Apartment I'm renting has gone into Receivership

GPO JOHNNY

Anyone have experience of this? Have looked up endless stuff on what to do next but doesn't make it easier as the landlord is laying on the guilty text messages like me paying rent to the newly appointed receiver has cos them their apartment?! He's claiming he never got any documentation and that anyone can claim to be a receiver?! As occupier I have the paperwork saying otherwise. Has a landlord ever come back from this, as in overturn it through a loophole or renegotiate with lender? I would of thought it was game set match to lender at this point.

Anyone know anything different?

In between rock and a hard place.

dennyk

If you've been given official notice of the receivership, then you pay your rent to the receiver and ignore your former landlord's requests to pay them instead. Your landlord's financial troubles are your landlord's problem, not yours, though unfortunately it is very likely that the landlord will now have little incentive to meet their legal obligations regarding your tenancy, so you can probably expect them to ignore any future requests for repairs or maintenance, and the chances of you getting your deposit back from them without a legal fight are probably slim.

If you do need urgent maintenance of some sort and the landlord refuses to do anything, you could try contacting the receiver; while the receiver is not your landlord and has no legal obligations relating to your tenancy, they may have a financial incentive to ensure that critical maintenance and repairs are carried out on the property in order to maintain its value and allow your tenancy to continue producing income, so they might be willing to arrange repairs if required, if the landlord is refusing to.

_Kaiser_

That can't be right? Apartment gets taken over by a receiver, the tenant has to pay them instead, but the receiver has no obligation to the tenant/tenancy?

SupaCat95

Truth is when things are that bad, peoples fight or flight function kicks in. Your landlord is in complete denial of the situation. There is a possibility it will drag down his own house mortgage. The Reciever is there to recover what he can in the interests of the creditors. You really need to ask the reciever what he plans to do with the property.

I would honestly expected the apartment to be on the market (bidx) as soon as it is legally ready to be sold.

JVince

Very simple, the receiver is now your landlord.

They will most likely appoint a property agent and that will be your contact for any issues.

The receiver will keep to all terms of the lease.

At some point the property will be sold and you will get a new landlord who may then decide they want the property, - but that's probably 2 years or more away

niallm77

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058368916/apartment-im-renting-has-gone-into-receivership

Has the company that owns the apartment been officially placed in receivership with the CRO

dennyk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122615639#Comment_122615639

Correct; so long as the landlord still owns the property, the landlord is still legally responsible for the tenancy. The receiver only acts as an agent of the landlord in regards to certain limited matters, and is not involved in the tenancy other than collecting the rent money. If the property is repossessed by the bank, then the bank would become the landlord, but receivership is not repossession. This pamphlet explains the situation in more detail.

GPO JOHNNY

How do I find out about that actually, is there a site? It's not a company that's gone into Receivership it's a landlord and he's acting like me paying the first installment of rent to receiver has somehow been the smoking gun that has lost his apartment. It comes across like he's buried his head in the sand and not engaged with reality and will not accept the receivers as legally in charge of rent now. Luckily it was a short term lease and I always leaving in the spring anyway so issues about the maintenance of apartment hopefully won't tear it's head in the remaining months. I'm just worried about his threatening email of his solicitor and accusing me of not paying rent and currently I'm in arrears when the rent has gone to the receiver. Cheers for all the feedback folks.

topal

Bear in mind the receiver might not honour your deposit. You should get them to confirm they will preferably in writing. The landlord isn't going to pay it.

shimadzu

The reciever should have sent you a documentation pack including a deed of appointment and details surrounding their obligations to you as a tenant. They need to confirm that they will take responsibility for returning your deposit when the tenancy ends and that they are responsible for any future tenancy issues including maintenance. If they can't do that you continue paying rent to the landlord. If the landlord is not getting rent you can be sure they will not be returning the deposit or performing any maintenance and they will be able to argue that you breached the conditions of your lease by not paying your rent into the account specified in the lease on time.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122617072#Comment_122617072

The bank that appointed the receiver is now the landlord, not the receiver.

Claw Hammer

Is the property registered with the PRAI? A copy of the Folio will show you which bank or fund has a charge on it.

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122636749#Comment_122636749

You are confusing repossession with receivership. The role of the receiver is to act as agent for the landlord in collecting the rent any other sums due, a receiver does not take on any obligations, it assumes entitlements only.

GPO JOHNNY

In theory, yes I have read up on it and the receiver is supposed to be acting as an agent in terms of collecting the rent to manage debts but in reality this particular landlord doesn't except the appointment of the receiver whatsoever, he has emailed me telling me that anyone can just pretend they are a receiver as he claims he has not yet received legal documentation of the appointment. He tells us that he has instructed us to ignore letters and keep paying him. Before all this he was interestingingly enough trying to intercept mail coming to the apartment saying it wouldn't concern us as tenants and these were bank correspondence with himself but he was a bit slow off the mark with that and of course we opened mail that was addressed to us as occupants of the apartment and then we saw the clusterf**k situation we find our self in. Last week we paid the rent to the receiver and are in negotiations to agree on a date when we can move out. I just worry about the landlord not accepting reality and doing something desperate to keep the property.

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639674#Comment_122639674

The receiver is the agent of the landlord but is appointed by the charge holder (generally a bank or finance company). The receiver should be able to give you sufficient evidence of their appointment. If the landlord persists in its actions you should jointly notify the landlord and the receiver of your inability to remit the money until they provide adequate proof. Don’t withhold rent or threaten to withhold rent but actually hold the money pending satisfactory resolution.

ted1

Put the rent in a savings account. Pay no one until you get legal instructions.
Once you get a legal notice as to who to pay. Pay them what’s owed.

JVince

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122636749#Comment_122636749

Nope. Whilst the receiver is appointed by the bank, he/she acts as the landlord until such time the receivership is over.

eg - when buying a property in receivership, the sale is still in the name of the person who owns the property, but the receiver is acting on their behalf and "receives" the funds and disburses them to themselves, the lending institution, and then any balance to the owner.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122644418#Comment_122644418

You do not play games "waiting for legal instructions" - That can start an eviction almost immediately as "non paying". A receiver is court appointed. If they send you a direction it is in effect a legal obligation. Saying you've "put the money into a savings account" will be laughed at

Receivers don't really care. Don't pay the rent or play games, they can put in motion eviction and won't give a toss and won't change their mind. Similarly, pay them, cause no hassle and you will have ZERO worries.

Posts by @dennyk actually explains it to a tee and the OP should heed those posts it their entirety.

topal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122651826#Comment_122651826

I was in the exact same situation as the OP a few years ago. I didn't pay until their receiver's solicitor clarified who was to be paid. I did not get laughed at. On the contrary I got them to agree to cover the deposit which they initially said the landlord should pay (pull the other one).

So OP bare in mind your deposit is likely gone and plan accordingly.

JVince

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122651993#Comment_122651993

You made a reasonable request to the receiver and most likely well in advance of the payment due date and did not play games.

The poster suggested awaiting "legal instructions" and to withhold payment / put into a separate account. That's not good advice.

At the end of the day, a receiver is appointed by a court and any official notice in writing from a receiver is in effect a legal notice.

DellyBelly

Might be an opportunity to actually buy the apartment for yourself at a decent rate…no harm trying anyway

topal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122652019#Comment_122652019

My experience was they gave as little information as possible and just wanted me to pay rent as soon as possible. Refused to send me any written confirmation or details of process. And the letter I eventually got from their solicitors was equally unhelpful and resorted to threats of legal action. Really felt railroaded by the whole process. If I didn't get advice on how to handle it from someone in the industry I would likely have been down a deposit.

topal

If you really want to make a nuisance of yourself OP mention to the letting agent you plan on knocking on your neighbours doors and letting them know their situation regarding the receivership.

JVince

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122652073#Comment_122652073

That's correct. They want as little hassle as possible, so if the OP plays games as suggested by one poster, they go legal and you get evicted.

They actually did not need to send you a letter from a solicitor. If you had a query, you get your own independent legal advice - who would have told you the receiver was correct.

The deposit is a different matter as you (and they) are still bound by the terms and conditions of the lease. Most likely they needed to get a copy of the lease, read it, confirm the deposit paid and then confirm back to you. If the landlord has an issue with the receiver, that can take time.

topal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122652089#Comment_122652089

It may be correct but from a tenants perspective it isn't right.

ted1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122651826#Comment_122651826

it’s not as simple as you make out.
The receiver needs to go through a process of issuing notices. When the tenant receive notice he can pay the rent and any notice will be void

https://www.rtb.ie/images/uploads/old/Registration/Notice_of_Termination_-_Rent_arrears_0912-23.docx#:~:text=A%20tenant%20must%20receive%20the,of%20service%20of%20the%20notice.

spaceHopper

Why are you moving out, if you like it and the rent is ok, keep paying your rent to the receiver and only move once they give you valid notice but first check with the RTB that the receiver can give you notice. Lastly and I know this is sneaky but I'd not pay the last month rent and tell them to keep your deposit instead, you'll never see it otherwise

topal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122652238#Comment_122652238

Mostly agree with this but the law says the old landlord is the one who should return the deposit. There is close to zero chance of this happening however since they are already not paying the financial institution and are no longer taking deposits or rent.

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122651826#Comment_122651826

in cases such as these, the receiver is almost never “court-appointed”, the receiver is appointed pursuant to the charge document attached to the loan. It is appropriate for the tenant to carry out minimum due diligence to establish that the receiver has been appointed to ensure that they don’t become doubly liable.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122638510#Comment_122638510

The bank is entitled to the rent and is therefore the landlord. The definition of landlord in the Tenancies Act is that the landlord is the person entitled to the rent, other than as agent for someone else. Since the receiver is an agent, he can't be the landlord.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122651826#Comment_122651826

The bank is entitled to the rent and is therefore the landlord. The definition of landlord in the Tenancies Act is that the landlord is the person entitled to the rent, other than as agent for someone else. Since the receiver is an agent, he can't be the landlord.

GPO JOHNNY

Wow the discussion went into overdrive all of a sudden. Really appreciate the correspondence back and forth which is reassuring as I believe I have done the right thing.

Im moving out because my actual house will be finished refurbishment in the new year so I'm one of the lucky ones and don't have to worry about finding a home in such a situation. Regarding the deposit, again I was blessed as the "old" (if we are being official now) landlord said there was no need for a deposit, I think he knew this was all coming and he just wanted a short tenancy which suited us so we agreed to a 6 month tenancy plus extra time if needed regarding refurbishment. We paid the receiver the rent last month, I really felt for the "old" landlord but every single advice I look at says you must pay the receiver. Like someone said in another post the documentation of the appointment receiver attached to the loan and all sorts of notification documents were sent to us before we decided we had to pay the receiver. We just want to get the **** out of dodge in the new year because it sounds like the landlord has not accepted the appointment of the receiver and I don't want to be in the middle of something ugly. The receiver is deciding on when to notify us of any eviction orders but they seem to want to comply with our timeline. We just have to hope nothing breaks like the oven or something like that because like you are all saying, that falls between the cracks of the duties of the landlord with bithe the receiver and the old landlord shirking responsibilities no doubt.

Reading up on this , it seems a lot of these receiverships are on the rise so its reassuring to know people have knowledge on this it they need to help any posters on here. Thanks guys and gals

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122652595#Comment_122652595

you really don’t understand the law. The bank is entitled to its interest and principal. Until such time as possession proceedings are taken and effected, the landlord remains the landlord. The bank has security over the property and when a receiver is appointed the receiver takes control of the rent proceeds and applies them to pay interest and principal. If any excess arises, it must be turned over to the landlord. The landlord or the person entitled to the rent has not changed - the receiver does not have a beneficial interest in the rent.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122653028#Comment_122653028

You really don't understand the law.

in the Residential tenancies act 2004 Section 5, "landlord"

means the person for the time being entitled to receive (otherwise than as agent for another person) the rent paid in respect of a dwelling by the tenant thereof and, where the context so admits, includes a person who has ceased to be so entitled by reason of the termination of the tenancy;

. The bank has appointed a receiver and is entitled to the rents until its debt is repaid. The bank does not need to take possession proceedings. If the bank wants, it can sell as mortgagee in possession. If you look at the legal packs on BIDx1, the majority of which are receivership sales, there are no possession orders. The purchasers buy on the basis of a breach of condition by the mortgagor entitling the bank to appoint a receive3r and foreclose.

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660229#Comment_122660229

nope! The bank is not entitled to the rent, the bank is entitled to seize the rent payable by the landlord to offset the debts owing by the landlord/borrower to the bank. The bank is owed cash, it is not owed rent. The rent is merely the mechanism by which it gets the cash.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660436#Comment_122660436

The landlord does not pay rent!. He owes the bank the outstanding sum on the mortgage. The bank is entitled to the rent to offset against the landlords debt. The rent has to be paid to the bank, therefore the bank is entitled to the rent and so it is the landlord for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Marcusm

obviously mean “to” the landlord and I’m giving up now because you don’t understand the concept of a receivership - the ownership of the asset and the underlying income does not change, it is a mechanism to direct the cash flow representing the income (rent).

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660466#Comment_122660466

Control of the asset changes and the ownership can be changed by sale. In a situation like the o/ps the lease is void. The bank could throw him out. Instead, by asking for rent the have adopted the lease. Receivership is a means for a bank to take control of the property without a court order and take the income and proceeds of sale, passing any surplus back to the borrower.

topal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660534#Comment_122660534

The lease may be void but their tenancy rights aren't. There is still a process to evict them.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122669254#Comment_122669254

There can't be a tenancy without a lease and there can't be rights without a tenancy. there is no eviction process. The bank can throw the tenants out without ceremony.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/tenant-protests-against-eviction-5z0w8vg2tf0