Tenant eviction by Bank/Grey area

Kittyoh

Myself and my 10 year old daughter moved into rented house in Jan '15. In May I received solicitors letter stating that order for repossession had been granted for the property dating back to Oct '14. I signed a one year lease with property management agency and neither they nor the landlords let me know any court proceedings were in place. Bank now seeking to evict us from property.

I've been in touch with Threshold who have contacted bank's solicitors on my behalf requesting that they allow me to pay them rent. The bank has refused stating they have no contract with me and again asking that I vacate the property.
I've also opened a dispute with PRTB.

I'm on social welfare payment, receiving rent allowance and on housing list 10 years. Currently in final year of my degree program so all this is massively stressful.

Can anyone offer solid legal advice? On the one hand I have people telling me to sit tight, that bank wont want bad press kicking single mum and kid out of home and it will take time for them to get us out. On the other I'm terrified sheriff will arrive and evict us. I realise this can't happen overnight but I'm losing sleep worrying about it. Any idea of how long this might take? I have looked at several properties but landlords not accepting rent receipts ( I have good references etc and all properties I've viewed have been given to other tenants)...

Can I buy more time? I've been to FLAC but should I go see a solicitor myself? Rents have risen so high, rent cap doesn't cover increase and properties (2 beds) on rental market are pretty poor overall...

Any advice appreciated

Kittyoh

Kittyoh wrote: »

Can anyone offer solid legal advice? On the one hand I have people telling me to sit tight, that bank wont want bad press kicking single mum and kid out of home and it will take time for them to get us out. On the other I'm terrified sheriff will arrive and evict us. I realise this can't happen overnight but I'm losing sleep worrying about it. Any idea of how long this might take? I have looked at several properties but landlords not accepting rent receipts ( I have good references etc and all properties I've viewed have been given to other tenants)...

Can I buy more time? I've been to FLAC but should I go see a solicitor myself? Rents have risen so high, rent cap doesn't cover increase and properties (2 beds) on rental market are pretty poor overall...

Any advice appreciated

Nobody can advise you here. It's against the forum charter. You have a good head on your shoulders clearly and need to speak to FLAC again or a solicitor who can advise you appropriately. There's no need to panic, but take a pro-active approach and you'll find matters much easier to attend to.

Best of luck

Kristopherus

OP, please understand that any kind of legal advice can be given in this forum, never mind "solid legal advice". Be guided by Threshold. There have been several instances where they have advised tenants to sit tight in the face of landlord demands to get tenant(s) out.

Kittyoh

Ah ok thanks. I'm new to Boards. Made rookie mistake not reading charter. Thanks for letting me know

Mr. Incognito

Go to FLAC. They are free, staffed with solicitors and available all over the city.

Bring all your documents with you

CaoimheSquee

http://www.ulsterbank.ie/documents/roi/A_residential_tenants_guide_to_Receivership.pdf

They still have to abide by the notice under the residencies act, regardless of who your lease is with. You are absolutely doing the right thing in going to threshold, however you may not have a case for the PRTB as if the property is to be repossessed there is nothing you can really do to stop that. BUT the estate agency should not have let it for a year knowing this, however, they probably did it on the off chance it would be ok as these things can take a long time to go anywhere as banks are notoriously slow in this respect. Still, it is wrong but definitely happening out there.

Have they valued house for the market?
You could always negotiate an a eviction date with the receiver (who will liaise with bank). If you are willing to put up with viewings etc you might be able to stay on a little longer.

When it happened to us they were quite reasonable and flexible. We got an eviction notice when it was ready for market for the legal amount under the act in relation to our time there but they were happy to talk and make that shorter or a bit longer if needs be.
We left earlier as we got another place quite quickly (VERY lucky) and also received our deposit back from them with no issue. We kept the place well and we paid our rent to the designated person by them (also met this person and kept good relationship) so in return they were reasonable with us too.

I would say talk to them. When we got the letters they were so immediate and frankly worded quite harshly. When it came down to the whole process though it was all fine. We got the first notice letter in February, had a few valuers in and then got an eviction notice in July and we left within the month. We spoke with them a good bit though in the interim and they were always helpful and open to negotiating something that would benefit everyone.

Best of luck and try not to worry too much

The_Minister

There are limits to what FLAC can do in the time allotted and within their mandate - when your home is at risk not speaking to a solicitor is a bad idea.

I would suggest that you go to FLAC again, get matters as clear as possible, then speak to a solicitor.

Thargor

Sit tight for now anyway, you'll have to be given fair warning if a sheriff is coming to kick you out.

Claw Hammer

Thargor wrote: »

Sit tight for now anyway, you'll have to be given fair warning if a sheriff is coming to kick you out.

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

You seem confident, this tenant was not so lucky. The case seems to have settled.

MarkAnthony

CaoimheSquee wrote: »

http://www.ulsterbank.ie/documents/roi/A_residential_tenants_guide_to_Receivership.pdf

They still have to abide by the notice under the residencies act, regardless of who your lease is with.

The problem there is the liability rests with the original LL while the actions are being carried out by the receiver. One would expect receivers to comport themselves with a certain amount of compassion and respect for the LL's liability but in fact, it seems, many do not.

4ensic15

That is the banks own poop sheet. It has not been tested in court. there is a strong argument that receivers accept the rent they are the landlord for the purpose of the Residential Tenancies Act and the tenants right lie against them. The spineless PRTB has deferred to the banks but no one has forced it to court yet.

Carawaystick

The ulsterbank sheet seems to suggest you can insist on paying the receiver in person in cash.
They say you are entitled to a receipt on request for rent paid.

I'd request the receiver to turn up i person to collect the rent and show ID ad proof of address. Because if the receiver was not resident you would have to withhold 20% of the rent for the taxman...
If they were awkward, be awkward back.

CaoimheSquee

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The problem there is the liability rests with the original LL while the actions are being carried out by the receiver. One would expect receivers to comport themselves with a certain amount of compassion and respect for the LL's liability but in fact, it seems, many do not.

Indeed. I think we were possibly very lucky but I also think it had to come down to us being reasonable with them too. After the initial scary letters and stressful phone calls where we demanded to know our rights and to know who was taking responsibility of our deposit etc. it all calmed down and they were really helpful (the receivers). The person they nominated to take our rent (an estate agent who I checked was indeed licensed by regulator) came to our home (at the time) and met with us, answered loads of questions and dealt with any problems in the apt we had if they occurred.

My advice would be as before just to try and open lines of communication, maybe receiver acting on behalf of the bank would meet with you? Hopefully Threshold are helping you in the mean time anyway.

Good luck! It is scary for sure.

MarkAnthony

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is the banks own poop sheet. It has not been tested in court. there is a strong argument that receivers accept the rent they are the landlord for the purpose of the Residential Tenancies Act and the tenants right lie against them. The spineless PRTB has deferred to the banks but no one has forced it to court yet.

Whether they accept the rent or not they are agents of the LL although appointed by the bank. The problem lies in using the mechanism of receivership, which was designed with a business in mind, with Paddy property investors and accidental landlords where a tenant gets caught in the crossfire.

It's not a court issue, it needs to be resolved by the legislature. The LCLRA 2009 should have dealt with this issue but it just restated the 1888 Act (IIRC). Rather than farting around with legislation to stop people saying 'No Rent Allowance' in adverts on DAFT because it hurts people's feelings it's about time we started dealing with the deeper legal issues.

/Pet Rant

Kittyoh

Thanks for all the advice.

Bank hasn't appointed receiver. Threshold have been advocating on our behalf, dealing with solicitor for bank, informing them of our situation and my offer to pay them the rent. Bank responded last Fri by stating they have no contract with me, will not accept rent, intend to repossess house and we need to take steps to vacate immediately.

I've been looking at properties, but can't afford anything suitable due to rent increases and rent allowance cap. In any case not one place has come back to me with an offer as the general lay of the land appears to be they don't want rent allowance...

I'm listening to two camps of advice, on the one hand Threshold are saying we need to leave. On the other, advice from solicitor-types is stay put, lock your knees and fight back...that it'll take some time for them to get us out...

I'll go back to FLAC and talk to them about seeking injunctive relief as lay litigant...PRTB dispute still open but not holding out too much hope there...are they good for anything??

At the moment I need to buy time...is there some hope rent allowance caps will be raised in coming budget, given that there's election coming up and they really can't ignore this issue any longer..or protocol operating in Dublin and Cork will come into effect here allowing community welfare to waive caps in certain situations

Some people are saying sherriff will not kick us out if he has some idea of our predicament in advance. Threshold saying he will most def kick us out and possibly have guards there to help him. Could these diff assessments have to do with fact Threshold are dealing with evictions in Dublin where this kind of thing is going on a lot and it may not be as bad elsewhere?

Holding off till Summer to give me chance to finish my final exams and wait for the outcomes of the above is best case scenario for us at the moment.

The whole thing is exhausting

Kittyoh

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The problem there is the liability rests with the original LL while the actions are being carried out by the receiver. One would expect receivers to comport themselves with a certain amount of compassion and respect for the LL's liability but in fact, it seems, many do not.

Can they be made to appoint a receiver if no stay of execution was made at the time the Order for Possession was granted? Can I take steps to make them appoint one given our circumstances

MarkAnthony

Kittyoh wrote: »

Can they be made to appoint a receiver if no stay of execution was made at the time the Order for Possession was granted? Can I take steps to make them appoint one given our circumstances

I'm afraid my knowledge ends at the classroom door.

It depends on the wording of the debenture/mortgage. Are you sure the bank's solicitor is not also acting as a receiver? Unfortunately there is more than one way this can play out and the worst thing in the world would be to accept legal advice from the likes of me. In my view if there is no receiver then if anything you're in a stronger position.

Approach FLAC and make sure you are party to any proceedings. Don't worry about looking stupid, don't worry about speaking at the wrong time or saying the wrong thing the Judge and barristers involved will ensure you're heard.

CaoimheSquee

What an awful situation for you. I would go public with this through every avenue I could.
Atrocious behaviour from the bank and the letting agenct should be held liable in some way for your situation as it is in reality their fault.
Wishing you all the very very best, wish there was more we could do!

4ensic15

It seems like the bank are mortgagee in possession. The bank in this situation is not the agent of the landlord. If the bank had an order for possession in October 2014 why did they not have the key or take steps to secure the property? It would seem that you became a tenant and your tenancy should have been registered. Your argument must be that it can only be terminated by the mechanism set out in the Residential Tenancies Act. This argument is not yet tested in court but it would seem that it is all you can try. The fact the bank refuses rent does not mean that they can avoid the Residential Tenancies Act since the contract you entered was for the payment of rent.

MarkAnthony

4ensic15 wrote: »

It seems like the bank are mortgagee in possession. The bank in this situation is not the agent of the landlord. If the bank had an order for possession in October 2014 why did they not have the key or take steps to secure the property? It would seem that you became a tenant and your tenancy should have been registered. Your argument must be that it can only be terminated by the mechanism set out in the Residential Tenancies Act. This argument is not yet tested in court but it would seem that it is all you can try. The fact the bank refuses rent does not mean that they can avoid the Residential Tenancies Act since the contract you entered was for the payment of rent.

OP please be guided by this and not by me as it's not a situation I'm familiar with.

Claw Hammer

The o/p should get in touch with a no foal no fee solicitor who would run the case
for her. She seems to have an argument for an injunction. The whole thing makes no sense so a solicitor should get the paperwork analysed.

The_Minister

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The o/p should get in touch with a no foal no fee solicitor who would run the case
for her. She seems to have an argument for an injunction. The whole thing makes no sense so a solicitor should get the paperwork analysed.

What kind of solicitor is going to take a case like this 'no foal, no fee'?

Not every type of case can be run on that basis - it's why so many people end up representing themselves against the bank - the normal outcome is that the person loses with costs against them.

MarkAnthony

The_Minister wrote: »

the normal outcome is that the person loses with costs against them.

That point should be underscored but the OP should investigate what happens with orders for costs when there are no assets.

Claw Hammer

The_Minister wrote: »

What kind of solicitor is going to take a case like this 'no foal, no fee'?

Not every type of case can be run on that basis - it's why so many people end up representing themselves against the bank - the normal outcome is that the person loses with costs against them.

There are solicitors who run these cases. They do not operate in the IFSC or Fitzwilliam Square. In most cases people against banks have hopeless cases. This case is arguable. I could find a solicitor for the o/p in less than an hour. The o/p is most likely not a mark for costs so she needn't worry. The bank is not going to waste money trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.

The_Minister

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There are solicitors who run these cases. They do not operate in the IFSC or Fitzwilliam Square. In most cases people against banks have hopeless cases. This case is arguable. I could find a solicitor for the o/p in less than an hour. The o/p is most likely not a mark for costs so she needn't worry. The bank is not going to waste money trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.

Eh, any solicitor with a practice needs to cover overheads - whatever their practice address. What kind of solicitor is going to take an injunction, as you suggested, on a 'no foal no fee' basis?
Injunctions are massively stressful, massively time-consuming and a massive pain in the behind - you'd only run one for free if it was a very strong case.

And how much of a case does she have?
The rental agreement was made after the order for possession (which may well have been for vacant possession) with the owner of the former property. Is the bank bound by that agreement?
Can they not terminate the tenancy?

There is a huge amount of research and work involved in this case (from the sounds of it) - I don't see any solicitor doing it something up front.



And the 'she's not a mark' thing assumes that she doesn't ever intend bettering herself - costs order can last for a long time before barred - if she ever gets a job or career, even in a few years time, they may come after her.
I agree that they likely won't go for garnish on someone in her position, but she may not plan to stay there.

4ensic15

The_Minister wrote: »

Eh, any solicitor with a practice needs to cover overheads - whatever their practice address. What kind of solicitor is going to take an injunction, as you suggested, on a 'no foal no fee' basis?
Injunctions are massively stressful, massively time-consuming and a massive pain in the behind - you'd only run one for free if it was a very strong case.

And how much of a case does she have?
The rental agreement was made after the order for possession (which may well have been for vacant possession) with the owner of the former property. Is the bank bound by that agreement?
Can they not terminate the tenancy?

There is a huge amount of research and work involved in this case (from the sounds of it) - I don't see any solicitor doing it something up front.



And the 'she's not a mark' thing assumes that she doesn't ever intend bettering herself - costs order can last for a long time before barred - if she ever gets a job or career, even in a few years time, they may come after her.
I agree that they likely won't go for garnish on someone in her position, but she may not plan to stay there.

How do you think the immigration judicial review cases are funded. They are invariably taken on a no foal no fee basis because the clients never have money. There is a full Judicial Review list in the High Court with such cases.
There are many solicitors who would run this case for the o/p.