So... My Landlord has gone into receivership...

the_barfly1

As per title. Had a search around here and there doesn't seem to be any concrete information on the rights of tenants in this situation. I've been in the house for the past 18 months and don't have a written lease agreement, but have been paying the rent by bank transfer.
The agent for the receiver called to the house this evening shortly after I got home (about 8pm) and said he'd need to organise to have somebody around to value the house and that I'd be supplied with bank a/c details to pay the rent to them in the meantime.
Has anybody been through this process?

Lantus

there are quite a few threads re receiver property's and rents from memory.

If a rent receiver has been appointed by the courts you must comply with their requests and pay all rent to them.

Did you have any initial lease or contract? Is the property PRTB registered?

If they are getting a valuation it could be they are looking for a sale but could also just be standard procedure. Talk to them re you staying there.

If you have no contract and your landlady never declared the property or agreed with the lender that it could be rented you could be hoofed out at virtually no notice. The fact they have not done this and are providing ac details would seem to give some assurances. Check with the receiver.

The worst part is that your deposit is (was) with your original landlord. You will probably not get this back but you may be able to come to some sort of agreement with your rent receiver unless your landlord was nothing short of honest and allocated this money somewhere safe.

the_barfly1

thanks for the reply. a bit shellshocked after the visit earlier. dont have a written contract of lease but can prove rent payments via bank statements. does say on documents i was given that the receiver wants to "dispose" of the property, so i'm guessing that means that they wish to sell the house?

Thoie

I'm overly paranoid, but have you seen anything official in writing - name and address of the receiver, details of the file number registered with the courts, something from the bank appointing the receiver, and from the receiver, appointing the agent, anything like that? I'm sure it's legit, but I wouldn't start changing my payments or letting someone into the house until I was positive it was all above board.

TheDriver

they should be able to provide you with a copy of the legal document of receivership, this is what I was given. Now NAMA is my landlord but once I established that it was all above board, I just paid my rent to them. On part 4 lease and they confirmed this

the_barfly1

Update: I've just been served with a notice to vacate on instruction of the receiver. To say i'm pissed off would be an understatement.

To anybody in the know, what documents should I have been furnished with in regards to all of this? The letter today is from from the estate agent themselves with no backup documentation of any kind.

Thanks.

Stheno

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Update: I've just been served with a notice to vacate on instruction of the receiver. To say i'm pissed off would be an understatement.

To anybody in the know, what documents should I have been furnished with in regards to all of this? The letter today is from from the estate agent themselves with no backup documentation of any kind.

Thanks.

I don't think they have to issue anything other than the notice to vacate.

There was a piece about this on the last word with Matt Cooper recently talking about the lack of rights tenants have in this situation

http://www.mortgagebrokers.ie/uncategorized/today-fm-the-last-word-with-matt-cooper-on-rent-receivers/

http://www.mortgagebrokers.ie/blog/bank-of-ireland/the-2000-irish-evictions-you-dont-hear-about/

It also doesn't appear to be covered under the Tenancy Act 2004 or by the PRTB as per the article above

the_barfly1

Thanks for the reply. I think I'm going to get onto a local TD and ask if there's anything that can be done here. I've furnished this place myself and looked after all the maintenance and everything else since I moved in. Ridiculous. Fuming.

The_Morrigan

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I think I'm going to get onto a local TD and ask if there's anything that can be done here. I've furnished this place myself and looked after all the maintenance and everything else since I moved in. Ridiculous. Fuming.

What do you think that will achieve? More than likely the receiver has decided to sell the property and can't do that with a tenant in situ.

the_barfly1

The_Morrigan wrote: »

What do you think that will achieve?.

It'll make me feel better to have a whine and a moan about to somebody who'll pretend to care because they want my vote.

The_Morrigan

the_barfly1 wrote: »

It'll make me feel better to have a whine and a moan about to somebody who'll pretend to care because they want my vote.

Your energy would better placed finding somewhere new to live.

gaius c

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Your energy would better placed finding somewhere new to live.

Surprised at this attitude from you.
Unless folk get onto authorities with the power to change the law, tenants will continue to fall between cracks in the law.

The_Morrigan

gaius c wrote: »

Surprised at this attitude from you.
Unless folk get onto authorities with the power to change the law, tenants will continue to fall between cracks in the law.

This isn't a tenancy law issue though, receivers are appointed because of bad debt. Would you like tenants to get rights to stop the banks appointing receivers?

the_barfly1

plenty of people with money out there that would be happy to buy a property with a reliable tenant in-situ. its a bit heavy handed by the banks to turf out tenants that have done nothing wrong and kept a property in good nick.

The_Morrigan

the_barfly1 wrote: »

plenty of people with money out there that would be happy to buy a property with a reliable tenant in-situ. its a bit heavy handed by the banks to turf out tenants that have done nothing wrong and kept a property in good nick.

The banks have no relationship with a tenant though and therefore no obligations or quite frankly any desire to deal with them.
They want their debt repaid I don't understand why that is heavy handed, it's business and your landlord is to blame, not the bank.

Kristopherus

the_barfly1 wrote: »

plenty of people with money out there that would be happy to buy a property with a reliable tenant in-situ. its a bit heavy handed by the banks to turf out tenants that have done nothing wrong and kept a property in good nick.

If you have repaired & maintained the property in good nick at your own expense, then you have a good case to charge for it.

jmayo

Kristopherus wrote: »

If you have repaired & maintained the property in good nick at your own expense, then you have a good case to charge for it.

Charge who, the bankrupt or broke landlord ?

A tenant shouldn't do this unless they have already agreed and expensed the landlord.
Otherwise they could end up out of pocket as in this case.

If the OP has replaced anything in their maintenance and repairs, and have not been expensed by the landlord then they will probably get nothing.

Also there is going to be another issue with getting any deposit back.
The landlord will cry poverty, bankruptcy, etc and the bank will not be interested since they never got it.

The more you look at Irish tenancy laws and regs the more one sees the holes.
There has been an long term need for deposits to be held in escrow by some third party and this just reiterates it.

BTW the holes in the laws and regs affect both tenants and landlords.

Ray Palmer

WOW!
I just can't get over the attitude. The property is up for sale the law is perfectly clear that is a reason enough to remove a tenant. The tenant is given notice.

If you want the law changed moaning to a TD will do nothing. If they do change the law then they should be putting in enforcement on failure to pay rent and breaking of leases.

Anybody putting money into a rented property should be fully aware you do so at your own risk. You better make sure you have got permission too as I have had "improvements" put in by tenants that cost money to fix.

If you want the property market to become stable anything preventing foreclosures and possession of property is a terrible idea.

toughapple

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Update: I've just been served with a notice to vacate on instruction of the receiver. To say i'm pissed off would be an understatement.

To anybody in the know, what documents should I have been furnished with in regards to all of this? The letter today is from from the estate agent themselves with no backup documentation of any kind.

Thanks.

You can appeal the notice of termination to the PRTB. It will take some time to be heard. Meanwhile you can consider some legal action.

runawaybishop

toughapple wrote: »

You can appeal the notice of termination to the PRTB. It will take some time to be heard. Meanwhile you can consider some legal action.

Why would you appeal? It wont delay anything and the PRTB cant do anything. No illegal action has taken place. Staying on, however, would be an illegal action.

Op, you need to get looking for a new place.

toughapple

runawaybishop wrote: »

Why would you appeal? It wont delay anything and the PRTB cant do anything. No illegal action has taken place. Staying on, however, would be an illegal action.

Op, you need to get looking for a new place.

The tenancy continues while the appeal is being dealt with.

the_barfly1

runawaybishop wrote: »

Why would you appeal? It wont delay anything and the PRTB cant do anything. No illegal action has taken place. Staying on, however, would be an illegal action.

Op, you need to get looking for a new place.

Yeah, I get that. I was, to be honest, in a very foul humour yesterday evening after being given the notice. What has pissed me off more than anything else was that I was assured by the agent just a few weeks ago that I had nothing to worry about and that I would just have to carry on as normal paying rent to the receiver. I was told that a new tenancy agreement would be drawn up and forwarded to me, which is what I assumed I was being given yesterday evening when I got the knock on the door. I find this incredibly disingenuous. Looks like the only reason the guy called in at all was to put a price on the place and the welfare of myself and the other tenants here was never a priority or concern.

I am sure many on this forum who are tenants themselves will appreciate how difficult it is to find a property that they are happy in, and happy to stay in long term. I needed this like a hole in the head as I started back in education last September, so I'm not exactly in the greatest financial situation. I now have this whole kerfuffle hanging over me with exams looming, which is hassle I really don't need and didn't anticipate, so excuse me for letting frustration and anger rule me.

The most logical step forward for me now is to up sticks from my lovely house an hour from Dublin and move to the city, to pay more on rent for a shoebox apartment than the combined cost for rent and commuting that I have been paying here.

I bloody hate moving house. On the upside for all of the landlords on here, I'm going to have to sell off most of my furniture over the next few weeks, so you might get a bargain over on adverts.

toughapple

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Yeah, I get that. I was, to be honest, in a very foul humour yesterday evening after being given the notice. What has pissed me off more than anything else was that I was assured by the agent just a few weeks ago that I had nothing to worry about and that I would just have to carry on as normal paying rent to the receiver. I was told that a new tenancy agreement would be drawn up and forwarded to me, which is what I assumed I was being given yesterday evening when I got the knock on the door. I find this incredibly disingenuous. Looks like the only reason the guy called in at all was to put a price on the place and the welfare of myself and the other tenants here was never a priority or concern.

I am sure many on this forum who are tenants themselves will appreciate how difficult it is to find a property that they are happy in, and happy to stay in long term. I needed this like a hole in the head as I started back in education last September, so I'm not exactly in the greatest financial situation. I now have this whole kerfuffle hanging over me with exams looming, which is hassle I really don't need and didn't anticipate, so excuse me for letting frustration and anger rule me.

The most logical step forward for me now is to up sticks from my lovely house an hour from Dublin and move to the city, to pay more on rent for a shoebox apartment than the combined cost for rent and commuting that I have been paying here.

I bloody hate moving house. On the upside for all of the landlords on here, I'm going to have to sell off most of my furniture over the next few weeks, so you might get a bargain over on adverts.

I would appeal and keep it going.

runawaybishop

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Yeah, I get that. I was, to be honest, in a very foul humour yesterday evening after being given the notice. What has pissed me off more than anything else was that I was assured by the agent just a few weeks ago that I had nothing to worry about and that I would just have to carry on as normal paying rent to the receiver. I was told that a new tenancy agreement would be drawn up and forwarded to me, which is what I assumed I was being given yesterday evening when I got the knock on the door. I find this incredibly disingenuous. Looks like the only reason the guy called in at all was to put a price on the place and the welfare of myself and the other tenants here was never a priority or concern.

I am sure many on this forum who are tenants themselves will appreciate how difficult it is to find a property that they are happy in, and happy to stay in long term. I needed this like a hole in the head as I started back in education last September, so I'm not exactly in the greatest financial situation. I now have this whole kerfuffle hanging over me with exams looming, which is hassle I really don't need and didn't anticipate, so excuse me for letting frustration and anger rule me.

The most logical step forward for me now is to up sticks from my lovely house an hour from Dublin and move to the city, to pay more on rent for a shoebox apartment than the combined cost for rent and commuting that I have been paying here.

I bloody hate moving house. On the upside for all of the landlords on here, I'm going to have to sell off most of my furniture over the next few weeks, so you might get a bargain over on adverts.

It does suck but there's nothing that you can really do except get a new place sorted asap. No point dwelling on it.

toughapple wrote: »

The tenancy continues while the appeal is being dealt with.

The notice to terminate is valid, the appeal will be dismissed pretty much instantly. Trying to drag out the process is pointless and not a good use of the ops time or the boards time.

toughapple

runawaybishop wrote: »

It does suck but there's nothing that you can really do except get a new place sorted asap. No point dwelling on it.




The notice to terminate is valid, the appeal will be dismissed pretty much instantly. Trying to drag out the process is pointless and not a good use of the ops time or the boards time.

You haven't seen the notice to terminate. There may well be a technical problem with it. The PRTB is very slow and wont deal with the appeal for months. A friend of mine kept her house for a year afetr a notice to terminate.

runawaybishop

toughapple wrote: »

You haven't seen the notice to terminate. There may well be a technical problem with it. The PRTB is very slow and wont deal with the appeal for months. A friend of mine kept her house for a year afetr a notice to terminate.

I have no reason to assume it isn't valid, so i wont assume it is invalid.

Instead of wasting peoples time and money the tenant would be better suited to getting new accommodation. Honestly, what do you expect to accomplish dragging it out?

jmayo

Ray Palmer wrote: »

WOW!
I just can't get over the attitude. The property is up for sale the law is perfectly clear that is a reason enough to remove a tenant. The tenant is given notice.

If you want the law changed moaning to a TD will do nothing. If they do change the law then they should be putting in enforcement on failure to pay rent and breaking of leases.

Agreed.

But the point I was making was that tenants caught in this situation often have problems getting back deposits.
The receivor or the bank never had the deposit so the tenant is left chasing the landlord.
And in these cases they may just be another creditor left up the creek.
That is why there should be an escrow type system where deposits are held.
Also it would get rid of the cr** about unvouched expenses being used as excuses why deposits are not returned.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Anybody putting money into a rented property should be fully aware you do so at your own risk. You better make sure you have got permission too as I have had "improvements" put in by tenants that cost money to fix.

Agreed.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If you want the property market to become stable anything preventing foreclosures and possession of property is a terrible idea.

Agreed.

Glenbhoy

The_Morrigan wrote: »

What do you think that will achieve? More than likely the receiver has decided to sell the property and can't do that with a tenant in situ.

An hour from Dublin - good luck with that!! It'd probably make more sense to leave the tenant in-situ whilst they try and sell.

If I was the OP I would have a talk with the receiver about when they would exit the property, by the sounds of it, if OP is doing exams it might suit to wait another few months - both parties should be cognisant of their rights here and I'm sure the receiver knows that the tenant can put many obstacles in the way between now and exiting the property. Negotiation normally makes sense.

The_Morrigan

Glenbhoy wrote: »

An hour from Dublin - good luck with that!! It'd probably make more sense to leave the tenant in-situ whilst they try and sell.

If I was the OP I would have a talk with the receiver about when they would exit the property, by the sounds of it, if OP is doing exams it might suit to wait another few months - both parties should be cognisant of their rights here and I'm sure the receiver knows that the tenant can put many obstacles in the way between now and exiting the property. Negotiation normally makes sense.

Maybe so, but if the OP approaches the receiver in the same mindframe as some of their posts a quick trip to the courts would follow.
The receiver can go straight to the courts for an eviction order, they don't have to go through the PRTB.

Ray Palmer

jmayo wrote: »

But the point I was making was that tenants caught in this situation often have problems getting back deposits.
The receivor or the bank never had the deposit so the tenant is left chasing the landlord.
And in these cases they may just be another creditor left up the creek.
That is why there should be an escrow type system where deposits are held.
Also it would get rid of the cr** about unvouched expenses being used as excuses why deposits are not returned.

There is no may about it they are. The bank or receiver has no connection to the deposit.
An escrow system won't work for the simple reason for any complaint about damage somebody will have to mediate. Who is going to pay for that? Who is going to administrate the system and again who pays.

If you think it is that vital there is nothing stopping you setting up a company and doing it. Maybe charge 10% of the deposit. The problem is you could be holding money for years.

Webster29

A receiver is appointed as agent of the landlord to manage and sell the asset. This includes collecting rents and paying outgoings - all mortgages include both powers. Expenses the receivers incur are deducted from the sale proceeds and/or added to the obligations secured. So why is a deposit treated differently if the receiver treats it as an outgoing which the principal is obliged to refund, pays it and deducts it from the sale proceeds or charges it as an expenses?

Why do we need to treat the deposit like it was handed over in a shoebox full of cash, stored under the original landlord's mattress and now we need to go find that exact pile of cash?

The_Morrigan

Webster29 wrote: »

A receiver is appointed as agent of the landlord to manage and sell the asset. This includes collecting rents and paying outgoings - all mortgages include both powers. Expenses the receivers incur are deducted from the sale proceeds and/or added to the obligations secured. So why is a deposit treated differently if the receiver treats it as an outgoing which the principal is obliged to refund, pays it and deducts it from the sale proceeds or charges it as an expenses?

Why do we need to treat the deposit like it was handed over in a shoebox full of cash, stored under the original landlord's mattress and now we need to go find that exact pile of cash?

The deposits are prior to the appointment of the receiver and not connected to the credit documents that allow a receiver to be appointed. It just doesn't fall under their remit.

Stheno

toughapple wrote: »

You haven't seen the notice to terminate. There may well be a technical problem with it. The PRTB is very slow and wont deal with the appeal for months. A friend of mine kept her house for a year afetr a notice to terminate.

Properties in recievership are not under the remit of the PRTB

Webster29

Using that logic, the agreement to pay rent was prior to the appointment of the receiver, is outside of his remit and no tenant should ever pay over rent to the receiver. The agreement to pay rent and deposit and to return the depost are all part of the same lease or tenancy arrangement.

Can you point me to some solid authority that says that receivers get to disclaim obligations associated with the property while simultaneously demand the benefit?

The_Morrigan

Webster29 wrote: »

Using that logic, the agreement to pay rent was prior to the appointment of the receiver, is outside of his remit and no tenant should ever pay over rent to the receiver. The agreement to pay rent and deposit and to return the depost are all part of the same lease or tenancy arrangement.

Can you point me to some solid authority that says that receivers get to disclaim obligations associated with the property while simultaneously demand the benefit?

The land and conveyancing law reform act 2009; companies act (can't remember the amendment year that receivers were added, could be 90).

The property is a secured debt, the mortgage documents have explicit language with regards to arrears and defaults that allow the bank to appoint a receiver to take any steps to recover their outstandings ie the rent to pay off the bad debt. It has nothing to do with the contract between the landlord and the tenant, which if done correctly should have agency language to cover off the fact that the receiver is an agent in some respects, not all.

Webster29

I am well familiar with the 2009 - it does not address this point, other than to confirm that a "mortgagee in possession" can deduct expenses properly incurred against the proceeds of sale.

The debt is a secured debt, not the property. There is nothing stopping the appointment of a receiver over the property in the event of a default. At that point receivers are indeed entitled to pay the rent as they are entitled (and ought to) pay outgoings in the proper management of the secured asset as mortgagee in possession. The contract between the landlord and tenant is more than a contract, it is an estate or interest in land and affects the secured assets - it is not a simple question of privity of contract. Refer you back to the 2009 Act for the types of estate or interest in land, one of which is leasehold.

Webster29

Should said "entitled to collect the rent" rather than "pay the rent" but you get the gist.

runawaybishop

Webster29 wrote: »

Should said "entitled to collect the rent" rather than "pay the rent" but you get the gist.

If you edit the post within 5 minutes no one will ever know you made a mistake, except for the email notification to subscribed threads.

Glenbhoy

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Maybe so, but if the OP approaches the receiver in the same mindframe as some of their posts a quick trip to the courts would follow.
The receiver can go straight to the courts for an eviction order, they don't have to go through the PRTB.

They can go to the courts, but most judges don't look sympathetically on plaintiffs wasting their time over trivial matters such as a month or two's stay in a premises, especially if the other party has offered to negotiate. In addition, if people think the PRTB is slow, they should be aware that the wheels of justice is slower still!!!

Re the deposit issue, it's likely that an agreement can be come to by setting it off against the rent due - again, not strictly the letter of the law, but as I say, judges don't take kindly to trivial things coming before them.....

Marcusm

Webster29 wrote: »

I am well familiar with the 2009 - it does not address this point, other than to confirm that a "mortgagee in possession" can deduct expenses properly incurred against the proceeds of sale.

The debt is a secured debt, not the property. There is nothing stopping the appointment of a receiver over the property in the event of a default. At that point receivers are indeed entitled to pay the rent as they are entitled (and ought to) pay outgoings in the proper management of the secured asset as mortgagee in possession. The contract between the landlord and tenant is more than a contract, it is an estate or interest in land and affects the secured assets - it is not a simple question of privity of contract. Refer you back to the 2009 Act for the types of estate or interest in land, one of which is leasehold.

This was dealt with some time ago on the forums; assuming the mortgage charge predated the tenancy there is no creation of an interest in the land on grant of the tenancy unless it has the consent of the mortgagee (which is rarely the case) meaning that the tenant has rights enforceable against the landlord and under RTA but no formal interest in the property.

Webster29

Marcusm wrote: »

This was dealt with some time ago on the forums; assuming the mortgage charge predated the tenancy there is no creation of an interest in the land on grant of the tenancy unless it has the consent of the mortgagee (which is rarely the case) meaning that the tenant has rights enforceable against the landlord and under RTA but no formal interest in the property.

Okay, on what authority is that the case? The 2009 Act says a leasehold interest is created when there is a tenancy of land or buildings attached to land. So if there is no tenancy, the tenants sould be in small claims court rather than the PRTB, claiming not only the deposit but the return of all rent paid since the date of commencement of the tenancy (and perhaps damages for misrepresentation) and writing letters to the receiver politely informing them to get lost as they're no tenancy but they are in occupation and it'll take a court order (not a PRTB adjudication) to get them out? Good times for tenants so.

The mortgagor is in breach of the mortgage document yes as there is a contractual restriction on letting (let's assume there is) between mortgagor and mortgagee but on what basis can he, as freehold owner not create a leasehold interest?

Generally I'm playing devil's adocate here because I think because the deposits and security of having a home of individuals are too often dismissed as small fry and it needs to be challenged so as to properly reason it out based on the law.

The_Morrigan

Webster29 this is getting off topic to the OP -- maybe start another thread on the subject so a discussion can be held?

Webster29

Okay, to bring it back on topic.

OP, I have been through this process. Which is why I have given it a good deal of thought, and why I disagree with a lot of the advice that is given on this forum.

In my case, I came to an agreement with the EA who agreed let me hand in my notice (I was in a Part 4), to save the last month's rent paid to their account, refund it to me on the day I vacated (same day, electronic bank transfer) as a return of deposit and send nice clean accounts to the receiver, with a note of all rent collected and expenses incurred including return of the deposit owed to me. The receiver got vacant possession and I got my deposit back. In reality, more people should fight their corner and come to a sensible solution.

Walking away is why they get away with all sorts in private residential transactions which they do not get away with in commercial situations, so I disagree with the posts which told you to take it up with a landlord who has long left the scene or to concentrate on finding somewhere new to live.

The_Morrigan

Webster29 wrote: »

Okay, to bring it back on topic.

OP, I have been through this process. Which is why I have given it a good deal of thought, and why I disagree with a lot of the advice that is given on this forum.

In my case, I came to an agreement with the EA who agreed let me hand in my notice (I was in a Part 4), to save the last month's rent paid to their account, refund it to me on the day I vacated (same day, electronic bank transfer) as a return of deposit and send nice clean accounts to the receiver, with a note of all rent collected and expenses incurred including return of the deposit owed to me. The receiver got vacant possession and I got my deposit back. In reality, more people should fight their corner and come to a sensible solution.

Walking away is why they get away with all sorts in private residential transactions which they do not get away with in commercial situations, so I disagree with the posts which told you to take it up with a landlord who has long left the scene or to concentrate on finding somewhere new to live.

Webster, you may disagree, but unfortunately that is the law as it stands.
If the receiver is stone walling any discussion on the return of the deposit, then the only legal avenue is to chase the landlord.

We cannot encourage or advocate any behaviour here that breaches the law, it is against the charter and the site rules.

Claw Hammer

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Maybe so, but if the OP approaches the receiver in the same mindframe as some of their posts a quick trip to the courts would follow.
The receiver can go straight to the courts for an eviction order, they don't have to go through the PRTB.

The receiver can't go to straight to the courts.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 2004

182.—(1) On and from the commencement of Part 6, proceedings may not be instituted in any court in respect of a dispute that may be referred to the Board for resolution under that Part unless one or more of the following reliefs is being claimed in the proceedings—

(a) damages of an amount of more than €20,000,

(b) recovery of arrears of rent or other charges, or both, due under a tenancy of an amount, or an aggregate amount, of more than €60,000 or such lesser amount as would be applicable in the circumstances concerned by virtue of section 115 (3)(b) or (c)(ii).

(2) In this section “dispute” has the same meaning as it has in Part 6.

The_Morrigan

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The receiver can't go to straight to the courts.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 2004

182.—(1) On and from the commencement of Part 6, proceedings may not be instituted in any court in respect of a dispute that may be referred to the Board for resolution under that Part unless one or more of the following reliefs is being claimed in the proceedings—

(a) damages of an amount of more than €20,000,

(b) recovery of arrears of rent or other charges, or both, due under a tenancy of an amount, or an aggregate amount, of more than €60,000 or such lesser amount as would be applicable in the circumstances concerned by virtue of section 115 (3)(b) or (c)(ii).

(2) In this section “dispute” has the same meaning as it has in Part 6.

The receiver isn't governed by the RTA.

FrStone

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Webster, you may disagree, but unfortunately that is the law as it stands.
If the receiver is stone walling any discussion on the return of the deposit, then the only legal avenue is to chase the landlord.

We cannot encourage or advocate any behaviour here that breaches the law, it is against the charter and the site rules.

I don't think that what Webster is saying is incorrect or illegal though. My understanding of the Companies Act is that existing contracts do remain binding on the Receiver unless they are particularly onerous (which I don't believe a deposit would be).

I am not a solicitor but I would be advising that the OP pushes for the return of his deposit. It doesn't matter that it was the Landlord who was originally paid as a Receiver is appointed to manage the asset on behalf of the Landlord and recover the Debt owed to the creditors (I presume in this case the bank).

gaius c

The_Morrigan wrote: »

This isn't a tenancy law issue though, receivers are appointed because of bad debt. Would you like tenants to get rights to stop the banks appointing receivers?

Doesn't apply in this specific example but there have been threads on this forum highlighting that even a fixed term lease is no protection when a landlord goes into receivership.

It's not unreasonable that tenants should receive the same legal protection in landlord receivership that they would if the landlord was not in receivership. That means the right to see out their fixed term lease or be able to negotiate an alternative arrangement. They should also have their part IV rights, especially regarding notice periods. It's not reasonable that a family might have to move out in considerably shorter time than the defined notice periods just because their landlord has failed to keep up with payments.

Considering that the law is bending over backwards to keep mortgage payers in accommodation they are not paying for, the complete black hole that tenants fall into when the landlord goes bust is a travesty.

Claw Hammer

The_Morrigan wrote: »

The receiver isn't governed by the RTA.

The receiver is indeed governed by the RTA. Once the tenancy has come under the RTA at any time, it can only be terminated in the manner set out in the Act. All disputes must be dealt with in the manner set out in the Act
receivers have been getting away with not returning deposits on the basis that they are agents of the landlord and was therefore the landlord must return the deposit. This, I legally questionable, is allowed to go on for the moment, determination of the tenancy by a receiver must be done in the same way as termination of the tenancy by the landlord.

Claw Hammer

FrStone wrote: »

I don't think that what Webster is saying is incorrect or illegal though. My understanding of the Companies Act is that existing contracts do remain binding on the Receiver unless they are particularly onerous (which I don't believe a deposit would be).

I am not a solicitor but I would be advising that the OP pushes for the return of his deposit. It doesn't matter that it was the Landlord who was originally paid as a Receiver is appointed to manage the asset on behalf of the Landlord and recover the Debt owed to the creditors (I presume in this case the bank).

A receiver is generally appointed on foot of the deed of mortgage and his powers and actions have nothing to do with the Companies Act (unless the landlord is in fact a company). A tenant or tenants will have to force the issue of the behaviour of receivers through the courts.