Apartment I'm renting has gone into Receivership

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