Bank taking landlord's house & has served us eviction notice

Proximo · **Posted:** Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:04 pm

Landlord wrote:

Proximo wrote:

Landlord wrote:

If your individual tenancy is not registered and you have no lease you have no rights.

That is complete Bullshit. :roll:

Wishful thinking Landlord ... ?? :lol:

No it is not.

A landlord has no responsibility to a tenant he does not know about?

Most tenancy agreements have a clause that prohibit sub leases without prior consent. There is a reason for this clause that tenants sometimes forget.

Tenancy rights are not automatically bestowed on tenants who just move in without the knowledge/permission of the landlord.

Perhaps wishful thinking on your behalf after all.

From the top Landlord, you raise at least three issues off beam in a lame attempt to justify your bullshit statement:

As The Jackal stated, he has no copy of the Lease, even though he was promised one. So your point about "most tenancy agreements" is irrelevant. As such a contract will be deemed to exist between the LL and those who pay him rent, unless the LL can produce a copy signed by the Jackal and/or other tenants and duly witnessed. Only then can the dispute revert to what's in it.

You state that tenancy rights are not automatically bestowed on a tenant who moves in without permission - who said anything about permission ? What are you talking about ? If you're suggesting that the PRTB will simply ignore what's been going on for years i.e. tenant leaves and finds someone else to move in then you're wrong again - very common situation. If the LL accepted the rent then it's a tenancy and rights are assigned to LL and tenant accordingly.

But regardless of that particular point, if the Landlord has accepted rent - then a contract exists and the PRTB will entertain it. And so will the courts. The LL is in the shit for not registering it to boot. He should also have provided a rent book. It will go to PRTB arbitration during which it will be simple to establish that the LL was perfectly happy for the tenant (he has now been deemed to be a de facto tenant) to reside as long as the rent was paid. This process will take at least a year, and the LL cannot evict while it's ongoing.

Landlord · **Joined:** Aug 10, 2010 **Posts:** 2565

You are ignoring the possibility of an original lease with tenants who no longer live in the property.

From my own experience, once a property is let I very rarely (if at all) see my tenants as rent is paid directly into my bank account.

Consider the scenario, of a tenant who moves out (after signing a lease) and somebody else moves in without the landlords permission or knowledge. Are you saying a valid tenancy exists between the landlord and the new person?

The rent may continue to get paid but IMO no tenancy exists with the new person.

Paperwork and leases exist for a reason

Coles2 · **Posted:** Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:55 pm

+1 Proximo. There's a lot of disinformation in this thread.

@Landlord, Read the opening post again.

JohnnyTheFox · **Joined:** Oct 20, 2010 **Posts:** 1267

Landlord wrote:

You are ignoring the possibility of an original lease with tenants who no longer live in the property.

From my own experience, once a property is let I very rarely (if at all) see my tenants as rent is paid directly into my bank account.

Consider the scenario, of a tenant who moves out (after signing a lease) and somebody else moves in without the landlords permission or knowledge. Are you saying a valid tenancy exists between the landlord and the new person?

The rent may continue to get paid but IMO no tenancy exists with the new person.

Paperwork and leases exist for a reason

If tenant A and tenant B move in and sign a lease and, at some point, tenant B moves out and is replaced by tenant C then it would surely depend on whether the method of payment affords the landlord knowledge about the change. If all the rent was being paid form tenant A's bank account and continued to be paid uninterrupted from that same account then, yes, maybe we're talking about an unauthorised sublease. But if the landlord was receiving separate rental payments from individual tenants and, at some point, payments from tenant B ceased and payments from tenant C commenced then there is a solid argument that, by accepting the payments from tenant C, the landlord has agreed to a tenancy with him.

room305 · **Joined:** May 24, 2008 **Posts:** 1183

If the OP moves out within the notice period and the property is let rather than sold, then he/she will be eligible for compensation. Just lodge a complaint with the PRTB.

It sounds like the only time the OP found out about the transfer of ownership was when the eviction notice was served. So TheJackal should be within his or her rights to contest the eviction notice on validity grounds alone and demand that the bank provide some proof of this transfer of ownership/control (or whatever the legal specifics are, I know a repossession is not strictly an ownership transfer). And to ask when it occurred, since the bank did not have the courtesy to inform you of the landlord change.

Further point of note, your original lease (de-facto) is with the original landlord who appears to now be out of the picture. You now appear to have a new lease with the bank (again de-facto, no paperwork signed). Is this considered a new lease, or can you (and I think credibly) argue that your long running lease was transferred (without your knowledge). Also, shouldn't the bank have lodged a new tenancy agreement with the PRTB since the record the PRTB have - i.e. between you and the original landlord - is incorrect.

Bottom line, shoddy and slipshod and pro-landlord as the Irish rental laws appear to be (bureaucratic sloth appears to be the major factor in the tenants favour when contesting an eviction but this can work in the landlord's favour if they want to turn your deposit into a free loan), I'd still be surprised if they allow a bank to repossess a house and boot the tenants out immediately.

pollydolly · **Joined:** Aug 24, 2007 **Posts:** 579

Looks like the times may be a-changing in the UK with a landmark ruling yesterday:

Quote:

At a two-day hearing for possession in June, Grow Heathrow – which took over the site on Vineries Close, Sipson, in March 2010 – said the local community fully supported the project. In written judgment, Walden-Smith said: "I accept that is most likely to be the case that the local community do consider Grow Heathrow on the land as a great asset."

However, while Walden-Smith ruled that the land should return to its owner, she also ruled that the private sector was subject to Article 8 on the right to a home.

"The supreme court has so far shied away from reaching a determination as to whether Article 8 applies to private as well as public landlords."

"In my judgment … [since] the land is being occupied as a home, Article 8 is capable of application even though the landowner is a private individual and the occupies are trespassers," she ruled.

Barrister Justin Bates, a housing law specialist from Arden Chambers and deputy general editor of the Encyclopaedia of Housing Law, said that if the court of appeal backed the decision, it would, "potentially affect every single private landlord and tenant relationship in the country".

Currently Bates said private landlords under shorthold contracts were allowed to evict tenants under no fault clauses without worrying about human rights obligations but this would change instantly if Wednesdat's judgment was backed by the court of appeal.

Bates, who is also vice-chair of the Housing Law Practitioners Association, said it could mean that couples with a new born child who were being asked to leave a rented property could have a decent chance of arguing that they had a right to stay in their rented property and that landlords would be forced to take this right into account before asking tenants to leave.

Tenants having human rights - the horror! :lol:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/18/heathrow-squatters-ruling-housing-law?INTCMP=SRCH

superman · **Joined:** Jan 25, 2007 **Posts:** 1321

room305 wrote:

Bottom line, shoddy and slipshod and pro-landlord as the Irish rental laws appear to be (bureaucratic sloth appears to be the major factor in the tenants favour when contesting an eviction but this can work in the landlord's favour if they want to turn your deposit into a free loan)

I would argue that tenancy law in Ireland in the main is overly pro-tenant. There are only 2 things to me which are "anti-tenant":
1. Deposits should be held by a third party.
2. Getting rid of tenants because you need a house for yourself/for a family member should not be a right under any circumstances.

buddygunz · **Joined:** May 26, 2008 **Posts:** 1433

I believe illegal evictions should be a criminal offence.

TheEmigrant · **Joined:** Sep 14, 2009 **Posts:** 1392

superman wrote:

Getting rid of tenants because you need a house for yourself/for a family member should not be a right under any circumstances.

What landlord in their right mind would rent out their whole house knowing they could be evicted by the short term tenant?

People seem to forget that all these privileges are paid for in the form of dramatically increased rents.

room305 · **Joined:** May 24, 2008 **Posts:** 1183

superman wrote:

room305 wrote:

Bottom line, shoddy and slipshod and pro-landlord as the Irish rental laws appear to be (bureaucratic sloth appears to be the major factor in the tenants favour when contesting an eviction but this can work in the landlord's favour if they want to turn your deposit into a free loan)

I would argue that tenancy law in Ireland in the main is overly pro-tenant. There are only 2 things to me which are "anti-tenant":
1. Deposits should be held by a third party.
2. Getting rid of tenants because you need a house for yourself/for a family member should not be a right under any circumstances.

The second one is a pretty major exclusion, that would result in a whining screech fest that could be heard on the other side of the Atlantic from politicians on every inch of the ideological spectrum if it were to apply to homeowners in Ireland, even those in severe arrears on their mortgage.

A family with a newly born infant can be legally booted out of the house they live in (their home) with less than a month's notice regardless of whether they have somewhere to go or not after signing a contract in good faith for exclusive use for a year, simply because the landlord wants to sell it, or let a family member use it ...

Think about it. I can't think of another measure that could possibly tip the balance back in favour of the tenant with that humdinger in there. But if you want to mention a few go ahead.

Calina · **Joined:** Nov 28, 2006 **Posts:** 4376

room305 wrote:

A family with a newly born infant can be legally booted out of the house they live in (their home) with less than a month's notice regardless of whether they have somewhere to go or not after signing a contract in good faith for exclusive use for a year, simply because the landlord wants to sell it, or let a family member use it ...

In my view, elements of the Irish rental business are very much not in favour of long term tenancies and I think those elements are cultural rather than legislative. For example, I'd like more freedom on the decoration front.

However, the above comment regarding the breakage of a clause is not, as I understand it, necessarily true. If you have signed a fixed term lease without a break clause then I don't think it's that easy for a landlord to invoke breaking the lease using any of the excuses offered for breaking a part VI lease.

There is provision in the legislation for both parties being able to exit the lease within 6 months of its being signed at 28 days's notice but I don't believe it's been tested in court as to whether that over-rides the provisions in a fixed term lease for the term actually being fixed. My understanding was a fixed term lease was a fixed term lease and could not be exited by either party with the exception that the tenant has the right to assign the lease and can exit the lease if the landlord refuses the assignment unless the lease also included a break clause. In my experience, Irish landlords do not generally agree to break clauses.

In my view, sale of the property and transfer to family member should be excluded as reasons for which a landlord can terminate a Part VI. I suspect if houses could not be traded easily because they had tenants in them, they might not necessarily have been traded for capital appreciation so much during the bubble period.

Prior to 2004, one of my leases had a clause concerning the de facto renewal of said lease if neither party issued a desire not to renew the lease. This bit my landlord on the leg at the time as he tried to convince me I didn't have a lease and therefore had no rights so here is 2 weeks notice I want to sell.

The issue I have with the Irish rental market is that in many respects, it's just not that flexible. Fixed term leases without break clauses, for example are unbelievably common and this is to the detriment of both parties.

Proximo · **Posted:** Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:59 am

Hope you're not too stressed Jackal. Some thoughts below.

The Jackal wrote:

I've looked but no sign. Don't think we were ever given a copy (despite verbal promise we would be given one)
There's no promise of a 'Copy' of a Lease. Either you (or more likely your brother) signed TWO copies (one each tenant + LL) or you did not. If you did, LL must produce it. If not, you're under general tenancy rules - still PRTB.

Am I correct is saying that if I appeal to PRTB within the 28 days, this appeal will take weeks or months to complete, and I cannot be evicted in the interim? Seems a good option if so.
Yes, but you must jump through all the hoops immediately - a wise strategy regardless.

Got the shocking news two weeks ago that the landlord's house is being taken by the bank and they have served us a month's notice, expiring Aug 2.
Who ? The LL ? The LL's Agent ? The Bank ? (Very important)

It is a house share. I have been in the house over 3 years. My brother has been in over 4. The other tenants are new, inside of 1 year.
Did anyone sign anything ? If so what / when ?

My brother and I are both registered with the PRTB, although this was only done about a year ago.
Very good for you - when you registered is irrelevant - for now. LL registered it or did you volunteer ?

I believe I should get 84 days notice as in over 3 years. My brother should get even more as in over 4 years.
That's a mess, and yet to be established. Once you correctly notifiy the PRTB you're in the clear until they determine - which will take a long time.

We've tried to be nice about it (as Agent for landord has always been great to us) and looked straight away for a new house. but we've quickly found the quality out there, for a reasonable price, is so shocking.
Stick to your objective. You need to buy some time to make a move or stay on your own terms. If you get to stay (long term with their agreement) it'll be a bonus.

Getting to the point now where I just want to stick up for my rights and be given my full notice period (84 days) v their strong arm tactic of 28 days. This would allow me more time to find a decent house, rather than panic in the final two weeks and move into a less desirable home.
Precisely what you should do. Dispute the notice with the PRTB to protect yourself. Then think of it as 90 days notice and get on with the task of finding a new gaff. You've paid your rent, don't feel guilty, and don't take the piss.

The notice states reason for eviction is landlord wishes to sell house. This is not really correct. Bank is just taking control of house.
Whether you think this is correct or not is irrelevant. It's for the PRTB to decide through their process and you don't have to do anything - it's between them - it does not affect your position.

Surveyors were in this week and my brother overheard them saying they had a family in mind who would love to rent the place. Therefore, the bank does not intend on really selling house. It will be rented and money going to bank.
Pay NO attention to hearsay, it's just that no more no less. And pay less attention to some prick saying that within earshot of anyone (knowing he was evicting them) in the house. What a cunt. I'd have decked him.

What are my rights here?
Same as they were before the prick(s) arrived. Remember - you paid your rent and they started that shit.

We are perfectly willing to stay on, with bank as new landlord. This was shot down on the spot by landlord's agent and surveyors for the bank, without even bringing our offer to bank.
None of them will entertain that for lots of reasons. Important one is that the Bank want vacant possession - it's crucial to how they account for its carrying value and is a serious matter.

I am registered with the PRTB. I have the letter they sent me.
Good, makes it easy for them to remember you !

I am minus a copy of the lease which would impact on any PRTB dispute.
No, it won't.

However, I wouldn't be staying for the duration of the appeal, be it a year or longer to come to fruition. I'd feel mean about to be honest.
That's a really excellent attitude Jackal, take as much time as you need to move on, no more.

I'd just likely need a month or two longer to find a decent house. So if they won't give me my 12 weeks notice period (as expected for living there 3 years), I'll just appeal to PRTB.
Do this immediately to safeguard your position. Remember, you paid your rent, and it will change nothing for LL or Bank - they're in exactly the same position. It will only help them and hinder you if you don't.

My eviction notice states landlord is selling house. Really, he is giving control back to the bank as he has many rental properties and owes them a lot of money. The bank in turn, it appears, is not selling it. They will likely rent it to a family. This my brother overheard stated by the bank's surveyors (so it may not actually happen.)
Bit sneaky really by the bank. Why not just take the house off landlord and then offer the current tenants (ie myself) a new lease under their terms?
They need Vacant Possession first - it resets the clock for them in all sorts of ways. They may well strike a deal with you, but can you take their word ? - No.

Best of Luck !!

superman · **Joined:** Jan 25, 2007 **Posts:** 1321

room305 wrote:

I can't think of another measure that could possibly tip the balance back in favour of the tenant with that humdinger in there. But if you want to mention a few go ahead.

Perhaps anti-landlord is better... I completely agree that that part of the law is anti-tenant. As far as I am concerned, it is due to the cultural history of Ireland of a bunch of amateur landlords. One can't imagine a law like that in a state where there are professional landlords.

There are many anti-landlord provisions in the way the tenancy work in practice. The difficulty in removing a non-paying tenant is one of the more obvious examples.
Also the fact that notice requirements under the tenancy acts [the formalities of which are interpreted in regards to landlords] are not interpreted strictly for tenants - e.g. tenants must give notices that they are leaving in writing, not verbally.

yoganmahew · **Posted:** Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:14 pm

Vote of thanks to Proximo - might want to make that post a key one...

TheJackal · **Joined:** Aug 20, 2009 **Posts:** 1991

Cheers for the great advice Proximo.

House hunting has not gone well last few days. We found a great house to rent up the road but landlord gave it to a family instead. Apart from that, it's been slim pickings last 3 weeks.

Been noticing that anything in good shape, reasonable value goes pretty much the same day!

Bank taking landlord's house & has served us eviction notice

Who is online