Vulture fund to sell currently tenanted homes in Dublin 15

handlemaster

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tenants-told-to-leave-as-vulture-fund-to-sell-dublin-homes-1.2571558

I think within this article theres a big bit of the playing to the crowd by the politicians. The properties will be bought and new owners or investors will move in. Its not like the properties will remain empty.

4ensic15

handlemaster wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tenants-told-to-leave-as-vulture-fund-to-sell-dublin-homes-1.2571558

I think within this article theres a big bit of the playing to the crowd by the politicians. The properties will be bought and new owners or investors will move in. Its not like the properties will remain empty.

The residents should get together and hire a legal team. From what I have read they are just rolling over.

Turtle_

4ensic15 wrote: »

The residents should get together and hire a legal team. From what I have read they are just rolling over.

Why?

They don't own the properties, if the notice periods they've been given are correct then on what grounds should they mount a challenge?

Do you think that living there gives some indefinite right to remain? Because that would be unconstitutional.

4ensic15

Turtle_ wrote: »

Why?

They don't own the properties, if the notice periods they've been given are correct then on what grounds should they mount a challenge?

Do you think that living there gives some indefinite right to remain? Because that would be unconstitutional.

They can challenge the termination notices, appeal an adverse adjudication and then proceed on to the High Court on a point of law. If the vulture fund gets bogged down they will do a deal.

garhjw

4ensic15 wrote: »

They can challenge the termination notices, appeal an adverse adjudication and then proceed on to the High Court on a point of law. If the vulture fund gets bogged down they will do a deal.

How can you challenge a valid term notice?

HeidiHeidi

4ensic15 wrote: »

They can challenge the termination notices, appeal an adverse adjudication and then proceed on to the High Court on a point of law. If the vulture fund gets bogged down they will do a deal.

You're assuming some fine bank balances on the part of the tenants..... you don't "proceed on to the High Court" without a fairly substantial outlay of moolah.

Assuming you had a case in the first place, of course....

4ensic15

garhjw wrote: »

How can you challenge a valid term notice?

You can challenge any termination notice. Until it is determined to be valid the tenancy continues.

testicle

Are you not just delaying the inevitable in that case? As well as burning a truck load of money?

Turtle_

4ensic15 wrote: »

You can challenge any termination notice. Until it is determined to be valid the tenancy continues.

So what?

That doesn't change the fact that these people do not own the houses in which they reside. They've been served with what are more than likely valid notices. In what way is it right for them to string this out?

I don't deny that this has put a lot of people in a horrible position, so many people are now competing for housing in the one area.

BUT, this also makes available houses for people to purchase.

4ensic15

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

You're assuming some fine bank balances on the part of the tenants..... you don't "proceed on to the High Court" without a fairly substantial outlay of moolah.

Assuming you had a case in the first place, of course....

If the tenants get together, they can run one test case. the cost, shared among many would be very low. Most likely they will be paying higher rent in new accommodation, if they can find it. Prolonging their stay will save each of them hundreds per month. A couple of months of savings into a fund would be plenty to keep a legal action going. That is how the English landlords were beaten in the 19th century. Each house paid a catholic rent of a penny a week to fund the legal challenges to the landlords.

DublinDilbert

There is a number of different property types, the 4 bed houses sold for 220k in 2012, then again last November for 216k in a big block.

Sounds like they want to sell the units individually if they are giving tenants their notice periods.

athtrasna

Mod note

4ensic15 I'm not sure why you're pushing this. There is nothing to indicate that there is anything illegal about the eviction and while it may not be desirable for the tenants, the houses will come back onto the D15 housing market either for purchase or rent. This forum is not a place for a personal crusade.

4ensic15

Turtle_ wrote: »

So what?

That doesn't change the fact that these people do not own the houses in which they reside. They've been served with what are more than likely valid notices. In what way is it right for them to string this out?

I don't deny that this has put a lot of people in a horrible position, so many people are now competing for housing in the one area.

BUT, this also makes available houses for people to purchase.

The notices may not be valid. they have every right to challenge them. Not challenging the notices will not build one extra house. If the houses they occupy are sold they may be let again by another fund at higher rents. Even if they are sold individually the currents will have to occupy other houses which might have come on the market.

4ensic15

athtrasna wrote: »

Mod note

4ensic15 I'm not sure why you're pushing this. There is nothing to indicate that there is anything illegal about the eviction and while it may not be desirable for the tenants, the houses will come back onto the D15 housing market either for purchase or rent. This forum is not a place for a personal crusade.

I have seen one of the notices of termination as shown in today's newspaper. I am far from convinced it is a legal notice.

athtrasna

Let's stay on topic please

johnnyskeleton

handlemaster wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tenants-told-to-leave-as-vulture-fund-to-sell-dublin-homes-1.2571558

I think within this article theres a big bit of the playing to the crowd by the politicians. The properties will be bought and new owners or investors will move in. Its not like the properties will remain empty.

Yep. I feel sorry for them - its horrible to be evicted whether as a tenant or homeowner - and its good to see the focus on tenants. But there could be 200+ other evictions of tenants across the country tomorrow that arent because of those nasty foreigners.

Meanwhile, not a peep from politicians about actually making building more attractive like, I dunno, making social housing a public endeavour rather than foisting it on the private sector, killing he incentives to build large scale developments in the process and then trying to say the lack of social housing is because the private developers havent been building them.

4ensic15

The likelihood, the 2 year rent moratorium and longer notice periods have contributed to this. If the houses are sold with tenants in situ the rent can't increase for 2 years and the tenants have to be given ever longer periods of notice if the houses were to be sold. The vulture fund naturally wants a clean slate.

davo10

athtrasna wrote: »

Mod note

4ensic15 I'm not sure why you're pushing this. There is nothing to indicate that there is anything illegal about the eviction and while it may not be desirable for the tenants, the houses will come back onto the D15 housing market either for purchase or rent. This forum is not a place for a personal crusade.

Apart from personal crusades, a high court challenge would cost up to €100k for one day so it would be bonkers for the tenants to take a case just to draw out a legal termination of a tenancy. If the eviction was legally served, the high court case would be against the State.

handlemaster

Just because the tenants are unhappy doesnt mean they have a right to drag the process of eviction out. This just makes a mockery of our laws.

Gatling

handlemaster wrote: »

Just because the tenants are unhappy doesnt mean they have a right to drag the process of eviction out. This just makes a mockery of our laws.

I'm sure the legal quaters would only be happy to earn a decent paycheck for any tenants who think a court would side with them or offer compensation

Turtle_

4ensic15 wrote: »

The likelihood, the 2 year rent moratorium and longer notice periods have contributed to this. If the houses are sold with tenants in situ the rent can't increase for 2 years and the tenants have to be given ever longer periods of notice if the houses were to be sold. The vulture fund naturally wants a clean slate.

If the tenants are in situ they also prevent the houses being sold to anyone who needs a mortgage. Banks want vacant possession.

pc7

While it is awful these people have been served notice in a very hot rental market, if you take it down to the lowest level, if I want to sell my house as a landlord and service the correct notice (Some papers mentioning 2-6 months, so sounds correct without knowing individual cases) I shouldn't be held to ransom. The same goes in this case, just in bigger numbers. A quick search on Daft shows plenty available in Dublin 15 (without knowing like for like rents), the people are better getting ahead of the curve and moving out sooner imo. They can't win on this.

Merry Prankster

The crash and subsequent vilification of the banks has created a weird attitude to debt and home ownership in this country. The logic seems to be that, because the banks are evil, debts can be ignored and home ownership, like water, is a God-given right

I know plenty of people who have chosen not to pay the mortgages on their properties (both on their own residence and their rental properties) because they prefer to spend their money on the luxuries in life - new cars, foreign holidays etc. They are outraged that the banks are threatening to repossess the houses. (I'm not saying that this is the case here, though.)

My mum is 60 and commutes to Dublin from Wexford every day. She leaves at 8am each morning and sometimes doesn't get back until 1am. She is paying off a €300,000 mortgage on a house that is now worth €100,000 (if that) and wouldn't dream of reneging on her debt.

It seems that the Homer Simpsons far outnumber the Frank Grimeses.

Yes, the banks had a huge role in the crash and subsequent devaluation of property prices and should be made to shoulder a far greater portion of the financial burden. But that doesn't mean that you can expect to be given a house for which you do not pay. Ultimately, someone has to foot the bill.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

I have seen one of the notices of termination as shown in today's newspaper. I am far from convinced it is a legal notice.

Do share the reasons you think the notices are not legal.

According to the asset managers issuing the notices:

"Achieving vacant possession is undertaken in a statutory manner and is governed by the residential tenancies act. Every element of the act and the regulations governing private residential tenancies was followed by Twinlite in this process and will continue to be."

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the houses are sold with tenants in situ the rent can't increase for 2 years

That's probably not relevant to a company that's decided to exit the rental property market.

seamus

Everything about this story is of course loaded. Using the word "eviction" forces images of people and their belongings being turfed out onto a busy street with the door locked behind them. "Vulture" fund conjures images of a company preying on people struggling with debt.

While these 200 families no doubt had a bad weekend, they will likely all find alternative accommodation for themselves within the large timeframe in which they have to do it.

They'll even get away with not paying any more rent if they want to go down the route; the new owners want rid, they won't go to the trouble of chasing rents.

This is basically all a symptom of our dysfunctional rental market that's only geared towards short-term rentals and accidental landlords. It could have (and probably did) happened at the height of the boom, but nobody would care quite so much.

Canadel

seamus wrote: »

This is basically all a symptom of our dysfunctional rental market that's only geared towards short-term rentals and accidental landlords. It could have (and probably did) happened at the height of the boom, but nobody would care quite so much.

Yet the mantra on this forum and from a lot of media commentators and analysts is that "Renting should be a long term option in Ireland", except without systemic changes to the way the market operates, and hence situations like this will continue and become the norm.

Obviously nothing illegal on the face of it here. But that doesn't mean it still doesn't stink.

CatFromHue

Grzegorz Szkutnik (34) and his wife Iwona have been living in their home for the last eight years. They have two children, Lena (2) and David (two weeks).
"Everybody is angry about this. I have taken advice and I am not leaving here," said Mr Szkutnik.
Mr Szkutnik said he is paying €1,450 a month in rent and can't find alternative accommodation in the area for less than €2,000.

Granted I don't know that area too well but when you do a search on Daft for 3 bed places for a max of 1600 you do get a few hits in Clonee, Ongar and not too far from Tyrellstown.

I think the only place that's 2k is in Clonsilla and it's a 4 bed.

powerstar

It's very hard on people who are living there currently. I am not sure what can they do if their lease is due to renewal and landlord decides not to renew it.

handlemaster

1600 would get a three bed in dublin 15... ni issues there I dont think

The_Conductor

CatFromHue wrote: »

Grzegorz Szkutnik (34) and his wife Iwona have been living in their home for the last eight years. They have two children, Lena (2) and David (two weeks).
"Everybody is angry about this. I have taken advice and I am not leaving here," said Mr Szkutnik.
Mr Szkutnik said he is paying €1,450 a month in rent and can't find alternative accommodation in the area for less than €2,000.

Granted I don't know that area too well but when you do a search on Daft for 3 bed places for a max of 1600 you do get a few hits in Clonee, Ongar and not too far from Tyrellstown.

I think the only place that's 2k is in Clonsilla and it's a 4 bed.

If the case referred to is accurate- it suggests that Mr. Szkutnik is currently paying significantly under the market value for the property in rent........

The properties in question were part of an 85m loan portfolio sold by Ulster Bank- and the stated aim of the 'Vulture fund' is to churn the properties as quickly as possible (the tacit understanding being that Ulster Bank had wanted to foreclose on the loans- but were not in a position to do so).

Its not a nice situation- but there is absolutely nothing to stop Mr. Szkutnik or any of his neighbours from attempting to buy the properties they're currently residing in- themselves (unless of course its not financially viable for them to do so).

Simple fact- we are not building 'family homes' in the Dublin area- they are desireable- and there will be queues of people lining up to purchase these- providing they are priced in a reasonable manner (price of course being key here).

The loans from the developer transferred into NAMA 8 years ago- while I do have sympathy for the people who will have to move- it is hardly a bolt out of the blue, or any great surprise that this has happened..........

Villa05

Would this company selling be availing of any tax breaks in the sale of these properties and if so is there a way to block these tax breaks

quadrifoglio verde

Villa05 wrote: »

Would this company selling be availing of any tax breaks in the sale of these properties and if so is there a way to block these tax breaks

Not that I can see. Capital gains exemption would only apply of held for seven years and bought between December 2011 and Dec 2014.
However not sure if cgt applies to this fund

Corporation tax would be applied at a rate of 25%

A poster on here, Marcusm knows tax around property investment quite well

davo10

Villa05 wrote: »

Would this company selling be availing of any tax breaks in the sale of these properties and if so is there a way to block these tax breaks

Why would you want to block their tax breaks if they exist? Though it is very unfortunate that so many people are being evicted at the same time, the owners are not breaking any law and are entitled to sell their assets. The tenants are free to make offers for the houses and by the sounds of things, mortgage repayments may be less than the rental costs

PhoenixParker

The_Conductor wrote: »

Simple fact- we are not building 'family homes' in the Dublin area- they are desireable- and there will be queues of people lining up to purchase these- providing they are priced in a reasonable manner (price of course being key here).

In fairness D15 is one of the few places in the country where that's not true. There are two new housing developments nearby - Hansfield in Ongar and Hollywoodrath with family homes that would result in a mortgage roughly equal to what he's citing in rent. Hollywoodrath probably wouldn't even need the kids to change schools. There are a few other developments in D15 on sale, on site and at planning permission stage. Deposits are probably the major stumbling block.

All of that said I do think there should be some mechanism which encourages the sale of houses with sitting tenants rather than what's being done here.

handlemaster

If some on here had their way businesses wouldnt be able to do anything if their actions went against public opinion

The_Conductor

handlemaster wrote: »

If some on here had their way businesses wouldnt be able to do anything if their actions went against public opinion

Or opinion pieces written by either the Indo or Dennis O'Brien........

Just because morons in the media like to harp on in a particular manner- doesn't make it so. People have very short memories........

April 73

I heard today that the current tenants are being offered first refusal on purchasing the property they have been renting. The house won't go to the open market & competing bids won't be accepted if the tenant wishes to purchase.

If they don't wish to or are not in a position to do so then they are in the same situation as any tenant whose landlords wishes to sell.

The only difference here is the number of houses involved.

CageWager

1. It's an inconvenience for the tenants who will have to seek alternative accommodation and given the environment propagated by the former government is a difficult task to say the least.

BUT

2. If you are a private tenant you sign a lease which can be broken by either party within the parameters of a fair notice period. If you rented an apartment and served notice that you were leaving as you found somewhere nicer, should the landlord be outraged and threaten legal action because they don't want the hassle of finding new tenants? No - they just get on with life.

AND

3. Just like Irish Water, this "Vulture Fund" headline has become a political football. Left leaning politicians and media outlets are falling over themselves and competing to see who can appear most outraged - playing to the gallery. If they could all get a grip of themselves long enough to stop political points scoring and actually deal with the underlying issues Ireland would be a better place.

athtrasna

Speaking of politics, enough of political chat please

Mod

Eugene Norman

Merry Prankster wrote: »

The crash and subsequent vilification of the banks has created a weird attitude to debt and home ownership in this country. The logic seems to be that, because the banks are evil, debts can be ignored and home ownership, like water, is a God-given right

I know plenty of people who have chosen not to pay the mortgages on their properties (both on their own residence and their rental properties) because they prefer to spend their money on the luxuries in life - new cars, foreign holidays etc. They are outraged that the banks are threatening to repossess the houses. (I'm not saying that this is the case here, though.)

My mum is 60 and commutes to Dublin from Wexford every day. She leaves at 8am each morning and sometimes doesn't get back until 1am. She is paying off a €300,000 mortgage on a house that is now worth €100,000 (if that) and wouldn't dream of reneging on her debt.

It seems that the Homer Simpsons far outnumber the Frank Grimeses.

Yes, the banks had a huge role in the crash and subsequent devaluation of property prices and should be made to shoulder a far greater portion of the financial burden. But that doesn't mean that you can expect to be given a house for which you do not pay. Ultimately, someone has to foot the bill.

These are renters not house owners. Now if all house owners in arrears, particularly those taking the piss, were tossed out of their houses these particular renters could swap places. The rental situation wouldn't be solved but at least the cost would be borne by the imprudent rather than by the prudent, the young or recent arrivals to Ireland.

Eugene Norman

CageWager wrote: »

1. It's an inconvenience for the tenants who will have to seek alternative accommodation and given the environment propagated by the former government is a difficult task to say the least.

BUT

2. If you are a private tenant you sign a lease which can be broken by either party within the parameters of a fair notice period. If you rented an apartment and served notice that you were leaving as you found somewhere nicer, should the landlord be outraged and threaten legal action because they don't want the hassle of finding new tenants? No - they just get on with life.

AND

3. Just like Irish Water, this "Vulture Fund" headline has become a political football. Left leaning politicians and media outlets are falling over themselves and competing to see who can appear most outraged - playing to the gallery. If they could all get a grip of themselves long enough to stop political points scoring and actually deal with the underlying issues Ireland would be a better place.

I'm afraid that won't do.

1) there's no free market when a government agency buys up debts and sells into a vulture fund. A free market would be all houses in arrears going on the open market. Anything else is manipulated.
2) there's no free market when tens of thousands of home owners in arrears aren't having their loans called in by state owned banks.

You get to preach the free market to renters when there is one.

Ray Burkes Pension

Only way to solve our housing problem is enact a law that stops anyone from selling a house for more than you bought it for. You could adjust it for inflation to make it fair. Houses are there to be homes for people to live in. They should not be investments sitting empty for people to sell on. There are empty houses all over the country while working people are homeless in hotels.

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

Do share the reasons you think the notices are not legal.

According to the asset managers issuing the notices:

"Achieving vacant possession is undertaken in a statutory manner and is governed by the residential tenancies act. Every element of the act and the regulations governing private residential tenancies was followed by Twinlite in this process and will continue to be."

I am not going to alert the vulture fund regarding the mistakes in their notices. You are quoting the person who issued the notices. He would say that wouldn't he?
The vulture funds use the law for their ends. Why shouldn't the tenants?
They should all get together and a few hundred euro from each of 200 houses would create a sufficient fund to maximise their position.

HeidiHeidi

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I'm afraid that won't do.

1) there's no free market when a government agency buys up debts and sells into a vulture fund. A free market would be all houses in arrears going on the open market. Anything else is manipulated.
2) there's no free market when tens of thousands of home owners in arrears aren't having their loans called in by state owned banks.

You get to preach the free market to renters when there is one.

Which government agency are you referring to in 1) ?

Eugene Norman

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Which government agency are you referring to in 1) ?

Nama.

HeidiHeidi

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Nama.

As far as I know NAMA had/has nothing to do with this transaction.

Ulster Bank sold the loan book to the fund.

ED E

@Conductor there was a post in the AH thread stating the development is for a group purchase not single sale so for the moment the residents can't opt to buy out their home.

Villa05

davo10 wrote:

Why would you want to block their tax breaks if they exist? Though it is very unfortunate that so many people are being evicted at the same time, the owners are not breaking any law and are entitled to sell their assets. The tenants are free to make offers for the houses and by the sounds of things, mortgage repayments may be less than the rental costs

Tax breaks are in the norm provided for something that is of benefit to the country.

Through recent history tax breaks for property speculation have had disastrous results for the country and society and should be ceased immediately

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

I am not going to alert the vulture fund regarding the mistakes in their notices. You are quoting the person who issued the notices. He would say that wouldn't he?
The vulture funds use the law for their ends. Why shouldn't the tenants?
They should all get together and a few hundred euro from each of 200 houses would create a sufficient fund to maximise their position.

You are joking aren't you? A few hundred Euro wouldn't bring a High Court case, each tenant would have to commit thousands.

I'm pretty sure that the owners would have sought legal advice before serving notice, they certainly would be showing an incredible level of incompetence to confirm in a statement that they have followed all legal requirements, if they had neglected to do so.

The tenants can use the law to their own ends if there is a law to use for their own ends. If however the owners have followed the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act, the tenants would be confined to bring a Judicial Review to challenge the decisions off the Courts in relation to the Act, they better have very deep pockets.

Perhaps you should offer your services on a no win no fee basis to the tenants, if you are that certain that you can overturn the eviction notices.

davo10

Villa05 wrote: »

Tax breaks are in the norm provided for something that is of benefit to the country.

Through recent history tax breaks for property speculation have had disastrous results for the country and society and should be ceased immediately

Tax breaks such as section 23 or urban renewel were introduced to stimulate development in areas which were lagging behind, is Tyrrelstown one of those areas?

Even if the development did have a tax break, why block it if the owners have followed the terms of that tax break and are operating within the law? Why punish someone if they haven't done anything wrong?

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

You are joking aren't you? A few hundred Euro wouldn't bring a High Court case, each tenant would have to commit thousands.

I'm pretty sure that the owners would have sought legal advice before serving notice, they certainly would be showing an incredible level of incompetence to confirm in a statement that they have followed all legal requirements, if they had neglected to do so.

The tenants can use the law to their own ends if there is a law to use for their own ends. If however the owners have followed the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act, the tenants would be confined to bring a Judicial Review to challenge the decisions off the Courts in relation to the Act, they better have very deep pockets.

Perhaps you should offer your services on a no win no fee basis to the tenants, if you are that certain that you can overturn the eviction notices.

That is nonsense. The tenants cannot judicially review the decision to issue notices. Judicial review can only be used in respect of the actions of public bodies which the vulture fund is certainly not. Each of the tenants can challenge the validity of the notice in the PRTB at a cost of €25. They can get legal advice between all of them regarding validity and the submissions to be made. The cost per tenant would be very low. They can appeal the decisions of the adjudicator to the Tribunal and then they have the possibility of appeal on a point of law to the High Court. This can be done by way of a sample case so the expense is effectively shared.
The cost is probably nil overall since they will inevitably be paying higher rents when hey leave their current homes.