Rental house gone back to bank

Recliner

Hi..details second hand so I'm hoping they're correct. House rented for over 2 yrs, private renters.House gone back to bank (or NAMA). Tenants have been told that the house is going to be put on the market. They are not in a position to buy. They've been told that they have to clear out all their belongings for the photos to be taken for sale and that every time the house is being viewed that they have to remove all their belongings also. If they don't comply with this, they'll be evicted. Also AFAIK the house has not been registered with the PTRB. It seems to be the homeowner that the tenants are dealing with. Does any of this sound right? It sounds crazy to me.

Graces7

Recliner wrote: »

Hi..details second hand so I'm hoping they're correct. House rented for over 2 yrs, private renters.House gone back to bank (or NAMA). Tenants have been told that the house is going to be put on the market. They are not in a position to buy. They've been told that they have to clear out all their belongings for the photos to be taken for sale and that every time the house is being viewed that they have to remove all their belongings also. If they don't comply with this, they'll be evicted. Also AFAIK the house has not been registered with the PTRB. It seems to be the homeowner that the tenants are dealing with. Does any of this sound right? It sounds crazy to me.

Call Threshold please as this is totally out of order. There are legalities and provisions thankfully .

Cash_Q

Totally unreasonable and interferes with their right to enjoy privacy in their home.

Friends of ours are renting an apartment 5 years, bank repossessed it about 2 years ago. It's now been on the market about a year. My friend insists on being present for every viewing as she has her personal property to protect. She also gives real and genuine feedback to potential buyers about the quality of the apartment and the work needing to be done.

We are about to close on the purchase of a house that had been rented. The tenant wasn't very accommodating, the house was never in presentable condition for viewing, she stood in the garden with her two kids when we came for a second viewing despite having picked the day and time herself, and she refused to allow me to attend the survey despite having picked the day and time for this herself too. At the end of the day she was perfectly within her rights to do all that and as buyers we just had to let it go over our heads.

The_Conductor

Cash_Q wrote: »

Totally unreasonable and interferes with their right to enjoy privacy in their home.

Friends of ours are renting an apartment 5 years, bank repossessed it about 2 years ago. It's now been on the market about a year. My friend insists on being present for every viewing as she has her personal property to protect. She also gives real and genuine feedback to potential buyers about the quality of the apartment and the work needing to be done.

We are about to close on the purchase of a house that had been rented. The tenant wasn't very accommodating, the house was never in presentable condition for viewing, she stood in the garden with her two kids when we came for a second viewing despite having picked the day and time herself, and she refused to allow me to attend the survey despite having picked the day and time for this herself too. At the end of the day she was perfectly within her rights to do all that and as buyers we just had to let it go over our heads.

This is why landlords, banks, receivers etc- really need to formally end tenancies when they intend to sell- its impossible to conduct a regular sale with a sitting tenant (not to mention- no prospective buyer can get a mortgage on a property- unless they have vacant possession of a property). Any mortgage offers for buyers on property- are voided- if vacant possession is not obvious (regardless of any assurances that tenants might give).

If the landlord/bank/receiver (or whoever) wants to sell- they need to give the tenant valid notice to end the tenancy- and only once they have confirmed vacant possession of the property- should they try to sell. Anything else- is a complete waste of time.

OP- your friend needs to ascertain whether or not the landlord or receiver is legitimately trying to sell- or not- and take it from there (which includes making every reasonable effort to find alternate accommodation!!!!)

punisher5112

The bank will just give notice to end tenancy.

Happened to use over 2 years ago.

Bank appointed representative arrived at the door to hand documents and to tell us to now pay rent to them. Month later received end of tenancy and we took an extra 2 months just to actually find somewhere.

I would suggest they start looking for a new place.

Rtb are there if it's done wrong and they will back Tennant's up.

Recliner

Thanks for the replies. Knew it sounded all wrong but didn't know where to point them for proper advice.

Toastytoes

The_Conductor wrote: »

This is why landlords, banks, receivers etc- really need to formally end tenancies when they intend to sell- its impossible to conduct a regular sale with a sitting tenant (not to mention- no prospective buyer can get a mortgage on a property- unless they have vacant possession of a property). Any mortgage offers for buyers on property- are voided- if vacant possession is not obvious (regardless of any assurances that tenants might give).

If the landlord/bank/receiver (or whoever) wants to sell- they need to give the tenant valid notice to end the tenancy- and only once they have confirmed vacant possession of the property- should they try to sell. Anything else- is a complete waste of time.

OP- your friend needs to ascertain whether or not the landlord or receiver is legitimately trying to sell- or not- and take it from there (which includes making every reasonable effort to find alternate accommodation!!!!)

You can’t end a fixed term lease because you intend to sell or a receiver has been appointed. The lease remains binding on all parties. Not saying the op is dealing with a fixed term lease here, but in the case of a fixed term lease you can’t just insist the lease is terminated.

4ensic15

Toastytoes wrote: »

You can’t end a fixed term lease because you intend to sell or a receiver has been appointed. The lease remains binding on all parties. Not saying the op is dealing with a fixed term lease here, but in the case of a fixed term lease you can’t just insist the lease is terminated.

If the mortgage agreement has a clause say7ing the property is not to be let without the written consent of the bank, (and they all do) then unless the bank has consented to the lease in writing (and they never do) then the bank is not bound by the lease. Fixed or not.

Toastytoes

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the mortgage agreement has a clause say7ing the property is not to be let without the written consent of the bank, (and they all do) then unless the bank has consented to the lease in writing (and they never do) then the bank is not bound by the lease. Fixed or not.

Then how do you explain buy to lets? Are none of them mortgaged? Or maybe they don’t have leases? when we lived in a rented house which went in to receivership, all parties were bound by the lease and we could not be forced out.

The Student

Toastytoes wrote: »

Then how do you explain buy to lets? Are none of them mortgaged? Or maybe they don’t have leases? when we lived in a rented house which went in to receivership, all parties were bound by the lease and we could not be forced out.

Read the RTA act. All the bank has to do is issue a valid termination notice and you have to leave. The notice period depends on how long you are in the property.

Graham

The Student wrote: »

Read the RTA act. All the bank has to do is issue a valid termination notice and you have to leave. The notice period depends on how long you are in the property.

Which part of the RTA covers fixed term leases when possession of a property reverts back to a lender?

The Student

Graham wrote: »

Which part of the RTA covers fixed term leases when possession of a property reverts back to a lender?

It is one of the three times allowed to break a lease ie major refurb, need for own use or intention to sell. This would fall under intention to sell.

Graham

The Student wrote: »

It is one of the three times allowed to break a lease ie major refurb, need for own use or intention to sell. This would fall under intention to sell.

That's to break a Part 4 tenancy not a fixed term lease.

The Student

Graham wrote: »

That's to break a Part 4 tenancy not a fixed term lease.

Once a tenancy passes 6 months the Act takes precedence over all leases.

The_Conductor

The Student wrote: »

Once a tenancy passes 6 months the Act takes precedence over all leases.

However- a lease can give a tenant additional rights, over and above those in the Act- but it cannot detract from the Act. Aka- a tenant can be signficantly better off with a fixed term lease- legally- unless its break clauses mirror those of the Act (and they don't tend to- unless a landlord has been particularly active in ensuring their Fixed Term Lease mirrors the Act- most just download a template- change the address and tenant/landlord details on it- and bobs your uncle.

The break clauses in the RTA- do not automatically apply in a fixed term lease.

Toastytoes

The Student wrote: »

It is one of the three times allowed to break a lease ie major refurb, need for own use or intention to sell. This would fall under intention to sell.

Nonsense, S.34 doesn’t apply to fixed term leases.

4ensic15

Toastytoes wrote: »

Then how do you explain buy to lets? Are none of them mortgaged? Or maybe they don’t have leases? when we lived in a rented house which went in to receivership, all parties were bound by the lease and we could not be forced out.

The banks put in a clause in the mortgage saying it can't be leased without consent in writing. The owner then goes and leases anyway. It is only when the bank repossess that the whole thing falls apart for the tenant. If the receiver accepts rent, then he may be taken to have adopted the lease.

Toastytoes

4ensic15 wrote: »

The banks put in a clause in the mortgage saying it can't be leased without consent in writing. The owner then goes and leases anyway. It is only when the bank repossess that the whole thing falls apart for the tenant. If the receiver accepts rent, then he may be taken to have adopted the lease.

Are you saying banks don’t know buy to let’s are going to be rented and every landlord with a mortgage on his rental property is in breach of his mortgage terms? I call BS on that.

Graham

Toastytoes wrote: »

Are you saying banks don’t know buy to let’s are going to be rented and every landlord with a mortgage on his rental property is in breach of his mortgage terms? I call BS on that.

Buy-to-let mortgages are a different product to the usual residential mortgage, as such they attract a higher interest rate to reflect the increased risk/costs.

Toastytoes

Graham wrote: »

Buy-to-let mortgages are a different product to the usual residential mortgage, as such they attract a higher interest rate to reflect the increased risk/costs.

Exactly. The banks are well aware properties are being rented so don’t see how this would allow a fixed term lease to be terminated as was stated previously in this thread.

Graham

Toastytoes wrote: »

so don’t see how this would allow a fixed term lease to be terminated as was stated previously in this thread.

My guess;

the property isn't financed with a buy-to-let mortgage. It's financed with a standard residential mortgage subject to the restrictions on renting that other posters have already mentioned.

Toastytoes

Graham wrote: »

My guess;

the property isn't financed with a buy-to-let mortgage. It's financed with a standard residential mortgage subject to the restrictions on renting that other posters have already mentioned.

The statement wasn’t made specifically in relation to the op, it was in general, banks don’t allow mortgaged properties to be rented out. Therefore the RTA won’t protect a tenant with a fixed term lease from being evicted in a receivership.

Which simply isn’t true. We were tenants in this position and were fully protected by the RTA and were not evicted.

Michael D Not Higgins

4ensic15 wrote: »

The banks put in a clause in the mortgage saying it can't be leased without consent in writing. The owner then goes and leases anyway. It is only when the bank repossess that the whole thing falls apart for the tenant. If the receiver accepts rent, then he may be taken to have adopted the lease.

That logic sounds tenuous at best. Do you have a precedent for that?

I would fully expect the RTB to protect a tenant's rights in that situation.

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That logic sounds tenuous at best. Do you have a precedent for that?

I would fully expect the RTB to protect a tenant's rights in that situation.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/768d83be24938e1180256ef30048ca51/1aafd19cf05df00480257e610049dc4b?OpenDocument
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/70710DD4AEA84D5080257E1100536930
The RTB can't protect against a void lease. The landlord would win a challenge in the High Court.

4ensic15

Toastytoes wrote: »

The statement wasn’t made specifically in relation to the op, it was in general, banks don’t allow mortgaged properties to be rented out. Therefore the RTA won’t protect a tenant with a fixed term lease from being evicted in a receivership.

Which simply isn’t true. We were tenants in this position and were fully protected by the RTA and were not evicted.

Just because something happened to you doesn't mean it was correct in law. Was there a hearing? Was the issue argued?

4ensic15

Toastytoes wrote: »

The statement wasn’t made specifically in relation to the op, it was in general, banks don’t allow mortgaged properties to be rented out. Therefore the RTA won’t protect a tenant with a fixed term lease from being evicted in a receivership.

Which simply isn’t true. We were tenants in this position and were fully protected by the RTA and were not evicted.

Funny how the minister does not agree with you.
https://www.rtb.ie/media-research/news-centre/latest-news/2017/09/25/www.rtb.ie

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

Funny how the minister does not agree with you.
https://www.rtb.ie/media-research/news-centre/latest-news/2017/09/25/www.rtb.ie

Latest News?

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

Latest News?

There is a link to the minister's speech of 25/09/2017 in it. He comments about the effect of the appointment of a receiver.
https://www.rtb.ie/media-research/news-centre/latest-news/2017/09/25/minister-eoghan-murphy-s-address-at-the-publication-of-the-residential-tenancies-board-s-rent-index-for-the-second-quarter-of-2017-and-further-rental-sector-measures

Graham

Got it, thanks.

Under current legislation, a receiver appointed to the rental property is not regarded as a landlord and is therefore not required to fulfil the landlord’s obligations under the legislation, which can leave the tenant in a very difficult and vulnerable position, especially where normal rent setting procedures or the notice period to vacate a property are not respected.

Source: Minister Eoghan Murphy's Address

I notice the BPFI also claim in their information leaflet A Residential Tenant’s Guide to Receivership

in certain exceptional circumstances, the law gives the bank additional powers to terminate a lease. For example, a bank can ask a court to terminate a lease if it proves it was put in place without the bank’s consent and that it reduces the value of the bank’s security.

Michael D Not Higgins

4ensic15 wrote: »

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/768d83be24938e1180256ef30048ca51/1aafd19cf05df00480257e610049dc4b?OpenDocument
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/70710DD4AEA84D5080257E1100536930
The RTB can't protect against a void lease. The landlord would win a challenge in the High Court.

So first one says the PRTB ruled out was a valid tenancy and the receiver then accepted it was a tenancy and issued a notice of termination without appealing to the court of a point of law.

Not a precedent.

The second isn't even a residential tenancy. Completely irrelevant.

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

So first one says the PRTB ruled out was a valid tenancy and the receiver then accepted it was a tenancy and issued a notice of termination without appealing to the court of a point of law.

Not a precedent.

The second isn't even a residential tenancy. Completely irrelevant.

In the first one, the judge accepted the logic of the other one and said the receiver recognising the tenancy changed everything. It is quite clear that had the receiver not recognised the tenancy the judge would not have upheld the RTB. The minister himself in his comments recognises the position.

Toastytoes

4ensic15 wrote: »

Just because something happened to you doesn't mean it was correct in law. Was there a hearing? Was the issue argued?

THe receiver confirmed that it was correct actually. We had a valid lease. We were going nowhere. All parties were bound by the lease.

Toastytoes

Graham wrote: »

Got it, thanks.



Source: Minister Eoghan Murphy's Address

I notice the BPFI also claim in their information leaflet A Residential Tenant’s Guide to Receivership

Why quote about exceptional circumstances? Most cases are not exceptional and most buy to lets are mortgaged with buy to let mortgages, with the banks being well aware that the property is rented.

Graham

Toastytoes wrote: »

Why quote about exceptional circumstances? Most cases are not exceptional and most buy to lets are mortgaged with buy to let mortgages, with the banks being well aware that the property is rented.

I suspect you're right, the majority of buy-to-lets are financed as buy-to-lets.

There are however sufficient accidental landlords for this not to be the case in a very significant number of rental properties.

As we (or the OP) have no idea on what basis the property was financed, it is potentially relevant to the discussion.

Claw Hammer

Graham wrote: »

I suspect you're right, the majority of buy-to-lets are financed as buy-to-lets.

There are however sufficient accidental landlords for this not to be the case in a very significant number of rental properties.

As we (or the OP) have no idea on what basis the property was financed, it is potentially relevant to the discussion.

In mortgages post 2009, The consent of the mortgagee is not required for a lease.All of the foreclosures are of Pre 2009 mortgages as there was virtually no buy to let lending since and such as there was is only on a very conservative LTV. Pre 2009 written consent of the mortgagee for each letting was a condition of the loans, even if the bank knew it was buy to let and financed it on the basis of the rental income. The bnaks and receivers are often happy to accept a lease and get in some rent from a receivership property before selling it on. There is no need to pay for security of the unoccupied dwelling and no danger of the owner moving in and forcing repossession of it as a family home which could take years.

Claw Hammer

Toastytoes wrote: »

Why quote about exceptional circumstances? Most cases are not exceptional and most buy to lets are mortgaged with buy to let mortgages, with the banks being well aware that the property is rented.

I once parked on a street near Leinster House. I had a drink and so left the car parked in a parking space, without putting a valid parking ticket on display. I returned the next day at 1.00 PM. I hadn't been clamped or ticketed. By your logic, that should mean anybody can park on that street in that space without paying.

Toastytoes

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I once parked on a street near Leinster House. I had a drink and so left the car parked in a parking space, without putting a valid parking ticket on display. I returned the next day at 1.00 PM. I hadn't been clamped or ticketed. By your logic, that should mean anybody can park on that street in that space without paying.

Did you also have a drink before posting this?

Claw Hammer

Toastytoes wrote: »

Did you also have a drink before posting this?

I'd need one after reading that!

The_Conductor

Guys- behave.