Confused! Landlord gone into receivership, Property Management Company taking over..

sheepface

Hi, am wondering if someone can give me advice on renting an apartment and finding out a landlord has gone into receivership.

I’ve been renting an apartment (in a converted house) for six years with my partner and at the weekend a man called around to the house, going apartment by apartment, to tell us our landlord has gone into receivership.


He gave us a letter with the deed of appointments and asked to see inside our apartment, asked how much rent we pay and how many bedrooms there are in the apartment. He said that our tenancy isn’t affected and gave us the details of a bank account to pay the rent to.


Apparently a letter had been left by the receivers for all the tenants about this before the weekend but we didn’t get that letter, so this was a big surprise.


I rang Threshold and they advised to pay the rent to the receiver, and to write to them asking for a letter of comfort.


Complicating things, our landlord never asked us to renew our lease in the last year. We have a good relationship with him and he tends to be relaxed about things like that.


Meanwhile, the landlord says that he wasn’t told about the receivership and that he expects things to be resolved in a few weeks. He wants us to pay the rent, or withhold it if we have concerns.

Threshold said that if we don’t pay the receivers, they could essentially say we violated the terms of our tenancy by not paying rent.

My questions are:

- If we hold back the rent, could we be evicted?

- If we pay rent to the receivers, and things get resolved, what happens to our money? Does that count has having paid rent?

- Has anyone experienced this before? Was the house sold quickly after receivership?

- What is the likelihood of situations like this actually getting resolved, ie receivership ending?

- What rights do we have around not letting the receiver into the house?


Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Lux23

If the property is in receivership then your landlord has lost any chance of getting his hands back on the property so I would agree with Threshold that you now need to deal with the receiver.

So yes, you could be evicted for not paying rent,
It won't get resolved, the receiver is your landlord now and your rent will count as being paid,
It really depends on the situation and the house,
Receivership doesn't end until the property is sold,
Your rights regarding the receiver are the same as with any landlord.

The_Conductor

sheepface wrote: »

My questions are:

- If we hold back the rent, could we be evicted?

You are obligated to pay rent- under the Residential Tenancies Act.
Failure to pay rent- is grounds for terminating a tenancy.
That said- terminating a tenancy- and actually being evicted- are lengthily processes- it normally takes months before this happens.

sheepface wrote: »

- If we pay rent to the receivers, and things get resolved, what happens to our money? Does that count has having paid rent?

If you pay money to a receiver- the receiver has the money- period. If the landlord gets his affairs in order (which rarely happens- but does sometimes)- the receiver is not going to give you back your money- first and foremost they deduct the cost of the receivership from any funds they can get their hands on- and only after this- do they sit down and negotiate with the owner of the property (and certainly not with the tenants).

You have to ask yourself- is it a reasonable assumption that the landlord will in fact get his arse into gear and his affairs into order.

Between now and then- legally the receiver is entitled to collect the rent.

sheepface wrote: »

- Has anyone experienced this before? Was the house sold quickly after receivership?

It depends. Location isn't even a saving grace. One property on Main Street in Lucan Village has been with a receiver for over 2 years and has had 6 separate offers to buy fall through. Its now had its electricity and water cut off- which isn't going to make it any more saleable....... However- sales falling through multiple times are the norm rather than the exception these days.

sheepface wrote: »

- What is the likelihood of situations like this actually getting resolved, ie receivership ending?

Impossible to tell. Its unusual for someone to get out of a receivership- but not unheard of. If the landlord is easy going and just crap with his paperwork- he could find himself in this situation- however it would take one hell of an ostrich approach and not engaging with the lender- before a receiver was appointed......

If the landlord is just ridiculously atrocious with paperwork etc- then hell, its possible- and there are people like that out there.

One way or the other- I would start from a working assumption that the property is being repossessed and will be sold- and not try to imagine anything other than this.

sheepface wrote: »

- What rights do we have around not letting the receiver into the house?

You are still entitled to peaceful residence in your dwelling- you are still a tenant- and tenancy law does still apply. If the receiver is planning on selling the property- it is normally a condition of sale that vacant possession is required- which would mean you'd be given notice. Your notice- if it is given- is the notice valid for the entire term of your tenancy (and not since the receiver was appointed).

A receiver can ask to view a property- but is not entitled to do so- other than with your approval (aka you come up with an agreeable time and advise the receiver of when this is- it is not up to the receiver to tell you that they will be there at 4PM and you had better let them in.........)

Marcusm

If the receiver wanted you out immediately they would not accept rent from you, they will ups issue you with a notice to quit. By accepting rent, the receiver/financier effectively adopts the tenancy and will have to be bound by the Residential Tenancies Act (and possibly, although less certainly, any more beneficial Clauses which might be included in a written lease). By contrast, paying rent to the landlord would likely negate any protections.

MarkAnthony

My advice OP, is move.

It will save you a lot of heartache - start looking around in earnest but it doesn't sound as if there is a huge amount of urgency to it, just don't leave it until there is.

MarkAnthony

sheepface wrote: »

Hi, am wondering if someone can give me advice on renting an apartment and finding out a landlord has gone into receivership.

- If we pay rent to the receivers, and things get resolved, what happens to our money? Does that count has having paid rent?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

While it's unlikely a LL will see it as such, the rent has been paid to the agent of the LL and his recourse is with his/her agent. If the LL gets things resolved (they won't) and comes looking for the rent a certain metaphor involving sex and travel comes to mind.

4ensic15

I would write to the receiver and ask
1. Is he registered with the RTB as the landlord of your unit?
2. IS he registered with the PSRA.
3. What is the status of your security deposit.
4. Does he accept responsibility for repairs to your unit.
Until satisfactory answers are given to these questions, rent should be retained.

apeking

4ensic15 wrote: »

I would write to the receiver and ask
1. Is he registered with the RTB as the landlord of your unit?
2. IS he registered with the PSRA.
3. What is the status of your security deposit.
4. Does he accept responsibility for repairs to your unit.
Until satisfactory answers are given to these questions, rent should be retained.

1. The receiver doesn't need to be registered with PRTB, the tenancy does
2. The recover does t need to be registered with PSRA
3. Good point
4. Good point

4ensic15

apeking wrote: »

1. The receiver doesn't need to be registered with PRTB, the tenancy does
2. The recover does t need to be registered with PSRA
3. Good point
4. Good point

The receiver must register if he wants the rent. The landlord is defined as the person entitled to the rent. Anyone who lets or sells a property they don't own must register with the PSRA. The Receiver doesn't own the property so he must register.

Gatling

4ensic15 wrote: »

The receiver must register if he wants the rent. The landlord is defined as the person entitled to the rent. Anyone who lets or sells a property they don't own must register with the PSRA. The Receiver doesn't own the property so he must register.

They have no legal right to withhold rent

4ensic15

Gatling wrote: »

They have no legal right to withhold rent

The landlord has instructed the rent be withheld.

Gatling

4ensic15 wrote: »

The landlord has instructed the rent be withheld.

And they also then face eviction wonder what would the landlord who's property is in receivership say then .
Ah sure it will be all sorted.

Op should listen to threshold

punisher5112

Exact same thing happened to me we were told pay rent into new management company working on behalf of bank 2 months had not passed and received letter of eviction due to the bank wanting vacant possession.
We got 56 days and had to move out house sitting empty a year now up for public auction.

Clause on property due to some tax clause means must be bought with cash no mortgage.

Its a horrible situation open but well worth planning ahead and start looking for a new place.

MarkAnthony

4ensic15 wrote: »

I would write to the receiver and ask
1. Is he registered with the RTB as the landlord of your unit?
2. IS he registered with the PSRA.
3. What is the status of your security deposit.
4. Does he accept responsibility for repairs to your unit.
Until satisfactory answers are given to these questions, rent should be retained.

Terrible advice.

While I would be tempted to withhold the final month's rent in lieu of the deposit originally paid if I was 100% sure there was nothing that should be deducted such as damage going looking for problems doesn't help anyone.

4ensic15

Gatling wrote: »

And they also then face eviction wonder what would the landlord who's property is in receivership say then .
Ah sure it will be all sorted.

Op should listen to threshold

Who is going to evict them?

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

Who is going to evict them?

The receiver. The previous owner- who you are referring to as 'the landlord' no longer has clean legal ownership of the property- the receiver is entitled to the rent- until such time as he/she deems fit to dispose of the property (at which point the tenants would normally be issued valid notice to vacate the property).

You are making a lot of assumptions- and giving the OP advice which is contrary to the RTA- and indeed liable to see them issued with notice forthwith.

The original landlord is at fault here- for screwing up their financial affairs. The receiver and the tenant are both innocent parties to this screwup. The receiver has to be registered with the CRO- not the PRSA- and the tenancy with the original landlord normally continues with the RTB- it does not need to be reregistered with the receiver.

Going in gung-ho, all guns blazing- is not going to achieve anything other than have a valid notice issued against them.

By the way- the receiver is not going to spend money other than what they are legally obliged to spend- nor are they liable for the deposit- that is between the tenant and the original landlord. Many receivers will accede to last month free in lieu of the tenant getting their deposit back- as they recognise the tenant is not going to get their deposit by any other means- however, this is normally with the express understanding that the tenant facilitates viewings at the receivers discretion- its a quid-pro-quo. By rights the tenant should be on at the original landlord- demanding answers about the deposit.

4ensic15

The_Conductor wrote: »

The receiver. The previous owner- who you are referring to as 'the landlord' no longer has clean legal ownership of the property- the receiver is entitled to the rent- until such time as he/she deems fit to dispose of the property (at which point the tenants would normally be issued valid notice to vacate the property).

You are making a lot of assumptions- and giving the OP advice which is contrary to the RTA- and indeed liable to see them issued with notice forthwith.

The original landlord is at fault here- for screwing up their financial affairs. The receiver and the tenant are both innocent parties to this screwup. The receiver has to be registered with the CRO- not the PRSA- and the tenancy with the original landlord normally continues with the RTB- it does not need to be reregistered with the receiver.

Going in gung-ho, all guns blazing- is not going to achieve anything other than have a valid notice issued against them.

By the way- the receiver is not going to spend money other than what they are legally obliged to spend- nor are they liable for the deposit- that is between the tenant and the original landlord. Many receivers will accede to last month free in lieu of the tenant getting their deposit back- as they recognise the tenant is not going to get their deposit by any other means- however, this is normally with the express understanding that the tenant facilitates viewings at the receivers discretion- its a quid-pro-quo. By rights the tenant should be on at the original landlord- demanding answers about the deposit.

If the receiver is not registered as landlord he can't issue notice and proceed to the PRTB. PRTB cases have insisted that the bank/receiver must refund the deposit at the end of the tenancy even if they didn't get it in the first place. Receivers are getting away with all kinds of nonsense. The receiver does not have the register with the CRO. On what basis should they? That would only happen in a company receivership. This is a receivership under a mortgage.

Marcusm

4ensic15 wrote: »

I would write to the receiver and ask
1. Is he registered with the RTB as the landlord of your unit?
2. IS he registered with the PSRA.
3. What is the status of your security deposit.
4. Does he accept responsibility for repairs to your unit.
Until satisfactory answers are given to these questions, rent should be retained.

1,2 and 4 indicate that you don't understand the purpose of a receiver which is to be an agent of the debtor (landlord) responsible for the collection of the financial sums (whether through rent or sales proceeds) and the safeguarding of the asset. The receiver is neither a property manager not responsible for repairs or the return of the deposit.

Marcusm

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the receiver is not registered as landlord he can't issue notice and proceed to the PRTB. PRTB cases have insisted that the bank/receiver must refund the deposit at the end of the tenancy even if they didn't get it in the first place. Receivers are getting away with all kinds of nonsense. The receiver does not have the register with the CRO. On what basis should they? That would only happen in a company receivership. This is a receivership under a mortgage.

Of course the receiver can issue a notice; it does so under the law of agency. It has the power and rights of the landlord but generally none of the obligations - these remain with the landlord. The fault here is with the Oireachtas, or more properly the civil servants, which/who did not think things through properly when enacting RTA. Sensible receivers will of course ensure that they give undertakings vis a vis the deposit (I have first hand experience of this) as to do so will help safeguard the property. However, that is a choice and not something imposed under the law.

4ensic15

Marcusm wrote: »

1,2 and 4 indicate that you don't understand the purpose of a receiver which is to be an agent of the debtor (landlord) responsible for the collection of the financial sums (whether through rent or sales proceeds) and the safeguarding of the asset. The receiver is neither a property manager not responsible for repairs or the return of the deposit.

This indicates you don't understand the definition of a landlord as set out in the Residential Tenancies Act.
“landlord” means the person for the time being entitled to receive (otherwise than as agent for another person) the rent paid in respect of a dwelling by the tenant thereof and, where the context so admits, includes a person who has ceased to be so entitled by reason of the termination of the tenancy;

Once the receiver looks for the rent then he is the landlord for the purposes of the legislation. There are numerous cases where receivers have gone to the RTB as landlord and indeed on to the high court.

A landlord is responsible for repairs and as the person entitled to the rent the receiver is deemed to be the landlord.

Since he soesn';t own the property himself then he must register with the PSRA.

MarkAnthony

4ensic15 wrote: »

This indicates you don't understand the definition of a landlord as set out in the Residential Tenancies Act.
“landlord” means the person for the time being entitled to receive (otherwise than as agent for another person) the rent paid in respect of a dwelling by the tenant thereof and, where the context so admits, includes a person who has ceased to be so entitled by reason of the termination of the tenancy;

Once the receiver looks for the rent then he is the landlord for the purposes of the legislation. There are numerous cases where receivers have gone to the RTB as landlord and indeed on to the high court.

A landlord is responsible for repairs and as the person entitled to the rent the receiver is deemed to be the landlord.

Since he soesn';t own the property himself then he must register with the PSRA.

If the mods would allow this to take a bit of a legal turn, I'd be obliged for the indulgence as this is a very uncertain area. I'm sure Marcusm has access to the various legal databases as do I so any type of citation is grand - if you have neutral ones though happy days for anyone else who's interested and doesn't have Justis/Westlaw et al access.

My understanding (a fairly well researched understanding in this particular case) is the law of agency applies and it's no different from a letting agency acting on behalf of the LL; the LL remains the LL and retains liability. I'm open to corrections with the relevant case law and would be much obliged for same correction.

4ensic15

MarkAnthony wrote: »

If the mods would allow this to take a bit of a legal turn, I'd be obliged for the indulgence as this is a very uncertain area. I'm sure Marcusm has access to the various legal databases as do I so any type of citation is grand - if you have neutral ones though happy days for anyone else who's interested and doesn't have Justis/Westlaw et al access.

My understanding (a fairly well researched understanding in this particular case) is the law of agency applies and it's no different from a letting agency acting on behalf of the LL; the LL remains the LL and retains liability. I'm open to corrections with the relevant case law and would be much obliged for same correction.

Here is a case of a receiver being named as a party in court and taking proceedings in his own name before the PRTB. That would never happen in the case of an estate agent.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/F2E468661B67754B80257F070041BB58
A landlord can direct that the rent be paid to him. He can fire an estate agent. None of that applies to a receiver.

athtrasna

MarkAnthony wrote: »

If the mods would allow this to take a bit of a legal turn, I'd be obliged for the indulgence as this is a very uncertain area. I'm sure Marcusm has access to the various legal databases as do I so any type of citation is grand - if you have neutral ones though happy days for anyone else who's interested and doesn't have Justis/Westlaw et al access.

My understanding (a fairly well researched understanding in this particular case) is the law of agency applies and it's no different from a letting agency acting on behalf of the LL; the LL remains the LL and retains liability. I'm open to corrections with the relevant case law and would be much obliged for same correction.

Please remember that legal advice absolutely cannot be given on boards. I fear this may cross that line but if you think you can avoid straying into that territory, have a go.

Mod

4ensic15

Here is a case where a receiver was deemed to be a landlord and the borrower was deemed to the the former landlord even though the tenant was the same person.
http://prtb.ie/docs/default-source/tribunal-reports-2013/tr0213-00000230-(0612-01599)-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0

MarkAnthony

The first case you've listed makes the point thoroughly in paras 45-50. The Receiver is entitled to receive the rent and take action including representation at the PRTB.

Now you've (I believe) asserted before there are other grounds for appointing a receiver, the one I'm familiar with is the one listed in the case above. S108 of the LCLRA 2009. Again if you believe there are other grounds I'd be obliged again for enlightenment.

@Athtrasna - many thanks for the indulgence. This is a purely academic exercise and the OP should seek legal advice. You've at least three views here OP and I believe those are legally trained (to one degree or another) views. As you can see it's a complex area and you'd be mad to take advice on boards over this.

Marcusm

4ensic15 wrote: »

This indicates you don't understand the definition of a landlord as set out in the Residential Tenancies Act.
“landlord” means the person for the time being entitled to receive (otherwise than as agent for another person) the rent paid in respect of a dwelling by the tenant thereof and, where the context so admits, includes a person who has ceased to be so entitled by reason of the termination of the tenancy;

Once the receiver looks for the rent then he is the landlord for the purposes of the legislation. There are numerous cases where receivers have gone to the RTB as landlord and indeed on to the high court.

A landlord is responsible for repairs and as the person entitled to the rent the receiver is deemed to be the landlord.

Since he soesn';t own the property himself then he must register with the PSRA.

You have the answer in your post; a receiver is a person appointed as such, generally under finance documents, to "receive" the monies and assets of a debtor. The receiver is an agent of the debtor albeit one whose appointment is determined by the financier/lender. Rents are generally "hell or high water" items meaning that the tenant has an obligation to pay them once the landlord doesn't interfere with his "quiet enjoyment" (generally meaning possession) of the property. Lender/financiers need to have the ability to appoint receivers so that they can try to avoid situations where the borrower/landlord plays ducks and drakes with them.

You may be reading "agent" in the definition as being synonymous with "estate agent" or some other property professional. There's simply no authority for this. As regards the fact that the landlord cannot terminate the receivership, the is a key protection for the lender- if the borrower could simply terminate the agency there would not be any protection.

As regards the PRTB determination you cited, it is of no precedent/authority. Whether referring to the receiver as Respondent Landlord was shorthand by the note taker or simply overlooked by the legal professionals I have no idea. Frankly, as the lender had not consented to the 3 year tenancy (including rent free Decembers), I am surprised that they did not simply disclaim the obligations under the lease. What advice they had, I have no idea.

4ensic15

Marcusm wrote: »

You have the answer in your post; a receiver is a person appointed as such, generally under finance documents, to "receive" the monies and assets of a debtor. The receiver is an agent of the debtor albeit one whose appointment is determined by the financier/lender. Rents are generally "hell or high water" items meaning that the tenant has an obligation to pay them once the landlord doesn't interfere with his "quiet enjoyment" (generally meaning possession) of the property. Lender/financiers need to have the ability to appoint receivers so that they can try to avoid situations where the borrower/landlord plays ducks and drakes with them.

You may be reading "agent" in the definition as being synonymous with "estate agent" or some other property professional. There's simply no authority for this. As regards the fact that the landlord cannot terminate the receivership, the is a key protection for the lender- if the borrower could simply terminate the agency there would not be any protection.

As regards the PRTB determination you cited, it is of no precedent/authority. Whether referring to the receiver as Respondent Landlord was shorthand by the note taker or simply overlooked by the legal professionals I have no idea. Frankly, as the lender had not consented to the 3 year tenancy (including rent free Decembers), I am surprised that they did not simply disclaim the obligations under the lease. What advice they had, I have no idea.

Exactly, you have no idea as to what advice they had.

MarkAnthony

I'm not trying to backseat Mod but I think we've done the legal end of things. Many Thanks to the mods for the indulgence and for 4ensic15 and Marcusm for their opinions and links etc. Perhaps we'd move this (ourselves rather than the thread) to legal discussions if we want to continue? Again not my place to demand that I just think I'm running out of road with this in here :pac:

OP There are many threads on this and I've some direct experience of it also. The solution IMO, practically, is to remove yourself from the situation. While it's not technically legal I do suggest withholding the very last month's rent for your deposit but remaining in contact with the parties concerned in case of damage. Make sure the property is left spotless.

In the meantime I wouldn't go looking for issues. Pay the rent over to the receiver and if maintenance issues arise ask for them to be resolved. The chances are though they will not be resolved and hence why it's probably best to move on.

The best of luck and there are excellent resources for advice including Threshold, FLAC or indeed a private solicitor.

Carawaystick

I'd ask the person claiming to be the receiver for id, including proof of address, such as a recent utility bill, and a bank statement.

The_Conductor

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'd ask the person claiming to be the receiver for id, including proof of address, such as a recent utility bill, and a bank statement.

ID certainly- however you have absolutely no right to any of the other information. ID should be requested definitely.

Carawaystick

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'd ask the person claiming to be the receiver for id, including proof of address, such as a recent utility bill, and a bank statement.

How on earth would you expect someone to ask for the above details (aside from ID) that would be like asking a person working behind the counter in the bank for their own personal bank statement and a recent utility bill.

What has the receivers personal details got to do with his job as a receiver, he is doing a job working for the bank or working for a someone who is working on the banks behalf.

I know a friend who's LL went into receivership, he was contacted by the bank and by a firm of solicitors who were acting as receiver. He was able to confirm everything was above board by contacting the solicitors office directly. The solicitor then appointed a letting agent as the person to look after the property and for the rent to be paid to.

So the op needs to ring up the office of the receiver to confirm its all above board.

Mrs OBumble

The_Conductor wrote: »

ID certainly- however you have absolutely no right to any of the other information. ID should be requested definitely.

And confirmed by looking up the landline telephone number of the company via a different source, and calling it to check that the persons work there and has made official contact with you.

MarkAnthony

Seriously - another one just looking for issues. :rolleyes: What's most annoying is you're educated/experianced enough to offer a good piece of advice we've all forgotten which is for the OP to get sight of the deed of appointment.

CBFi

OP, my advice is to move if you can. You will not be able to recover your deposit in all likelihood. Same thing happened to me and my OH a few years ago. Maintenance etc wasn't happening and rodents became a problem which highly motivated us to leave. We had managed to negotiate a rent reduction with the receivers so maybe that's a short term silver lining. However, I would be planning to leave if you can.