Camelot Properties

rcdk1

Did a quick search and was surprised to find only two ( 1 & 2 ) threads from three years ago where this company was mentioned.

Anyway, there was segment today on the Last Word (Matt Cooper on TodayFM) about a company called Camelot Property and also an article in the Irish Times last week.

Basically, if a building owner has a vacant building (not necessarily residential), this company will rent it out on a short term basis to tenants to live in. The tenant gets cheap accommodation (and I think free ESB & gas), the company gets the rent and the owner doesn't have to hire security to protect his building.

The down side for the tenant is that they're under licence and don't have a tenancy and the associated rights. Also, children and pets aren't accepted.

Anyone have any experience or thoughts on the company or this type of scheme?

Personally I thinks it sounds like it could be an option for someone their late teens or early twenties with no ties.

Doom

Are you liable for 3rd party damage or if the place got robbed...

rcdk1

My understanding was that the tenant isn't liable.

Matt Cooper did ask about insurance and both Camelot and the tenant have insurance as part of the scheme/ contract.

Also, while the tenants provide security by their presence, the Camelot rep said that they are not expected to act as security guards e.g. Be there 24hrs a day, confront intruders etc.

Zamboni

I hope their solicitors are on the ball.
If this set up is legally bulletproof I would be very surprised.

They charge an individual rent to live in a property and claim that the individual has no tenancy rights.
The call a person a guardian of the property and yet do not insure that individual.
I don't see how tenancy law does not apply to this circumstance.

The whole thing is either genius or it stinks.

rcdk1

The rep seemed confident that they do have everything legally bulletproof.

As for the reduced tenancy rights, as I said they are entering into a Licence rather than a Lease (see PRTB leaflet) so it's not illegal. As for being morally dubious? Well if both parties enter into the licence with their eyes wide open, then I don't see a problem. The IT article quotes their regional manager as saying it's the same as staying in a hotel.

Also as mentioned, both Camelot and the Licencee (i'm going to stop using tenancy and tenant) both have insurance and one would assume the building owner has as well.


(Disclaimer: I've no connection to the company and no knowledge of their operation other than what I listed in the OP. I'm more than well aware of the hazards of the property and accommodation markets and any counter-argument I make is playing the role of devil advocate...... also because I'm an argumentative b@$t@rd )

cml387

I seem to remember an article in The Sunday Times last week or the week before about this.
There were some people staying in a large empty convent somewhere up the country.

Zamboni

cml387 wrote: »

I seem to remember an article in The Sunday Times last week or the week before about this.
There were some people staying in a large empty convent somewhere up the country.

Loreto Abbey in Rathfarnham.

It's a disgusting old kip from the time of child abuse and it's gardens have been left to rot.
God knows who owns it and I wouldn't live in it even if the rent was cheap.

What is funny though is that you'd pay around €1,200-€1,400 a month to rent a dingy 2 bed in the apartments next door.

Zamboni

rcdk1 wrote: »

The rep seemed confident that they do have everything legally bulletproof.

As for the reduced tenancy rights, as I said they are entering into a Licence rather than a Lease (see PRTB leaflet) so it's not illegal. As for being morally dubious? Well if both parties enter into the licence with their eyes wide open, then I don't see a problem. The IT article quotes their regional manager as saying it's the same as staying in a hotel.

Also as mentioned, both Camelot and the Licencee (i'm going to stop using tenancy and tenant) both have insurance and one would assume the building owner has as well.

From the PRTB document you linked.

What is a Licensee?
A licensee is a person who occupies accommodation under licence. Licensees can arise in all sorts of accommodation but most commonly in the following four areas;
(b) persons staying in hotels, guesthouses, hostels, etc.,
(b) persons sharing a house/apartment with its owner e.g. under the ‘rent a room’ scheme or ‘in digs’,
(c) persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal licence arrangement with the owner where the occupants are not entitled to its exclusive use and the owner has continuing access to the accommodation and/or can move around or change the occupants, and
(d) persons staying in rented accommodation at the invitation of the tenant.

I fail to see how any of these applies to a person living in the circumstance outlined.
A & B don't apply.
C) There is no arrangement between the owner and the individual living in the property.
D) Camelot is not a tenant of the property, so they cannot invite a licensee to stay in rented accomodation.

rcdk1 wrote: »

Also as mentioned, both Camelot and the Licencee (i'm going to stop using tenancy and tenant) both have insurance and one would assume the building owner has as well.

What type of insurance could a person living in the accomodation have to safeguard themselves or their possessions?

Zamboni

rcdk1 wrote: »

The rep seemed confident that they do have everything legally bulletproof.

The rep was on the Matt Cooper show to drum up business because he thinks we will make a fortune from empty properties.
Of course he is going to say everything is rosy

rcdk1

rcdk1 wrote: »

The IT article quotes their regional manager as saying it's the same as staying in a hotel.

Zamboni wrote: »

From the PRTB document you linked.

What is a Licensee?
A licensee is a person who occupies accommodation under licence. Licensees can arise in all sorts of accommodation but most commonly in the following four areas;
(a) persons staying in hotels, guesthouses, hostels, etc.,
.....

I fail to see how any of these applies to a person living in the circumstance outlined.
A & B don't apply.....

It would seem A applies.

What type of insurance could a person living in the accomodation have to safeguard themselves or their possessions?

People living in under normal Private Residential Tenancies are not covered by their landlords insurance either and have to get seperate insurance (if they wish).

rcdk1

Zamboni wrote: »

The SALES rep was on the Matt Cooper show to drum up business because he thinks we will make a fortune from empty properties.
Of course he is going to say everything is rosy

FYP!
You're right of course, he was selling his business/service.

Zamboni

rcdk1 wrote: »

It would seem A applies.

Doest it though? Does a commercial office block fall into this category?
Camelot does the same with industrial and commercial properties that are not designated living spaces.

rcdk1 wrote: »

People living in under normal Private Residential Tenancies are not covered by their landlords insurance either and have to get seperate insurance (if they wish).

You are talking about contents insurance though.
What if a person was injured during a robbery they could and would claim against Camelot and/or the owner of the property.

rcdk1

Zamboni wrote: »

Doest it though? Does a commercial office block fall into this category?
Camelot does the same with industrial and commercial properties that are not designated living spaces.

You mean in terms of zoning and planning?

You are talking about contents insurance though.
What if a person was injured during a robbery they could and would claim against Camelot and/or the owner of the property.

They give a level of security by their presence and are specifically told not to confront intruders. That being the case, if they do get injured it's no different to a tenant or hotel guest getting assaulted.

odds_on

c) persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal licence arrangement with the owner where the occupants are not entitled to its exclusive use and the owner has continuing access to the accommodation and/or can move around or change the occupants,

IMHO this applies here - Camelot are acting as agents for the owners.

There are several companies in the UK who do the same kind of thing - cheap (usually around 50 sterling per week) rents. They seem to be fairly successful.

rcdk1

odds_on wrote: »

IMHO this applies here - Camelot are acting as agents for the owners.

The quote from the IT article about hotels threw me off but now that you mention it I agree that (c) seems the best fit.

Diarmuid

Zamboni wrote: »

What is funny though is that you'd pay around €1,200-€1,400 a month to rent a dingy 2 bed in the apartments next door.

Only if you are a fool

Zamboni

Diarmuid wrote: »

Only if you are a fool

Good to see they've gone down. They are not even nice apartments.
I remember a two bed going for €1,600 there not so long ago. :eek:
There is a massive digusting stagnant pond right in the middle of the complex.

Diarmuid

Zamboni wrote: »

Good to see they've gone down. They are not even nice apartments.
I remember a two bed going for €1,600 there not so long ago. :eek:
There is a massive digusting stagnant pond right in the middle of the complex.

You can get some very nice 3 bed houses around the corner for 1200-1300 now.

antoinolachtnai

What seems to me would make it a licence is that you are not getting exclusive use of the property. You just get to live there as part of a work arrangement with Camelot. As I understand it, you must occupy the property to fulfill the contract (unlike a tenancy where you just pay for the right to live in the place.)

bigneacy

Seen a bit about them in my local paper today - the local hotel is up for grabs here in Dundalk - €150 per month, free rent & esb!

Zamboni

bigneacy wrote: »

Seen a bit about them in my local paper today - the local hotel is up for grabs here in Dundalk - €150 per month, free rent & esb!

Which Hotel?

bigneacy

Zamboni wrote: »

Which Hotel?

The Park Inn - I see from their site they want €150 rent per month from 3 'Guardians' - ensuite Double bedrooms, shared kitchen. no bills. Application Page

Johnny Foreigner

Read this:
http://getsatisfaction.com/camelot_property_management_ltd/topics/stealing_my_deposit#reply_1008679

beazee

They were today in Waterford local radio looking for 12 licensees for Waterford Manor on Grace Dieu:


€100-€200pm (believe ESB+gas are included) seems reasonable once you're up accepting their terms:
- no pets
- no children
- no parties
- max 2 guests at one time, pre-registered by courtesy text