Auction property

Mad_maxx

My overarching query is whether the power of the auction contract for sale protects the vendor from blatant inaccuracies.

I'm interested in buying a leasehold apartment with bidx1 who conduct online auctions

Unfortunately either bidx1 or their clients have not properly prepared or worse have outright attempted to sell a property in an erroneous fashion, the apartment is being sold as a TOB ( transfer of business), this involves the purchaser continuing a CGS ( capital goods scheme) which is only used for vatable activity. There is no vat charged on residential lettings, the property has a sitting tenant, either they are ignorant of the law or are using TOB as a device to pawn the vat issue on to the buyer?

All they needed to do was dispose of the vat via PCVE and simply sell the place for a higher price thus compensating themselves for the vat burden

My question is this, does the auction setting with its finality and all the obligations which are then foisted upon the highest bidder, effectively give the vendor immunity from flagrant errors when it comes to how they structured the sale?

TOB requires a buyer to be vat registered, I'm not vat registered, were i to bid and succeed, could I be sued or despite auction rules could I defend myself by pointing out how it's not possible according to the law society to use TOB when selling a residential property?

I'd try and buy with private treaty but bidx1 don't do that

Dolbhad

Mad_maxx wrote: »

My overarching query is whether the power of the auction contract for sale protects the vendor from blatant inaccuracies.

I'm interested in buying a leasehold apartment with bidx1 who conduct online auctions

Unfortunately either bidx1 or their clients have not properly prepared or worse have outright attempted to sell a property in an erroneous fashion, the apartment is being sold as a TOB ( transfer of business), this involves the purchaser continuing a CGS ( capital goods scheme) which is only used for vatable activity. There is no vat charged on residential lettings, the property has a sitting tenant, either they are ignorant of the law or are using TOB as a device to pawn the vat issue on to the buyer?

All they needed to do was dispose of the vat via PCVE and simply sell the place for a higher price thus compensating themselves for the vat burden

My question is this, does the auction setting with its finality and all the obligations which are then foisted upon the highest bidder, effectively give the vendor immunity from flagrant errors when it comes to how they structured the sale?

TOB requires a buyer to be vat registered, I'm not vat registered, were i to bid and succeed, could I be sued or despite auction rules could I defend myself by pointing out how it's not possible according to the law society to use TOB when selling a residential property?

I'd try and buy with private treaty but bidx1 don't do that

Yes when you buy at an auction and bid is accepted, you are stuck in a legally binding contract. Usually if it’s being sold by auction there is a legal or engineering problem. You have to ensure the property is surveyed by an engineer first and contracts have been reviewed by a solicitor and any documents/queries they may have are answered. That’s a lot of up front costs and you may not be able to buy the property or be successful at auction. They will have so many caveats in the contracts you will have no recourse.

Also forgot auction sales of your getting a mortgage.

Mad_maxx

Dolbhad wrote: »

Yes when you buy at an auction and bid is accepted, you are stuck in a legally binding contract. Usually if it’s being sold by auction there is a legal or engineering problem. You have to ensure the property is surveyed by an engineer first and contracts have been reviewed by a solicitor and any documents/queries they may have are answered. That’s a lot of up front costs and you may not be able to buy the property or be successful at auction. They will have so many caveats in the contracts you will have no recourse.

Also forgot auction sales of your getting a mortgage.

Thanks for the buying at auction 101 speech.

I just want to know if the auction sale gives the vendor an all powerful immunity over any sort of inapplicable stuff they stick in the contract, can flagrant inaccuracies be challenged and altered afterwards?

Is the power of the auction so all encompassing that stuff which is clearly in breach of vat law still stands?

Lenar3556

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Thanks for the buying at auction 101 speech.

I just want to know if the auction sale gives the vendor an all powerful immunity over any sort of inapplicable stuff they stick in the contract, can flagrant inaccuracies be challenged and altered afterwards?

Is the power of the auction so all encompassing that stuff which is clearly in breach of vat law still stands?

There can, and often is amendments to the contracts after the auction in order to get the sale closed. Receivers generally want to dispense with the property and there is sometimes a willingness to move a little if required. A purchaser certainly wouldn’t want to rely on such however.

The joint option to tax situation you refer is a catch all that often appears in these contracts to distance the receiver from any VAT liability that could arise or indeed the need to even investigate the property history surrounding same. Where this is invoked, there is usually an additional clause whereby any purchaser certifies they are a VAT registered entity being in a position to enter such an arrangement and should this subsequently transpire not to be the case (as in a private individual), the purchaser becomes responsible to pay VAT on the purchase price as if it had been a Vatable sale in the first instance.

Mad_maxx

Lenar3556 wrote: »

There can, and often is amendments to the contracts after the auction in order to get the sale closed. Receivers generally want to dispense with the property and there is sometimes a willingness to move a little if required. A purchaser certainly wouldn’t want to rely on such however.

The joint option to tax situation you refer is a catch all that often appears in these contracts to distance the receiver from any VAT liability that could arise or indeed the need to even investigate the property history surrounding same. Where this is invoked, there is usually an additional clause whereby any purchaser certifies they are a VAT registered entity being in a position to enter such an arrangement and should this subsequently transpire not to be the case (as in a private individual), the purchaser becomes responsible to pay VAT on the purchase price as if it had been a Vatable sale in the first instance.

Thank you for that comprehensive detailed reply.

I'm ok with paying the vat on top of the purchase price, even if i had to pay half the overall cost in vat as the current reserve is so low.

My question is however, could my bidding on a property (which presents as a TOB without being vat registered - taxable person) constitute an illegal act and thus invite a law suit?

It seems odd that the vendor - receiver would lay out the terms in such an unattractive way to the majority of potential buyers, perhaps due to the chronicly disorderly vat history records, this place is strictly for vat registered buyers?

I know i appear to be catastrophising but the auction setting means that the vendor dictates all terms after the hammer drops, could the vendor keep my deposit having discovered iam not vat registered and put property up for auction again?

Lenar3556

I would suspect a situation whereby the purchaser is not a taxable person is provided for in the contract. Likely along the lines of VAT being payable on the purchase price by the purchaser in order to put any question of VAT liability on behalf of the receiver to bed. So there would be no illegal act. The difficulty that more frequently arises here is that a private individual succeeds at auction and enters into contracts without any awareness of the VAT clause. At that point either the receiver needs make the necessary enquires and agree that sale is (largely or completely) VAT exempt or the sale is treated as subject to VAT and the purchaser has to cough up - which has come as a surprise to them.

Certainly it’s not an attractive way to sell property. In some cases there is a particularly difficulty with establishing VAT history, but in others the receiver simply doesn’t want to go there, and this arrangement is seen to insulate them from any risk.

Regarding keeping your deposit, as above the usual remedy here is that VAT is charged on the transaction (paid by the purchaser) and that is usually to the full satisfaction of the receiver.

A case for withholding a deposit more frequently arrises where the purchaser decides they no longer wish to proceed with the sale because of an additional imposition of VAT which they had not foreseen.

Well worth getting the legal pack checked over by a good conveyancing solicitor in advance - particularly in the case an apartment - they can be messy! Shouldn’t cost big money.

Mad_maxx

Lenar3556 wrote: »

I would suspect a situation whereby the purchaser is not a taxable person is provided for in the contract. Likely along the lines of VAT being payable on the purchase price by the purchaser in order to put any question of VAT liability on behalf of the receiver to bed. So there would be no illegal act. The difficulty that more frequently arises here is that a private individual succeeds at auction and enters into contracts without any awareness of the VAT clause. At that point either the receiver needs make the necessary enquires and agree that sale is (largely or completely) VAT exempt or the sale is treated as subject to VAT and the purchaser has to cough up - which has come as a surprise to them.

Certainly it’s not an attractive way to sell property. In some cases there is a particularly difficulty with establishing VAT history, but in others the receiver simply doesn’t want to go there, and this arrangement is seen to insulate them from any risk.

Regarding keeping your deposit, as above the usual remedy here is that VAT is charged on the transaction (paid by the purchaser) and that is usually to the full satisfaction of the receiver.

A case for withholding a deposit more frequently arrises where the purchaser decides they no longer wish to proceed with the sale because of an additional imposition of VAT which they had not foreseen.

Well worth getting the legal pack checked over by a good conveyancing solicitor in advance - particularly in the case an apartment - they can be messy! Shouldn’t cost big money.

Thanks again, I've consulted a solicitor but they admit to not being experts in the area of vat.

They also pointed out that the TOB has no business being in there as that only applies to vatable activity and the letting of residential property no longer involves vat.

One might think The inclusion of the TOB is either down to stupidity or malice?

I've not yet consulted a tax consultant as they charge five hundred quid per hour.

One more question please.

Have you ever heard of a situation where even a place sold for 80k today, the vat payable was based on the purchase price in 2007, if the purchase price was say 220 k, the vat payable would have been 29700, if the purchaser ( registered company) claimed back the vat but went bust by 2009, might there be a huge outstanding vat bill and the twenty year vat life might not be as far along the way in terms of vat recovery as you might otherwise think for a twelve year old property?

Unlikely and rare scenario one imagines but i read a piece on the Deloitte website which highlighted an identical example. In that case the vat bill ended up larger than the purchase price.

Dolbhad

There is a general condition of sale at number re VAT that is either inputted or deleted if it doesn’t apply. If it does apply, there are standard legal VAT pre contract queries that are provided. This would be provided in a “private sale” as standard with a full history.

My only experience of VAT is that it was payable on top of purchase price. You may have to get a tax advisor to have a look to be sure.

But as your solicitor has said they are not a tax advisor and could be a case it’s the same on the sellers side so they put really onerous conditions in to cover themselves.

Mad_maxx

Dolbhad wrote: »

There is a general condition of sale at number re VAT that is either inputted or deleted if it doesn’t apply. If it does apply, there are standard legal VAT pre contract queries that are provided. This would be provided in a “private sale” as standard with a full history.

My only experience of VAT is that it was payable on top of purchase price. You may have to get a tax advisor to have a look to be sure.

But as your solicitor has said they are not a tax advisor and could be a case it’s the same on the sellers side so they put really onerous conditions in to cover themselves.

Quite extraordinary that permanent TSB wouldn't properly inform themselves about when and where TOB can apply?

The PCVE is not included but there is a section which says it will be provided to purchaser before closing.

I've no quarrel with paying 13.5% on top of the purchase price but what ( like in the deloitte) the vat calculation is based on the original purchase price?

Perhaps this is why they inserted the TOB in order to make the purchaser think vat was avoidable?

I'm also concerned about whether I have the right to bid as I'm not vat registered, nor would I get a vat number for the purchase of a residential property as the letting of residential property involves no vat

Lenar3556

Mad_maxx wrote: »

They also pointed out that the TOB has no business being in there as that only applies to vatable activity and the letting of residential property no longer involves vat.

Where does the question of letting arise? Is this because being an apartment you are dealing with a leasehold title? For tax purposes, given the length of the lease, this type of transaction is generally treated as a ‘freehold equivalent’ and would be more akin to ‘sale’ than shorter term rental of a property. There may be more reasons for the TOB proposal than this.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

One might think The inclusion of the TOB is either down to stupidity or malice?

You would need to look at the history here to see why the desire for this transfer / VAT treatment. It may be the case that there is potential for a clawback of VAT by Revenue from the receiver arising from a reclamation of VAT by the current owner at the point of purchase - This is where the 20 year vat life comes into play. Have you tried contacting the venders solicitor? He may be able to clarify the position.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Have you ever heard of a situation where even a place sold for 80k today, the vat payable was based on the purchase price in 2007, if the purchase price was say 220 k, the vat payable would have been 29700, if the purchaser ( registered company) claimed back the vat but went bust by 2009, might there be a huge outstanding vat bill and the twenty year vat life might not be as far along the way in terms of vat recovery as you might otherwise think for a twelve year old property?

There are two things here, VAT on a sale and a potential clawback of VAT reclaimed by the current owner at the time of purchase under the CGS. The latter is a matter between the receiver and revenue, but if there is a substantial liability, this may be why these other mechanisms are being proposed by way of disposal. There may be some history to this place that warranted a recommendation to the receiver to dispose of it in this manner. (Avoiding hefty tax liabilities)

Definitely worth getting to the bottom of now. The option to tax / TOB is not going to be an option for you. So really it’s a case of finding out why the receiver is going down this road in the first instance, and what can be done if you are to bid at auction and be successful.

Mad_maxx

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Where does the question of letting arise? Is this because being an apartment you are dealing with a leasehold title? For tax purposes, given the length of the lease, this type of transaction is generally treated as a ‘freehold equivalent’ and would be more akin to ‘sale’ than shorter term rental of a property. There may be more reasons for the TOB proposal than this.


You would need to look at the history here to see why the desire for this transfer / VAT treatment. It may be the case that there is potential for a clawback of VAT by Revenue from the receiver arising from a reclamation of VAT by the current owner at the point of purchase - This is where the 20 year vat life comes into play. Have you tried contacting the venders solicitor? He may be able to clarify the position.



There are two things here, VAT on a sale and a potential clawback of VAT reclaimed by the current owner at the time of purchase under the CGS. The latter is a matter between the receiver and revenue, but if there is a substantial liability, this may be why these other mechanisms are being proposed by way of disposal. There may be some history to this place that warranted a recommendation to the receiver to dispose of it in this manner. (Avoiding hefty tax liabilities)

Definitely worth getting to the bottom of now. The option to tax / TOB is not going to be an option for you. So really it’s a case of finding out why the receiver is going down this road in the first instance, and what can be done if you are to bid at auction and be successful.

The property in question is currently let under a registered tenancy.i am aiming to buy as an investor, hopefully the current tenant will remain on, they haven't been asked to leave

There is little doubt that the borrower reclaimed the vat upon purchase in 2007 when the property was first sold, the purchaser was himself in the property development business, i know this because he is a relatively well-known figure in GAA and league of Ireland soccer

I took the liberty of contacting the vendors solicitor as their details were attached, to say this personal stonewalled me is an understatement, they just repeated over and over again that I need to contact my solicitor and that all the information is in the legal pack.

I made the point that the property failed to register a single bid in the first auction ( main auction of properties took place last Wednesday and lots which failed to sell go back to auction this coming Tuesday) and thus there was insufficient information provided, anyway I got less than nothing.

I'm going to contact a tax consultant I've dealt with before tomorrow, they charge a grand for any sort of simple exercise and even the best minds can't advise if there is a dearth of information.

Incredible amount of mixed messages on this topic, right now I'm still not entirely sure i wouldn't be obliged to carry on a CGS, never mind the potential very large vat liability

Pity as it's a cracking property for the price and in a terrific location in athlone

Mad_maxx

1. Save where the context otherwise requires or implies or the text hereof expresses to the contrary,
the definitions and provisions as to interpretation set forth in the within General Conditions shall be
applied for the purposes of these Special Conditions.
2. The said General Conditions shall: -
(a) apply to the sale in so far as the same are not hereby altered or varied, and these Special
Conditions shall prevail in case of any conflict between them and the General Conditions
(b) be read and construed without regard to any amendment therein, unless such amendment
shall be referred to specifically in these Special Conditions.
3. VAT
3.1 In this Special Condition:
“Accountable Person” has the meaning attributed to that term by Section 2(1) of
the VAT Act;
“Freehold Equivalent Interest” has the meaning attributed to that term under
Section 2 and Section 19(2) of the VAT Act;
“VAT” means Value Added Tax; and
“VAT Act” means Value-Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010 and related VAT
regulations.
3.2 (a) The Sale is by way of a transfer of a business. The Purchaser warrants to the Vendor that
the Purchaser is an Accountable Person for the purposes of Section 20(2)(c) the VAT Act and
the Purchaser has taken or will take all steps necessary to be taken on the Purchaser’s part
so that the Sale will qualify for relief from VAT under Section 20(2)(c) of the VAT Act, and
that the Sale shall not be a supply of goods for the purposes of the VAT Act. The Purchaser
shall indemnify and keep the Vendor indemnified against any loss, cost or liability which
arises as a result of such warranty being or becoming untrue or incorrect in any respect due
to the act, neglect or default of the Purchaser.
(b) Where paragraph 3.2(a) does not apply, the Sale of the property is exempt from VAT
under Section 94(2) of the VAT Act.
4. Title
4.1 Title to the Subject Property shall consist of certified copy Folio and Filed Plan 901L Co.
Roscommon and the Vendor shall not be required by the Purchaser to produce any further
documents pertaining to the title. General Condition 6 is read subject to this Special
Condition.
4.2 To the extent that documents are listed in the Documents Schedule as certified copies or
copies of original documents the Purchaser Accepts that this is what will be furnished on
completion and that the Purchaser shall not be entitled to call for production of the original
or certified copy of that document and no better copies shall be sought or furnished.
4.3 It will be a matter for the Purchaser to satisfy itself as to whether the terms of the lease

randomrb

The vast majority of property on sale on BIDX1 are being sold by recievers/banks this means that they are not in a position to give the usual warranties as they do not know what the situation is with the property and the origional owner can't be cntacted or won't give them the information.

This means in sales that often what happens is that the entire draft VAT clause is inserted to be altered upon purchase. The draft VAT clause basically sets out every different possible VAT situation and usually you delete the majority of it to leave the relevant section. Hopwever here they don't know whether an individual or a business will buy the property and it is easier for the vendor to delete conditions than to add them into the contract.

In this situation I can't give advice but read 3.2.b of what you posted again. I think that might be your answer

Mad_maxx

randomrb wrote: »

The vast majority of property on sale on BIDX1 are being sold by recievers/banks this means that they are not in a position to give the usual warranties as they do not know what the situation is with the property and the origional owner can't be cntacted or won't give them the information.

This means in sales that often what happens is that the entire draft VAT clause is inserted to be altered upon purchase. The draft VAT clause basically sets out every different possible VAT situation and usually you delete the majority of it to leave the relevant section. Hopwever here they don't know whether an individual or a business will buy the property and it is easier for the vendor to delete conditions than to add them into the contract.

In this situation I can't give advice but read 3.2.b of what you posted again. I think that might be your answer

I had noticed 3.2(b)myself and thought it might be a glimmer of light?

I didn't know that they might be willing to remove certain conditions, thought auction conditions were a case of the dye cast?

Do you think it would be common for a vendor to sue here if a person who wasn't vat registered bid and ended up the winning bidder?

randomrb

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I had noticed 3.2(b)myself and thought it might be a glimmer of light?

I didn't know that they might be willing to remove certain conditions, thought auction conditions were a case of the dye cast?

Do you think it would be common for a vendor to sue here if a person who wasn't vat registered bid and ended up the winning bidder?

The best advice in an auction situation is to ask yourself whether you would be happy to continue with the terms as is because they are under no obligation to change them at all. I was just talking about VAT clauses in regards to the removal of terms that were not relevant.

To be honest if you are looking at purchasing this property and you are concerned you need to ask a professional with insurance to advise you writing, not someone on the internet. There is always an inherent uncertainty and risk when dealing with receiver/ bank sales though

Mad_maxx

From a review of the draft contract for sale within, the sale will be by way of transfer of business. This means you take over the VAT history of the property. In such circumstances, the seller is obliged to give you the VAT history and “capital goods record” so you know what you are taking over. Transfer of business can only apply if you are VAT registered, which you are not.



The clause goes onto say that “where paragraph 3.2(a) does not apply, the sale of the property is exempt from VAT”. This means if transfer of business does not apply, for example, because you are not VAT registered, then the sale is exempt from VAT. The seller does not charge VAT and any payment or clawback of VAT to Revenue is the seller’s obligation. This is the best outcome for you and also achieves your objective of not having to deal with the process and administrative obligations of being VAT registered.



There is nothing in the contract for sale that says if the sale is exempt that the seller will be electing for the joint option to tax so it would appear that it’s relatively straight forward. You might want to clarify this with the solicitors that this is what is envisaged. I would be happy to connect with them on your behalf if you thought that would help.



You asked what the VAT liability being taken over would be if the seller acquired the property for €220,000 plus VAT in 2007. I estimate this to be in the region of €11,880. You would immediately have to pay this to Revenue as you cannot charge VAT on residential rents. You would de-register from VAT immediately afterwards. However, my recommendation is to rely on clause 3.2(b) of the Contract for Sale which provides that if transfer of business relief does not apply, the sale is VAT exempt. You do not have to register for VAT or account for VAT in such circumstances. The relief applies automatically if the conditions are met – one of those conditions is that the purchaser is VAT registered. You are not, and therefore Clause 3.2(a) does not apply, so Clause 3.2(b) applies instead.

Mad_maxx

The above piece of advice i received before close of business today from a tax consultant, cost me 500 quid upfront , granted they are endeavouring to garner more information from the vendors

Only bit I'm foggy about is how they sort of assume my not being vat registered is an obvious example of TOB not applying.

Seems sort of arbitrary?

They also seem to be saying if no vat is applied, the liability vanishes?

I've to speak to them again tomorrow and will be putting these questions to them.

I asked them this morning if revenue might turn down my application to become vat registered ( if this was necessary) and they dismissed that out of hand, they also said i could back date registration to November 1st

If their advice is a runner, i will simply stall as best i can and try and politely coerce the vendor to delete condition 3.2

Mad_maxx

thanks to all the contributors , i bought the property , vat was sorted prior

next step is trying to deal with the squatters

Lenar3556

Mad_maxx wrote: »

thanks to all the contributors , i bought the property , vat was sorted prior

next step is trying to deal with the squatters

Good to hear that. Agreed VAT exempt?
Squatters? Subject to a tenancy terms unknown indeed!!!

Mad_maxx

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Good to hear that. Agreed VAT exempt?
Squatters? Subject to a tenancy terms unknown indeed!!!

Well I do not know for absolute certain that squatters are living in it

If it turns out they are there twelve years and have adverse possession, I promise I will walk down o, connell St with a sign reading

"idiocy might be contagious, keep well back"

Just wondering if you need to involve the RTB when evicting unregistered tenants?

As for the vat, yes, it was quite easy to get agreement from the vendors solicitor that the sale would be vat exempt as I'm not an accountantable person, tax consultant also contacted them so they might have earned their fee, solicitor did not think it would be so easy to delete one condition and opt for the other.

Lenar3556

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Well I do not know for absolute certain that squatters are living in it

If it turns out they are there twelve years and have adverse possession, I promise I will walk down o, connell St with a sign reading

"idiocy might be contagious, keep well back"

Just wondering if you need to involve the RTB when evicting unregistered tenants?

As for the vat, yes, it was quite easy to get agreement from the vendors solicitor that the sale would be vat exempt as I'm not an accountantable person, tax consultant also contacted them so they might have earned their fee, solicitor did not think it would be so easy to delete one condition and opt for the other.

Nice one on the VAT, was hoping that would be the outcome.

Occupancy issue might be resolvable without major hardship. Has the vendors solicitor any insight into it? It would be good to understand how the occupants came to be there in the first instance - were they at a point / are they still occupying it to the benefit of the couple who owned it? Are/Were they paying rent?

Initial discreet enquires might be helpful. There could quite arguably be a tenancy in existence. I would suggest avoiding anything heavy handed.

You may be pleasantly surprised and the occupant engages positively. If it became necessary, a monetary inducement may be helpful in having them move on and secure accommodation elsewhere.

Mad_maxx

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Nice one on the VAT, was hoping that would be the outcome.

Occupancy issue might be resolvable without major hardship. Has the vendors solicitor any insight into it? It would be good to understand how the occupants came to be there in the first instance - were they at a point / are they still occupying it to the benefit of the couple who owned it? Are/Were they paying rent?

Initial discreet enquires might be helpful. There could quite arguably be a tenancy in existence. I would suggest avoiding anything heavy handed.

You may be pleasantly surprised and the occupant engages positively. If it became necessary, a monetary inducement may be helpful in having them move on and secure accommodation elsewhere.

I'm concerned that the people who dwell there might get adverse possession, could a receiver sell a property at auction if an adverse possession application was lodged with the PRA?

My solicitor only spotted this today, we both thought the tenancy was registered and that it was only the terms which were absent due to lack of information

Lenar3556

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I'm concerned that the people who dwell there might get adverse possession, could a receiver sell a property at auction if an adverse possession application was lodged with the PRA?

My solicitor only spotted this today, we both thought the tenancy was registered and that it was only the terms which were absent due to lack of information

Unlikely that a receiver would attempt a sale if there were serious deficiencies in the title.

Have you reason to believe that there are issues of this magnitude surrounding the current occupancy?

Maybe just overstaying? Misled and still paying rent to previous owner? Tread carefully but as above, more often than not matters like this are resolved without major difficulty. Local auctioneer might have some info on situation also.

Mad_maxx

Paid a visit to the property this evening, just home actually

Amazing how arriving with a bottle of wine can break the ice, got invited in, stayed nearly an hour, had a look around the apartment, it's in pristine condition and is extremely well looked after by the polish guys who live there

The details

Tenant living there since 2013

Was paying 500 per month until a year ago or so when the receivers moved in

Tenant paying nothing since as receiver didn't engage with tenants

Tenant was never registered


One of the guys has zero English, the guy who did talk to me has poor English and clearly didn't understand everything in terms of the standard practice of a landlord registering a tenancy

I explained as best I could how I needed to get the main tenants PPS number and name in order to register him on the new tenancy, he happily provided me with all the information ℹ requested, I did not talk about what any revised rent should be, that's for another day

The people in the property were very friendly and accommodating, biggest obstacle going forward I envisage is the lack of sufficient English

I'm just wondering do I need to divulge to the RTB how long the guys are living there, what they were paying prior to the other guy loosing his property or that for a period of time they were paying nothing?

All things considered however, my mind is a lot more at ease than it was, guess I was needlessly speculating earlier