County council are happy with their tenants overholding

hawkelady

TheChizler wrote: »

The Student wrote: »

I think the Council are responsible, I did not have an opportunity to have a look at my lease but working from memory the council have the right to choose the tenant and if that tenant moves within the lease the council have the right to re-let the property to another tenant they choose.

As I mentioned, placing tenants in the property is one of their responsibilities.

The Student wrote: »

I would be suing both parties for overholding as both are parties to the contract. I would not be suing the Council for illegal advise between the council and the tenant that is a matter for the tenant to decide if they were given illegal advise.

Are the same terms of the contract placed on both the council and tenant, are they jointly and severally liable? I don't think so. As long as the council keep up their end of the bargain, which is paying rent as long as the tenant is there, I don't know what part of the contract they would be in breach of.

Sorry for the confusion above. To answer , I feel the council are responsible for this but they are just steam rolling another landlord!! The council are responsible for finding a new home for the tenants when an eviction notice is served. My feeling is the council are quite happy to allow overholding if they can't find another home for them. Also , the tenant can turn down an offer of a home if they want. I feel I'm the one screwed over. I'll be engaging with a solicitor anyway.

cursai

They wouldn't get away with this carry on if it was a large company owning the property. I suppose they'd be too smart to get involved with the CC in the first place.....

Bass Reeves

cursai wrote: »

Jesus that's some. I've a fully kitted out granny flat on my property that o took of the market and turned into a man cave/den as there's no way i want to deal with the rental market. People tell me i'm mad not to. I live in the middle of a busy town. Scummy practices like this and passing the problem on.

You have to look at renting as a business you will have your ups and downs. IMO lots af tenants are responsibe just like lots of landlords. Over holding is not the end of the world if you are getting paid rent. Where it is an issue is where you are getting nothing

Lots of people get involved in being a landlord for the wrong reason. In this case it is a problem for the OP as the house maeket is quite hot and they may miss a good selling opportunity. However they may be able to hold Council laibal and there solicitor should also indicate to the council that they will also sue if the property value falls before sale. This may pressurize council into arranging accomodation for Tenant.

With a granny flat like taht you had other choices such as AirBnB. But even renting by being patience and vetting tensnts you can still make a return on property provided you treat it as a business.

However would it stop me renting a property to to a tenant or to a council. No business is business. Business people often do not get paid for work done due to insolvency or non payment by another business. A one bedroom granny flat in a busy town would command a rent of at least 350-400/month and maybe 500. Friend of mine bought a small 2 bed house 2 years ago and has it rented at a gross yield of 13%. It will return nearly 10% net of costs.

TheChizler wrote: »

As I mentioned, placing tenants in the property is one of their responsibilities.


Are the same terms of the contract placed on both the council and tenant, are they jointly and severally liable? I don't think so. As long as the council keep up their end of the bargain, which is paying rent as long as the tenant is there, I don't know what part of the contract they would be in breach of.

The council would make themselves jointly libel if it was proven that they encouraged/advised tenant to overhold.

cursai wrote: »

They wouldn't get away with this carry on if it was a large company owning the property. I suppose they'd be too smart to get involved with the CC in the first place.....

This is a reality if they will not try this with REITS. If they do these company's will not rent to councils and will find it easier to prove Council complicity in overholding

Bass Reeves

island_visitor wrote: »

i know its somewhat different but with regard the long term lease where the landlord leases the house - apartment to the local authority for ten years minimum and the landlord has no direct dealings with the tenant , if the tenant decides to stop paying rent to the council , can the council in turn suspend rent to the landlord ? , i know they advertise the scheme to landlords as being guarenteed rent but are these examples where they can suspend - cancel rent ?

I would doubt it as Councils take over maintenance in some of these cases. Council is collecting rent from tenant and have taken this responsibility from landlord

the_syco

Engage solicitor about the process that will end with hiring a sheriff to evict the tenant.

If the CC do not want to play ball, don't engage with them.

Michael D Not Higgins

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The council would make themselves jointly libel if it was proven that they encouraged/advised tenant to overhold.

It has been demonstrated several times that Threshold advise overholding to tenants and they are not hauled in front of the RTB as it's the tenant's responsibility to act within the law.

There are three relationships under RAS:

1. The local authority engage with a landlord for a fixed period and agree terms and costs involved. This is not a tenancy agreement and the council are not tenants or covered by the RTA2004.

2. The local authority and the tenant enter an agreement for the tenant to go onto the scheme where the local authority pay the landlord directly.

3. The tenant and landlord enter a tenancy agreement governed by the RTA2004 with all the rights and responsibilities therein. The separate agreements only cover payment of the monthly rent. The council do not accept any responsibility for a breach of the tenant's responsibilities as required by the RTA2004 beyond the monthly rent.

KellyXX

I understand now why landlords won't rent to people getting Ras or hap etc.

They must be either desperate or mad if they do take hap or Ras.

hawkelady

Hi again, I have engaged with a solicitor, gave him all the info/documents and he said he's going to look into it and come back to me next week..
I was quite annoyed that the council never got back to me regarding the numerous calls/emails I sent them this week so I decided to take a half day off work and call into the council today. I met with the person who emailed me the "over holding" email and sat down with him in his office.. I told him that we could have done this over the phone or email rather than me actually call in and he said that they are inundated with evictions due to LL's selling up so he hadn't time to return my calls !!

Anyway, I asked him about the email he sent and was it legal, his reply was that "its coming from the top and we're being told that its government policy so in actual fact it is legal" I didn't know what to say after that. He must have seen the shock on my face because he started saying his supervisor is on holidays and is back next week and he will consult with him when he gets back.

I also found out that I've been paying the RTB reg fees that I shouldn't have cause my property is rented to the council.

I was also told that due to being not one property in the area for rent that it will be likely that they wont be out before the notice is up and is that ok. I never answered him .
He also said that he agrees its a catch 22 but there is absolutely no possibility of the council putting in an offer while there are tenants in situ.. The property must be vacant . The old saying "if they had brains ,they'd be dangerous" comes to mind .

I'm at a loss at this stage, hopefully the solicitor will have more fighting power!!

Spanish Eyes

@Hawkelady,

To be in the RAS scheme or Hap (I think) the LL must provide proof of RTB reg, Tax clearance, evidence that the property is insured, and a signed agreement.

Where did you hear this about not having to be registered with RTB please?

hawkelady

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

@Hawkelady,

To be in the RAS scheme or Hap (I think) the LL must provide proof of RTB reg, Tax clearance, evidence that the property is insured, and a signed agreement.

Where did you hear this about not having to be registered with RTB please?

Hi , I had initially registered with the PRTB and had paid the subsequent renewals every 4 years .. When I was in there today it came up that as I rented to the council I was exempt ,maybe from just the renewals,, anyway I rang the RTB while I was in there and I told them the story, as I paid my renewal last November. The Rtb told me that I was indeed exempt and she sorted out refunding me the 90 euro !!
Yes, I need an annual Tax clearance cert.. I never had to provide evidence that the place was insured and the only thing I signed was the contracts.. I had the council out to look over the place ,eg I had to supply a fire blanket etc.. That's it basically, I've been with the council since 2004 with a few terrible tenants ,believe me !!

Spanish Eyes

hawkelady wrote: »

Hi , I had initially registered with the PRTB and had paid the subsequent renewals every 4 years .. When I was in there today it came up that as I rented to the council I was exempt ,maybe from just the renewals,, anyway I rang the RTB while I was in there and I told them the story, as I paid my renewal last November. The Rtb told me that I was indeed exempt and she sorted out refunding me the 90 euro !!
Yes, I need an annual Tax clearance cert.. I never had to provide evidence that the place was insured and the only thing I signed was the contracts.. I had the council out to look over the place ,eg I had to supply a fire blanket etc.. That's it basically, I've been with the council since 2004 with a few terrible tenants ,believe me !!

I only ask because an elderly relative has her modest house rented on RAS.

Recently there was (at last!) a rent increase, and in order to avail of it she had to provide all the details I mentioned above.

You may be in a different scheme, but that is what the Council required from her. No mention of an exemption from RTB fees.

hawkelady

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I only ask because an elderly relative has her modest house rented on RAS.

Recently there was (at last!) a rent increase, and in order to avail of it she had to provide all the details I mentioned above.

You may be in a different scheme, but that is what the Council required from her. No mention of an exemption from RTB fees.

I'm in the RAS scheme.. The council will tell you nothing as I'm slowly finding out
Get your relative to ring RTB on Monday , I think it will be well worth the call.
I've also had small rent increases and decreases over the years and I never had to provide that other stuff... Its as if the council make it up as they go along because I know that I need a BER cert for the council but they never once asked me to get one. They must have a quick turnover of staff in that dept. as its always someone new when there is contact with them.

Hope you get sorted

Spanish Eyes

hawkelady wrote: »

I'm in the RAS scheme.. The council will tell you nothing as I'm slowly finding out
Get your relative to ring RTB on Monday , I think it will be well worth the call.
I've also had small rent increases and decreases over the years and I never had to provide that other stuff... Its as if the council make it up as they go along because I know that I need a BER cert for the council but they never once asked me to get one. They must have a quick turnover of staff in that dept. as its always someone new when there is contact with them.

Hope you get sorted

Will try the RTB on the phone for sure. I am baffled that the Council did not say anything about exemption. But as you say there is no consistency. If I knew how to post a photo I would show you the list of things they required from my aunt. And it was....

1, RTB registration
2, Insurance for the property
3. Tax clearance (although that can now be done remotely with a ref with Revenue)
4. Signed document.

WTF?

Anyway aunt has all these so I'm not going to get heated about it.





I must look up the legislation behind exemption for RAS LLs.

martinr5232

hawkelady wrote:

Anyway, I asked him about the email he sent and was it legal, his reply was that "its coming from the top and we're being told that its government policy so in actual fact it is legal" I didn't know what to say after that. He must have seen the shock on my face because he started saying his supervisor is on holidays and is back next week and he will consult with him when he gets back.

Just because its council or government policy doesnt make it legal.
Hopefully your solicitor can find a way of getting them out.

the_syco

hawkelady wrote: »

I also found out that I've been paying the RTB reg fees that I shouldn't have cause my property is rented to the council.

If you could get that bit in writing; present it to your solicitor, because I thought your contract would have been with the tenant?

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

No mention of an exemption from RTB fees.

Either way, ensure you get it in writing.

surrender monkey

Here's info on RAS from the Department of Housing's website. It clearly states that a RAS tenancy should be registered.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/rental-accommodation-scheme/rental-accommodation-scheme-information-tenants


http://www.sdcc.ie/services/housing/leasing-initiatives/long-term-leasing-initiative
Also info from SDCC website states that RAS must be registered ??

http://www.sdcc.ie/services/housing/leasing-initiatives/the-rental-accommodation-scheme-ras

Click FAQ's for landlords.

I know the long term leasing scheme (20 year leases) the landlord does not have to register the tenancy perhaps that's where the confusion is coming from??

hawkelady

surrender monkey wrote: »

Here's info on RAS from the Department of Housing's website. It clearly states that a RAS tenancy should be registered.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/rental-accommodation-scheme/rental-accommodation-scheme-information-tenants




http://www.sdcc.ie/services/housing/leasing-initiatives/long-term-leasing-initiative
Also info from SDCC website states that RAS must be registered ??

http://www.sdcc.ie/services/housing/leasing-initiatives/the-rental-accommodation-scheme-ras

Click FAQ's for landlords.

I know the long term leasing scheme (20 year leases) the landlord does not have to register the tenancy perhaps that's where the confusion is coming from??

Maybe you're right. I have the long term lease alright but when I was talking to the RTB she never asked me that at all. Once I told her the council was involved she apologised and started the refund process.

The_Conductor

TheChizler wrote: »

The council have no responsibility over the tenant, their only responsibility beyond placing a tenant in the property is paying rent and acting as guarantor for the rent.

These are RAS tenants- not HAP tenants.

surrender monkey

hawkelady wrote: »

Maybe you're right. I have the long term lease alright but when I was talking to the RTB she never asked me that at all. Once I told her the council was involved she apologised and started the refund process.

Is it a RAS tenancy a 5 or 10 year lease where the council pick the tenants and your responsible for tenant issues ? The long term leasing is where the Council take it for 20 years, deal with tenants, deal with maintenance and then hand it back at the end of the term.

Heart Break Kid

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A house can be bought with a sitting tenant but no bank will finance it. The price has to be reduced to entice a cash buyer.

Most wont even touch it unless vacant possession.

Spanish Eyes

The_Conductor wrote: »

These are RAS tenants- not HAP tenants.

And before too long RAS will be morphed into HAP. No guarantees for LL if tenant does not pay their share on HAP. That is just not right.

Is it?

Not at you personally of course! just the set up as it is now.

TheChizler

The_Conductor wrote: »

These are RAS tenants- not HAP tenants.

Yes. I stand by my original statement.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/rental-accommodation-scheme/rental-accommodation-scheme-information-tenants

RAS involves a three-way relationship between:

The local authority and the landlord
The landlord and the tenant
The tenant and the local authority
The local authority will seek to enter into a contractual arrangement with the accommodation provider to make housing available to RAS for an agreed term. The terms of this contract will be negotiated between the two parties. The accommodation may be an existing property or new build. The local authority will guarantee the rent on behalf of the tenant and will undertake to make the full payment directly to the landlord.

The local authority will then nominate a RAS recipient to the accommodation who signs a residential tenancy agreement with the landlord. The nominee could be an existing tenant of the property who currently receives rent supplement and is eligible for RAS. The local authority will be party to this agreement as guarantor of the rent.

Finally, the RAS recipient and the local authority agree that the local authority will make payments to the landlord on the recipient's behalf.

Michael D Not Higgins

TheChizler wrote: »

Yes. I stand by my original statement.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/rental-accommodation-scheme/rental-accommodation-scheme-information-tenants

That was my understanding as well but it seems like the long term lease part of the scheme does take maintenance and tenant responsibilities into council hands.

You'd have to check the contract with the local authority for termination clauses and any come back there. Good luck with your solicitor OP.

Baralis1

I'm afraid that I've little sympathy for the landlord. You are effectively trying to make this family homeless. If you planned to sell up, you should have thought of that before this family made your property their home and rented to shorter term tenants. Where are these people supposed to go? Do they have kids?

martinr5232

Baralis1 wrote:

I'm afraid that I've little sympathy for the landlord. You are effectively trying to make this family homeless. If you planned to sell up, you should have thought of that before this family made your property their home and rented to shorter term tenants. Where are these people supposed to go? Do they have kids?

Its not private landlords job to house council tennants that is down to the council.
When they cant supply social housing they rent in the private sector.

The op wants to sell an asset so should be able to sell anytime they want and also if you read the full thread you would have seen the council were offered the oppertunity to purchase the property but declined.

tretorn

Its no wonder people are afraid to rent property with the sentiments expressed by Baralis, I suppose he or she is a salaried employee of one of those numerous NGOs/ charities who are busy telling tenants to stay illegally in someone elses property.

I have property rented and as soon as my own family need vacant possession then I will be telling the tenants they have to leave. I dont care if they will be living in a shoe with their family, that is not my concern, my concern in the children I have brought into the world and every decision I make is with their best interests at heart.

I told my solicitor I was renting this property and his first words were "how are you going to get them out", that comment really bothered me and after reading this thread I can see where he was coming from. I didnt let to HAP or RAS people though so hopefully this family will vacate without trouble when asked to.

hawkelady

Baralis1 wrote: »

I'm afraid that I've little sympathy for the landlord. You are effectively trying to make this family homeless. If you planned to sell up, you should have thought of that before this family made your property their home and rented to shorter term tenants. Where are these people supposed to go? Do they have kids?

Yes they have kids. You clearly haven't thought this through. Let's say for instance that if the landlord doesn't sell the property they might be made homeless themselves.
Martins comment above makes absolute sense ..

TheChizler

tretorn wrote: »

I dont care if they will be living in a shoe with their family,

...

I told my solicitor I was renting this property and his first words were "how are you going to get them out", that comment really bothered me and after reading this thread I can see where he was coming from. I didnt let to HAP or RAS people though so hopefully this family will vacate without trouble when asked to.

There's no point in treating every tenant like the enemy, as if they are some lower class who you are doing a massive favour to by letting them live in your property in exchange for payment. It's not you versus them. That kind of attitude will only end up causing bad relations between ye. I'm sure most landlords would agree that most tenants are fine and will treat you right if you treat them right, and will leave when given a legitimate reason.

My own landlord at he moment treats us incredibly well and pretty much if she asked us to jump we'd pretty much ask how high. I've had one in the past who left us in a dangerous situation of their own doing and while we were good tenants and wouldn't have overhead, we would have done them zero favours as well.

beauf

Baralis1 wrote: »

I'm afraid that I've little sympathy for the landlord. You are effectively trying to make this family homeless. If you planned to sell up, you should have thought of that before this family made your property their home and rented to shorter term tenants. Where are these people supposed to go? Do they have kids?

Wouldn't they be homeless already only for the Landlord had a house for them originally?

Why is not everyone obligation to take a loan out for 300k and let people stay in it?

Farmer Bob

cursai wrote: »

Would it not be prudent to turn off all utilities whilst the house is waiting to be sold. In case of fire or flooding. Just to be safe. You don't want any squatters in there starting a fire etc.

Absolutely moronic advice. Can you really be that stupid?