The Consumer Show: Tenants & Rent Receivers

RTE Consumer Show

RTE's The Consumer Show will shortly be reporting on the problems which tenants can have when a receiver takes possession of their home from their previous landlord.

We've heard a variety of complaints from tenants about being able to remain in their homes, getting their deposits back and maintenance problems being ignored.

But we need to hear from more tenants in this situation in order to make our programme and hopefully bring about a change in the way tenants are treated in this situation.

If you are currently or have recently had problems like this please get in touch.

The Consumer Show's email address is consumers@rte.ie

The_Morrigan

Ok folks, as you can see we have a new verified rep from the RTE Consumer Show looking for your help in a new show that they are airing.
I know this is a hot topic for many of the forum users of late and we'd love to see some good discussion here that would help RTE get this issue out for general consumption.

If you have any instances that could help them, please post your stories here, drop them a pm or contact them via email at consumers@rte.ie

This is your chance to have RTE highlight the issues we have seen crop up time and time again on A&P.


Thanks

Morri

RTE Consumer Show

We covered this story on our programme two years ago and have been surprised that nothing has yet changed to help protect tenants in these situations.

We've heard stories of tenants getting strongly worded letters from receivers seeking them to leave the property, which ignore their rights to remain in the property.

Some tenants find they don't get their deposits back either.

If you've received a letter like this, or not got your deposit back or had any other problem with a rent receiver recently, please get in touch.

handlemaster

would rte also make a program on the struggles landlords have with non paying tenants, damaged properties and high rates of tax. Its not a vote winner but very relevant if good tenants want it easier to find accommodation.

The_Morrigan

RTE Consumer Show wrote: »

We covered this story on our programme two years ago and have been surprised that nothing has yet changed to help protect tenants in these situations.

We've heard stories of tenants getting strongly worded letters from receivers seeking them to leave the property, which ignore their rights to remain in the property.

Some tenants find they don't get their deposits back either.

If you've received a letter like this, or not got your deposit back or had any other problem with a rent receiver recently, please get in touch.

On this:

Strongly worded letters from receivers is somewhat standard - it's a legal process and I've never seen a letter with regards to bad debt being worded in a nicely nicely manner.
The deposit not being returned is not the fault of the receiver - the landlord is always responsible for the return of the deposit even when the receiver has been appointed.

Will this program also focus on the third side of this story? Or is the landlord being disregarded, they are still legally responsible for some aspects of the tenancy so it would be prudent to include them in your research.

RTE Consumer Show

Our programme tackles consumer issues which means we advocate on behalf of consumers who in this situation are the tenants rather than landlords.

Provided a tenant is up to date with his/her rent, there are no bad debts at play there. Our programme will ask why tenants are becoming embroiled in their landlord's legal battles.

In our research we have seen letters from receivers giving tenants 7 days' notice to quit even though there is a fixed term lease in place. And even if there is not a fixed term lease in place, no tenant can legally be evicted with only 7 days notice. While some tenants will have the ability to fight illegal notices, the last time we focussed on this issue we met some who were intimidated and simply complied. There is also the issue of legal letters being addressed to "The Occupant" where tenants do not speak English as a first language.

Landlords are indeed responsible for the repayment of deposits. This is why the long awaited deposit retention scheme - which has yet to materialise - is important to ensure tenants get back what they're entitled to, minus any legitimate deductions. This is another point we wish to raise in our programme.

We are focussing on all aspects of this story from the perspective of the tenant so if some are having problems with the conduct of their landlords in receivership situations, we will be happy to hear from them and include them in our programme.

The_Morrigan

I realise it's a complicated and convoluted situation, not helped by the lack of clear direction and law in the area. But I would consider that all three sides should be considered as not one situation is clear cut. The landlord is a customer of the bank and the appointment of the receiver could be forced despite their best efforts to engage. This then has the tenant caught in the middle of everything. It is not all about the poor tenant, sometimes there is also a poor landlord who has fought tooth and nail to do their best to jump through every hoop along the way to sustain their arrears or restructure their debt. In my opinion it is an element that should not be overlooked or glossed over just because you want to focus on the tenants only.

I also think in some regards there is a lack of knowledge with regards to tenancy law and at times our posters here have been pointed in the right direction and given tools to help them in negotiating with the landlord and the receiver.

RTE Consumer Show

You're right Morri that it's a complicated situation, particularly where it concerns how banks treat landlords in financial distress. And that is an issue which has been discussed at length in the news.

The case we are making in our programme is that consumers/tenants who have done nothing wrong, have been paying their rent on time and have been keeping to their side of their rental contracts are - in some cases - having their rights ignored.

We have invited a government minister onto our programme to answer questions about what is being done to protect tenants in these situations.

So we would invite any tenant who feels they have had their legal rights ignored in such a situations to get in touch and make a contribution to our programme.

MarkAnthony

I'm writing a paper on this (well partly on this at the moment) I'd be delighted to help out with legal research in the short term!

RTE Consumer Show

Would be good to chat to you about your research MarkAnthony.

Care to PM a number so we can chat?

Pawwed Rig

RTE Consumer Show wrote: »

In our research we have seen letters from receivers giving tenants 7 days' notice to quit even though there is a fixed term lease in place. And even if there is not a fixed term lease in place, no tenant can legally be evicted with only 7 days notice.

That is not true. There is a provision in the Residential Tenancies act that allows for a 7 day notice. Look at part 5 chapter 3 of the act.

Shame it is just about tenants as they are over catered for in the media already. I would love to see a balanced production on the renting situation in Ireland rather than the tenant = good and landlord = bad nonsense we are always subjected to.

RTE Consumer Show wrote: »

We have invited a government minister onto our programme to answer questions about what is being done to protect tenants in these situations.

I can asnswer that for you. They are adequately protected by legislation, the PRTB and other organisations like threshold. The government can hardly be blamed for a person not bothering to read up on what their rights are or to get legal advice where they are in a legal dispute.

MarkAnthony

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is not true. There is a provision in the Residential Tenancies act that allows for a 7 day notice. Look at part 5 chapter 3 of the act.

Shame it is just about tenants as they are over catered for in the media already. I would love to see a balanced production on the renting situation in Ireland rather than the tenant = good and landlord = bad nonsense we are always subjected to.


I can asnswer that for you. They are adequately protected by legislation, the PRTB and other organisations like threshold. The government can hardly be blamed for a person not bothering to read up on what their rights are or to get legal advice where they are in a legal dispute.

The problem for tenants in these situations is that the landlord remains liable as the receiver is appointed as their agent. It is an area of law that needs reform and kudos for the consumer show for raising awareness.

As much as LL rights also need to be addressed that's not within the remit of a consumer show.

The_Morrigan

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The problem for tenants in these situations is that the landlord remains liable as the receiver is appointed as their agent. It is an area of law that needs reform and kudos for the consumer show for raising awareness.

As much as LL rights also need to be addressed that's not within the remit of a consumer show.

Is a landlord not considered a consumer?

MarkAnthony

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Is a landlord not considered a consumer?

No, and why should they be?

Landlords are business owners and would be wise to go into it with their eyes open. There might be an argument that those on residential mortgages are consumers but unless they have informed their bank they are now in the letting business they are so by the backdoor.

Regardless of any of this the approach the consumer show is taking in regard to this, which form my brief chat to them was looking at it - at least in part - is from the receiver's end of things is as helpful to landlords as it is to consumers/tenants.

The issue in very simple terms is 108(2) of the LCLRA 2009 (which simply carries over the 1881 legislation).

(2) A receiver appointed under subsection (1) is the agent of the mortgagor, who is solely responsible for the receiver’s acts or defaults, unless the mortgage provides otherwise.

This was the position in receivership generally, however post Medforth there is a view in the Irish judiciary that this is an unfair approach, not so in the legislature it seems and attention needs to be drawn to it.

The_Morrigan

MarkAnthony wrote: »

No, and why should they be?

Landlords are business owners and would be wise to go into it with their eyes open. There might be an argument that those on residential mortgages are consumers but unless they have informed their bank they are now in the letting business they are so by the backdoor.

Regardless of any of this the approach the consumer show is taking in regard to this, which form my brief chat to them was looking at it - at least in part - is from the receiver's end of things is as helpful to landlords as it is to consumers/tenants.

The issue in very simple terms is 108(2) of the LCLRA 2009 (which simply carries over the 1881 legislation).

(2) A receiver appointed under subsection (1) is the agent of the mortgagor, who is solely responsible for the receiver’s acts or defaults, unless the mortgage provides otherwise.

This was the position in receivership generally, however post Medforth there is a view in the Irish judiciary that this is an unfair approach, not so in the legislature it seems and attention needs to be drawn to it.

There is most definitely an argument for the accidental landlords. Not all landlords are professional landlords and their initial contract with the bank was for personal use, making them a consumer. A good credit dept will not turn down the chance to have someone in arrears try to service the loan by renting the house out. So in a lot of instances we have a hybrid situation whereby the landlord is still technically a consumer of the bank.

MarkAnthony

The_Morrigan wrote: »

There is most definitely an argument for the accidental landlords. Not all landlords are professional landlords and their initial contract with the bank was for personal use, making them a consumer. A good credit dept will not turn down the chance to have someone in arrears try to service the loan by renting the house out. So in a lot of instances we have a hybrid situation whereby the landlord is still technically a consumer of the bank.

As I say there is some argument there, a tenuous one in my view. I also agree the law needs reform on both sides and have repeatedly said as much. I program director I am not, however I can see the message RTE are trying to convey being lost if they try and make this directly about landlord, which it's going to be indirectly anyway.

ballyargus

I would like to participate in this show. Can I arrange to talk to someone?

RTE Consumer Show

Drop me a line ballyargus on <Mod snip>

Mod Note: Please use the contact details provided on the thread.

RTE Consumer Show

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your interest and all your help with this story.

It will be on our programme this Wednesday, 8.30pm on RTE One.

All the best,

Tadhg