the rent every month and signed the rent book this stopped 8yrs ago, numerous efforts to contact failed, phone disconnected !! If he the LL, pops up either in body or spirit I will let you know

qedqed

Thanks for your comments and reassurances.

qedqed

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I think you are right, but it is important that she understands the financial implications of this.

The repairs and improvements are quite separate things. It looks to me like the landlord is not required to make improvements, or if he does, he is entitled to increase the rent. (He is required to make repairs however.)

In practice, if this were the case, this would mean that the landlord, if he/she were to come back, would be entitled to the back-rent, with only the cost of repairs deducted. The tenant would not be entitled to deduct the cost of the improvements (i.e, moving the bathroom indoors).

I think your advice to her is still basically good, because having an indoor bathroom is well worth it, even if it costs a few thousand euros. But it is important that she understands what the downside of the situation is, just in case the unexpected happens and the landlord's successor rolls up one day.

Thanks Antoinolachtnai, for your comments and reassurances

Milk & Honey

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well, the PRTB runs the Rent Tribunal, it's involved in that respect.

Is worth reading http://public.prtb.ie/RentTribunal/A%20Brief%20Guide%20to%20the%20Rent%20Tribunal.pdf

The problem is that the tenant has two very practical problems which she needs to resolve. 1. She needs repairs done. 2. she needs improvements made.

The PRTB does not run the Rent Tribunal. It just has a link to a document about it on its site. The PRTB only deals with dwellings covered by the Residential Tenancies Act. The dwelling is covered by the 1982 Act.

Residential Tenancies Act 2004 .
3.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act applies to every dwelling, the subject of a tenancy (including a tenancy created before the passing of this Act).

(2) Subject to section 4 (2), this Act does not apply to any of the following dwellings—

(a) a dwelling that is used wholly or partly for the purpose of carrying on a business, such that the occupier could, after the tenancy has lasted 5 years, make an application under section 13(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 in respect of it,

(b) a dwelling to which Part II of the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act 1982 applies,

Juwwi

If she knows his name it might be worth looking up the deaths section
of newspapers from the month he stopped collecting the rent.
even from the last day he collected the rent for 6 to 8 weeks after.

Im not sure if you can do this online or have to call in to the
paper itself and check it out.

Might be an option at least then you'd know if he's dead.

Kosseegan

bobbysands81 wrote: »

They do buddy - click on this and scroll down the page - http://public.prtb.ie/

What does that prove? The PRTB deals with certain, not all tenancies. I see the act has been linked above. The PRTB has nothing to do with formerly ren-controlled dwellings.
As for squatters rights a tenant cannot go into adverse possession against their landlord until their lease ends.

bobbysands81

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The PRTB does not run the Rent Tribunal. It just has a link to a document about it on its site. The PRTB only deals with dwellings covered by the Residential Tenancies Act. The dwelling is covered by the 1982 Act.

Residential Tenancies Act 2004 .
3.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act applies to every dwelling, the subject of a tenancy (including a tenancy created before the passing of this Act).

(2) Subject to section 4 (2), this Act does not apply to any of the following dwellings—

(a) a dwelling that is used wholly or partly for the purpose of carrying on a business, such that the occupier could, after the tenancy has lasted 5 years, make an application under section 13(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 in respect of it,

(b) a dwelling to which Part II of the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act 1982 applies,

Kosseegan wrote: »

What does that prove? The PRTB deals with certain, not all tenancies. I see the act has been linked above. The PRTB has nothing to do with formerly ren-controlled dwellings.
As for squatters rights a tenant cannot go into adverse possession against their landlord until their lease ends.

Hmmmm, let's just say that I know what I'm talking about here folks but for some proof you guys might want to read Page 4 of this link (which is the Rent Tribunal's Annual Report)

http://public.prtb.ie/RentTribunal/Rent%20Tribunal%20Annual%20Report%202009.pdf

which states that:

"2009 was a year of change for the Rent Tribunal as the administrative work of the Tribunal moved from the staff and offices of the Department to the staff and offices of the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB)."

and on Page 5:

"On the 1st October 2009 the Tribunal Secretariat was handed over to the Private Residential Tenacies Board (PRTB)"

So Kosseegan, I'd say it proves a lot!

antoinolachtnai

PRTB does in fact administer the Rents Tribunal which has responsibilities in relation to rent-controlled dwellings.

Kosseegan

The PRTB carries out secretarial work for the Rent Tribunal. It does not run the Tribunal. The Tribunal was set up by the 1983 ACt and has specific functions. The PRTb was set up by the 2004 Act and deals with different dwellings. All that happened in 2009 is that the PRTB took over the secretarial work fromn the Dept of the Environment.
Saying that the PRTB runs the Tribunal is like saying that a Judges secretary runs a court!

antoinolachtnai

You are being very semantic here, and I cannot see the point. Whether you say 'administer' or 'run' or 'manage', it's very little difference. The PRTB 'runs' or 'administers' or 'manages' the rent tribunal in the same way as it runs or administers or manages all its other tribunal work. The Rent Tribunal has no executive of its own (that I can see).

bobbysands81

Kosseegan wrote: »

The PRTB carries out secretarial work for the Rent Tribunal. It does not run the Tribunal. The Tribunal was set up by the 1983 ACt and has specific functions. The PRTb was set up by the 2004 Act and deals with different dwellings. All that happened in 2009 is that the PRTB took over the secretarial work fromn the Dept of the Environment.
Saying that the PRTB runs the Tribunal is like saying that a Judges secretary runs a court!

I really don't get where you're coming from here.

The Rent Tribunal is staffed, operated and run by the PRTB.

Your analogy above is a false one as well.

Kosseegan

The Rent Tribunal is a body established under the 1983 Act below. It has members who are not staff or members of the PRTB. It is a distinct legal personality in its own right. It simply recieves services from the staff of the PRTB. The PRTB have no control over the board.
HOUSING (PRIVATE RENTED DWELLINGS) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1983

2.—(1) There shall be established on such day as the Minister may by order appoint a body to be known as the Rent Tribunal (in this Act referred to as the Tribunal) to perform the functions assigned to it by this Act.
(2) The Tribunal shall consist of the following members, namely, a chairman and so many vice-chairmen and ordinary members as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, considers necessary from time to time for the performance by the Tribunal of its functions under this Act.
( 3 ) ( a ) The chairman, vice-chairmen and the ordinary members shall be appointed by the Minister by order.
( b ) The Minister may by order revoke or amend an order under paragraph (a) or this paragraph.
( c ) An order under this subsection shall be published in Iris Oifigiúil as soon as may be after it is made.
(4) The Minister, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, may from time to time appoint from among his officers so many persons as he considers necessary to assist the Tribunal in the performance of its functions under this Act.

bobbysands81

Kosseegan wrote: »

The Rent Tribunal is a body established under the 1983 Act below. It has members who are not staff or members of the PRTB. It is a distinct legal personality in its own right. It simply recieves services from the staff of the PRTB. The PRTB have no control over the board.
HOUSING (PRIVATE RENTED DWELLINGS) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1983

2.—(1) There shall be established on such day as the Minister may by order appoint a body to be known as the Rent Tribunal (in this Act referred to as the Tribunal) to perform the functions assigned to it by this Act.
(2) The Tribunal shall consist of the following members, namely, a chairman and so many vice-chairmen and ordinary members as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, considers necessary from time to time for the performance by the Tribunal of its functions under this Act.
( 3 ) ( a ) The chairman, vice-chairmen and the ordinary members shall be appointed by the Minister by order.
( b ) The Minister may by order revoke or amend an order under paragraph (a) or this paragraph.
( c ) An order under this subsection shall be published in Iris Oifigiúil as soon as may be after it is made.
(4) The Minister, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, may from time to time appoint from among his officers so many persons as he considers necessary to assist the Tribunal in the performance of its functions under this Act.

Thanks for that but I'm fully aware of the Act.

If you wanted to contact the Rent Tribunal how would you go about doing it? Your initial point was that the PRTB had nothing to do with the Rent Tribunal, that's been debunked but you're refusing to back down out of stubbornness.

Kosseegan

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Thanks for that but I'm fully aware of the Act.

If you wanted to contact the Rent Tribunal how would you go about doing it? Your initial point was that the PRTB had nothing to do with the Rent Tribunal, that's been debunked but you're refusing to back down out of stubbornness.

If you are aware of that Act you know that there are two distinct bodies dealing with different categories of tenants. Their functions do not overlap.
They share a common staff and facilities. If I wanted to contact the Rent Tribunal I would write, email or phone. The fact that a query might be dealt with by someone who is an employee of the PRTB does not mean that I am dealing with the PRTB.
In the case of the o/p the query would be seeking legal advice which neither body would or at least should give. The PRTB has been found to be wrong on the law before.
I have as little as possible to do with the PRTB which has not fulfilled the mandate set out for it in the legislation which created it.

bobbysands81

Kosseegan wrote: »

If you are aware of that Act you know that there are two distinct bodies dealing with different categories of tenants. Their functions do not overlap.
They share a common staff and facilities. If I wanted to contact the Rent Tribunal I would write, email or phone. The fact that a query might be dealt with by someone who is an employee of the PRTB does not mean that I am dealing with the PRTB.
In the case of the o/p the query would be seeking legal advice which neither body would or at least should give. The PRTB has been found to be wrong on the law before.
I have as little as possible to do with the PRTB which has not fulfilled the mandate set out for it in the legislation which created it.

OK, I'll spell it out to you...

The Rent Tribunal is administered by the PRTB.

The PRTB are paid by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to administer the Rent Tribunal.

Staff of the PRTB carry out the administrative functions of the Rent Tribunal. Their weekly wages are paid to them by the PRTB who (in theory) charge the Rent Tribunal for use of staff (merely a paper shuffling exercise).

All staff of the Rent Tribunal are also staff of the PRTB.

The Board of the Rent Tribunal are independent and are appointed by the Minister for the Environment as laid down in legislation (see page 3 of attached - http://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/archive/2010/september/Ir170910.pdf)

Irish Examiner talking of the merger - http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfojeyqlaukf/rss2/ "The Rent Tribunal has been subsumed into the Private Rental Tenancies Board (PRTB), though its membership overlaps."

Unbelievably you still think that the PRTB have NOTHING to do with the Rent Tribunal.

Kosseegan

So now you admit that the Rent Tribunal pays for the work done by staff of the PRTB when working on Rent Tribunal matters. The PRTB itself rightly has nothing to do with Rent Tribunal matters. A newspaper headline is just a comment, not a definitive statement of the legal position.There are two distinct bodies who share a common staff with the budgest apportioned according to the staff resources consumed.
The PRTB does not run or administer the Rent Tribunal. To do so would be beyond it's powers.
The PRTB in fact refused to do something within it's powers a few years ago and had the law changed when it was found to be wrong!

bobbysands81

Kosseegan wrote: »

So now you admit that the Rent Tribunal pays for the work done by staff of the PRTB when working on Rent Tribunal matters. The PRTB itself rightly has nothing to do with Rent Tribunal matters. A newspaper headline is just a comment, not a definitive statement of the legal position.There are two distinct bodies who share a common staff with the budgest apportioned according to the staff resources consumed.
The PRTB does not run or administer the Rent Tribunal. To do so would be beyond it's powers.
The PRTB in fact refused to do something within it's powers a few years ago and had the law changed when it was found to be wrong!

So despite the fact that the Annual Report of the Rent Tribunal states that the PRTB provides its Admin support, and despite the fact that the PRTB states in it's latest Annual Report (copied and pasted below) that it provides the admin functions for the Rent Tribunal, you still think they've nothing to do with each other???!!!

So despite having to ring the PRTB to query matters to do with the Rent Tribunal, despite having to e-mail the PRTB query matters to do with the Rent Tribunal, despite having to deal with PRTB staff on matters to do with the Rent Tribunal, despite the Rent Tribunal having no website of it's own (all the info is on the PRTB website) despite the PRTB using its funding to run the Rent Tribunal, despite the Rent Tribunal having no dedicated staff of it's own but PRTB staff who do so "on a part-time basis and as required" the PRTB has nothing to do with the Rent Tribunal.

In fact two of the Board members of the Rent Tribunal are also on the Board of the PRTB.


"On 1 October 2009 the administrative functions of the Rent Tribunal were transferred from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the PRTB in accordance with one of the recommendations made in the McCarthy Report."

Kosseegan

bobbysands81 wrote: »

So despite the fact that the Annual Report of the Rent Tribunal states that the PRTB provides its Admin support, and despite the fact that the PRTB states in it's latest Annual Report (copied and pasted below) that it provides the admin functions for the Rent Tribunal, you still think they've nothing to do with each other???!!!


"On 1 October 2009 the administrative functions of the Rent Tribunal were transferred from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the PRTB in accordance with one of the recommendations made in the McCarthy Report."

There are two distinct bodies with separate legal personalities. If I was a long term tenant under the 1983 ACt would I sue the PRTB if I was dealt with unfairly or otherwise?
What the report is talking about is an adminstrative exercise, not a legal one. The functions were not transferred. A transfer could only happen if the law was changed, which it hasn't been. Resource sharing is not a transfer of functions.

bobbysands81

Kosseegan wrote: »

There are two distinct bodies with separate legal personalities. If I was a long term tenant under the 1983 ACt would I sue the PRTB if I was dealt with unfairly or otherwise?
What the report is talking about is an adminstrative exercise, not a legal one. The functions were not transferred. A transfer could only happen if the law was changed, which it hasn't been. Resource sharing is not a transfer of functions.

I fully agree with all of that.

That is completely different to what you originally said though.

Do we agree that both the PRTB and Rent Tribunal are separate legal entities who share the same resources provided by the PRTB?