backdating tenancy

Mad_maxx · 14-12-2019 11:51am #1

bought an apartment in the past week , visited the residing tenants last night , two polish guys , one has zero english , the other has relatively poor english , they claim to have resided in the apartment since 2013 and have kept it absolutely spotless , never seen a rental property so well kept.

the guy who i was able to communicate with had no clue about the RTB process and i suspect he was paying the landlord ( who lost the property to a receiver ) cash in hand

he told me he was paying 500 per month until the receivers moved in and nothing since , as both guys work and their english is terrible , perhaps the receiver didnt bother collecting rent , the receiver certainly didnt register a tenancy

the meeting was extremely warm and friendly , we shared a drink and i stayed nearly an hour , the guy who i communicated with happily provided me with his PPS details and the top of a utility bill for name etc , he appeared fine with my wanting to register the tenancy , i told him it was against government rules not to register a tenancy and was good for both of us .

questions i have are as follows

1. i got the impression that only one of the guys was taking care of bills and rent , presumably his friend pays him privately , they both work in the same place , however , i did not ask for the non english speakers PPS number , i was told his name but did not write it down , do i need to get hold of both their PPS numbers ? , is it necessary to register both of them on the tenancy for fear if things ever went wrong , the guy without any english is effectively squatting ?

2. it is my probable intention to notify the RTB that the property is occupied since 2013 , back date the tenancy and inform them that the rent is 500 per month , i dont see any need to tell the RTB that they were paying nothing for several months due to repossession ?

3. as there was no registered tenancy and the rent has not changed since 2013 , can i go straight to setting a new upward rent , obviously i can do a rent review as there has been none since 2013 and the tenancy has never been registered officially , this would involve providing twelve weeks advanced notice , im ok with that but the question is whether along with registering - back dating the tenancy,if i can set a new rent from the get go ?

antoinolachtnai · 14-12-2019 12:08pm

Congratulations on your purchase.

There are a lot of issues here.

You really need the advice of the solicitor who did the conveyancing for you. His job is not really done until you have possession or the tenancies are regularised (although he will justifiably charge you more for this)

You have taken what the tenant has said at face value. This may or may not be correct.

You have given us little or no context. What is market rent? Is it an RPZ? What do you want to achieve?

Mad_maxx · 14-12-2019 12:14pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Congratulations on your purchase.

There are a lot of issues here.

You really need the advice of the solicitor who did the conveyancing for you. His job is not really done until you have possession or the tenancies are regularised (although he will justifiably charge you more for this)

You have taken what the tenant has said at face value. This may or may not be correct.

You have given us little or no context. What is market rent? Is it an RPZ? What do you want to achieve?

there is no registered tenancy in place , therefore i thought it wise to backdate a tenancy based on the information i have to hand in order to regularise matters , there is no way i or my solicitor can know whether the information provided is water tight , would it matter if the tenants were paying the bankrupt landlord since 2012 instead of 2013 ? , surely when a new landord inherits sitting tenants , the landlord can only really take the information he receives at face value ?

i have contacted the RTB already , they have no record of the property ever having a tenancy attached , 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 and i saw where the number came from ,a child benefit statement .

the property is not in a RPZ

Le shovelle · 14-12-2019 12:20pm

Personally I wouldn't be back dating the tenancy to 2013.
That was the previous owners duty.
As far as I'm aware your responsibilities as a landlord only begin from when you purchased the property.
I would agree with the previous poster and confirm this with your solicitor as usually a property is empty before sale.
If no record exists of the tenancy, commence a new tenancy from now at market rent and register both inhabitants.
Dont let it go too long without them paying anything.
Hope this helps
Good luck

Mad_maxx · 14-12-2019 12:25pm

Le shovelle wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't be back dating the tenancy to 2013.
That was the previous owners duty.
As far as I'm aware your responsibilities as a landlord only begin from when you purchased the property.
I would agree with the previous poster and confirm this with your solicitor as usually a property is empty before sale.
If no record exists of the tenancy, commence a new tenancy from now at market rent and register both inhabitants.
Dont let it go too long without them paying anything.
Hope this helps
Good luck

That's an entirely different response than the previous contributor made, So you don't think I have a responsibility to backdate here?

That's fine, I just don't know if you can simultaneously register a new tenancy and set an increased rent, are you not ignoring the rent review process?

Graham · 14-12-2019 12:27pm

I'd have to disagree with some of your post Le shovelle.

Ignoring the first few years of a tenancy effectively removes some of the rights the tenants have acquired under tenancy law, particularly around notice periods. I can't help but think this would not go down well if ever the tenancy came before the RTB for any reason.

OP is correct in trying to do everything by the book and as this is fairly nuanced, would benefit from discussing with their solicitor.

Redhighking · 14-12-2019 12:29pm

Le shovelle wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't be back dating the tenancy to 2013.
That was the previous owners duty.
As far as I'm aware your responsibilities as a landlord only begin from when you purchased the property.
I would agree with the previous poster and confirm this with your solicitor as usually a property is empty before sale.
If no record exists of the tenancy, commence a new tenancy from now at market rent and register both inhabitants.
Dont let it go too long without them paying anything.
Hope this helps
Good luck

I would have believed their Part 4 tenancy rights still accrue even if no formal lease was in place and would their rights under the legislation exist separately from the OP's freehold rights?

Le shovelle · 14-12-2019 12:36pm

Graham wrote: »

I'd have to disagree with some of your post Le shovelle.

Ignoring the first few years of a tenancy effectively removes some of the rights the tenants have acquired under tenancy law, particularly around notice periods. I can't help but think this would not go down well if ever the tenancy came before the RTB for any reason.

OP is correct in trying to do everything by the book and as this is fairly nuanced, would benefit from discussing with their solicitor.

Your correct Graham. Its not the tenants fault the previous landlord didn't register the tenancy.

I'm just not sure if the new landlord should be responsible for theprevious landlords bad decisions.

They sound like good tenants.

Mad_maxx · 14-12-2019 1:00pm

Graham wrote: »

I'd have to disagree with some of your post Le shovelle.

Ignoring the first few years of a tenancy effectively removes some of the rights the tenants have acquired under tenancy law, particularly around notice periods. I can't help but think this would not go down well if ever the tenancy came before the RTB for any reason.

OP is correct in trying to do everything by the book and as this is fairly nuanced, would benefit from discussing with their solicitor.

hi Graham , i will discuss with solicitor , i only became aware of this information last night as the property was not shown prior to auction , i have a good brass neck and went over a few weeks back and had a good look in the window , i was familiar with other units in the development which sold privately before so knew the layout , high risk obviously but i got it 30% cheaper than most of the units sold in the past few years and 40% cheaper than the most recent , the property is very impressive , they keep it spotless too.

im aware that the tenants have rights regardless of their never having been a registered tenancy , i made a mistake not asking for the second non english speaking guys PPS number , i was invited back over christmas for a few drinks ( going along with a jovial tone seems wise ) so hopefully can collect the other guys details .

Mad_maxx · 14-12-2019 1:02pm

Redhighking wrote: »

I would have believed their Part 4 tenancy rights still accrue even if no formal lease was in place and would their rights under the legislation exist separately from the OP's freehold rights?

sorry , do you mean i dont have a right to collect rent from this property or am i entirely mistaken ?

Graham · 14-12-2019 1:09pm

Congrats by the way, ballsy move buying a property with sitting tenants. Sounds like it's going to work well for you and you got it for a good price.

dennyk · 14-12-2019 1:14pm

You can't "back-date" an RTB registration, but you should provide the actual date the current tenancy originally commenced, to the best of your knowledge, on the registration form. This will most likely result in your paying a late fee, as the fee cannot be waived for any reason, but it's better than submitting false information on your registration form. Check with your solicitor about how best to approach the registration; it's unlikely you'll face any prosecution for the previous landlord's failure to register, as the RTB generally doesn't go that route unless a landlord ignores their official demands to register after they've been found out, but it's good to have proper legal advice just in case. If you're voluntarily submitting your registration unprompted, there likely won't be any issues beyond the late fee, though (an additional €90 on top of the usual €90 reg fee).

The tenancy existed even if it was not registered, so the tenants' rights and obligations (and your rights and obligations) remain the same as with any tenancy. If the tenancy commenced in 2013, then they are likely a couple years into their six-year Further Part 4 cycle at this point (which would have begin on their anniversary date in 2017). As such, you cannot arbitrarily set a new rent amount immediately; you must follow the normal process of conducting a proper rent review and providing proper notice. Technically speaking, the tenant is currently in arrears, since he hasn't been paying the agreed-upon rent amount to the receivership, so in theory you could issue notice, but if you like the tenant then you probably don't want to do that, I'd guess (it's not like it's really your money anyway...). Just make sure you set the appropriate terms for paying rent in the future with them (confirm a monthly rent due date, preferred method of payment, etc.) ASAP.

Unfortunately when it comes to the rent amount, if this amount was not disclosed to you by the property owner at the time of your purchase and the tenancy wasn't registered, you really can only go on the word of the tenants as to what the current rent amount is. If you are fortunate enough not to be in an RPZ, then you can raise the rent to market rent via a rent review regardless of how much of an increase that is, but if you are in an RPZ, then you're going to be limited by the RPZ regulations. You can calculate the total amount you can raise the rent in an RPZ with the RTB's calculator. Of course, either way, if you raise the rent a significant amount, you run the risk of your tenant leaving because they can't afford to pay the new rent, so keep that in mind as well (though in an RPZ, you also need to weigh future profitability; if you're doing a rent review at all, you really must go for the maximum amount, as any increase at all will "reset" the time since the last rent review and you'll be locked into the 4% per year based on that new rent from that point onward...).

Regarding the structure of the tenancy, if only one occupant is on the tenancy agreement, then that occupant is the sole tenant and is solely responsible for everything (rent, damages, lease violations, etc.). The other occupant is not a "squatter"; they would be considered a licensee of your tenant. That's not an uncommon arrangement, and legally speaking there's little you can do about it in any case; tenants do not require a landlord's permission to invite licensees into their home, they are only required to provide you with the name of the licensee (which your tenant has already done). You don't need the licensee's PPS number as he isn't a tenant and wouldn't be listed on the tenancy registration. If the licensee breaks any rules, you can hold the tenant responsible. The only caveat is that a licensee of your tenant can request to become a tenant themselves and you can't "unreasonably" refuse their request; that would entitle them to the same rights (and impose on them the same obligations) as any other tenant, including the Part 4 security of tenure. If they both seem to be decent occupants, though, you've probably nothing to worry about in any case.

Mad_maxx · 14-12-2019 1:22pm

Graham wrote: »

Congrats by the way, ballsy move buying a property with sitting tenants. Sounds like it's going to work well for you and you got it for a good price.

thats another thing , i had to pay 20% above the reserve despite the property failing to sell on the first days main auction at a higher reserve , i didnt have all my research done re_vat in time for the first days auction so held back , i wont name them but they are a well known online auction house who used to operate under a giant auction house which is uk based

while on the surface a good model , im convinced the online auction system is ripe for abuse , what is to stop the auction house placing phantom bids in order to drive up the price , this auction house phone me about every single property i looked up on their site as when you log into a lot , you register an interest which they can see , i suspect i came across as being interested in this property and they decided to shill ?

dont want to get anyone in trouble for offering this opinion , i didnt name names and if all goes well this property was half the price the same development units were making in 2007 so is cheap but my general point is that how do interested parties really know they are competing with real live bidders or at least people looking to buy , i see a lot of this auction houses properties reappearing at follow up auctions a few months later .

something to consider perhaps

Mad_maxx · 14-12-2019 1:33pm

dennyk wrote: »

You can't "back-date" an RTB registration, but you should provide the actual date the current tenancy originally commenced, to the best of your knowledge, on the registration form. This will most likely result in your paying a late fee, as the fee cannot be waived for any reason, but it's better than submitting false information on your registration form. Check with your solicitor about how best to approach the registration; it's unlikely you'll face any prosecution for the previous landlord's failure to register, as the RTB generally doesn't go that route unless a landlord ignores their official demands to register after they've been found out, but it's good to have proper legal advice just in case. If you're voluntarily submitting your registration unprompted, there likely won't be any issues beyond the late fee, though (an additional €90 on top of the usual €90 reg fee).

The tenancy existed even if it was not registered, so the tenants' rights and obligations (and your rights and obligations) remain the same as with any tenancy. If the tenancy commenced in 2013, then they are likely a couple years into their six-year Further Part 4 cycle at this point (which would have begin on their anniversary date in 2017). As such, you cannot arbitrarily set a new rent amount immediately; you must follow the normal process of conducting a proper rent review and providing proper notice. Technically speaking, the tenant is currently in arrears, since he hasn't been paying the agreed-upon rent amount to the receivership, so in theory you could issue notice, but if you like the tenant then you probably don't want to do that, I'd guess (it's not like it's really your money anyway...). Just make sure you set the appropriate terms for paying rent in the future with them (confirm a monthly rent due date, preferred method of payment, etc.) ASAP.

Unfortunately when it comes to the rent amount, if this amount was not disclosed to you by the property owner at the time of your purchase and the tenancy wasn't registered, you really can only go on the word of the tenants as to what the current rent amount is. If you are fortunate enough not to be in an RPZ, then you can raise the rent to market rent via a rent review regardless of how much of an increase that is, but if you are in an RPZ, then you're going to be limited by the RPZ regulations. You can calculate the total amount you can raise the rent in an RPZ with the RTB's calculator. Of course, either way, if you raise the rent a significant amount, you run the risk of your tenant leaving because they can't afford to pay the new rent, so keep that in mind as well (though in an RPZ, you also need to weigh future profitability; if you're doing a rent review at all, you really must go for the maximum amount, as any increase at all will "reset" the time since the last rent review and you'll be locked into the 4% per year based on that new rent from that point onward...).

Regarding the structure of the tenancy, if only one occupant is on the tenancy agreement, then that occupant is the sole tenant and is solely responsible for everything (rent, damages, lease violations, etc.). The other occupant is not a "squatter"; they would be considered a licensee of your tenant. That's not an uncommon arrangement, and legally speaking there's little you can do about it in any case; tenants do not require a landlord's permission to invite licensees into their home, they are only required to provide you with the name of the licensee (which your tenant has already done). You don't need the licensee's PPS number as he isn't a tenant and wouldn't be listed on the tenancy registration. If the licensee breaks any rules, you can hold the tenant responsible. The only caveat is that a licensee of your tenant can request to become a tenant themselves and you can't "unreasonably" refuse their request; that would entitle them to the same rights (and impose on them the same obligations) as any other tenant, including the Part 4 security of tenure. If they both seem to be decent occupants, though, you've probably nothing to worry about in any case.

Hi Denny k

thank you so much for that extremely rigorous synopsis of what is involved in the processes which must be followed here .

i have been a landlord before but im a bit rusty , the only property ive owned for a few years now i have leased to a local authority long term so i forgot some of the important details , plus i dont always feel confident that the RTB staff are terribly well briefed when you make enquiries .

i was myself pretty sure that i would need to register the historic details with the RTB when registering the tenancy , i will list the previous tenancy and rent commencement date as 2013 , i will then for the first three months collect 500 euro from the sitting tenants but i will provide them a rent review notification within a week after arranging the payment plan etc.

i have no desire to go after the sitting tenants for rent arrears but as they were either living rent free or paying half nothing , i see no reason why they will opt to leave after i increase the rent , they are both working and its not dublin so the rent should be managable , poles tend to expect everything for nothing in my experience so i will expect to hear the poor mouth .

as to whether the other guy was listed on the tenancy , i dont know , im not sure if i asked the guy who does speak english would be able to answer ?

mrslancaster · 14-12-2019 2:29pm

dennyk wrote: »

….

Regarding the structure of the tenancy, if only one occupant is on the tenancy agreement, then that occupant is the sole tenant and is solely responsible for everything (rent, damages, lease violations, etc.). The other occupant is not a "squatter"; they would be considered a licensee of your tenant. That's not an uncommon arrangement, and legally speaking there's little you can do about it in any case; tenants do not require a landlord's permission to invite licensees into their home, they are only required to provide you with the name of the licensee (which your tenant has already done). You don't need the licensee's PPS number as he isn't a tenant and wouldn't be listed on the tenancy registration. If the licensee breaks any rules, you can hold the tenant responsible. The only caveat is that a licensee of your tenant can request to become a tenant themselves and you can't "unreasonably" refuse their request; that would entitle them to the same rights (and impose on them the same obligations) as any other tenant, including the Part 4 security of tenure....

Does anyone know what the situation is when the main tenant does not want their lodger/licensee to be added to the tenancy agreement. They might be happy to have lodgers but not want any change to the tenancy agreement as it would change who they can have living in their home with them.

Can a lodger apply directly to the owner to be added to the tenancy agreement or is it the main tenant who is the 'landlord' in this case as they are receiving the rent from the lodger?

Surely an owner can't just add a new person to the tenancy agreement if the main tenant objects? Would that not be a breach of the agreement and the tenants rights?

Graham · 14-12-2019 3:02pm

Doesn't a tenant have the right under the RTA to request to be added to the tenancy after 6 months?

Mad_maxx · 14-12-2019 3:40pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

Does anyone know what the situation is when the main tenant does not want their lodger/licensee to be added to the tenancy agreement. They might be happy to have lodgers but not want any change to the tenancy agreement as it would change who they can have living in their home with them.

Can a lodger apply directly to the owner to be added to the tenancy agreement or is it the main tenant who is the 'landlord' in this case as they are receiving the rent from the lodger?

Surely an owner can't just add a new person to the tenancy agreement if the main tenant objects? Would that not be a breach of the agreement and the tenants rights?

im ok with leaving the second guy as a licensee , i didnt know it wasnt compulsory to add him .

mrslancaster · 14-12-2019 6:52pm

Graham wrote: »

Doesn't a tenant have the right under the RTA to request to be added to the tenancy after 6 months?

Is that for a multiple tenancy arrangement?
In a multiple tenancy (house share) if one tenant moves out and a new tenant moves in it's straightforward, the landlord updates the RTB registration and changes the details. Each tenant pays rent to the landlord.

Any tenant with a tenancy agreement that allows them to take in a lodger has to inform the landlord who is living in the property. The lodger pays rent to the tenant. If the agreement doesn't allow it, then the tenant is in breach of the terms.

If a lodger is allowed, the tenant might not want to add the lodgers name to the RTB details. Surely the registered tenant has the right to refuse and decide who can live in their home or else the landlord is just going over the tenants head.

I don't think its possible to force an owner occupier to make a lodger a tenant so why would it be different for a registered tenant? Lots of posts on boards about the rights of tenants to peaceful enjoyment of their home.

Maybe it depends on who the lodger pays rent to? If its paid directly to the landlord then after 6 months the lodger can ask to be added to the RTB details. If its paid to the tenant then the tenant decides. just trying to understand this.

Graham · 14-12-2019 6:58pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

Surely the registered tenant has the right to refuse and decide who can live in their home

Not from what I can see in the RTA.

Licensee can apply to be made a tenant after 6 months. No approval required from other tenants.

(7) A person who is lawfully in occupation of the dwelling concerned as a licensee of the tenant or the multiple tenants, as the case may be, during the subsistence of a Part 4 tenancy may request the landlord of the dwelling to allow him or her to become a tenant of the dwelling.

(8) The landlord may not unreasonably refuse to accede to such a request; if the request is acceded to—

( a) an acknowledgement in writing by the landlord that the requester has become a tenant of the landlord suffices for the purpose,

( b) the requester shall hold the dwelling—

(i) on the same terms, or as appropriately modified, as those on which the existing tenant or multiple tenants hold the dwelling (other than terms comprising the rights, restrictions and obligations which arise by virtue of a Part 4 tenancy being in existence in respect of the dwelling),

(ii) upon (if such be the case) subsection (3) being satisfied in respect of the requester, subject to the same rights, restrictions and obligations as those subject to which the multiple tenant whose continuous occupation gave rise to the Part 4 tenancy’s existence holds the dwelling.

mrslancaster · 14-12-2019 7:14pm

Graham wrote: »

Not from what I can see in the RTA.

Licensee can apply to be made a tenant after 6 months. No approval required from other tenants.

But is that not only for multiple tenancies where different people come and go?

Say I signed a tenancy agreement for a two bed and I'm living there for a year. Then a friend/ partner/colleague needs a place to stay and they move in as my lodger. They pay me something towards the rent. How can my landlord force me after six months to change the terms of the tenancy agreement by adding an extra person?

Graham · 14-12-2019 7:20pm

I didn't suggest the landlord can force anything.

The licensee can request, the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse.

mrslancaster wrote: »

But is that not only for multiple tenancies where different people come and go?

General principle in relation to dwellings occupied by more than one person.

49.—(1) Subject to this Chapter, the provisions of this Part apply regardless of the fact that the dwelling concerned is occupied at the particular time by either or both—

( a) multiple tenants,

( b) one or more persons who are also lawfully in occupation of the dwelling as licensees of the tenant or the multiple tenants, as the case may be.

mrslancaster · 14-12-2019 7:26pm

Graham wrote: »

I didn't suggest the landlord can force anything.

The licensee can request, the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse.

Thanks for the details Graham. Still confused though because if a lodger asks the landlord directly and he agrees, where does that leave the tenant who has the tenancy agreement and rights? I don't see how a landlord can change the terms if the tenant refuses.

Graham · 14-12-2019 7:28pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

Thanks for the link Graham. Still confused though because if a lodger asks the landlord directly and he agrees, where does that leave the tenant who has the tenancy agreement and rights? I don't see how a landlord can change the terms if the tenant refuses.

Tenant has the option not to take in licensees.

enricoh · 14-12-2019 7:32pm

How long have they not been paying rent? When people are used to getting something for nothing, they can be resistant to changing!

Mad_maxx · 14-12-2019 11:21pm

enricoh wrote: »

How long have they not been paying rent? When people are used to getting something for nothing, they can be resistant to changing!

As long as I can conduct a review and set the rent to the max, I'm happy even they go rogue. I'll deal with that afterwards, my priority is getting things through before SF do their damage

Question though, in order to activate a new rent ( three months advanced notice, proof of other properties charging the same etc), must the tenant make at least one payment of the new rent in order to confirm the new rent is registered with the RTB?

What if they fail to even pay the original 500 euro rent for the first three months?, would that invalidate a rent review?

Del2005 · 16-12-2019 12:44am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

thats another thing , i had to pay 20% above the reserve despite the property failing to sell on the first days main auction at a higher reserve , i didnt have all my research done re_vat in time for the first days auction so held back , i wont name them but they are a well known online auction house who used to operate under a giant auction house which is uk based

while on the surface a good model , im convinced the online auction system is ripe for abuse , what is to stop the auction house placing phantom bids in order to drive up the price , this auction house phone me about every single property i looked up on their site as when you log into a lot , you register an interest which they can see , i suspect i came across as being interested in this property and they decided to shill ?

dont want to get anyone in trouble for offering this opinion , i didnt name names and if all goes well this property was half the price the same development units were making in 2007 so is cheap but my general point is that how do interested parties really know they are competing with real live bidders or at least people looking to buy , i see a lot of this auction houses properties reappearing at follow up auctions a few months later .

something to consider perhaps

The same thing can happen in a physical auction where they take bids from the wall. Auctions are ripe for scams from the auctioneers.

mrslancaster wrote: »

Thanks for the details Graham. Still confused though because if a lodger asks the landlord directly and he agrees, where does that leave the tenant who has the tenancy agreement and rights? I don't see how a landlord can change the terms if the tenant refuses.

They have a new co-tenant. They don't have any rights as a tenant to keep another person on as a licensee. The only way to keep someone a licensee is to be a homeowner.

It's the same law that lets a tenant walk away from their lease by nominating someone to take it over, the landlord either accepts the new tenant or not but the old tenant is free to leave without any consequences.

Mad_maxx · 16-12-2019 1:05am

Del2005 wrote: »

The same thing can happen in a physical auction where they take bids from the wall. Auctions are ripe for scams from the auctioneers.

They have a new co-tenant. They don't have any rights as a tenant to keep another person on as a licensee. The only way to keep someone a licensee is to be a homeowner.

It's the same law that lets a tenant walk away from their lease by nominating someone to take it over, the landlord either accepts the new tenant or not but the old tenant is free to leave without any consequences.

So is it necessary to register both occupants as a tenant with the RTB?

As for fake bids at auction, that's hardly the same thing, the bids at an online auction are officially registered, a bidding number is visible

Del2005 · 16-12-2019 5:42am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

So is it necessary to register both occupants as a tenant with the RTB?

As for fake bids at auction, that's hardly the same thing, the bids at an online auction are officially registered, a bidding number is visible

I'd register whoever is on the lease. Even though they are on Part 4 you should do up a lease with payment dates and what they need to look after etc

If the bids are registered in an online auction how is it "ripe for abuse"?

Mad_maxx · 16-12-2019 9:09am

Del2005 wrote: »

I'd register whoever is on the lease. Even though they are on Part 4 you should do up a lease with payment dates and what they need to look after etc

If the bids are registered in an online auction how is it "ripe for abuse"?

Is it any easier to evict in the first six months of a tenancy?

The auction house can place bids themselves and are not exposed at all unlike in a hotel room in a physical auction

16-12-2019 9:32am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Is it any easier to evict in the first six months of a tenancy?

The auction house can place bids themselves and are not exposed at all unlike in a hotel room in a physical auction

On what are you basing your assumptions of abuse?

Unlike a conventional bidding process, in an auction, when the hammer falls, the property is yours. It would be incredibly risky to bid if you were not actually interested in buying. Also, it would be catastrophic for the auction house’s reputation, why would they risk than when auctions are so popular?

To answer your question on eviction, if the tenant digs their heels in, it is just difficult no matter how long they are there, hence why most buyers would not touch a property with a sitting tenant, never mind one who has a history of refusing to pay their rent.

Mad_maxx · 16-12-2019 10:35am

Dav010 wrote: »

On what are you basing your assumptions of abuse?

Unlike a conventional bidding process, in an auction, when the hammer falls, the property is yours. It would be incredibly risky to bid if you were not actually interested in buying. Also, it would be catastrophic for the auction house’s reputation, why would they risk than when auctions are so popular?

To answer your question on eviction, if the tenant digs their heels in, it is just difficult no matter how long they are there, hence why most buyers would not touch a property with a sitting tenant, never mind one who has a history of refusing to pay their rent.

"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

16-12-2019 10:58am

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 · 16-12-2019 11:03am

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

16-12-2019 11:16am

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 · 16-12-2019 11:19am

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 · 16-12-2019 1:03pm

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

16-12-2019 2:21pm

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 · 16-12-2019 2:31pm

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

16-12-2019 2:42pm

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 · 16-12-2019 2:46pm

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

16-12-2019 2:57pm

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 · 16-12-2019 3:02pm

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 · 16-12-2019 3:07pm

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 · 16-12-2019 3:09pm

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 · 16-12-2019 3:09pm

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 · 16-12-2019 3:09pm

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 · 16-12-2019 3:12pm

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 · 16-12-2019 3:12pm

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 · 16-12-2019 3:14pm

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 · 16-12-2019 3:18pm

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 · 16-12-2019 3:19pm

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

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

backdating tenancy

Comments