Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

got a letter looking for a rental from a multinational

  • 24-08-2017 10:08pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 473 ✭✭


    Got a letter today from a big name multi national, looking for a rental for their employee,

    "The jist the letter was

    multinational

    A Senior Executive of our company is looking to rent in this area for a 12 month period.

    Him his family of four are offering 2 months rental deposit and rent of €2500 per month.

    Bank Statements, ID, Previous Landlord references, will be supplied.

    If you have been considering renting your home please contact David Maurice in our office on

    01-*** ****"


    My question is can multi nationals do this without being registered as property agents?


    If the senior executive didnt pay up could you sue the multi national for the introduction?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,378 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    utmbuilder wrote:
    My question is can multi nationals do this without being registered as property agents?

    But they're not property agents. They're not offering a property to rent.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 Licherandkebab


    Isn't the company basically just acting as a reference though? I'd imagine unless someone representing the company signed the rent agreement they have no liability. I'd be very interested to hear what a solicitor says about it though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭begbysback


    What's the hullabaloo for ? Just take the money, or say no.

    You can be sure if they are a big multi national then they will pay up, reputation means more than a couple of grand rent.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,977 ✭✭✭mikemac2


    Multinationals care more abut their brand than anything else, even their employees!

    They will pay you for sure, if you don't like the offer just say no.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭subrosa


    Maybe I'm too suspicious, but sounds a little like a scam? I'd always be wary of unsolicited letters offering riches.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14 Yogaqueen


    Hi, please be very carefull here. It sounds too good to be true and may be a scam


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 992 ✭✭✭jamesthepeach


    I have my place rented to a multinational on a rolling short term basis.
    It really is a doddle.
    Ok would check out this guy who sent you the letter very carefully though.
    My multi national contacted me via agent. But contacted the agent via Airbnb.
    They pay good rent, almost double what I would get on normal rental, always on time, in advance. Looks after cleaning themselves and in the contract they will give it back in exactly the same condition or better than they took it.
    Also they have paid in advance til the end of the year with the option of another year.
    So well.worth it, but vet the guy to make sure it's on the up and up. Even call the company and ask for him. Don't call the number in the letter, get the number from the company website and ask for him there.

    Allegedly a lot of companies are doing this now.
    Company rents the apartment for a year and then puts whoever in. Landlord just forgets about it. At the end of the lease they either renew or give it back to you the way you gave it. So you only deal with the company and not any tenants. Really that's the way hap should work to but that's another story.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭begbysback


    Yogaqueen wrote: »
    Hi, please be very carefull here. It sounds too good to be true and may be a scam

    Too good to be true?? 2.5k per month in a desirable area is pretty much the going rate...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,316 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    begbysback wrote: »
    Too good to be true?? 2.5k per month in a desirable area is pretty much the going rate...
    I'd wonder if it's someone chancing their arm to get a place near their work?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Helped a colleague with a similar offer which they received unsolicited from a US multinational 2 weeks ago.
    They agreed the following:

    2 month deposit
    3 months rent in advance paid quarterly
    12 month lease- to the company itself- not the employee

    They weren't too happy- but it was a take-it-or-leave-it offer from the girl- and it was a really nice 3 bed apartment in a high demand area.

    The EUR2,500 a month is slightly over the going for the area (2,000-2,200 is more normal)- but the issue is complete and utter lack of supply.

    From PMs received from posters in this forum- Microsoft, Oracle and Intel are actively pursuing this technique to try and get accommodation for staff in the Dublin area at present- and comments from the US chamber of Commerce suggest its actively being discussed by other companies. Tends to be for staff at a particular level- Intel have posters up asking staff about spare bedrooms for a cohort coming over from Israel- for example- for more junior staff (including a few interns)..........

    If you're not satisfied- just walk- the properties that have been discussed by some folk here are all in high demand areas- and the only reason they eventually went with them- was they managed to get the contracts with the companies- rather than with the individuals- which was a far preferable way of doing it.

    Normally these people have a corporate contract with cleaners etc- you could chance your arm and try and get that included in the contract (wouldn't be a deal breaker if it wasn't- but it would be the icing on the cake, if it were).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭Mena


    This is pretty normal. I'd check everything per posters above but we follow the same process basically, depending on country and rental situation.

    I've expatted a few of my employees and we've gone this route, but it's dealt with by a specialised global mobility department.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    I have an apartment in Docklands rented to an employee of a financial company, he told me there are probably hundreds of employees in the financial services looking for similar apartments. Some very big players are looking at Dublin as a hub due to Brexit but can't get accomadation for those moving from London. If you have a property to rent and the company is paying for it, you won't have to worry about RTB so pick a figure and reply.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    davo10 wrote: »
    I have an apartment in Docklands rented to an employee of a financial company, he told me there are probably hundreds of employees in the financial services looking for similar apartments. Some very big players are looking at Dublin as a hub due to Brexit but can't get accomadation for those moving from London. If you have a property to rent and the company is paying for it, you won't have to worry about RTB so pick a figure and reply.

    It still comes under the rtb / rpz. A lot of pressure on the government to start enforcing rpz rules as well.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    davindub wrote: »
    It still comes under the rtb / rpz. A lot of pressure on the government to start enforcing rpz rules as well.

    Ah to be sure you're right of course.

    If Barclays are moving their European hub to Dublin and they need to house an employee, do you think Barclays are going to complain to the RTB?

    This is undoubtedly going to add fuel to the fire of upward rent in Dublin. Multinationals will not give a damn about the RTB or rent pressure zones/staid rent increases, all they will care about is housing their employees. The RTB respond to complaints from tenants, corporations are not going to complain, they want properties for their traders and the Government will welcome their taxes with open arms.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 903 ✭✭✭MysticMonk


    Its a scam letter..look at the wording.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    davo10 wrote: »
    Ah to be sure you're right of course.

    If Barclays are moving their European hub to Dublin and they need to house an employee, do you think Barclays are going to complain to the RTB?

    This is undoubtedly going to add fuel to the fire of upward rent in Dublin. Multinationals will not give a damn about the RTB or rent pressure zones/staid rent increases, all they will care about is housing their employees. The RTB respond to complaints from tenants, corporations are not going to complain, they want properties for their traders and the Government will welcome their taxes with open arms.

    Yes the multinational might not complain (employee might in future), it probably wouldn't be worth chasing the difference...although I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.

    But with recent developments and highlighting of breaches of the RPZ, it can be expected there will be measures introduced to tackle this year.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    davindub wrote: »
    Yes the multinational might not complain (employee might in future), it probably wouldn't be worth chasing the difference...although I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.

    But with recent developments and highlighting of breaches of the RPZ, it can be expected there will be measures introduced to tackle this year.

    Unless that includes knocking on doors and asking what you are paying, and and having ia record of what previous tenant was paying I don't see how what you are saying will work.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    davindub wrote: »
    Yes the multinational might not complain (employee might in future), it probably wouldn't be worth chasing the difference...although I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.

    But with recent developments and highlighting of breaches of the RPZ, it can be expected there will be measures introduced to tackle this year.

    Only the person paying rent can complain, if the lease was agreed by the multinational, the employee is a non entity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    davo10 wrote: »
    davindub wrote: »
    Yes the multinational might not complain (employee might in future), it probably wouldn't be worth chasing the difference...although I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.

    But with recent developments and highlighting of breaches of the RPZ, it can be expected there will be measures introduced to tackle this year.

    Unless that includes knocking on doors and asking what you are paying, and and having ia record of what previous tenant was paying I don't see how what you are saying will work.

    3 things, 1 you declare rent when registering a tenancy , 2 revenue returns , 3 statistical analysis investigate the highest rents in an area.

    Whole range of other methods including asking every owner to make a declaration of rent for the last ten years & like revenue more than likely prison if misrepresent, or make the fines so large it deters.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    davo10 wrote: »
    davindub wrote: »
    Yes the multinational might not complain (employee might in future), it probably wouldn't be worth chasing the difference...although I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.

    But with recent developments and highlighting of breaches of the RPZ, it can be expected there will be measures introduced to tackle this year.

    Only the person paying rent can complain, if the lease was agreed by the multinational, the employee is a non entity.

    The person residing there is the tenant, providing the type of rental is not exempted from the RTB act. Don't forget a employee does not get the apartment for free, they pay bik on the mv of the rent. If they left the company they can retain procession but the payee would change. Similar to Hap.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,580 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    davindub wrote: »
    I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.
    Well, they can have a skilled worker at a total package of X or they can have no skilled worker and forego sales of 10X. Which would you like?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,207 ✭✭✭99nsr125


    Ask for more money
    You'll need to rent somewhere
    3.5k to cover
    utmbuilder wrote: »
    Got a letter today from a big name multi national, looking for a rental for their employee,

    "The jist the letter was

    multinational

    A Senior Executive of our company is looking to rent in this area for a 12 month period.

    Him his family of four are offering 2 months rental deposit and rent of €2500 per month.

    Bank Statements, ID, Previous Landlord references, will be supplied.

    If you have been considering renting your home please contact David Maurice in our office on

    01-*** ****"


    My question is can multi nationals do this without being registered as property agents?


    If the senior executive didnt pay up could you sue the multi national for the introduction?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 992 ✭✭✭jamesthepeach


    davindub wrote: »
    Yes the multinational might not complain (employee might in future), it probably wouldn't be worth chasing the difference...although I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.

    But with recent developments and highlighting of breaches of the RPZ, it can be expected there will be measures introduced to tackle this year.


    I'm renting to the company itself. I don't even know who is in there. As far as I am concerned the name on the lease is the company name, well the CFOs name it is I think that signed it.. They could put a donkey in there for all i care as long as they pay the rent. The company can make a profit if they want or give it away for free.
    But they are responsible for that donkey. They answer calls, deal with problems, collect whatever they want off themin return for lodgings, and remove the donkey at the end.
    Suits both parties.

    If the govt wanted to rent from me like this tjen that would work too. But they don't so I'm not taking hap. And I want nothing to do with the rtb so no regulate letting either.
    The short term is working out so much better so far. The day it stops working out is the day I sell, unless I have a use for the property myself at the time.


  • Posts: 24,714 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    davindub wrote: »
    The person residing there is the tenant, providing the type of rental is not exempted from the RTB act. Don't forget a employee does not get the apartment for free, they pay bik on the mv of the rent. If they left the company they can retain procession but the payee would change. Similar to Hap.

    Technically they should pay bik, the reality could be quite different if the apartment is rented in the name of the company.

    Similar to how some employees company cars are "pool cars" so no bik is applicable.

    What people are saying when they talk about no RTB is that it's the company renting the place and they can just kick out an employee if they wish so the LL has no concerns about overholding, rent not being paid etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 992 ✭✭✭jamesthepeach


    What people are saying when they talk about no RTB is that it's the company renting the place and they can just kick out an employee if they wish so the LL has no concerns about overholding, rent not being paid etc.

    Exactly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Technically they should pay bik, the reality could be quite different if the apartment is rented in the name of the company.

    Similar to how some employees company cars are "pool cars" so no bik is applicable.

    What people are saying when they talk about no RTB is that it's the company renting the place and they can just kick out an employee if they wish so the LL has no concerns about overholding, rent not being paid etc.

    From the act

    “tenant” means the person for the time being entitled to the occupation of a dwelling under a tenancy and, where the context so admits, includes a person who has ceased to be entitled to that occupation by reason of the termination of his or her tenancy.

    So any employee there for 6 months or more will gain part 4 rights.

    As I said there is an exemption in s.24, but IMO it would require specific steps to be taken by the company and would be better applied to property owned by the company or accommodation onsite, it would be harder to apply it to an property they sourced for a particular employee to reside in long term.

    BIK is definitely due on the MV of the rent, it's a specific rule, there are exemptions, like if the employee must live on the premises due to the nature of their employment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 992 ✭✭✭jamesthepeach


    Of course an employees and a companies tax affairs are their own business as far as I'm concerned.

    But seriously we are getting into aunties having balls territory here at this stage.


  • Posts: 24,714 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    davindub wrote: »
    From the act

    “tenant” means the person for the time being entitled to the occupation of a dwelling under a tenancy and, where the context so admits, includes a person who has ceased to be entitled to that occupation by reason of the termination of his or her tenancy.

    So any employee there for 6 months or more will gain part 4 rights.

    As I said there is an exemption in s.24, but IMO it would require specific steps to be taken by the company and would be better applied to property owned by the company or accommodation onsite, it would be harder to apply it to an property they sourced for a particular employee to reside in long term.

    BIK is definitely due on the MV of the rent, it's a specific rule, there are exemptions, like if the employee must live on the premises due to the nature of their employment.

    Do you really think that a tenant won't be given a week to vacate by the company if they are no longer employed there or bring the company into disrepute. The company is the lease holder no they can so I'm reality they can do as they please with the employee living there. I have heard of this type of set up plenty of times and the company moves around the people living there as they please.

    As for bik, I never said it wasn't due but the fact it's due doesn't mean it will be paid.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Do you really think that a tenant won't be given a week to vacate by the company if they are no longer employed there or bring the company into disrepute. The company is the lease holder no they can so I'm reality they can do as they please with the employee living there. I have heard of this type of set up plenty of times and the company moves around the people living there as they please.

    As for bik, I never said it wasn't due but the fact it's due doesn't mean it will be paid.

    As I said, it really depends on the employment agreement between the employee and the company, the company would need to take steps to ensure that the employee is excluded from the act.

    Non payment of BIK would be highlighted in any company that undergoes annual audit. TBH most companies would force bik to be paid, they are responsible for the collection.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,514 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    How does one register a company with the RTB given the lack of a PPS number? Is it not a commercial letting in that case?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    davindub wrote: »
    As I said, it really depends on the employment agreement between the employee and the company, the company would need to take steps to ensure that the employee is excluded from the act.

    Non payment of BIK would be highlighted in any company that undergoes annual audit. TBH most companies would force bik to be paid, they are responsible for the collection.

    You are over thinking this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    davo10 wrote: »
    You are over thinking this.

    Which part?

    The RTB act applies to all residential lettings unless the exemption criteria is met, how has the exemption criteria been met? If not, its RTB.


  • Posts: 24,714 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    davindub wrote: »
    Which part?

    The RTB act applies to all residential lettings unless the exemption criteria is met, how has the exemption criteria been met? If not, its RTB.

    Who is going to stop the company throwing out the employee if they wish? They are the leaseholder not the LL the RTB have no power over them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    davindub wrote: »
    Which part?

    The RTB act applies to all residential lettings unless the exemption criteria is met, how has the exemption criteria been met? If not, its RTB.

    I can see it now, google sends over their best attorneys for the RTB case: Google -v- Sean O''Donnell.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,580 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    TheChizler wrote: »
    How does one register a company with the RTB given the lack of a PPS number? Is it not a commercial letting in that case?
    Companies have tax registration numbers, but remember that not all employers are companies.
    Who is going to stop the company throwing out the employee if they wish? They are the leaseholder not the LL the RTB have no power over them.
    The employer would need to create a licencee situation with the employee, but it could be precarious legally. The objective of the act is to protect tenants and that's what a judge will look at when dealing with an illegal eviction.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 992 ✭✭✭jamesthepeach


    If I rent my apartment to Company A.
    They then sublet it to person B or person C. Maybe they have a contract with person B saying you can have the use of our property while you are working for us and while we don't need it for someone else. I don't really care as I let it to.company A.
    I have nothing to do with person B.
    I don't even know person B exists.
    Person B doesn't even know I exist.
    There is no relationship whatsoever between me and person B.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Maybe they have a contract with person B saying you can have the use of our property while you are working for us and while we don't need it for someone else.

    Good. That would be a step in the right direction, have they got this in place?

    I don't really care as I let it to.company A.
    I have nothing to do with person B.
    I don't even know person B exists.
    Person B doesn't even know I exist.
    There is no relationship whatsoever between me and person B.

    It doesn't matter, what matters is the person in the property, person b has possession and its B you need to remove.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,508 ✭✭✭Manion


    davindub wrote: »
    3 things, 1 you declare rent when registering a tenancy , 2 revenue returns , 3 statistical analysis investigate the highest rents in an area.

    Whole range of other methods including asking every owner to make a declaration of rent for the last ten years & like revenue more than likely prison if misrepresent, or make the fines so large it deters.

    Thats what the supply problem needs, prison terms for landlords who fail to report rent correctly. I think you'll find people chopping at the bit for a piece of that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 992 ✭✭✭jamesthepeach


    davindub wrote: »
    t doesn't matter, what matters is the person in the property, person b has possession and its B you need to remove.

    Nail on the head.
    A person I didn't let my property to, never met, and didn't know was even in the property has full possession and control of MY property.
    Well it's no wonder landlords don't think the system is working for them and are looking for ways out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 992 ✭✭✭jamesthepeach


    Manion wrote: »
    Thats what the supply problem needs, prison terms for landlords who fail to report rent correctly. I think you'll find people chopping at the bit for a piece of that.

    This legislation situation is all a bit farcical. Are you trying to make.it even more farcical than it is already? :)

    So if you send landlords to prison for reporting rents wrongly, what do you suggest we do when people don't pay the rent and won't leave?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,508 ✭✭✭Manion


    You missed the sarcasm


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 992 ✭✭✭jamesthepeach


    Manion wrote: »
    You missed the sarcasm

    I never miss sarcasm, though sometimes the sarcasm in my replies gets missed. Sometimes a smiley helps, but sometimes it doesn't.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    davindub wrote: »
    Good.



    It doesn't matter, what matters is the person in the property, person b has possession and its B you need to remove.

    Person B might be in occupation but what does his right to occupation epend on? lease or licence or becuase of his office or occupation. Only if it is a lease can he go to the RTB.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Person B might be in occupation but what does his right to occupation epend on? lease or licence or becuase of his office or occupation. Only if it is a lease can he go to the RTB.

    The girl who I helped a couple of weeks ago- has registered the tenancy with the RTB, listing the company who are letting the property as the tenant- and has no idea who the actual person they are putting in the unit is (and it was also implied it may be vacant for periods between being occupied, and it may also be used by the company as a venue for training sessions etc- however, it is a residential letting).

    The company *are* the tenant- and the contact person if there is an issue- is the head of personnel.

    Yes- it would be interesting- if there was ever a dispute- however, the landlord is certain the company will vouch for the good behaviour of whoever lives in the unit- as their good name is on the line- and the girl is very happy with the corporate cleaning of the unit etc- alongside the schedule for payments (3 monthly in advance, paid quarterly).

    Everyone seems to be a winner here- and the company in question are a Canadian company- who are expanding their Dublin footprint, post Brexit and were having severe issues getting accommodation of a reasonable standard, in good locations, for traders.

    If you google statements from the US Chamber of Commerce- you'll see several detailed discussions on this.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    The girl who I helped a couple of weeks ago- has registered the tenancy with the RTB, listing the company who are letting the property as the tenant- and has no idea who the actual person they are putting in the unit is (and it was also implied it may be vacant for periods between being occupied, and it may also be used by the company as a venue for training sessions etc- however, it is a residential letting).

    The company *are* the tenant- and the contact person if there is an issue- is the head of personnel.

    Yes- it would be interesting- if there was ever a dispute- however, the landlord is certain the company will vouch for the good behaviour of whoever lives in the unit- as their good name is on the line- and the girl is very happy with the corporate cleaning of the unit etc- alongside the schedule for payments (3 monthly in advance, paid quarterly).

    Everyone seems to be a winner here- and the company in question are a Canadian company- who are expanding their Dublin footprint, post Brexit and were having severe issues getting accommodation of a reasonable standard, in good locations, for traders.

    If you google statements from the US Chamber of Commerce- you'll see several detailed discussions on this.
    This does not answer my question!


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    This does not answer my question!

    Its a contractual arrangement between the occupant and the leaseholder- in this instance the HR Department of the company concerned. Its not catered for in the Residential Tenancies Act- though it would be at the discretion of either party to either take- or defend a case there. How any defence of such a case, or whether they were even willing to hear a dispute- would go- I honestly do not know- its wholly uncharted waters.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Its a contractual arrangement between the occupant and the leaseholder- in this instance the HR Department of the company concerned. Its not catered for in the Residential Tenancies Act- though it would be at the discretion of either party to either take- or defend a case there. How any defence of such a case, or whether they were even willing to hear a dispute- would go- I honestly do not know- its wholly uncharted waters.

    Either the RTB has jurisdiction or it doesn't. It can't have jurisdiction just because one side wants to go there. I know of a landlady who had a case brought by a tenant to the RTB thrown out because of a lack of jurisdiction.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Either the RTB has jurisdiction or it doesn't. It can't have jurisdiction just because one side wants to go there. I know of a landlady who had a case brought by a tenant to the RTB thrown out because of a lack of jurisdiction.

    The employee will not have any basis to take an RTB case as it is not a tenant as it does not pay rent in respect of the dwelling. Whether the company can take a case is a different matter. Fundamentally, in such circumstances if the landlord fails to maintain the property or provide any required facilities, it will result in a termination not a dispute.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭Loon E. Tick


    Everyone seems to be a winner here- and the company in question are a Canadian company- who are expanding their Dublin footprint, post Brexit and were having severe issues getting accommodation of a reasonable standard, in good locations, for traders.

    If you google statements from the US Chamber of Commerce- you'll see several detailed discussions on this.
    A lot of multinationals have always sourced accommodation for some staff which they have had to bring in from outside the country to fill vacancies short-term. An issue which has been flagged for some time is that some multinationals need to bring in hundreds more fill vacancies due to expansion and there's not going to be anywhere to accommodate them. Those staff already relocating here longer term are demanding higher salaries due to high rents and can cause tension among existing staff who are not getting similar increases. There really isn't going to be sufficient supply to house extra employees and that's just only in the IT sector.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Marcusm wrote: »
    The employee will not have any basis to take an RTB case as it is not a tenant as it does not pay rent in respect of the dwelling. Whether the company can take a case is a different matter. Fundamentally, in such circumstances if the landlord fails to maintain the property or provide any required facilities, it will result in a termination not a dispute.

    There is no basis for denying a tenant standing to take a case because they do not pay rent, nor that a third party pays rent.

    Just to clarify what is in the act.

    RTB act applies to all residential lettings unless exempted.
    (2) Subject to section 4 (2), this Act does not apply to any of the following dwellings—

    (a) a dwelling that is used wholly or partly for the purpose of carrying on a business, such that the occupier could, after the tenancy has lasted 5 years, make an application under section 13 (1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 in respect of it,

    (b) a dwelling to which Part II of the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act 1982 applies,

    (c) a dwelling let by or to—

    (i) a public authority, or

    (ii) a body standing approved for the purposes of section 6 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992 and which is occupied by a person referred to in section 9 (2) of the Housing Act 1988 ,

    (d) a dwelling, the occupier of which is entitled to acquire, under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act 1978 , the fee simple in respect of it,

    (e) a dwelling occupied under a shared ownership lease,

    (f) a dwelling let to a person whose entitlement to occupation is for the purpose of a holiday only,

    (g) a dwelling within which the landlord also resides,

    (h) a dwelling within which the spouse, parent or child of the landlord resides and no lease or tenancy agreement in writing has been entered into by any person resident in the dwelling,

    (i) a dwelling the subject of a tenancy granted under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 or under Part III of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1931 or which is the subject of an application made under section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 and the court has yet to make its determination in the matter.

    Part 4 will arise unless s.25 applies
    PART 4

    Security of Tenure

    Chapter 1

    Preliminary

    Non-application of Part.

    (4) This Part does not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling—

    (b) if the entitlement of the tenant to occupy the dwelling is connected with his or her continuance in any office, appointment or employment.

    .

    I have highlighted the only relevant step a company can take to exclude the apartment from the RTB act.

    Part 4 can be probably be prevented by non-exclusive occupation of the dwelling where only employees have access. I don't think it can be achieved on a one bedroom apartment or house let for a single person.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement