Tenants and the threat of repossession by bank

on_my_oe

Feel like we are banging our heads against a wall... We have been renting our apartment for two and half years, and pay monthly in cash. The agent refused to allow payment by standing order but we did get a lease, a PTRB letter and a rent book.
About two months ago we discovered the owner hadn't been paying the mortgage or management fees for four years plus (this came from a debt collector knocking on our door). This didnt surprise us as we had been receiving a huge amount of mail for the owner from the bank (our own statements come from same bank, so recognised the address) and a solicitor (logo visible through window of envelope).
We contacted the agent, who has informed us we have to move out immediately. Her reasoning is that if the property is repossessed, we will be given 7 days to vacate by the repossession agent, so we are better moving now as they have another property available that is nearby and is 'only' €160 a month more.

Do we have any rights as we don't think the owner has a BTL mortgage? I guess pt IV doesn't apply? Is there any value in contacting the solicitor and trying to rent the property from the bank? We'd rather not move as we are hoping to get a mortgage ourselves in the next 3/4 months.

D3PO

Part 4 absolutely does apply.

The agent is full of sh1t. You cannot be given 7 days to vacate by a repossession agent. You are still entitled to your correct notice under part 4.

Don't move if it doesn't suit you. Tenants have rights exercise them.

foggy_lad

Tell the agent you wil find your own place and only when given notice by the bank.

Doom

Contact the bank and offer to continue with tenancy with them as landlord, pay bank directly? Seems like best solution

on_my_oe

I don't suppose anyone knows how the repossesion process takes? We know we are on borrowed time - the question is, how 'borrowed'?

Cuddlesworth

on_my_oe wrote: »

I don't suppose anyone knows how the repossesion process takes? We know we are on borrowed time - the question is, how 'borrowed'?

Lets see, there is at least 30,000 other similar situations with about 50 forced repossessions a year. I'd say the odds of the property being repossessed are quite slim.

on_my_oe

Really?! We know of four repossesion sin our building but of course we don't know how bad their BTL owners were

Marcusm

D3PO wrote: »

Part 4 absolutely does apply.

The agent is full of sh1t. You cannot be given 7 days to vacate by a repossession agent. You are still entitled to your correct notice under part 4.

Don't move if it doesn't suit you. Tenants have rights exercise them.

Even Threshold acknowledged on a recent RTE programme with Eddie Hobbs and Keelin Shanley (?Money Programme) that a bank receiver can terminate immediately with very limited notice as, unless the bank/receiver has accepted rent, the RTA 2004 security of tenure rules (ie part IV) cannot be enforced against them. I thought like you once too but there was a legal analysis posted here previously. That being said, my experience is of the receiver adopting the lease because it was commercially sensible.

In the OP's case I wouldn't walk away but at the same time I would not overestimate my own tenure.

miller50841

Why pay rent if the LL is just putting in their pocket and making 100% off you it seems absolutely nuts. I really hate the Irish way of things.

I am not saying don't pay but the whole thing he the LL has got away for 4 years is why we are all getting rent increases and nobody can afford to buy as the bubble is starting again.

on_my_oe

miller50841 wrote: »

Why pay rent if the LL is just putting in their pocket and making 100% off you it seems absolutely nuts. I really hate the Irish way of things.

I am not saying don't pay but the whole thing he the LL has got away for 4 years is why we are all getting rent increases and nobody can afford to buy as the bubble is starting again.

We are probably naive but a) we need to sleep peacefully at night (even if we are mugs) and b) we are reliant on the agent providing us with a letter for the bank confirming we pay regular rent for our mortgage application

miller50841

on_my_oe wrote: »

We are probably naive but a) we need to sleep peacefully at night (even if we are mugs) and b) we are reliant on the agent providing us with a letter for the bank confirming we pay regular rent for our mortgage application

You have all the proof you pay your rent on time as you have a rent book you are registered with prtb and hopefully pay out of your bank so the record will be there.

As said above contact Threshold they will give you all the info needed they no everything that needs to be known. I had to use them and the prtb and have to say both were a great help and sorted everything.

As said above get onto the bank also.

D3PO

Marcusm wrote: »

Even Threshold acknowledged on a recent RTE programme with Eddie Hobbs and Keelin Shanley (?Money Programme) that a bank receiver can terminate immediately with very limited notice as, unless the bank/receiver has accepted rent, the RTA 2004 security of tenure rules (ie part IV) cannot be enforced against them. I thought like you once too but there was a legal analysis posted here previously. That being said, my experience is of the receiver adopting the lease because it was commercially sensible.

In the OP's case I wouldn't walk away but at the same time I would not overestimate my own tenure.

Id like to see them try tbh. Even if it doesn't apply (Which I think is questionable as change of ownership doesn't impact tenants rights) it would be marketing suicide for any bank to try and turf out a tenant of a repossessed property with limited notice and it just wouldn't happen.

athtrasna

miller50841 wrote: »

You have all the proof you pay your rent on time as you have a rent book you are registered with prtb and hopefully pay out of your bank so the record will be there.

As said above contact Threshold they will give you all the info needed they no everything that needs to be known. I had to use them and the prtb and have to say both were a great help and sorted everything.

As said above get onto the bank also.

If the rent is not transferred directly to the landlord and payments are made in cash, your bank may not consider a rent book as proof of regular payment. A poster on here got caught out in a similar position when applying for a mortgage recently, I'm sure there was a thread on it in the past few weeks.

miller50841

athtrasna wrote: »

If the rent is not transferred directly to the landlord and payments are made in cash, your bank may not consider a rent book as proof of regular payment. A poster on here got caught out in a similar position when applying for a mortgage recently, I'm sure there was a thread on it in the past few weeks.

That's why I said once they used their bank for paying, There is a paper trail.

Marcusm

D3PO wrote: »

Id like to see them try tbh. Even if it doesn't apply (Which I think is questionable as change of ownership doesn't impact tenants rights) it would be marketing suicide for any bank to try and turf out a tenant of a repossessed property with limited notice and it just wouldn't happen.

You need to go look for the programme on RTE PLayer; it did happen and the hardest case was a woman who'd moved out but not had her deposit back at the point of repossession and they had no obligations to her.

There was a very good analysis of the position on boards a few months ago from one of the Legal Discs mods. Basically, land law doesn't provide the tenant with an interest in the land unless the bank has consented to the lease (which is almost never the case). If the property is repossessed, the rights under the Residential Tenancies Act are only enforceable against someone who has accepted rent in respect of the property (as otherwise they don't meet the definition of landlord). Accordingly, if they repossess and intend to obtain vacant possession no rent will be accepted and a notice to quit will be served. As the RTA rights are only enforceable against the landlord who no longer owns the property they are not worth anything. Any claim the tenant may have against the erstwhile landlord is presumably not worth pursuing.

However, in most cases, I imagine that tenants will be left in place as it is more efficient in the medium term.

athtrasna

miller50841 wrote: »

That's why I said once they used their bank for paying, There is a paper trail.

The OP said they pay in cash. The bank see cash withdrawals as just that, cash withdrawals. It doesn't prove a record of paying rent if there isn't a direct transfer. Agents letters are easily forged too.

Lantus

D3PO wrote: »

Id like to see them try tbh. Even if it doesn't apply (Which I think is questionable as change of ownership doesn't impact tenants rights) it would be marketing suicide for any bank to try and turf out a tenant of a repossessed property with limited notice and it just wouldn't happen.

It does happen and I know 2 properties in my own estate where it did. 7 days notice and then your gone. Locksmiths come in and change the locks. Unless the owner agreed the property could be rented out which on owner mortgages they generally don't a tenant has no leg to stand on.

No harm in asking bank but generally they are happy for a property to remain empty as they don't want to be landlords. Be prepared to move out and check other agents for prices. Rents are on the rise aggressively in some areas so expect to pay more generally.

miller50841

Lantus wrote: »

It does happen and I know 2 properties in my own estate where it did. 7 days notice and then your gone. Locksmiths come in and change the locks. Unless the owner agreed the property could be rented out which on owner mortgages they generally don't a tenant has no leg to stand on.

No harm in asking bank but generally they are happy for a property to remain empty as they don't want to be landlords. Be prepared to move out and check other agents for prices. Rents are on the rise aggressively in some areas so expect to pay more generally.

Rents are going mad I received a call last night that I have till Tuesday to decide if I want to stay where I am and the rent is going up by €200.

the_syco

foggy_lad wrote: »

Tell the agent you wil find your own place and only when given notice by the bank.

From what I've read in the OP, the bank won't have the deposit. The OP is best moving shortly, to ensure they get their deposit.

miller50841 wrote: »

Rents are going mad I received a call last night that I have till Tuesday to decide if I want to stay where I am and the rent is going up by €200.

Tell them that you want your deposit now, and that you'll move out in 2 weeks. If you don't think you'll get your deposit, consider withholding rent until you save the same, and then move out.

Also, rents usually temporarily go mad around this time of the year, as the influx of student tenants allows the landlords to raise rents as they have a good chance of getting someone to pay it.

on_my_oe

Tonight a server knocked on the door to give us a <I> Civil Bill to Possess </i> calling the owner to court.

It specifies a date of 14 January 2014.

So now we know who the banks solicitors actually are, and in theory, have longer to move than what our agent has been telling us. New / revised advice?

miller50841

Be ready to move but if happy to stay stay.

Call Threshold and ask what they think of it.

Do you have a deposit of much to get back?

I would go 14 days late without paying the rent and just see where it goes they can't do anything till they give you notice of arrears.

miller50841

the_syco wrote: »

From what I've read in the OP, the bank won't have the deposit. The OP is best moving shortly, to ensure they get their deposit.


Tell them that you want your deposit now, and that you'll move out in 2 weeks. If you don't think you'll get your deposit, consider withholding rent until you save the same, and then move out.

Also, rents usually temporarily go mad around this time of the year, as the influx of student tenants allows the landlords to raise rents as they have a good chance of getting someone to pay it.

Hi the syco. Nice name;).

We are hear since April 2012 and have paid on time and kept the place like our own. I was surprised with getting a phone call after 2100 and then made out to be lucky they hadn't put the rent up already.

I am getting real pis**d off with the renting game as this is the 2nd property I have been messed about with.

Marcusm

on_my_oe wrote: »

Tonight a server knocked on the door to give us a <I> Civil Bill to Possess </i> calling the owner to court.

It specifies a date of 14 January 2014.

So now we know who the banks solicitors actually are, and in theory, have longer to move than what our agent has been telling us. New / revised advice?

Isn't that the first stage in the repossession process? It has a long way to go. You need to establish whether you can get your deposit back from landlord. If you can, I'd probably move out. If not, it's hard to see what you have to lose by staying on until you get a legal notice to quit. No one should recommend you to avoid paying rent but I have little respect for BTL landlords who put tenants in this sort of position while wanting to continue receiving the rent.

on_my_oe

Marcusm wrote: »

Isn't that the first stage in the repossession process? It has a long way to go. You need to establish whether you can get your deposit back from landlord. If you can, I'd probably move out. If not, it's hard to see what you have to lose by staying on until you get a legal notice to quit. No one should recommend you to avoid paying rent but I have little respect for BTL landlords who put tenants in this sort of position while wanting to continue receiving the rent.

I'm quite happy to pay rent (as mentioned in an earlier post, I need to sleep soundly at night). We just don't want to go through thd hassle of moving if we can avoid it. We are hopeful of getting a mortgage in the next 4/5 months and if we move now we'll be paying more rent too.

I'm hoping to contact the banks solicitor and get an undertaking that when the bank gain possession that we can stay until we secure our own mortgage.

the_syco

on_my_oe wrote: »

We are hopeful of getting a mortgage in the next 4/5 months and if we move now we'll be paying more rent too.

Check with the bank, as I'm pretty sure they need 6 months bank records, and currently I think you may only have 30 months of outgoings. Better off asking the bank if the rent book is any good, as I fear it's not.

Your next step is based on what the bank tells you in regards the rent book, and if I were you, I'd ask today.

on_my_oe

the_syco wrote: »

Check with the bank, as I'm pretty sure they need 6 months bank records, and currently I think you may only have 30 months of outgoings. Better off asking the bank if the rent book is any good, as I fear it's not.

Your next step is based on what the bank tells you in regards the rent book, and if I were you, I'd ask today.

We contacted Threashold who had little information beyond suggesting we turn up at the court.

We contacted the solicitor this morning to advise there is a tenant but they said they wouldn't be interestedin helping us, but wanted us to provide them with copies of our documents. Umm, no - why upset our agent if we're going to be the jam in the sandwich?

wowwee123

on_my_oe wrote: »

We contacted Threashold who had little information beyond suggesting we turn up at the court.

We contacted the solicitor this morning to advise there is a tenant but they said they wouldn't be interestedin helping us, but wanted us to provide them with copies of our documents. Umm, no - why upset our agent if we're going to be the jam in the sandwich?

Hi,

I'm just wondering has anymore happened on this? We received a civil bill of possession for our landlord and he is due in court on 11th October! He is not in the country so he;ll be a no show. I'm not sure were we stand now.

gaius c

I can honestly say that I've never before advocated skipping your last month's rent but I do think you should a) find yourself a new place ASAP, b) hand in your notice according to Part IV notice periods and c) skip the last month's rent.

The fact that the solicitor is refusing to be of any help to you wouldn't make me too hopeful that you'll get your deposit back from them.

I wonder if there's any scope for criminal charges against landlords who pocket the rent for themselves instead of meeting their obligations on the property and put their tenants through this kind of stress?

on_my_oe

wowwee123 wrote: »

Hi,

I'm just wondering has anymore happened on this? We received a civil bill of possession for our landlord and he is due in court on 11th October! He is not in the country so he;ll be a no show. I'm not sure were we stand now.

We gave up; the banks solicitors are only interested in pumping us for information on the owner, which we don't have. When we said we didn't have his contact details they called us liars, so we have given notice and are currently house hunting.

sunnysoutheast

on_my_oe wrote: »

We gave up; the banks solicitors are only interested in pumping us for information on the owner, which we don't have. When we said we didn't have his contact details they called us liars, so we have given notice and are currently house hunting.

As an LL it isn't easy to say this but I would make sure the amount of outstanding rent when you leave is exactly equal to the deposit you handed over.....assuming you haven't trashed the place.

Good luck.

gaius c

Marcusm wrote: »

Even Threshold acknowledged on a recent RTE programme with Eddie Hobbs and Keelin Shanley (?Money Programme) that a bank receiver can terminate immediately with very limited notice as, unless the bank/receiver has accepted rent, the RTA 2004 security of tenure rules (ie part IV) cannot be enforced against them. I thought like you once too but there was a legal analysis posted here previously. That being said, my experience is of the receiver adopting the lease because it was commercially sensible.

In the OP's case I wouldn't walk away but at the same time I would not overestimate my own tenure.

I'm looking forward to the Ben Gilroy & New Beggings campaign to protect them from being evicted from their home.

Marcusm

gaius c wrote: »

I'm looking forward to the Ben Gilroy & New Beggings campaign to protect them from being evicted from their home

Have there not already been reports hereof similar groups supporting "landlords" in evicting or threatening tenants who seek to comply with receivers by paying rent directly to them.

gaius c

Marcusm wrote: »

Have there not already been reports hereof similar groups supporting "landlords" in evicting or threatening tenants who seek to comply with receivers by paying rent directly to them.

Jerry Beades, you might be thinking of.