Aggressive Estate Agent - receiver taking over property

dario28

Is this behaviour normal and legal ?

Wednesday got a letter saying the house we were renting has gone into receivership and a new estate agent appointed. Rang the Estate Agent and Receiver no answer

Thursday a second letter arrived and included a copy of the deeds that weresigned over. Again tried to contact both no answer with estate agent but spoketo receiver , who was pretty blunt but didn’t expect any different.

Friday a 3rd letter arrives this time from the newly appointed estate agent saying if I don’t contact him asap he will have the locks changed by 4pm onMonday ( today)

This is seriously aggressive considering we have never met him , have tried to contact him 3 times and paid the rent in full on time for the last year.

What rights do I have , any ideas ?

UDP

Very aggressive indeed. If they change the locks they would be open to a whole world of trouble. Tennants still have full rights during a receivership.

djimi

Best response is to send a registered letter back informing them that you have tried to contact them, and that changing the locks would constitute an illegal eviction. Let them know that you are fully aware of your legal rights.

ford2600

Write/email him. Tell him of your efforts to contact him. Tell him you are well aware of your legal rights and if he makes any more illegal threats to forwsrd all correspondence to your solicitor.
Alternatively if he wants to behave within the law and like a gentleman you will agree to a mutually convenient time for a meeting.
Private Residential tenancy act would be a good start

dario28 wrote: »

Is this behaviour normal and legal ?

Wednesday got a letter saying the house we were renting has gone into receivership and a new estate agent appointed. Rang the Estate Agent and Receiver no answer

Thursday a second letter arrived and included a copy of the deeds that weresigned over. Again tried to contact both no answer with estate agent but spoketo receiver , who was pretty blunt but didn’t expect any different.

Friday a 3rd letter arrives this time from the newly appointed estate agent saying if I don’t contact him asap he will have the locks changed by 4pm onMonday ( today)

This is seriously aggressive considering we have never met him , have tried to contact him 3 times and paid the rent in full on time for the last year.

What rights do I have , any ideas ?

Kosseegan

I know of a tenant who came home to find his locks changed and the electricity cut off. The next day he came back and bouncers were emptying his stuff into wheelie bins. There was an article about it in the Sunday Times last November.
You now have no right to be in the house. Technically you are a trespasser. You will need to get legal representation very quickly. Move all of your valuables out of the house immediately. Leave no personal documents such as bank statements or passport in the house.

dario28

Spoke to the agent this morning , he started off by apologising for the
letters , said they are templates from the receivers. He said they are happy enough to keep renting the house for at least 6 months but could be longer.
When I brought up the tone of the change locks part he apologised again , said they have had some really difficult tenants when they realise the landlord is gone.

Be interesting to see what the house is valued at later , it was sold for close to 600,000 in the boom.

djimi

Kosseegan wrote: »

I know of a tenant who came home to find his locks changed and the electricity cut off. The next day he came back and bouncers were emptying his stuff into wheelie bins. There was an article about it in the Sunday Times last November.
You now have no right to be in the house. Technically you are a trespasser. You will need to get legal representation very quickly. Move all of your valuables out of the house immediately. Leave no personal documents such as bank statements or passport in the house.

Have you got any kind of link to back this up? I dont believe for a second that this is the tenants legal position tbh.

UDP

Kosseegan wrote: »

I know of a tenant who came home to find his locks changed and the electricity cut off. The next day he came back and bouncers were emptying his stuff into wheelie bins. There was an article about it in the Sunday Times last November.
You now have no right to be in the house. Technically you are a trespasser. You will need to get legal representation very quickly. Move all of your valuables out of the house immediately. Leave no personal documents such as bank statements or passport in the house.

that is complete bs. I too would like to see a link to back this up.

Marcusm

djimi wrote: »

Have you got any kind of link to back this up? I dont believe for a second that this is the tenants legal position tbh.

I was as fervently sceptical as you until a recent exchange of posts with(?) Milk & Honey. The point being that a mortgagee who takes possession if a property is not bound by any lease unless it has previously consented to it; Deasy's law was cited. I think it's unusual enough to see it implemented - a block I rent in has gone through repression followed by a sale and the leases have been adopted at each stage.

Kosseegan

djimi wrote: »

Have you got any kind of link to back this up? I dont believe for a second that this is the tenants legal position tbh.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1165306.ece

http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/ff861d392e0822f580257a230056419b?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,n17

Kosseegan

UDP wrote: »

that is complete bs. I too would like to see a link to back this up.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1165306.ece


http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/ff861d392e0822f580257a230056419b?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,n17

Lemming

Kosseegan wrote: »

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1165306.ece

Full article is behind a subscription-only pay-wall.

cruderbeef

Lemming wrote: »

Full article is behind a subscription-only pay-wall.

You can see the article if you Google "ulster bank" "tenant protests against eviction"
It definitely happened. I remember reading about it at the time.

Marcusm

Legal Expert wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. Any person that takes ownership of a property either through a sale or a repossession takes on a sitting tenant. We are talking residential properties here. As such they are bound by the terms or an original lease or the residential tenancies act.

Here's a link to the prior discussion; you'll see that the view of other "legal experts" was that the mortgagee is not bound by the lease (as it has not consented to it) but is bound by RTA such as if the tenant has Part IV rights. Unlike lease rights, those of course can be terminated for the purposes of a sale.

cruderbeef

Legal Expert wrote: »

The only article is that Times one. No other reports. I'd like to read it and a bit about the court case.

I wouldn't think the Sunday Times was making it up.

bmaxi

Became the victim of something similar today when we arrived home to discover our landlord had gone into receivership. We had already given notice that we were leaving before the date of the receivership and this was accepted. What worries us is where is our deposit and from whom can we claim it?

ResearchWill

cruderbeef wrote: »

I wouldn't think the Sunday Times was making it up.

I agree, from the courts website DAHMER -V- ULSTER BANK IRELAND LTD & ANOR 2012/11561 there was a second case DAHMER -V- ULSTER BANK IRELAND LIMITED & ORS 2012/149 IA

Both cases are a Max Dahmer and both name Ulster Bank. The second case also lists Defendant Name: AN UNIDENTIFIED SECURITY COMPANY, also both list a send named Defendant.

Seems to add up.

The sunday times Article carries a date 19th November 2012, the first case a injunction application I think commenced in the 12th November 2012 the substantive case commenced on the 14th November 2012.

UDP

Kosseegan wrote: »

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1165306.ece


http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/ff861d392e0822f580257a230056419b?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,n17

The first link doesn't appear to be fully accessible even by googling it. Googling the guys name doesn't bring any mention of the case elsewhere so I am very skeptical. The second link refers to a business lease.

ResearchWill

UDP wrote: »

The first link doesn't appear to be fully accessible even by googling it. Googling the guys name doesn't bring any mention of the case elsewhere so I am very skeptical. The second link refers to a business lease.

From the first link

A TENANT who lost his home after a landlord surrendered the property to a bank is challenging his eviction in court.

In an action against his landlord and Ulster Bank, Max Dahmer, a mechanic originally from Erfurt in Germany, is claiming he was evicted from his rented home in Tullamore, Co Offaly, without due notice.

Dahmer, who has been employed by the National Car Testing Service since 2003, returned home from work on November 8 to find the locks on the house he had been renting since July 2004 had been changed.

He says that he was up to date with the €750-a-month rent on the four-bedroom property.

On October 3, Dahmer had found a note pinned to the back door informing him the house had been surrendered to a bank. He says the landlord subsequently confirmed he had handed the property to the bank.

If you go to www.courts.ie go to high court search and enter the above name as plaintiff, it will bring the details to the 2 high court cases where he is suing Ulster Bank. The first case being an injunction the second case being a plenary case. Both cases started days before the above Sunday times article.

If you look at my post above you will note I copied and pasted the name and record number if both cases.

ResearchWill

Legal Expert wrote: »

How is this relevant? What happened in the case? What arguments were put forth? How did the judge rule?

A person quoted that this had happened others doubted so its relevance is that the case exists. I do not know anything about the case other than this person is suing Ulster Bank an other named person and an unidentified security company, he sought an injunction on the 12th November Last year, he started a Pleanery case in the 14th November, there is no judgement yet.

ResearchWill

Legal Expert wrote: »

Nobody was doubting that it ever happened. I'm doubting what was said about this case.

What do you doubt, a man claims he was illegally evicted, a man with the same name launches injunction proceedings against 3 bodies one being ulster bank, the same bank quoted in the article, he also names another person and "A unidentified security company" a man with the same name then takes expensive Pleanery case against the bank again and a named person.

Nobody said anything about the case other than this man claims he was evicted illegally.

I doubt any person would make it up and launch 2 high court cases.

UDP

ResearchWill wrote: »

From the first link

A TENANT who lost his home after a landlord surrendered the property to a bank is challenging his eviction in court.

In an action against his landlord and Ulster Bank, Max Dahmer, a mechanic originally from Erfurt in Germany, is claiming he was evicted from his rented home in Tullamore, Co Offaly, without due notice.

Dahmer, who has been employed by the National Car Testing Service since 2003, returned home from work on November 8 to find the locks on the house he had been renting since July 2004 had been changed.

He says that he was up to date with the €750-a-month rent on the four-bedroom property.

On October 3, Dahmer had found a note pinned to the back door informing him the house had been surrendered to a bank. He says the landlord subsequently confirmed he had handed the property to the bank.

If you go to www.courts.ie go to high court search and enter the above name as plaintiff, it will bring the details to the 2 high court cases where he is suing Ulster Bank. The first case being an injunction the second case being a plenary case. Both cases started days before the above Sunday times article.

If you look at my post above you will note I copied and pasted the name and record number if both cases.

I can't find any mention of a judgement for this case only notes in the legal diary about hearings. Just because something may have happened doesn't mean it was legal. Your assertion that the op can be legally turfed out like that is completely wrong.

ResearchWill

UDP wrote: »

I can't find any mention of a judgement for this case only notes in the legal diary about hearings. Just because something may have happened doesn't mean it was legal. Your assertion that the op can be legally turfed out like that is completely wrong.

Where have I made any assertion about the case. Other than quote the article and say there was a case. Can you please point out where I said the OP or any one can be legally or illegally turfed out of any where, I nor anyone else can not tell the OP of his legal status based on a few posts on the Internet.

List of documents in the case names of deponents removed



Date Number Title Solicitor
06/12/2012 0 Affidavits Deponent
06/12/2012 0 Affidavits Deponent
06/12/2012 0 Affidavits Deponent
27/11/2012 0 Affidavits Deponent
27/11/2012 0 Affidavits Deponent
21/11/2012 0 Affidavits Deponent
21/11/2012 0 Memo Entry of Appearance Solicitor KENNEDYS
14/11/2012 0 Notice of Court Motion Last Return Date 16/01/2013 Chancery Court 5

List of dates


15/11/2012 Chancery Court 5 / Motions 0000 Adjourned
20/11/2012 Chancery Court 5 / Motions 0009 Adjourned - no details available
23/11/2012 Chancery Court 5 / For mention 0001 Adjourned - no details available
30/11/2012 Chancery Court 5 / For mention 0002 Adjourned - no details available
16/01/2013 Chancery Court 5 / FOR HEARING 0004 XX

It was listed for hearing on the 16th January 2013 no result recorded, could be settled.

The only order listed in either case is the IA one which gave an order under Order 11 for service outside of jurisdiction.

UDP

ResearchWill wrote: »

Where have I made any assertion about the case. Other than quote the article and say there was a case. Can you please point out where I said the OP or any one can be legally or illegally turfed out of any where, I nor anyone else can not tell the OP of his legal status based on a few posts on the Internet.

apologies I am/was on a mobile device so hadn't spotted that it was someone other than Kosseegan that had replied. Kosseegan had stated that the op didn't have rights to stay in the property any longer.

djimi

Kosseegan wrote: »

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1165306.ece

http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/ff861d392e0822f580257a230056419b?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,n17

That shows that such an eviction has happened; it doesnt however provide any evidence that is was legal. You stated

You now have no right to be in the house. Technically you are a trespasser.

which is what I would like to see a link to something legal that backs that statement up. Im very skeptical that such an eviction can be within the law.

Kosseegan

djimi wrote: »

That shows that such an eviction has happened; it doesnt however provide any evidence that is was legal. You stated

You have produced nothing to say it was illegal!


which is what I would like to see a link to something legal that backs that statement up. Im very skeptical that such an eviction can be within the law.[/QUOTE]
Beattie v Mair 1882] 208
10 L.R. Ir.

An action cannot be maintained by a person who has been in possession of lands without title, against the true owner of the lands, for, with force and strong hand, entering the land, expelling the Plaintiff from possession, taking goods the property of the Defendant then being on the lands.


Under s 18 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881 the o/p was never a tenant as far as the bank are concerned.

The law has never been changed. There are attempts to change the law in other common law jurisdictions such as the US, Australia and Britain but nothing has been done in Ireland.

djimi

Fair enough. Id be interested to see how it would actually stand up in court, given the RTA 2004 and the protection it gives tenants.

Kosseegan

djimi wrote: »

Fair enough. Id be interested to see how it would actually stand up in court, given the RTA 2004 and the protection it gives tenants.

The mortgagee in possession is not a landlord unless he adopts the lease and accepts rent. See the definition of landlord in the Residential Tenancies Act. There has been no decided case on this point in Ireland. It is significant that other jurisdictions have introduced legislation specifically to deal with tenants after there has been a repossession from the landlord.