receivers letter...what next?

mischascha

House has been rented for over 5 years now. Letter from receiver states that its now they will take care for the rent money, and thers bank details. There was no contact from the landlord prior to the situation, he only took the first correspondence saying that its about the land and everything is fine(I wasn't there at that time and that is what onther occupant said) My main concern is the amount of money they can introduce could be unacceptable if they have such power. Its relatively cheap now. Im the one that was collecting money for about 4-5 years, it was cash hended to landlord. Theres two out of 6 peoplev

L1011

Huge number of threads of landlords insisting "everthing's fine" and to keep paying them after a rent receiver is appointed. Don't. Pay the rent receiver - the landlord will be keeping the cash and you won't have paid rent.

They cannot increase rents by more than the market rate or the new limits, depending on where you are.

Claw Hammer

The receiver may not know how much the rent is, when the last review was nor when the tenancy commenced. Not a good idea to tell him either.

Sunny Dayz

We were in a similar boat as yourself a few years ago. Don't pay a penny more to the Landlord, as soon as the next rent is due it must be paid to the receiver. The rent shouldn't increase. However be prepared to look for somewhere else to live, the receiver will look to sell the property as soon as possible and the future purchaser of the house will not be buying the house to rent out. Not sure what your lease is like but you should check how much notice you are entitled to - or someone here might be better to advise that.

mischascha

I hink the idea of receiver being involved is because the rent wasn't sufficient, I checked the minimum standards here and we are paying about 3/4 of that. Landlord mentioned few times about increasing the rent when I was 'paying' him (which is fair)but I was sending him to everybody with that idea, trying to avoid begin involved in that process. I would like to know how most cases work, and if they are planning to sell it of course.

L1011

mischascha wrote: »

I hink the idea of receiver being involved is because the rent wasn't sufficient,

The receiver is involved because the landlord hasn't been paying his bills. Not because he wants to increase the rent.

newacc2015

Find out if the receiver is a rent or asset receiver. An asset receiver can't collect rent, but sells the property. A rent receiver collects rent but can't sell the property.

My suggestion is to tell your landlord this and tells you landlord to call a forensic accountant immediately to see if the receiver can be discharged. Your Landlord can attack the appointment of the receiver.

You are probably thinking why should I care? You are right, but I have never met a receiver who didn't want the tenant on the curb asap and the property sold... The receivers duty of care is with the landlord, but they are appointed by the landlord so go figure...

mischascha

newacc2015 wrote: »

Find out if the receiver is a rent or asset receiver. An asset receiver can't collect rent, but sells the property. A rent receiver collects rent but can't sell the property.

My suggestion is to tell your landlord this and tells you landlord to call a forensic accountant immediately to see if the receiver can be discharged. Your Landlord can attack the appointment of the receiver.

You are probably thinking why should I care? You are right, but I have never met a receiver who didn't want the tenant on the curb asap and the property sold... The receivers duty of care is with the landlord, but they are appointed by the landlord so go figure...

it says 'Property management and rent collection' on the front of the letter..and ...'companies name' is now your point of contact for rent collection and menagement of your tenancy'. That sounds quite straight forward.

newacc2015

mischascha wrote: »

it says 'Property management and rent collection' on the front of the letter..and ...'companies name' is now your point of contact for rent collection and menagement of your tenancy'. That sounds quite straight forward.

Don't be surprised if they try to start selling the property though. Receivers are not regulated.

I would tell your landlord to contact a forensic accountant to see if his mortgage payments were kosher ie that he was not overcharged at some point and is in fact not in default.

The receiver will sell the house not question. Receivers here are not like the UK, where they collect rent until the arrears are paid off. Here receivers only get in to take the house off the landlord and sell it ASAP.

Claw Hammer

newacc2015 wrote: »

Don't be surprised if they try to start selling the property though. Receivers are not regulated.

I would tell your landlord to contact a forensic accountant to see if his mortgage payments were kosher ie that he was not overcharged at some point and is in fact not in default.

.

The landlords financial affairs are none of a tenants business. In any event there is little likelihood of overcharging causing such a large shortfall that the loan went into serious arrears.

mischascha

well the majority of tenants want to pay to landlord and as one of them described :'don't let them in'...and 'we wait and see'

the_syco

mischascha wrote: »

as one of them described :'don't let them in'...and 'we wait and see'

I wonder how they'll react when they find out that because the LL doesn't have the money to pay his mortgage, he probably doesn't have the money to pay back the deposit....

4ensic15

the_syco wrote: »

I wonder how they'll react when they find out that because the LL doesn't have the money to pay his mortgage, he probably doesn't have the money to pay back the deposit....

If the receiver accepts rent he has to pay the deposit.

pilly

mischascha wrote:

this morning there was sombody with a suitcase at the door, ringing the bell, i didnt hear it but nobody opened but one person saw it, and pretty much hide, but as he said he was spotted. Dont know why he didnt open as yesterday he said to me thers nothin to worry about as the letters are not reinforsed by law.

I don't understand your post? What has a suitcase got to do with the receiver?

mischascha

this is indicator that it might be him,

pilly wrote: »

I don't understand your post? What has a suitcase got to do with the receiver?

athtrasna

This still doesn't make sense. Receivers don't turn up with suitcases?

newacc2015

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The landlords financial affairs are none of a tenants business.

OP wants to stay in the house at below market rent. If he sits idle, the house is on the market within a few months and he is going to have to look for a property in this market with a massive shortage of housing with a higher rent. If there is no receiver anymore, he can stay in the property.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

In any event there is little likelihood of overcharging causing such a large shortfall that the loan went into serious arrears.

Do you have a source for that wild claim? There is a high probability that OPs landlord was significantly overcharged by their banks(some forensic accountants are seeing 80% of their customers overcharged and the smallest amount being €2k). Allegedly some forensic accountants have yet to find an Anglo Irish Bank customer who was not overcharged by the bank. I spoke to a forensic accountant who discovered overcharging of €120k on a single customers BTL mortgages.

http://www.independent.ie/life/home-garden/homes/check-mate-your-bank-may-be-overcharging-you-29698078.html

Do you know how many payment you need to miss to have a receiver appointed with some banks? Only two payments which a small amount of overcharging compounded over a decade or so would mean you are not in default...

pilly

mischascha wrote:

this is indicator that it might be him,

Sorry OP, that's ridiculous.

pilly

mischascha wrote:

this is indicator that it might be him,

Do you mean briefcase?

mischascha

briefcase!sorry

Samuel T. Cogley

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the receiver accepts rent he has to pay the deposit.

Should pay the deposit. I was under the impression receivers were appointed under the Section 108 and were simply agents of the Landlord. I was under the impression liability remained with the LL.

4ensic15

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Should pay the deposit. I was under the impression receivers were appointed under the Section 108 and were simply agents of the Landlord. I was under the impression liability remained with the LL.

Section 108 only applies to mortgages after 2008. Most are appointed under a clause in the mortgage contract. The RTB have held that the person collecting the rent must refund the deposit at the end. Not the person who originally got it.

Samuel T. Cogley

4ensic15 wrote: »

Section 108 only applies to mortgages after 2008. Most are appointed under a clause in the mortgage contract. The RTB have held that the person collecting the rent must refund the deposit at the end. Not the person who originally got it.

I don't doubt your assertion, but if you'd be prepared to furnish links I'd be grateful.

Why 2008 btw? Was this tied up with the issues with mortgages around the introduction of the LCLRA? That provision is simply moved over from the 1888 Act.

Sorry Mods let me know if you want this punted to Legal Discussions. It seems pertinent here as these threads pop up fairly frequently, but obviously I defer to you.

newacc2015

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I don't doubt your assertion, but if you'd be prepared to furnish links I'd be grateful.

Why 2008 btw? Was this tied up with the issues with mortgages around the introduction of the LCLRA? That provision is simply moved over from the 1888 Act.

Sorry Mods let me know if you want this punted to Legal Discussions. It seems pertinent here as these threads pop up fairly frequently, but obviously I defer to you.

AFAIK one of the new shoe horned alterations to the RTA act 2004 over Xmas includes that the receiver is now responsible for returning the deposit. Most receivers returned it anyway to tenants, even when they didn't pay their rent when the receiver was appointed

I would link it, but the Xmas amendments to the RTA is on par with a state secret

Samuel T. Cogley

newacc2015 wrote: »

AFAIK one of the new shoe horned alterations to the RTA act 2004 over Xmas includes that the receiver is now responsible for returning the deposit. Most receivers returned it anyway to tenants, even when they didn't pay their rent when the receiver was appointed

I would link it, but the Xmas amendments to the RTA is on par with a state secret

Receivers are a tricky one as it's an agency relationship. Appointing them under a clause in a mortgage is unlikely to see the mortgagee restricting themselves by placing any obligations on themselves they absolutely didn't have to, but then there is this fair terms issue so who knows.

I'm glad to see the RTB stepping in here, I'm not sure their decision would stand up if appealed but then again who's going to do that over a grand or so?

4ensic15

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I don't doubt your assertion, but if you'd be prepared to furnish links I'd be grateful.

Why 2008 btw? Was this tied up with the issues with mortgages around the introduction of the LCLRA? That provision is simply moved over from the 1888 Act.

Sorry Mods let me know if you want this punted to Legal Discussions. It seems pertinent here as these threads pop up fairly frequently, but obviously I defer to you.

Most mortgage contract provide for the appointment of a receiver and a method. Most deeds of appointment of a receiver show that the appointment is a result of a breach of the loan contract rather than relying on a statutory provisiomn. Look at allsop property legal documents online to confirm. 2008 was a typo. Most provisions relating to mortgages in the 2009 Act only apply to mortgages created after the commencement of the Act. The corresponding provisions in the 1881 act were repealed and cant be relied on unless they were referred to in the mortgage contract.

kavanagh v Lynch & ors Laffoy J- High Court - 31/8/2011

pilly

mischascha wrote:

briefcase!sorry

Okay, that makes sense! I honestly think you're better off speaking to the receiver. Avoiding him is not going to solve the issue. At least you'll know where you stand if you speak to them.

newacc2015

pilly wrote: »

Okay, that makes sense! I honestly think you're better off speaking to the receiver. Avoiding him is not going to solve the issue. At least you'll know where you stand if you speak to them.

Receivers are literally the bottom rung of society. Not from the POV of that they are repossessing houses, but that they are pretty much completely unregulated, unskilled and you have no recourse with them. Anyone can be a receiver.

A receiver could completely lie to you and there is no recourse. You only have to go onto courts.ie and see how bad they are between selling properties below value to not telling you they sold your property etc.

I have yet to hear of an honest receiver. I imagine the receiver will tell OP he will be allowed to stay there for as long as he wants, then he will get a letter of eviction due to sale pretty quickly.

Samuel T. Cogley

newacc2015 wrote: »

Receivers are literally the bottom rung of society. Not from the POV of that they are repossessing houses, but that they are pretty much completely unregulated, unskilled and you have no recourse with them. Anyone can be a receiver.

A receiver could completely lie to you and there is no recourse. You only have to go onto courts.ie and see how bad they are between selling properties below value to not telling you they sold your property etc.

I have yet to hear of an honest receiver. I imagine the receiver will tell OP he will be allowed to stay there for as long as he wants, then he will get a letter of eviction due to sale pretty quickly.

Many receivers are very well qualified to be fair and usually accountants and/or solicitors with the larger accountancy firms. They're not going to be popular as their job is to recoup the loan as quickly as possible.

They are unregulated but there are a huge number of common law duties they have to adhere to, although their liability is limited in a number of ways.

My advice FWIW is always the same in these matters, engage with the receiver, pay the rent to the receiver once you've made reasonable inquiries that they are legit and get out of dodge ASAP.

You unfortunately can't withhold the last months rent for the deposit, that's self help and it's not allowed.

mischascha

thing is im the one collecting the rent, rest of tenants want to pay(i will be 'pyin' cash actually) to lanlord as nothing happened so..

pilly

mischascha wrote:

thing is im the one collecting the rent, rest of tenants want to pay(i will be 'pyin' cash actually) to lanlord as nothing happened so..

You would be mad to do that. It just gives the receiver an excuse to evict you even quicker because as far as he's concerned you're not paying rent.

pilly

newacc2015 wrote:

Receivers are literally the bottom rung of society. Not from the POV of that they are repossessing houses, but that they are pretty much completely unregulated, unskilled and you have no recourse with them. Anyone can be a receiver.

Be that as it may the situation is as it is and the tenant has no other options.

What do you suggest?

the_syco

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the receiver accepts rent he has to pay the deposit.

Have never heard of that one. Usually they say they don't have the deposit, and to chase it up with the LL (used to see this quite often, and still see it from time to time on here). Do you have a link for this, so I can link back to it in future?

mischascha

mad to do what? what procedures are there to be expected?A letter from court?

pilly

mischascha wrote:

mad to do what? what procedures are there to be expected?A letter from court?

An eviction order could be issued.

4ensic15

the_syco wrote: »

Have never heard of that one. Usually they say they don't have the deposit, and to chase it up with the LL (used to see this quite often, and still see it from time to time on here). Do you have a link for this, so I can link back to it in future?

There is an RTB decision on it.

0615-001211 1114-15295 Appellant: Colin Farquharson (Receiver), Luke Charleton (Receiver), Michael Finnegan - Respondent: Karolina Prochownik, Ibrahim Mohamed Deposit Retention

Sunny Dayz

OP were you given a Deed of Appointment of Receiver?


I would be worried about your housemates thinking of "wait and see". Please do not pay the rent in cash over to the landlord. He is not going to hand it over to the bank or the receiver for the mortgage. He is going to put it into his back pocket and claim he never got it. You will then have the Receiver onto you looking for the rent and they can begin proceedings to have you evicted from the house.
As someone else said, engage with the Receivers. Ring them up this morning and ask them what has to be done going forward.

mischascha

so is it obvious that the mortgage is for the rented house we r talking about or might be diffrent one?

4ensic15

Sunny Dayz wrote: »

OP were you given a Deed of Appointment of Receiver?


I would be worried about your housemates thinking of "wait and see". Please do not pay the rent in cash over to the landlord. He is not going to hand it over to the bank or the receiver for the mortgage. He is going to put it into his back pocket and claim he never got it. You will then have the Receiver onto you looking for the rent and they can begin proceedings to have you evicted from the house.
As someone else said, engage with the Receivers. Ring them up this morning and ask them what has to be done going forward.

The receiver won't know how much the rent is so he can't issue a demand.

mischascha

thats the thing, they don't know who lives here , how much we pay, and so on, why they don't or didn't ask LL about it?

Samuel T. Cogley

mischascha wrote: »

thats the thing, they don't know who lives here , how much we pay, and so on, why they don't or didn't ask LL about it?

Receiver: "Hi I'm here to tell you we're talking the rent off you and repossessing your investment property"

LL: "WTF!!!"

Receiver: "Yes could I get all the details of the tenants please"

LL: "No Feck off"

Slams door.

This is from my new screenplay - A receiver calls.

hometruths

mischascha wrote: »

so is it obvious that the mortgage is for the rented house we r talking about or might be diffrent one?

if your landlord has other properties/land he may have a joint sum mortgage, where bank if he gets behind on other mortgage repayments the bank can appoint receivers to any of the properties. Do you know does he have other property?

mischascha

id say so

hometruths

mischascha wrote: »

id say so

In the op you said the LL said:

"he only took the first correspondence saying that its about the land"

What did he mean by that?

mischascha

too many people involved in transferring this statement to me so at this point all i can say that he only assured that everything is at it was before.

hometruths

sounds like yet another fellow trying to pocket as much rent in cash before it all catches up with him.

pilly

mischascha wrote: »

too many people involved in transferring this statement to me so at this point all i can say that he only assured that everything is at it was before.

I'm not sure what your post means but if you mean the LL told you everything would be as before you can not believe him. If there's a receiver involved you must talk to them.

I can't express this enough OP, out of concern for you getting ripped off. If you continue to give the LL cash now you could easily get evicted anyway.

mischascha

thanks, can you tell me when can I read more about it? its fine with me if they want to sell the house, evict me and the rest, its not my house anyway, but just don't want to pay more then i have to, cheers

Cheshire Cat

Here is some info on threshold.ie http://www.threshold.ie/advice/dealing-with-problems-during-your-tenancy/has-a-receiver-taken-over-the-property-you-rent/

You can ring them if you have further questions.

Claw Hammer

Big thrill. Threshold often put people wrong.

athtrasna

Mod note

Withholding of rent is illegal. Any posts advocating this have been/will be deleted.