taking house back for my own use

Bluebells1

I am thinking of giving my tenant notice as my husband and I would like to start using our house some weekends as our holiday home.

In order to cover expenses we were thinking of doing weekly holiday letting for just a few weeks in the summer. Is this allowed as Tenant is there over 5 years?

bleary

Bluebells1 wrote: »

I am thinking of giving my tenant notice as my husband and I would like to start using our house some weekends as our holiday home.

In order to cover expenses we were thinking of doing weekly holiday letting for just a few weeks in the summer. Is this allowed as Tenant is there over 5 years?

No, you can't evict your tenants on that basis from their home,
You can evict them if you have a need for the property but this couldn't be justified as a second home
If you leave the property within 6 months you would have to offer it back to the tenant
iF you offer it for weekly letting someone and your tenant spots the ad they would be entitled to take a case to the rtb and apply for damages, the last case i saw was an award for 10,000
If you want your tenants to leave I think you will have to come to another arrangement

foggy_lad

You would have to offer some incentive to your tenants to get them to give up their part 4 rights. Otherwise they can stay until the end of the 2nd 4year term.

jcd5971

I'm all for Tennant's rights hell I am one, but I do find it a bit ridiculous that owner can't do what s/he wants with his/her own house

athtrasna

jcd5971 wrote: »

I'm all for Tennant's rights hell I am one, but I do find it a bit ridiculous that owner can't do what s/he wants with his/her own house

As with any other law, there are people who will agree and people who will disagree but it is the law.

jcd5971

athtrasna wrote:

As with any other law, there are people who will agree and people who will disagree but it is the law.

Yeah your right I don't dispute that at all, I just find it odd is all, but then again I don't want my rent going up every 2 weeks either, I just can see it from both sides I suppose.

myshirt

jcd5971 wrote: »

I'm all for Tennant's rights hell I am one, but I do find it a bit ridiculous that owner can't do what s/he wants with his/her own house

Is this post for real?

We'll gladly sit in the sun under all the economic lunacy giveaways that led to such high second home ownership in this country, but say f"ck you to any laws?

It is OUTRAGEOUS the amount of second home owners there are in this country, and even more outrageous they believe they achieved it off their own batt. They didn't. There are Nobel laureates who will want to pass into the grace of God every time they hear someone say that as relates to Ireland.

Does this post at all exhibit the most basic of an education in economics or sense around oneself? Rights of the tenant should be strengthened further and further, and anyone with a second home/holiday home needs to be met with some serious, serious costs for the economic environment that afforded them that in this country.

athtrasna

Mod note

Myshirt, please familiarise yourself with the forum charter before posting on here again. We appreciate helpful posts, but attacking posters is not welcome.

myshirt

athtrasna wrote: »

Mod note

Myshirt, please familiarise yourself with the forum charter before posting on here again. We appreciate helpful posts, but attacking posters is not welcome.

Edited to remove any ambiguity that I am but attacking the post and not the poster.

sunnysoutheast

bleary wrote: »

No, you can't evict your tenants on that basis from their home,
You can evict them if you have a need for the property but this couldn't be justified as a second home
If you leave the property within 6 months you would have to offer it back to the tenant
iF you offer it for weekly letting someone and your tenant spots the ad they would be entitled to take a case to the rtb and apply for damages, the last case i saw was an award for 10,000
If you want your tenants to leave I think you will have to come to another arrangement

No argument on the re-rental aspect of your post, but why would it not be valid to terminate if the LL wanted to use the property as a second home?

There is nothing I can see in the RTA about a requirement for the property to be a PPR for a valid termination notice, just the name of the new occupier, relationship to LL and expected duration.

"4. The landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or her own occupation or for occupation by a member of his or her family and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—

(a) specifying—

(i) the intended occupant's identity and (if not the landlord) his or her relationship to the landlord, and

(ii) the expected duration of that occupation,

and

(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) the dwelling is vacated by the person referred to in subparagraph (a) within the period of 6 months from expiry of the period of notice required to be given by the notice or, if a dispute in relation to the validity of the notice was referred to the Board under Part 6 for resolution, the final determination of the dispute, and

(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table."

jcd5971

myshirt wrote:

Is this post for real?

myshirt wrote:

We'll gladly sit in the sun under all the economic lunacy giveaways that led to such high second home ownership in this country, but say f"ck you to any laws?

Riiiight then.

My point is, while obviously I don't agree with a landlord evicting somebody to then re-let for a higher rent.

I find it strange that they can't just decide "I don't want to rent at all anymore I want to use my second home for myself as a holiday home" as after all it is their asset.

I never disputed the law in my post, and just for clarification I rent myself and own no property.

I merely posted a point of view. And stated I was trying to see it from both points of view.

I am happy to debate with you or have a conversation, but your post is a bit too vitriolic and "ranty" for me.

foggy_lad

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

No argument on the re-rental aspect of your post, but why would it not be valid to terminate if the LL wanted to use the property as a second home?

There is nothing I can see in the RTA about a requirement for the property to be a PPR for a valid termination notice, just the name of the new occupier, relationship to LL and expected duration.

"4. The landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or her own occupation or for occupation by a member of his or her family and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—

(a) specifying—

(i) the intended occupant's identity and (if not the landlord) his or her relationship to the landlord, and

(ii) the expected duration of that occupation,

and

(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) the dwelling is vacated by the person referred to in subparagraph (a) within the period of 6 months from expiry of the period of notice required to be given by the notice or, if a dispute in relation to the validity of the notice was referred to the Board under Part 6 for resolution, the final determination of the dispute, and

(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table."

If the landlord "requires" the property for their own occupation or occupation by a member of the landlord's family that would be fine once the notice is correct BUT firstly as the landlord does not "require" the property as they already have their ppr they can't use that as a reason and also if the landlord is found to be letting out the property afterwards the eviction of the tenant becomes an illegal eviction and the tenant would be entitled to thousands in compensation and might also be granted occupation of the property(regardless of its current occupier) for the remaining duration of their previous lease or part 4 tenancy.

sunnysoutheast

foggy_lad wrote: »

If the landlord "requires" the property for their own occupation or occupation by a member of the landlord's family that would be fine once the notice is correct BUT firstly as the landlord does not "require" the property as they already have their ppr they can't use that as a reason and also if the landlord is found to be letting out the property afterwards the eviction of the tenant becomes an illegal eviction and the tenant would be entitled to thousands in compensation and might also be granted occupation of the property(regardless of its current occupier) for the remaining duration of their previous lease or part 4 tenancy.

Any evidence for this point of view?

No arguments about the re-letting, I understand that.

If, for example, I have my main family house in Dublin and I own and rent out a place in (say) Kerry. I want to use (or "require") the place in Kerry as a holiday home for the weekends. I give the correct notice to the tenant, they move out and I occupy the property only at the weekends.

What is the issue here?

4ensic15

The o/p here is talking about taking back the house for vacation, not occupation. As such it is not covered by the own occupation provision.

foggy_lad

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Any evidence for this point of view?

No arguments about the re-letting, I understand that.

If, for example, I have my main family house in Dublin and I own and rent out a place in (say) Kerry. I want to use (or "require") the place in Kerry as a holiday home for the weekends. I give the correct notice to the tenant, they move out and I occupy the property only at the weekends.

What is the issue here?

If you occupy the house it should be an occupation as in your main dwelling not as a vacation dwelling and there would also be an issue with letting the property after the illegal eviction of the tenants. If you want a more definitive answer you should contact the PRTB and get their spin on your hypothetical scenario.

apkmbarry

jcd5971 wrote: »

I'm all for Tennant's rights hell I am one, but I do find it a bit ridiculous that owner can't do what s/he wants with his/her own house

Well, that's why a contract is produced, so people cant just **** over their tenants. Yeah, they can be served with an eviction notice, but there has to be a good reason, and reasonable notice. Neither of which they would have.

Canadel

myshirt wrote: »

Is this post for real?

We'll gladly sit in the sun under all the economic lunacy giveaways that led to such high second home ownership in this country, but say f"ck you to any laws?

It is OUTRAGEOUS the amount of second home owners there are in this country, and even more outrageous they believe they achieved it off their own batt. They didn't. There are Nobel laureates who will want to pass into the grace of God every time they hear someone say that as relates to Ireland.

Does this post at all exhibit the most basic of an education in economics or sense around oneself? Rights of the tenant should be strengthened further and further, and anyone with a second home/holiday home needs to be met with some serious, serious costs for the economic environment that afforded them that in this country.

If a person has the money, they can spend that money on anything they like within the limits of the law, including property.

The only problem I have is when the same people who own multiple properties perpetuate this narrative about "Irish people being obsessed with property" in relation to people opposed to long term to life term renting.

As for the law surrounding the situation here. I agree with it. Yes, the Op owns the property. But they entered the property into a lease with the tenants and with that comes responsibility and tenant's rights which really are required for a fair and functioning rental system.

sunnysoutheast

4ensic15 wrote: »

The o/p here is talking about taking back the house for vacation, not occupation. As such it is not covered by the own occupation provision.

As I said to the other poster, can you provide evidence to support your interpretation?

sunnysoutheast

foggy_lad wrote: »

If you occupy the house it should be an occupation as in your main dwelling not as a vacation dwelling and there would also be an issue with letting the property after the illegal eviction of the tenants. If you want a more definitive answer you should contact the PRTB and get their spin on your hypothetical scenario.

I'll say it again, I understand the issue about re-letting.

You are making the statement about the property being the "main dwelling", do you have any evidence to back this up?

athtrasna

Mod note

Sunnysoutheast please do not demand replies from other posters, thanks.

Sarn

As with a lot of legislation, interpretation can vary. However, I can't see how the use of a holiday home at weekends would fall under "required" use as it is not a necessity. The LL or a member of their family would not become homeless if they were denied use.

the_pen_turner

what would happen if you wanted to move from one house to the other.

could the op move for a few months then change their minds and move back

foggy_lad

the_pen_turner wrote: »

what would happen if you wanted to move from one house to the other.

could the op move for a few months then change their minds and move back

Yes but only after the tenants period of tenancy ends. Notice is only valid under certain specified conditions and moving in part-time is not one of them.

the_pen_turner

foggy_lad wrote: »

Yes but only after the tenants period of tenancy ends. Notice is only valid under certain specified conditions and moving in part-time is not one of them.

yes
but if you wanted to sell the other house and move into this house. this house would be your primary house . you could give notice if you we moving back permanently. put the second house up for sale and a high end value but don't sell it
then move back for a few months but change your mind and move back

foggy_lad

the_pen_turner wrote: »

yes
but if you wanted to sell the other house and move into this house. this house would be your primary house . you could give notice if you we moving back permanently. put the second house up for sale and a high end value but don't sell it
then move back for a few months but change your mind and move back

If you moved into the rented house and move back out within 6months you must offer the house back to the tenant.

There is very few ways around the RTA and falling foul of the law could cost an absolute fortune as many landlords have found out.

myshirt

myshirt wrote: »

Edited to remove any ambiguity that I am but attacking the post and not the poster.

Regarding your post, most with 2 properties have paid for them or are doing so, what's your problem?

newacc2015

Canadel wrote: »

If a person has the money, they can spend that money on anything they like within the limits of the law, including property.

The only problem I have is when the same people who own multiple properties perpetuate this narrative about "Irish people being obsessed with property" in relation to people opposed to long term to life term renting.

As for the law surrounding the situation here. I agree with it. Yes, the Op owns the property. But they entered the property into a lease with the tenants and with that comes responsibility and tenant's rights which really are required for a fair and functioning rental system.

I don't think you are too familiar with the rental industry. Landlords arent opposed to long term leasing. In fact most tenants only want short term leases. Look at students who will refuse anything more than a 9 month lease. Very few tenants will want to sign a lease for 10 years. I don't know anyone who doesnt want to buy their own home. People including you talk about people wanting low term leases, but when you actually speak to people in the industry ie Landlords and people in REITs, tenants dont want long term leases. Some do, but it is not reflective of most tenants

IMO we can't have long term leasing in Ireland. If it was introduced I imagine tens of thousands of LL's would sell up. Look at it this way since 2008. The Government has introduced LPT, cut the mortgage interest relief, put USC and PRSI on rental income. There is also the fact LL's can't get long term fixed mortgages. Meaning a LL entering into a lease can have his tax burden increased by a third over night or have his mortgage interest double over night as they cant fix their mortgage long. What rational LL would into long term lease if they can have their income halved in the middle of it? Even if their property had to go to repossession which is probably due to their income being halved, their property would sell for a reduced amount of its worth due to a sitting tenant

By saying 'fair and functioning rental system', you are really only taking about one that benefits the tenant. Dont worry! That is already the case. Rental laws in Ireland only benefit the tenant. If you have a none paying tenant, it can take up to 12 months to evict them. If you have an social tenant, likewise it can take forever to evict them.

If people want LLs to start treating the industry like a business and give tenants more rights. That needs to come from the Government down ie quicker evictions for tenants, no ad hoc changes in tax law etc

LiamoSail

This seems absolutely outrageous to me, the idea that as owner you can't recover the house for your own use, even if that use is only periodical.

foggy_lad

LiamoSail wrote: »

This seems absolutely outrageous to me, the idea that as owner you can't recover the house for your own use, even if that use is only periodical.

By renting out the house you are giving up certain rights to the use of the property and must abide by the RTA. Remember it is still the property of the Landlord but it is the "Home" of the tenant!

It is very basic stuff so anyone renting out their property should know this or should not be renting out their house.

Eric Cartman

bleary wrote: »

No, you can't evict your tenants on that basis from their home,
You can evict them if you have a need for the property but this couldn't be justified as a second home
If you leave the property within 6 months you would have to offer it back to the tenant
iF you offer it for weekly letting someone and your tenant spots the ad they would be entitled to take a case to the rtb and apply for damages, the last case i saw was an award for 10,000
If you want your tenants to leave I think you will have to come to another arrangement

* Corrections : landlords house. it is not the tenants home, it is a collection of bricks they exchange money for the temporary use of. Emphasis on temporary.

OP talk to a solicitor, there are a few who have some ways that may have the tenant leave legally.

athtrasna

Eric Cartman wrote: »

* Corrections : landlords house. it is not the tenants home, it is a collection of bricks they exchange money for the temporary use of. Emphasis on temporary.

OP talk to a solicitor, there are a few who have some ways that may have the tenant leave legally.

If you want to be fussy, chances are it's mostly the bank's house but I can assure you a rented dwelling can be a home and in this case the tenants are there five years so I'd be pretty sure they consider it their home!

As for talking to a solicitor, that would be a waste of money imo, the RTA is one of the most relatively clear pieces of legislation in recent years. I suspect you're referring to that legislation that is still on the statute books but predates the foundation of the state. I have yet to see evidence of success using that.

4ensic15

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

As I said to the other poster, can you provide evidence to support your interpretation?

The RTA allows recfovery of the house for the landlord's occupation. The o/p has clearly stated that they require the house for their vacation. What more evidence do you need?
I doubt if this is the true reason. The o/p has another thread where there are difficulties with the same tenants.

foggy_lad

4ensic15 wrote: »

The RTA allows recfovery of the house for the landlord's occupation. The o/p has clearly stated that they require the house for their vacation. What more evidence do you need?
I doubt if this is the true reason. The o/p has another thread where there are difficulties with the same tenants.

To me it seems that a lot of people are thinking that renting out a house on airbnb will bring in more per month for a few nights occupancy than renting out long term and they don't have to worry about wear and tear or tax on the rental income.

The sooner that airbnb is banned in most countries the better it will be for all and the housing crisis will become a thing of the past.

Eric Cartman

athtrasna wrote: »

If you want to be fussy, chances are it's mostly the bank's house but I can assure you a rented dwelling can be a home and in this case the tenants are there five years so I'd be pretty sure they consider it their home!

As for talking to a solicitor, that would be a waste of money imo, the RTA is one of the most relatively clear pieces of legislation in recent years. I suspect you're referring to that legislation that is still on the statute books but predates the foundation of the state. I have yet to see evidence of success using that.

if your referring to that free man of the land crap, i can assure you I am not. I believe the OP is looking to take the property for their personal habitation and while not their PPR, a solicitor may be able to outline how far you can push the terms of a 'need' for the property.

4ensic15

The Residential Tenancies Act has been criticised by Ms. Justice laffoy of the Supreme Court. "In my view, the provisions of the Act of 2004 for the valid termination of a Part 4 tenancy for non-payment of rent are very technical and confusing." Canty v Private Residential Tenancies Board 2007.

The Act has been amended on a number of occasions to correct errors. there are still many ambiguities in its interpretation. Most solicitors haven't a clue about it. As recently as this year the Residential tenancies Board lost a High Court case on the interpretation of the Act.

A solicitor is unlikely to be able to help much as most would have no idea and the only way to test any advise they might give would be to serve a notice of termination and see if the tenant would push it to a hearing and subsequently on a point of law to the High Court.

yqtwqxqm

Bluebells1 wrote: »

I am thinking of giving my tenant notice as my husband and I would like to start using our house some weekends as our holiday home.

In order to cover expenses we were thinking of doing weekly holiday letting for just a few weeks in the summer. Is this allowed as Tenant is there over 5 years?

My brother did almost exactly this.
I dont know what the specifics of your situation are, but what he did was this.

My brother contacted the PRTB and revenue to run it by them before he did anything. He wanted to know where he stood both on the law and on the tax front.

My brothers PPR is a house he owns in Enniscorthy. The rental is in Dublin.
Tenant was in the property for two and a half years.
He wanted to use the property to stay in for the odd night himself, but to still rent out the rooms on a room only basis.
PRTB and revenue said it was fine.
He gave the tenant the required notice. The tenant did a bit of threatening etc and contacted the PRTB to complain, threshold too, but my brother was happy he was in the right (thats why you need to check it out before doing it).
Threshold actually told the tenant that my brother couldnt give them their notice, but they were wrong according to the PRTB.
So anyway, he gave them their notice stating he required it for personal use and they moved out. He got a tenants in on a room rental basis and kept one room for himself to use whenever he needs to. Probably once a month.
He now does AirBnB instead though and uses the property for his family as a holiday home or weekend retreat whenever he wants to.
Its all working out quite well for him.

Thats the gist of it anyway.

It was handy for him getting an answer from the PRTB because it turned out he had an old acquaintance from school who worked there and the answers came quickly. I dont know how fast they will respond, but check with them first before you do anything.

4ensic15

The PRTB do not do advice. The tenants moved out on getting notice. What if the tenants had objected and it went to a hearing and an appeal to the High Court?

LiamoSail

foggy_lad wrote: »

To me it seems that a lot of people are thinking that renting out a house on airbnb will bring in more per month for a few nights occupancy than renting out long term and they don't have to worry about wear and tear or tax on the rental income.

The sooner that airbnb is banned in most countries the better it will be for all and the housing crisis will become a thing of the past.

LL aren't using Airbnb because it's so attractive, they're using it because the rental market is so unattractive, even in a time of high demand and hence rents.

Offer more protection to LL's regarding non-paying tenants, do something about the tax rate and the issue of long term lets being changed to short term will resolve itself to a large degree.

Michael D Not Higgins

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

It was handy for him getting an answer from the PRTB because it turned out he had an old acquaintance from school who worked there and the answers came quickly.

That sounds more like a personal opinion rather than a clarification of the law. As stated, the PRTB do not give advice and the tenant may have thought it was in their best interest to just leave rather than fight it.

Graham

LiamoSail wrote: »

This seems absolutely outrageous to me, the idea that as owner you can't recover the house for your own use, even if that use is only periodical.

Landlords forego some of the rights they would normally enjoy as a property owner in return for (usually significant) amounts of money.

That's hardly likely to come as a surprise to most landlords.

Sunny Dayz

Hi OP,
Now I've never been a landlord, but do you need to give a tenant a reason to leave, once you give them the prescribed and adequate notice?


Just to note - and it's probably not addressing your initial query - but why would you want to get rid of paying tenants who have been in your property the last number of years, and I'm assuming they have been good tenants to you. Why would you want to lose them for the sake of having the house to your own use for a few weeks of the year? Depending on where the rental property is, realistically the holiday rental market in Ireland is about 4 months max (May-Aug). Are you going to have the house idle all winter? Are you going to visit the property every week for new holidaymakers to change the bed linen, show them around the property etc.

Graham

Sunny Dayz wrote: »

Hi OP,
Now I've never been a landlord, but do you need to give a tenant a reason to leave, once you give them the prescribed and adequate notice?

Yes, a part 4 tenancy can only be terminated early for one of a handful of permitted reasons.

Sunny Dayz

Graham wrote: »

Yes, a part 4 tenancy can only be terminated early for one of a handful of permitted reasons.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html
"If the landlord plans to change the business use of the property (for example, convert it to office use)"


I'm guessing changing the type of letting from a residential letting to a holiday letting doesn't fall under this? And also, I may be splitting hairs, but would holiday rental be classed as rental income (Case V) or Case I like B&B income? If it would be classed as Case I then would that not be a change of business use?

foggy_lad

Sunny Dayz wrote: »

Hi OP,
Now I've never been a landlord, but do you need to give a tenant a reason to leave, once you give them the prescribed and adequate notice?


Just to note - and it's probably not addressing your initial query - but why would you want to get rid of paying tenants who have been in your property the last number of years, and I'm assuming they have been good tenants to you. Why would you want to lose them for the sake of having the house to your own use for a few weeks of the year? Depending on where the rental property is, realistically the holiday rental market in Ireland is about 4 months max (May-Aug). Are you going to have the house idle all winter? Are you going to visit the property every week for new holidaymakers to change the bed linen, show them around the property etc.

It all comes down to the extra money, less tax and less wear and tear from renting out a house through AirBnB.

Calhoun

jcd5971 wrote: »

Riiiight then.

My point is, while obviously I don't agree with a landlord evicting somebody to then re-let for a higher rent.

I find it strange that they can't just decide "I don't want to rent at all anymore I want to use my second home for myself as a holiday home" as after all it is their asset.

I never disputed the law in my post, and just for clarification I rent myself and own no property.

I merely posted a point of view. And stated I was trying to see it from both points of view.

I am happy to debate with you or have a conversation, but your post is a bit too vitriolic and "ranty" for me.

I think your post is a good illustration of what is wrong with allot of have a go landlords out there. People are entitled to have as many properties as they like but as soon as you rent it out you then become a business. As such the laws in place on renting are consumer protection to ensure they aren't treated unfairly.

Don't get me wrong there are allot of professional landlords who take it very seriously out there this board has a few who understand they are running a business.

LiamoSail

Sunny Dayz wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html
"If the landlord plans to change the business use of the property (for example, convert it to office use)"


I'm guessing changing the type of letting from a residential letting to a holiday letting doesn't fall under this? And also, I may be splitting hairs, but would holiday rental be classed as rental income (Case V) or Case I like B&B income? If it would be classed as Case I then would that not be a change of business use?

Airbnb is taxed as trading income

jcd5971

Calhoun wrote:

I think your post is a good illustration of what is wrong with allot of have a go landlords out there. People are entitled to have as many properties as they like but as soon as you rent it out you then become a business. As such the laws in place on renting are consumer protection to ensure they aren't treated unfairly.

Dude I am not a landlord never have been.

I am a renter have been evicted for dubious reasons before, but where I'm from houses are easy enough to get so I never bothered fighting it was easier not to.

I have also rented for the last while of a sound landlord and some of the tennants he has are Terrible.

It goes both ways

Calhoun

jcd5971 wrote: »

Dude I am not a landlord never have been.

I am a renter have been evicted for dubious reasons before, but where I'm from houses are easy enough to get so I never bothered fighting it was easier not to.

I have also rented for the last while of a sound landlord and some of the tennants he has are Terrible.

It goes both ways

It does go both ways and there needs to be adequate protection on both sides of the business model.

My answer was directly pointed at your question about why they can't just so what they like with their asset.

yqtwqxqm

OP, im meeting my brother tonight. ill ask him for the exact detail and post again.

athtrasna

Just a reminder that legal advice cannot be given on boards.

Mod

yqtwqxqm

I wasnt giving legal advice. I was describing what my brother did in the same situation as the OP.
But point taken. I'll take it to PM with the OP.

OP i'll PM you shortly with details of exactly my brothers situation.

Also i'll give you the details of how you go about satisfying yourself that you will run into no problems taking your house back legally, fairly and with no issues at all, so you dont have to just take an internet posters word for it.

I got a few things wrong when I described it previously, and will correct them in the PM as I found out the full story. Its much closer to your situation than I even thought it was before.

Give me a few mins to write it in a PM