Return of deposit

qwerty1a

the house im renting was taken by nama several months ago but is now being sold, so who repays the deposit?

Kosseegan

qwerty1a wrote: »

the house im renting was taken by nama several months ago but is now being sold, so who repays the deposit?

Nama is you landlord, nama returns the deposit.

Ciara22

Kosseegan wrote: »

Nama is you landlord, nama returns the deposit.

Not necessarily. If you paid your deposit to the previous owner, they can argue that you are now an unsecured creditor and you will need to pursue him/her for the deposit.

The previous owner may not have transferred those deposit funds to Nama.

djimi

Ciara22 wrote: »

Not necessarily. If you paid your deposit to the previous owner, they can argue that you are now an unsecured creditor and you will need to pursue him/her for the deposit.

The previous owner may not have transferred those deposit funds to Nama.

I dont think it works like that when renting from a private individual initially, does it?

Rasmus

Deposit is held by the LL in most cases - somehow I think that the previous owner did not forward yours to NAMA. Would NAMA take you to PRTB for withholding your last month's deposit? I doubt it and I would take my chances in this case. (Unless of course you haven't actually contacted anyone at NAMA to find out what the story is, which would be the first port of call).

Kosseegan

Ciara22 wrote: »

Not necessarily. If you paid your deposit to the previous owner, they can argue that you are now an unsecured creditor and you will need to pursue him/her for the deposit.

The previous owner may not have transferred those deposit funds to Nama.

Whoever is collecting the rent is deemed to be the landlord. The landlord has to return the deposit. Once nama start collecting rent they become liable to return the deposit. Who got the deposit initially has nothing to do with it.

Rasmus

Kosseegan wrote: »

Whoever is collecting the rent is deemed to be the landlord. The landlord has to return the deposit. Once nama start collecting rent they become liable to return the deposit. Who got the deposit initially has nothing to do with it.

Do you have a link to that?

Kosseegan

Rasmus wrote: »

Do you have a link to that?

http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/2004/0027.html#parti-sec5


http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/2004/0027.html#partii-chapi-sec12

Rasmus

Kosseegan wrote: »

http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/2004/0027.html#parti-sec5


http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/2004/0027.html#partii-chapi-sec12

(d) subject to subsection (4), return or repay promptly any deposit paid by the tenant to the landlord on entering into the agreement for the tenancy or lease,

To the LL you signed the original lease, that is. There's no clause to stipulate what happens if there is a change of ownership.

qwerty1a

nama has just placed the house for sale so the situation is quite confusing. Have no idea what to or who to contact.

Chris_5339762

Whilst you cannot legally hold the last months rent in lieu of your deposit, in this ever more common scenario it is hard to suggest doing anything but that.

Tails142

Well a friend of mine is in a similar situation, he is renting an apartment from a developer who has gone bust.

He is emigrating so contacted the liquidator who is now acting as his landlord to see about what to do when his lease is up.

The liquidator told him that they had no funds to return to deposits but if he didn't pay the last months rent it would be highly unlikely they would be pursued due to the costs involved in taking them to court for one months rent.

Because he is an accountant however he has to sign a declaration every year that he has not been pursued through the courts for unpaid debts, and he would lose his job if the liquidator did come after him however unlikely.

So his only option is to pay the last months rent and swallow losing the deposit or it could be the end of his career.

So if you don't have issues like that to worry about, my advice would be to not pay the last months rent

BostonB

Well you could pay the last months rent late. Like very late. In the meanwhile send them a letter to take it out of your deposit. Bit stupid of them not to simply agree to that. It requires no funds. Not agreeing to it means you could take them to PRTB and win. Food for thought.

Rasmus

qwerty1a wrote: »

nama has just placed the house for sale so the situation is quite confusing. Have no idea what to or who to contact.

The number on the listing?

Kosseegan

Rasmus wrote: »

(d) subject to subsection (4), return or repay promptly any deposit paid by the tenant to the landlord on entering into the agreement for the tenancy or lease,

To the LL you signed the original lease, that is. There's no clause to stipulate what happens if there is a change of ownership.

It is still the same letting. The fact that the landlord changed is irrelevant. The landlord at the end has to give back the deposit given to the landlord at the start. The legislation is always construed in favour of the tenant. It is up to the new landlord to get the deposit from the original landlord. Complain to the PRTB about the receiver, liquidator or NAMA if the deposit is not returned. They take the rent, they have to take on the responsibilities.

Rasmus

I think it's open to interpretation.

Kosseegan

Rasmus wrote: »

I think it's open to interpretation.

Everything is open to interpretation but how many interpretations? Tenants pays deposit when he enters a lease. He gets it back when he hoes. That is the law. The eprson who has to pay it is the landlord. It is defined as to who is the landlord. It is common in sales of commercial building for the deposity to be transferred from the old landlord to the new if the landlord sells the building. Paying back deposits is a risk banks undertake when they appoint receivers.

odds_on

I asked a similar question on the legal board recently.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056917778

Rasmus

Kosseegan wrote: »

Everything is open to interpretation but how many interpretations? .

Just the part you quoted in this instance - there are no examples in that charter of what happens when the payee's assess is liquidated - the payee being the LL who received the deposit.

valleyoftheunos

Kosseegan wrote: »

Everything is open to interpretation but how many interpretations? Tenants pays deposit when he enters a lease. He gets it back when he hoes. That is the law. The eprson who has to pay it is the landlord. It is defined as to who is the landlord. It is common in sales of commercial building for the deposity to be transferred from the old landlord to the new if the landlord sells the building. Paying back deposits is a risk banks undertake when they appoint receivers.

It would seem that the 2004 act is clear on this but I wouldn't fancy trying to get a deposit back from a Liquidator much less NAMA. High likelyhood of being told you're an unsecured creditor, good luck and good night.

I don't think thats correct in fact or law but it might be a struggle to get them to admit that.

Kosseegan

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

It would seem that the 2004 act is clear on this but I wouldn't fancy trying to get a deposit back from a Liquidator much less NAMA. High likelyhood of being told you're an unsecured creditor, good luck and good night.

I don't think thats correct in fact or law but it might be a struggle to get them to admit that.

In very few cases will there be a liquidator. Most tenants don't rent from a limited company. NAMA are usually involved through receivers. It is a criminal offence not to repay a deposit if ordered to do so by the PRTB. No receiver will want to be convicted. I would quiite happily complain to the PRTB abouit not getting a deposit back from a receiver and I would seek his conviction in the event he did not pay up. I would be quite happy that then receiver would pay up rather than be convicted. He would add it to his own expenses of the receivership and get priority that way.