backdating tenancy

Dav010

Mad_maxx wrote: »

"catastrophic for the auction houses reputation"

Seriously, have you ever heard of any estate agents getting into trouble for taking fake bids or engineering bids to hike the bidding?

And you're final sentence sort of proves my point, most buyers wouldn't touch a property with a sitting tenant yet there were apparently two interested parties for this one.

Unless of course the other bidder was fake

I decided to buy in the end anyway as the property is still cheap but i hope my experience can be a source of help to others

Would you not assume that if it was going for a good price, there may also be someone else interested? People who buy at auction tend to have done their homework and are there to buy, so it is not at all unusual to have another bidder. Virtually all properties at auction have some issue.

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

Would you not assume that if it was going for a good price, there may also be someone else interested? People who buy at auction tend to have done their homework and are there to buy, so it is not at all unusual to have another bidder. Virtually all properties at auction have some issue.

Sorry, in the last post you said no one would touch a property with a sitting tenant, now you appear to be saying there was someone else along with me.

I'm not saying that the auction house paid for a shill by the way, I'm saying I believe that they were bidding themselves. Much easier than having to be discreet in one's dishonesty like in a hotel traditional auction setting, nice comfortable office and a computer

I've taken note of the properties at the most recent auction which were listed as sold with a single bid, if I see them back up again next year, I'll know they weren't sold at all

Add to that, the property I bought failed to meet reserve the first day, i didn't bid because i did not have title checked or proper advice re_ legacy vat issues, it was then returned for the standard follow up auction a week later with a lower reserve, despite this, it sold for 5k above the first day auction reserve, am I to believe a fellow high risk taker emerged in the intervening five days?

No way i can prove this but like i said it's an area ripe for abuse.

It's difficult to process all of the above in the middle of an auction and despite having been played, I'm not sorry I bought

Dav010

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Sorry, in the last post you said no one would touch a property with a sitting tenant, now you appear to be saying there was someone else along with me.

I'm not saying that the auction house paid for a shill by the way, I'm saying I believe that they were bidding themselves. Much easier than having to be discreet in one's dishonesty like in a hotel traditional auction setting, nice comfortable office and a computer

I've taken note of the properties at the most recent auction which were listed as sold with a single bid, if I see them back up again next year, I'll know they weren't sold at all

Actually if you read my post, I said “most” buyers would not touch a property with a sitting tenant, not “no one”.

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

Actually if you read my post, I said “most” buyers would not touch a property with a sitting tenant, not “no one”.

You are sort of splitting hairs now

Mad_maxx

Ok, back to the main issue here, I've not spoken to a solicitor who specialises in tenancy law but I have spoken to other people who are landlords

All said that i should register the tenancy as commencing in January 2020, they said there was no way i could stand over what happened under a previous landlord?

They also made the point that if the occupants refuse to pay the new rent, it would be much better to be issuing a termination of tenancy notice in the first six months of a tenancy?

i pointed out that if an RTB hearing was then inevitable if the tenants simply ignored the termination notice and i had to go to the RTB , the tenants could produce utility bills etc showing they were in the property from before January 2020, thus potentially exposing me as a liar?

Lot of mixed messages here, I'll probably need to engage with a solicitor well versed in tenancy law

Would welcome a PM with any recommendations for firms who specialise in same, preferably in the west and mid West area

Dav010

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Ok, back to the main issue here,

They also made the point that if the occupants refuse to pay the new rent, it would be much better to be issuing a termination of tenancy notice in the first six months of a tenancy?

Your tenants are not in the first 6 months of their tenancy. Their tenancy rights are uneffected by the change of ownership. You still have to abide by the same rules as the previous owner in relation to rent reviews and termination of tenancy.

If their tenancy began in 2013, then they are into their sixth year, and you will have to check when they last had a rent review along with the rental amount. You will be bound by RTB rules on existing tenancies. That, is why most buyers would want vacant possession.

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

Your tenants are not in the first 6 months of their tenancy. Their tenancy rights are uneffected by the change of ownership. You still have to abide by the same rules as the previous owner in relation to rent reviews and termination of tenancy.

If their tenancy began in 2013, then they are into their sixth year, and you will have to check when they last had a rent review along with the rental amount. You will be bound by RTB rules on existing tenancies. That, is why most buyers would want vacant possession.

There is no record of this property being registered with the RTB, they may have had an informal tenancy or perhaps the occupants are making the whole thing up

How am I "bound by RTB rules" if the RTB have no record of any tenancy?

I do not mind telling the RTB that the occupants are there six years, I'm just slightly perplexed by the spectrum of opinions here, someone has it wrong

Dav010

Mad_maxx wrote: »

There is no record of this property being registered with the RTB, they may have had an informal tenancy or perhaps the occupants are making the whole thing up

How am I "bound by RTB rules" if the RTB have no record of any tenancy?

I do not mind telling the RTB that the occupants are there six years, I'm just slightly perplexed by the spectrum of opinions here, someone has it wrong

A Landlord is required to register a tenancy with the RTB, it does not effect the tenants rights. The tenants rights have nothing to do with the RTB registration. You on the other hand, have taken over the tenancy agreement which the previous owner had with your, now tenants.

There is no such thing as an “informal tenancy”, if they rent the property, they have a tenancy agreement and as such, you are bound by the RTA and the RTB rules on rent review/termination of a tenancy.

I think you should start with a call to the RTB and inform them that you bought a property with sitting tenants who have been there for 6 years. You will get confirmation of your position very quickly.

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

A Landlord is required to register a tenancy with the RTB, it does not effect the tenants rights. The tenants rights have nothing to do with the RTB registration. You on the other hand, have taken over the tenancy agreement which the previous owner had with your, now tenants.

There is no such thing as an “informal tenancy”, if they rent the property, they have a tenancy agreement and as such, you are bound by the RTA and the RTB rules on rent review/termination of a tenancy.

I think you should start with a call to the RTB and inform them that you bought a property with sitting tenants who have been there for 6 years. You will get confirmation of your position very quickly.

I see no evidence that I've taken over anything, original owner bankrupt and the receiver didn't ger involved

As i said earlier in the thread, you could phone the RTB three days on the trot and receive three different pieces of advice

I could tell the RTB everything and still get in trouble

Dav010

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I see no evidence that I've taken over anything, original owner bankrupt and the receiver didn't ger involved

As i said earlier in the thread, you could phone the RTB three days on the trot and receive three different pieces of advice

I could tell the RTB everything and still get in trouble

It seems obvious from your threads in LD and here that you have a set understanding of where you stand. Tenants rights do not change just because the ownership of the property does. Selling a property is one of the few legal reasons a tenancy can be ended, but once you buy the property with tenants in situ, you take over the tenancy agreement that existed under the previous owner.


This might help:

https://ipoa.ie/2869-2/

Graham

I can't see how this could be viewed as anything other than you have taken on a property with an existing tenancy with all the rights this bestows on the tenants and the obligations upon you as landlord.

The clock/tenancy does not reset with a change of landlord.

I really think you need to take professional advice here OP.

Mad_maxx

Graham wrote: »

I can't see how this could be viewed as anything other than you have taken on a property with an existing tenancy with all the rights this bestows on the tenants and the obligations upon you as landlord.

Graham, that's fine if it's the case but I'm astonished at the divergence of opinion both here and elsewhere.

What happens if I tell the RTB that the tenants are living there six years but its established down the road that they are in fact there ten years?

Point is, there being no official records, everything is a guess

Graham

Mad_maxx wrote: »

What happens if I tell the RTB that the tenants are living there six years but its established down the road that they are in fact there ten years?

My guess; if they can prove they've been there 10 years, you inherit the obligations associated with a 10year tenancy.

Caranica

You register the tenancy from when they become your tenants. You can prove when you took ownership. Don't know why you're making it more complicated?

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

It seems obvious from your threads in LD and here that you have a set understanding of where you stand. Tenants rights do not change just because the ownership of the property does. Selling a property is one of the few legal reasons a tenancy can be ended, but once you buy the property with tenants in situ, you take over the tenancy agreement that existed under the previous owner.

Thanks for the link, might it be relevant here that the previous owner here was a receiver? effectively I will be the third owner since the occupants moved in

This might help:

https://ipoa.ie/2869-2/

I don't have a set understanding, this is how I pose questions

Mad_maxx

Caranica wrote: »

You register the tenancy from when they become your tenants. You can prove when you took ownership. Don't know why you're making it more complicated?

Caranica, what you just posted is completely at odds with the other posters contributions today, I'm not saying you are wrong, at this stage i honestly don't know who is right

antix80

Mad_maxx wrote: »

if the guys living there were intent on providing me with false information , it seems at odds with their willingness to provide me with a PPS number

It gives them more rights. Did they mention the deposit they paid the previous owner? Pair of bluffers if you ask me and if you're so easily taken for a walk I'd question whether you should be a landlord.

IMO if they haven't been paying rent, they can regularise their tenancy by paying arrears, and you can backdate their tenancy. Or they can start with a clean slate. Tenancy begins 16/12/19. New contract, payments on time, all above board.

Graham

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Caranica, what you just posted is completely at odds with the other posters contributors today, I'm not saying you are wrong, at this stage i honestly don't know who is right

Registering the tenancy does not necessarily indicate the tenancy starts on the date of registration.

Mad_maxx

antix80 wrote: »

It gives them more rights. Did they mention the deposit they paid the previous owner? Pair of bluffers if you ask me and if you're so easily taken for a walk I'd question whether you should be a landlord.

IMO if they haven't been paying rent, they can regularise their tenancy by paying arrears, and you can backdate their tenancy. Or they can start with a clean slate. Tenancy begins 16/12/19. New contract, payments on time, all above board.

I've signed on for nothing yet so don't get the "taken for a walk" barb

Graham

Personally, I would ask the tenants when the tenancy started.

Preferably I would get this in writing with both their signatures.

Mad_maxx

Graham wrote: »

Registering the tenancy does not necessarily indicate the tenancy starts on the date of registration.

Not sure what you're point is?

Graham

antix80 wrote: »

IMO if they haven't been paying rent, they can regularise their tenancy by paying arrears, and you can backdate their tenancy. Or they can start with a clean slate. Tenancy begins 16/12/19. New contract, payments on time, all above board.

Which part of the legislation allows a landlord to conveniently ignore the previous/pre-existing tenancy?

Mad_maxx

Graham wrote: »

Which part of the legislation allows a landlord to conveniently ignore the previous/pre-existing tenancy?

Does the fact a receiver owned the property between myself and the original landlord change anything at all?

JustMe,K

A tenancy is established from when a tenant takes occupation of the property though isn't it? So a change in landlord, the appointment of a receiver, not paying rent etc is immaterial to the length of the tenancy. Their notice period for rent increases, vacating the property etc is based on how long they have been there and each person may have a different tenancy length.

You really need a few more robust facts, and I would begin with establishing your tenants original move in date.

Graham

As far as I can see, nothing at all from the tenants/tenancy perspective. The only question might be over the tenants original deposit.

antix80

Graham wrote: »

Which part of the legislation allows a landlord to conveniently ignore the previous/pre-existing tenancy?

My point was to put the onus on them to prove they have an existing tenancy arrangement, and they didn't just identify a vacant house and change the locks. They could show bank statements for example, and a copy of the lease they were provided. And if there is an existing tenancy make sure they've fulfilled their obligations (i.e. paying rent) if they want the benefits.

Graham wrote: »

As far as I can see, nothing at all from the tenants/tenancy perspective. The only question might be over the tenants original deposit.

That's the first thing I thought of too.

Mad_maxx

JustMe,K wrote: »

A tenancy is established from when a tenant takes occupation of the property though isn't it? So a change in landlord, the appointment of a receiver, not paying rent etc is immaterial to the length of the tenancy. Their notice period for rent increases, vacating the property etc is based on how long they have been there and each person may have a different tenancy length.

You really need a few more robust facts, and I would begin with establishing your tenants original move in date.

Pick any date in 2013

Graham

antix80 wrote: »

My point was to put the onus on them to prove they have an existing tenancy arrangement, and they didn't just identify a vacant house and change the locks. They could show bank statements for example, and a copy of the lease they were provided. And if there is an existing tenancy make sure they've fulfilled their obligations (i.e. paying rent) if they want the benefits.

The tenants get the benefit of the RTA unless the formal process to take away those benefits has been followed.

A landlord cannot unilaterally decide that those benefits don't apply.

antix80

Graham wrote: »

The tenants get the benefit of the RTA unless the formal process to take away those benefits has been followed.

They might as well say the house was left to them by their granny in poland. I'd be looking for evidence.

Mad_maxx

antix80 wrote: »

My point was to put the onus on them to prove they have an existing tenancy arrangement, and they didn't just identify a vacant house and change the locks. They could show bank statements for example, and a copy of the lease they were provided. And if there is an existing tenancy make sure they've fulfilled their obligations (i.e. paying rent) if they want the benefits.



That's the first thing I thought of too.

That sounds fairly confrontational, my number one priority is to officially get the rent recorded with the RTB, if I have to go through a rent review to achieve that, fine.

I'll know soon enough how decent they are going to be, the job of evicting tenants can come upon anyone and buying a property at top dollar won't prevent it