Landlord declared bankruptcy - what happens nu?

bo0li5eumx12kp

Yeah - this could suck.

Dude before me was renting this place for like 10 years - then all of a sudden I'm here 6 months, and I get this letter saying title of the property has been foreclosed to some third party by way of bankrupt asset seizure.

Basically, that means the property has changed hands, so;

New landlord may stake a claim that he wants vacancy?

Or he could hike my rent (which would make sense cause he could easily get more than I am paying, for this place especially).

Would he have to come around to speak with me before he does this?
Cause I have a way with greedy ass people - but not when the only form of communication is mail, telling me I have one month to pack my sh1t and go; needs to be - man to man.

I'm down the country, where as it seems the new owner is in Dublin so, I guess that means he'd be less inclined to bother coming down here, the hassle of re-renting etc - for an extra 100 euro a month?

Any experiences with this?

AlmightyCushion

Are you there more than 6 months?

bo0li5eumx12kp

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Are you there more than 6 months?

Yasss!!!

But it's still changed hands, so I know from previous experience new owners can request vacancy?

(I hope I'm wrong - when it comes to asset seizure)

AlmightyCushion

As far as I understand, you're now in a part 4 tenancy and you can only be evicted in certain circumstances. Wanting to sell the property is one of those reasons but the asset transferring from the landlord to someone else doesn't count. That someone else would have to sell it.

bo0li5eumx12kp

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

As far as I understand, you're now in a part 4 tenancy and you can only be evicted in certain circumstances. Wanting to sell the property is one of those reasons but the asset transferring from the landlord to someone else doesn't count. That someone else would have to sell it.

What about putting up the rental price?

I was basically depending on the good grace of the former landlord, to NOT do that.
Not sure if that's how it works or not.

I am actually here longer than 12 months; my initial contract was for 12 months, but it never got re-upped as, as a mature student I am availing of HAP and was informed that, that in effect, acted as a long term rental contract.

Does that sound about right?
Or do I need to bust ass down to the rental office to get my contract re-upped before the new owner realizes he can sting me for mo' money?

Change of ownership does not effect your tenancy rights, the LL, new or old, has to follow the regulations. As the property has been repossessed, chances are the finance company will want to sell the asset and recover their money, so in all likelihood they will serve notice to terminate the tenancy in due course. A bank is more likely to want vacant possession to sell the property, so it is more likely that you will receive a notice of termination than a notice of rent review/increase.

I really don’t know what kind of “dude” you are, but the man-to-man talk with greedy people is kinda laughable, so I wouldn’t count on that working out. Banks deal in a cold, professional way, either by post or through a property management agency, so slapping the puss off them isn’t going to work.

dennyk

Is the property in an RPZ? If so, then they can increase the rent every 12 months, but only by a certain amount, basically 4% per year prorated based on how many months it's been since the rent was last set or reviewed (when your tenancy began, in your case, if the landlord has never raised it). If you're not in an RPZ, then they can raise the rent to "market rates" as demonstrated by the three comparable properties they have to provide in your notice, but only after you've been there for at least two years.

HAP gives you no security of tenure, but as you've been there more than six months, you have security under Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act and your tenancy can only be terminated for one of the allowable reasons. However, one of those reasons, as noted previously, is if the owner intends to sell the property, however, and if it's a bank or some other entity that has no interest in being a landlord long-term, they may in fact decide to sell at some point, and they can give you notice for that. Nothing you can do about that, really, assuming they follow the correct notice requirements and such (and if it's a bank or other large corporate entity, they will likely have their legal team overseeing the process to make sure the rules are followed).

Not sure what you mean by "rental office"; is the property being let through an agent of some sort? It's unlikely the agent will offer a new fixed term lease to you unless the owner has explicitly authorised it, and if the owner is planning to sell, they definitely won't, so that may not gain you much. You could certainly make the attempt, though, and if they do agree then you'll at least be secure for the next 12 months or however long they give you a lease for.

bo0li5eumx12kp

dennyk wrote: »

Is the property in an RPZ? If so, then they can increase the rent every 12 months, but only by a certain amount, basically 4% per year prorated based on how many months it's been since the rent was last set or reviewed (when your tenancy began, in your case, if the landlord has never raised it). If you're not in an RPZ, then they can raise the rent to "market rates" as demonstrated by the three comparable properties they have to provide in your notice, but only after you've been there for at least two years.

HAP gives you no security of tenure, but as you've been there more than six months, you have security under Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act and your tenancy can only be terminated for one of the allowable reasons. However, one of those reasons, as noted previously, is if the owner intends to sell the property, however, and if it's a bank or some other entity that has no interest in being a landlord long-term, they may in fact decide to sell at some point, and they can give you notice for that. Nothing you can do about that, really, assuming they follow the correct notice requirements and such (and if it's a bank or other large corporate entity, they will likely have their legal team overseeing the process to make sure the rules are followed).

Not sure what you mean by "rental office"; is the property being let through an agent of some sort? It's unlikely the agent will offer a new fixed term lease to you unless the owner has explicitly authorised it, and if the owner is planning to sell, they definitely won't, so that may not gain you much. You could certainly make the attempt, though, and if they do agree then you'll at least be secure for the next 12 months or however long they give you a lease for.

So - a new lease will ensure I can't be evicted, despite the fact the new owner is selling and/or wants vacancy?

Cause maybe I could hustle that. We never re-upped the contract but, we spoke about it and I was told, if I want it re-upped, no problem - but honestly I was too damn lazy.
Plus the (former) owners were cool people, so I never envisaged a problem.
I didn't know they were experiencing financial difficulties however - at that time.

So yeah, I guess that's worth a spin?

"Little bit of back dating here, back dating there - never hurt anyone?"


What this letter is telling me is, apparently the place is co-owned (news to me).
They want I now submit monthly rent to a new leasing agent, who's based in Dublin.

What the....?

Is that typical protocol - if the insolvency agent wants to sell, they'll pass the property to a new agent, who happens to be out of town?

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

Change of ownership does not effect your tenancy rights, the LL, new or old, has to follow the regulations. As the property has been repossessed, chances are the finance company will want to sell the asset and recover their money, so in all likelihood they will serve notice to terminate the tenancy in due course. A bank is more likely to want vacant possession to sell the property, so it is more likely that you will receive a notice of termination than a notice of rent review/increase.

I really don’t know what kind of “dude” you are, but the man-to-man talk with greedy people is kinda laughable, so I wouldn’t count on that working out. Banks deal in a cold, professional way, either by post or through a property management agency, so slapping the puss off them isn’t going to work.

That could take the form of a leasing agent?

I guess they lease, and sell - you know - at the same time?

Yeah this sucks.

Where's a cheap town to move to at the moment?
I wouldn't mind getting out of here actually.

Looking to rent a place around five to six hundred euro.
I'm foot loose and fancy free.

Some place within an hour to an hour and a half commute of Dublin would be nice though.

Mullingar?

Hows the rents about them parts?

bo0li5eumx12kp

dennyk wrote: »

Is the property in an RPZ? If so, then they can increase the rent every 12 months, but only by a certain amount, basically 4% per year prorated based on how many months it's been since the rent was last set or reviewed (when your tenancy began, in your case, if the landlord has never raised it). If you're not in an RPZ, then they can raise the rent to "market rates" as demonstrated by the three comparable properties they have to provide in your notice, but only after you've been there for at least two years.

HAP gives you no security of tenure, but as you've been there more than six months, you have security under Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act and your tenancy can only be terminated for one of the allowable reasons. However, one of those reasons, as noted previously, is if the owner intends to sell the property, however, and if it's a bank or some other entity that has no interest in being a landlord long-term, they may in fact decide to sell at some point, and they can give you notice for that. Nothing you can do about that, really, assuming they follow the correct notice requirements and such (and if it's a bank or other large corporate entity, they will likely have their legal team overseeing the process to make sure the rules are followed).

Not sure what you mean by "rental office"; is the property being let through an agent of some sort? It's unlikely the agent will offer a new fixed term lease to you unless the owner has explicitly authorised it, and if the owner is planning to sell, they definitely won't, so that may not gain you much. You could certainly make the attempt, though, and if they do agree then you'll at least be secure for the next 12 months or however long they give you a lease for.

Okay so again re-reading this - even if I get my contract re-upped, they can still terminate tenancy cause the new owner wants vacancy?

Have I - nailed the pertinent effect?

Just wondering whether it's worth my while getting a new (possibly backdated) rental contract drawn up?

Iker Thundering Sender

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Okay so again re-reading this - even if I get my contract re-upped, they can still terminate tenancy cause the new owner wants vacancy?

Have I - nailed the pertinent effect?

Just wondering whether it's worth my while getting a new (possibly backdated) rental contract drawn up?

Though you can ask for a new term lease, if the house has been repossessed, you won’t get a term lease or Re-up as you put it. They will keep you on a Part 4 and probably terminate on the basis that the property is to be sold.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

Though you can ask for a new term lease, if the house has been repossessed, you won’t get a term lease or Re-up as you put it. They will keep you on a Part 4 and probably terminate on the basis that the property is to be sold.

Say I had a valid term lease at the moment say, for another 12 months.

Could they still terminate this on the basis of the sale?

Iker Thundering Sender

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Say I had a valid term lease at the moment say, for another 12 months.

Could they still terminate this on the basis of the sale?

If you have a term lease, they can’t terminate the tenancy until the lease has expired, but as you don’t, you have a part 4 tenancy so they can terminate if they want to sell.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

If you have a term lease, they can’t terminate the tenancy until the lease has expired, but as you don’t, you have a part 4 tenancy so they can terminate if they want to sell.

Does the idea of trying to sweet talk the former (female) owner into giving me a back dated term lease, sound completely ludicrous?

By rights I guess they should have provided another term lease at the 12 month mark but, alas - I didn't follow up on this.

Thus - maybe I could swing a "backdated" lease at this point?

Iker Thundering Sender

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Does the idea of trying to sweet talk the former (female) owner into giving me a back dated term lease, sound completely ludicrous?

By rights I guess they should have provided another term lease at the 12 month mark but, alas - I didn't follow up on this.

Thus - maybe I could swing a "backdated" lease at this point?

By rights there is no need to give you a term lease after your 12 month one expired, you have Part 4 rights.

If your previous LL wants to shaft the bank she could give you a back dated one, but chances are she will have washed her hands of the property.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

By rights there is no need to give you a term lease after your 12 month one expired, you have Part 4 rights.

If your previous LL wants to shaft the bank she could give you a back dated one, but chances are she will have washed her hands of the property.

The letter informing me of this situation, stated that the property is "co-owned".

I know what "co-owned" means but - what's mean?

Is it unusual for a property to be co-owned?

What I'm inferring is that, if it's co-owned, but I'm paying the rent to some new out of town rental agent, that could possibly mean that - said out of town rental agent, CAN'T sell, cause they can't sell what's not fully theirs?

Y/N?

Probably difficult to tell.

It doesn't tell me who the co-owner is - only that I need to start paying the rent into the new rentla agents account instead of the former (now bankrupt) owners.

Maybe this could be my saving grace - cause hell my alternate options, well - no easy way to say it - they SUCK!!

Plus - nobody wants to have to move involuntarily (especially to some dump that's half as nice and twice as expensive).

Wesser

i would advise you to do nothing just put your head down and be cool

bo0li5eumx12kp

Wesser wrote: »

i would advise you to do nothing just put your head down and be cool

Based on?

Not necessarily second guessing that opinion but - being pedantic about information basis - you advise this course of action because....?

I mean I'm gonna have to clarify with the former owners that they're not longer gonna be receiving rent from me at least.

Iker Thundering Sender

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

The letter informing me of this situation, stated that the property is "co-owned".

I know what "co-owned" means but - what's mean?

Is it unusual for a property to be co-owned?

What I'm inferring is that, if it's co-owned, but I'm paying the rent to some new out of town rental agent, that could possibly mean that - said out of town rental agent, CAN'T sell, cause they can't sell what's not fully theirs?

Y/N?

Probably difficult to tell.

It doesn't tell me who the co-owner is - only that I need to start paying the rent into the new rentla agents account instead of the former (now bankrupt) owners.

Maybe this could be my saving grace - cause hell my alternate options, well - no easy way to say it - they SUCK!!

Plus - nobody wants to have to move involuntarily (especially to some dump that's half as nice and twice as expensive).

My wife and I co-own properties.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

My wife and I co-own properties.

No kidding?

So - if you went bankrupt and had to forfeit your assets, basically what you're saying is your wife still owns part and, on that basis, a sales agent couldn't simply sell the property from under the current tenant, as - it's basically not all theirs to sell?

In terms of reclaiming lost money, they'd have to settle for the tenants rent?

General idea of how that works?

Of course the other side to it is - maybe she'd WANT to sell, to help you out..... n stuff?

Iker Thundering Sender

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

No kidding?

So - if you went bankrupt and had to forfeit your assets, basically what you're saying is your wife still owns part and, on that basis, a sales agent couldn't simply sell the property from under the current tenant, as - it's basically not all theirs to sell?

In terms of reclaiming lost money, they'd have to settle for the tenants rent?

General idea of how that works?

Of course the other side to it is - maybe she'd WANT to sell, to help you out..... n stuff?

As co-owners we are joint and severely liable for the debt.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

As co-owners if there is a mortgage we are joint and severely liable for the debt.

Leaving aside the slang, can you just tell us if it is being repossessed by the lender?

So, in your opinion - what happens in this situation?

They're gonna try and force a sale?

They're gonna boot me mercilessly into the cold hard streets?

They're gonna "LOL - R U SERIOUS?", when I ask for a renewal of my term lease, in desperate attempt to prevent the above?

Iker Thundering Sender

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

So, in your opinion - what happens in this situation?

They're gonna try and force a sale?

They're gonna boot me mercilessly into the cold hard streets?

They're gonna "LOL - R U SERIOUS?", when I ask for a renewal of my term lease, in desperate attempt to prevent the above?

In my opinion, if the property has been repossessed, the creditor will want to sell it to recover money, and will want vacant possession to do that.

Listen, there is no desperation on their part and the sale will not be “forced”.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

As co-owners if there is a mortgage we are joint and severely liable for the debt.

Leaving aside the slang, can you just tell us if it is being repossessed by the lender?

Hold up - I didn't get the edited part in my response;

Repossessed by the lender?

If by lender you mean, the bank who are claiming assets to make up for lost money?
Are they repossessing?

The letter only said I should now pay the rent into a new bank account - gave me details of said account.

It didn't say anything about repossession/potential sale etc - not yet at least.

But based on what ya'll are saying - that seems like it's only a matter of time?

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

In my opinion, if the property has been repossessed, the creditor will want to sell it to recover money, and will want vacant possession to do that.

Yes but it's jointly owned.

As the letter states.
Only one of the two owners seems to have gone bankrupt.

So - what are they, gonna sell half an apartment?

My question to you was, if you and you missus were in this situation - you're both liable?
Even though just one of you has been made bankrupt....

Maybe they don't want to let go of the apartment?
It is a fine apartment.
Maybe the missus of my landlord is - how you saying - hanging on with her nails?

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

In my opinion, if the property has been repossessed, the creditor will want to sell it to recover money, and will want vacant possession to do that.

Listen, there is no desperation on their part and the sale will not be “forced”.

Not forced?

As in - no man to man discussions?

As in - I have absolutely no say in the matter?

As in - effortless on their part, as to the aforementioned, booting me in to the cold hard streets?

(I gotta keep a sense of humor during these difficult times).

Iker Thundering Sender

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Hold up - I didn't get the edited part in my response;

Repossessed by the lender?

If by lender you mean, the bank who are claiming assets to make up for lost money?
Are the repossessing?

The letter only said I should now pay the rent into a new bank account - gave me details of said account.

It didn't say anything about repossession/potential sale etc - not yet at least.

But based on what ya'll are saying - that seems like it's only a matter of time?

Op, I’m not sure why you are asking these questions, no one here is privy to that info.

I’m going to (hopefully) make this as simple as possible.

• No matter who owns the property, your tenancy rights, Part 4, are not effected.
• if the property has been ceased/repossessed, the creditor who the owner owes money to will want to sell to recover the debt.
• To do that, they will want vacant possession.
• You need to confirm that the letter is genuine, contact the owner and the creditor identified on the letter you received, google is your friend.
• Continue to pay your rent or you will evicted far earlier for non payment of rent.
• Start looking for a new property.

Iker Thundering Sender

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Not forced?

As in - no man to man discussions?

As in - I have absolutely no say in the matter?

As in - effortless on their part, as to the aforementioned, booting me in to the cold hard streets?

(I gotta keep a sense of humor during these difficult times).

The penny has just dropped, you are trolling.

Just in case you aren’t, why would they talk man to man? And why would you have a say in the matter? You are not the property owner.

daheff

first thing i'd do is stop paying any rent until you can confirm 100% who owns the place, then get a contract confirmating new payment details (where to pay). i would fight any attempt to change price (via rtb if necessary).

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

Op, I’m not sure why you are asking these questions, no one here is privy to that info.

I’m going to (hopefully) make this as simple as possible.

• No matter who owns the property, your tenancy rights, Part 4, are not effected.
• if the property has been ceased/repossessed, the creditor who the owner owes money to will want to sell to recover the debt.
• To do that, they will want vacant possession.
• You need to confirm that the letter is genuine, contact the owner and the creditor identified on the letter you received, google is your friend.
• Continue to pay your rent or you will evicted far earlier for non payment of rent.
• Start looking for a new property.

Thank you for your candid responses here.

The sticking point for me is, point number 1.

- You're earlier assertion that, my term lease of 12 months ended two months ago.
- You had said that - they were not obligated to renew my term lease as I was now under part 4 of the RTA, which acts as a lease.
- Part 4 of the RTA will not protect me from eviction if the new owner wants to sell
- But a term lease, WOULD protect me from said eviction - until the end of the term.

I have checked the leasing agent in the letter - they are a real company.

What will be will be.

The only means I can buy myself time here is - if what you have formerly said is the case, "they can't evict you on a term lease, but they CAN do so on a part 4 lease" - that means I will be making ends to getting a new motherf$$kin' f$$kin' term lease - ASAP; as unlikely as I am to be successful here.

And I'm still not clear on the co-ownership.
It's still partly owned by someone who is not the creditor/repossesser - so how can the creditor/repossesser sell out from under them without their consent or their agreement to the sale?

daheff

daheff wrote: »

first thing i'd do is stop paying any rent until you can confirm 100% who owns the place, then get a contract confirmating new payment details (where to pay). i would fight any attempt to change price (via rtb if necessary).

Would you be concerned that you would be served with a notice of rent arrears and then notice to terminate? It certainly would be quicker to remove a tenant in that way.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

The penny has just dropped, you are trolling.

Just in case you aren’t, why would they talk man to man? And why would you have a say in the matter? You are not the property owner.

I mostly certainly am not!

I just have a natural kind of troll'esque personality in general.
I find it keeps even the most serious situation on a relatively even keel.

But no - I am absolutely serious.

Would it help if I posted a copy of the letter? (I'll blot out the contacts etc).

daheff

Dav010 wrote: »

Would you be concerned that you would be served with a notice of rent arrears and then notice to terminate? It certainly would be quicker to remove a tenant in that way.

no. i think any reasonable judge would look favourably on a tenant in this situation. Look at it from the tenants pov. How does tenant know the papers sent are valid? Could be a scam artist.

But by the same score the tenant doesnt want to be paying rent to somebody who us not the landlord and might not pay back the money.

The person(s) purporting to be the new owners should be able to provide reasonable proof quite quickly to prove their ownership...and register the tenancy with the rtb for validation.

daheff

daheff wrote: »

no. i think any reasonable judge would look favourably on a tenant in this situation. Look at it from the tenants pov. How does tenant know the papers sent are valid? Could be a scam artist.

But by the same score the tenant doesnt want to be paying rent to somebody who us not the landlord and might not pay back the money.

The person(s) purporting to be the new owners should be able to provide reasonable proof quite quickly to prove their ownership...and register the tenancy with the rtb for validation.

I would suspect most reasonable people would be expected to contact the letting agent and the Landlord to confirm the validity of the letter. The op can contact the RTB for clarification, but non payment of rent is a grounds for eviction, though you may be right, it’s a risk.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/contact-us/

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

I would suspect most reasonable people would be expected to contact the letting agent and the Landlord to confirm the validity of the letter. The op can contact the RTB for clarification, but non payment of rent is a grounds for eviction, though you may be right, it’s a risk.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/contact-us/

I know I'm repetitive at this point - but this is pivitol.

As to your former statement - part 4 VS a term lease.

Does that still stand?

The creditor could boot me if I only have part 4?

But if I have a term lease - I'm good for that term, whether they intend to sell or no?

Wesser

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Based on?

Not necessarily second guessing that opinion but - being pedantic about information basis - you advise this course of action because....?

I mean I'm gonna have to clarify with the former owners that they're not longer gonna be receiving rent from me at least.

based on the fact that thete is nothing you can do.to alter the course if proceedings,assuming that proceedings are legal... and also.if you cause a fuss which it seems like you are determined to do you will likely just annoy people.

overkill602

think you missed some good sports around the time trolling here knock your self out or get a life

bo0li5eumx12kp

Wesser wrote: »

based on the fact that thete is nothing you can do.to alter the course if proceedings,assuming that proceedings are legal... and also.if you cause a fuss which it seems like you are determined to do you will likely just annoy people.

Nothing I can do?

I was offered a second term lease upon the expiration of the first one - which I did not take up - mostly out of disregard - but my understanding is now, if I did take this up, the current flop-sweat panic would not be an issue.

Correct?

So - naturally the first thing I should try and do is secure the term lease I was offered a couple months ago.

No?

Wesser

no i dont think that having a written lease at this stage protects you from a change in rent or a notice if eviction. my understanding is that it can happen with or without that piece if paper. 2 other posters on page 1 agree with me. so my advice is to lie low , dont attract any attention to yourself and try to not mark yourself as a difficult tenant. thats my advice. im gonna leave it at that.

Wesser

Wesser wrote: »

no i dont think that having a written lease at this stage protects you from a change in rent or a notice if eviction. my understanding is that it can happen with or without that piece if paper. 2 other posters on page 1 agree with me. so my advice is to lie low , dont attract any attention to yourself and try to not mark yourself as a difficult tenant. thats my advice. im gonna leave it at that.

Actually if he had a term lease, the rent could not be changed, nor could the op be evicted until after expiration of the term. But he does not have a lease, and the chances of getting a back dated one are slim to none.

dennyk

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Nothing I can do?

I was offered a second term lease upon the expiration of the first one - which I did not take up - mostly out of disregard - but my understanding is now, if I did take this up, the current flop-sweat panic would not be an issue.

Correct?

So - naturally the first thing I should try and do is secure the term lease I was offered a couple months ago.

No?

If you have a fixed term lease, it cannot be terminated before the end of the lease period even for the reasons allowed by the Part 4 regulations, such as because the owner intends to sell the property. So yes, if you want to ensure greater security of tenure, you can ask your landlord or their agent if they will enter into a new fixed term lease with you. However, they are not obligated to do so, and if the current owner is planning to sell the property, they will almost certainly refuse.

As for the rest of it, no one here is privy to what's going on with your property and no one here can tell you what will happen. If it is a co-ownership situation and one of the owners defaulted on a debt secured via a lien on the property, it may be possible for the creditor to force a sale even against the other owner's wishes. The other owner might have the option of paying off the debt themselves to prevent that from happening, but they may not have the means to do so. It will all depend on the details of the loan agreement and applicable Irish law.

The upshot is that the owner(s) of the property can choose to sell at any time and if they do so, then they can give you notice to terminate your tenancy, but no one here can tell you if that will happen or not. Your best bet is to verify that the letter you received is valid and correct and then continue paying your normal rent amount until such time as you receive a notice of a rent review or a notice of termination.

daheff

Dav010 wrote: »

I would suspect most reasonable people would be expected to contact the letting agent and the Landlord to confirm the validity of the letter. l]

I might have missed a point about there being a letting agent involved. Absolutely contact them, in writing, to confirm validity of letter.

Contact landlord for sure, but what if the landlord (incorrectly)says the letter is fake and you pay a few more months rent to him? He’s bankrupt, so that money just goes off his overdraft. Good luck getting that back off the bank.

It’s a messy situation to be involved in.

bo0li5eumx12kp

dennyk wrote: »

If you have a fixed term lease, it cannot be terminated before the end of the lease period even for the reasons allowed by the Part 4 regulations, such as because the owner intends to sell the property. So yes, if you want to ensure greater security of tenure, you can ask your landlord or their agent if they will enter into a new fixed term lease with you. However, they are not obligated to do so, and if the current owner is planning to sell the property, they will almost certainly refuse.

As for the rest of it, no one here is privy to what's going on with your property and no one here can tell you what will happen. If it is a co-ownership situation and one of the owners defaulted on a debt secured via a lien on the property, it may be possible for the creditor to force a sale even against the other owner's wishes. The other owner might have the option of paying off the debt themselves to prevent that from happening, but they may not have the means to do so. It will all depend on the details of the loan agreement and applicable Irish law.

The upshot is that the owner(s) of the property can choose to sell at any time and if they do so, then they can give you notice to terminate your tenancy, but no one here can tell you if that will happen or not. Your best bet is to verify that the letter you received is valid and correct and then continue paying your normal rent amount to the appropriate party until such time as you receive a notice of a rent review or a notice of termination.

Thank you sir.

Just on the final point - if the owners do decide to sell, just lets say hypothetically I had a term tenancy agreement, outside of part 4 - could they still "over ride" this, via their wish to sell?

Or would they have to postpone the sale until such a time as that term tenancy agreement has ended?


What I'm trying to figure out is - pushing for a re-upped term tenancy agreement, in the case that can be negated by owners wish to sell, well - there'd be no point in doing that cause the owner can "over ride" it anyways.

But is that the case?

bo0li5eumx12kp

daheff wrote: »

I might have missed a point about there being a letting agent involved. Absolutely contact them, in writing, to confirm validity of letter.

Contact landlord for sure, but what if the landlord (incorrectly)says the letter is fake and you pay a few more months rent to him? He’s bankrupt, so that money just goes off his overdraft. Good luck getting that back off the bank.

It’s a messy situation to be involved in.

lol - hold up hold up.

The letter arrived in a government type envelop (harp on the front).

It has formal looking documentation, requesting my tenancy agreement, in addition to providing detailed contacts for the new leasing agent/(creditors?), and the bank details I should use.

The fact that ya'll are even asking - you mean to tell me, it could be like - a scam?

As in, some crawler has fabricated these documents, somehow knows my particulars, and is trying to redirect my payments?


I should mention - the bankruptcy was supposedly declared three weeks ago.

I did not hear from the owner in regards to this but - naturally I assumed they have bigger issues to now deal with so, I guess that's understandable?

bo0li5eumx12kp

Great success.

Some dude from the RTB who obviously works Sundays, got back to my e-mail query, and basically the situation is yes - if I had a lease (which I no longer do), I'd be entitled to stay for its duration.

However, as I am longer than 12 months here - he mentioned the minimum notice they must serve me as to a sale is, 120 days.

That's like, 4 months?

Certainly takes the pressure off.

I haven't got a notice of termination (yet).

Dammit - honestly I'm kicking myself for not re-upping that lease.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Hmm, maybe not so great success.

I contacted Threshold and, apparently a bank initiated court order to sell the property, assuming that would be outcome here - would in fact over ride any "staying" power a term lease would have.

In other words - they in control.

I don't know the situation on the 120 day notice period - remains to be seen.

But yeah - info I've got so far is, if I had a term lease or no - they can still turf me out.

lol.

Gerianam

You could always "bust ass" back to Kentucky.

dancingqueen

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Nothing I can do?

I was offered a second term lease upon the expiration of the first one - which I did not take up - mostly out of disregard - but my understanding is now, if I did take this up, the current flop-sweat panic would not be an issue.

Correct?

So - naturally the first thing I should try and do is secure the term lease I was offered a couple months ago.

No?

Are you referring to a "fixed term lease" ?

bo0li5eumx12kp

dancingqueen wrote: »

Are you referring to a "fixed term lease" ?

Correct.

Fian

Did your landlord declare bankruptcy or did they only say it?

Sorry but I may never again get as good an opportunity to make that office reference.

Long and short your legal rights under the lease are not affected. However terminating a lease for the purposes of sale, outside a fixed term lease which prohibits that, is something that your landlord could always have done, and that power is now exercisable by the receiver.

Unfortunately the receiver is far more likely to want to do that than your previous landlord.

You remain entitled to the statutory notice period. You can't be evicted without the notice you are entitled to, even if there were a court order to sell the property.

IAmTheReign

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Great success.

Some dude from the RTB who obviously works Sundays, got back to my e-mail query, and basically the situation is yes - if I had a lease (which I no longer do), I'd be entitled to stay for its duration.

However, as I am longer than 12 months here - he mentioned the minimum notice they must serve me as to a sale is, 120 days.

That's like, 4 months?

Certainly takes the pressure off.

I haven't got a notice of termination (yet).

Dammit - honestly I'm kicking myself for not re-upping that lease.

Hang on, you said in your very first post you'd only been there 6 months?

Iker Thundering Sender wrote:

Dude before me was renting this place for like 10 years - then all of a sudden I'm here 6 months, and I get this letter saying title of the property has been foreclosed to some third party by way of bankrupt asset seizure.