Short notice lettings of "for sale" properties

2ndcoming

Hi all,

I heard from someone that with so many cases of <possibly distressed> properties for sale in the current climate that aren't getting any bites, it's worth approaching the estate agents about asking the owners if they would be willing to let it to you for a reduced rate, on the basis that if they want to show it you make it available and you're willing to upsticks and leave at short notice.

E.g. a 3 bed semi where typical rent for similar in the area would be 900 p.m., offer 600 p.m.

Chancing your arm but surely it's better for them than having it sitting funding the mortgage themselves.

Anyone have any experience of this?

pawnacide

You could just call around to their house and start shouting looser, flash a few tens in their faces and tell them if they wanna feed their kids they better accept your offer .. bottom feeders of the world unite.

Zamboni

:pac:
Wtf has the vendor's personal circumstances go to do with the OP?

pawnacide

u serious ?

Thats mighty Christian of ya.

Zamboni

pawnacide wrote: »

u serious ?

Thats mighty Christian of ya.

Serious about what?
I just asked a question which you haven't answered.

Ps: What has a random monotheistic belief go to do with this topic?

pawnacide

It wasn't really a reply, more an observation.

In my experience people in desperate circumstances are aware when they are being taken advantage of, the OP is unapologetically seeking to take advantage of people in 'distressed' circumstances. I simply think it's wrong. I would've thought that was clear and needed no further clarification.

UDP

How is he taking advantage? It should be a win win situation for both sides if the tennant doesn't destroy the place and if they can be kicked out quickly if the place is sold. It means the seller gets to make a few bob and the place is kept warm and clean while waiting to get a buyer.

pawnacide

That only works if it was bought to let.

dearg lady

Slightly confused, would the owner not be living in the property? How would it be advantageous to them to rent it to someone below marker rate and go off and rent somewhere themselves? Surely they would be better to stay put until it gets sold

strandroad

I think that what the OP means is a situation when the house for sale is empty - the owners are living elsewhere and it's not rented. Surely there's plenty of properties like that.

In theory it's a win-win as someone said above but then perhaps preparing the house to turn it into a rental is not worth it if it's only meant to be short term.

CricketDude

I think what you suggest would work. But only if you are willing to go for unfurnished. There probably wont be the incentive for the landlord to kit out the place for you if the place will be selling soon or you might be leaving soon.

Unfurnished is the best way to go anyway. Unfortunately there are not a lot of landlords who can or want the hassle of removing their stuff and putting it back again, depending on which tyoe of tenant they get next.

If 40 or 50% of places to rent were always unfurnished then there would be aproper market for it.

I was able to negotiate €100 a month off the normal rent for a relative of mine looking for an apartment by saying that any repairs during the tenancy, he would pay for himself. It suits both parties. Tenant looks after stuff as it is theirs. Landorld has less hassles, so gives a discount.

UDP

CricketDude wrote: »

I was able to negotiate €100 a month off the normal rent for a relative of mine looking for an apartment by saying that any repairs during the tenancy, he would pay for himself. It suits both parties. Tenant looks after stuff as it is theirs. Landorld has less hassles, so gives a discount.

What if there is a leak in the plumbing causing damage to the ceiling? There are lots of thinks that could go wrong which would cost > €1,200 in a year.

Zamboni

pawnacide wrote: »

In my experience people in desperate circumstances are aware when they are being taken advantage of, the OP is unapologetically seeking to take advantage of people in 'distressed' circumstances. I simply think it's wrong. I would've thought that was clear and needed no further clarification.

Is attending a liquidation auction of a failed business wrong?
There is no 'taking advantage of people' happening here. That would only be the case if you knew the people involved, had a gripe with them and exploited their financial situation with intent.
Without this, it is simply a transaction by two complicit parties.

If anything the OP may have stumbled upon a great idea that could benefit a lot of renters and vendors alike.

Gandhi

You could certainly try it, but tbh if I was in the seller's position I would think you were trying to pull a fast one of some kind. What evidence to they have that you WOULD keep the place nice enough to show at short notice? Or that you WOULD willingly leave at the drop of a hat? Other than some random stranger who walked up and knocked on their door said so?

Not saying you should not give it a go, and fair play to you for creative thinking, but don't be surprised if you get a door slammed in your face a few dozen times before it works.

pawnacide

Zamboni wrote: »

Is attending a liquidation auction of a failed business wrong?
There is no 'taking advantage of people' happening here. That would only be the case if you knew the people involved, had a gripe with them and exploited their financial situation with intent.
Without this, it is simply a transaction by two complicit parties.

If anything the OP may have stumbled upon a great idea that could benefit a lot of renters and vendors alike.

I don't really get how nobody's taking advantage here, its exactly what he's doing or thinking of doing.

Cant see how having a gripe changes anything and he/she very definitely would be exploiting their financial position.

While the parties may end up being complicit one party is only complying due to their 'distressed' financial position.

You'd have to be morally vacuous not to see that. Now don't get me wrong I know people do this kinda thing day in and day out but at least lets call a spade a spade.

StillWaters

But it wouldn't only be people in distressed situations who could use this. Any landlord who wants to sell with vacant possession, but would prefer tenants in situ during the time the house is on the Market. The only issue I see from the LL point of view is that tenants would accrue same rights as under a normal tenancy, so they could be difficult to remove upon acceptance of offer.

pawnacide

If ur talking about rental properties then ur just talking about making lower offers on houses for rent. I don't think thats what the OP was referring to.

Zamboni

pawnacide wrote: »

If ur talking about rental properties then ur just talking about making lower offers on houses for rent. I don't think thats what the OP was referring to.

The OP's is offering a potential short term solution with benefits to both parties but you have decided to latch onto his inclusion of the words <possibly distressed> and infer that the whole concept is malevolent.

Rather than actually debate the idea you just sit back and throw in phrases like morally vacuous and bottom feeders.

Your perspective is a microcosm of the failure of the Irish population to suceed in self governance due to a misguided and ill informed notion of compassion.

odds_on

StillWaters wrote: »

But it wouldn't only be people in distressed situations who could use this. Any landlord who wants to sell with vacant possession, but would prefer tenants in situ during the time the house is on the Market. The only issue I see from the LL point of view is that tenants would accrue same rights as under a normal tenancy, so they could be difficult to remove upon acceptance of offer.

Exactly, StillWaters.

While I agree with the OP, legally there could be problems.

If the property doesn't sell within six months (and many don't) then the tenant acquires the right to stay in the property for up to 4 years. You cannot have a clause in the lease agreement that the tenant must leave at a certain date - this would be against the RTA 2004 which tries to give more security of tenure to a tenant.

The only way around this is to only allow the same tenant to occupy the property for less than six months - therefore he do not acquire Part 4 rights. Even if the tenant only signs a 6 month lease and then signs a second lease, he gains Part 4 rights due to accumulation of his time in occupancy. The day after he signs a second six month lease he gains Part 4 rights and no clause in a lease to prevent this would be valid.

With a Part 4 lease, the landlord/vendor has the right to "evict" a tenant by issuing a valid Notice of Termination under his right to do so if he intends to sell the property, but what happens if a tenant over-holds and will not leave the property - the process of eviction could take months and leave the vendor liable for claims by the purchaser as well as the purchaser pulling out of the sale because there is no vacant possession.

There are many properties for sale which are rented out on short fixed term basis. However, the purchaser must wait until the end of the lease before he can take possession of the property - no something which all purchasers want. However, with a Part 4 lease, a landlord/vendor can evict the tenant within the first six months without giving a reason. But if the tenant happens to stay in the property for more than six months then he acquires Part 4 rights to remain there.

A periodic lease might be the way to go - but again after 6 months the tenant acquires Part 4 rights to remain there.

jmayo

pawnacide wrote: »

You could just call around to their house and start shouting looser, flash a few tens in their faces and tell them if they wanna feed their kids they better accept your offer .. bottom feeders of the world unite.

Ah FFS get off the moral high horse you'll get spinters in your derriere.

Perish the thought someone would profit at anothers expense.
For someone to win someone has to lose, that is life.

Except in this case if handled right both sides could win to a certain degree.

pawnacide wrote: »

u serious ?

Thats mighty Christian of ya.

Would you might explaining to us what are christian values ?
Would these have been the ones primarily practiced by the population and governing authorities in this country throughout the 20th century which turned a blind eye to all the sh**e that went on ?

pawnacide

Let's be clear here, The OP is talking about contacting people in 'Distressed' situations .. his words not mine .. and offering them SFA to rent the properties .. if ye see nothing wrong with this bottom feeding, vulture like behaviour then the celtic tiger has truly had a horrific effect on the cultural and moral behavior of its cubs.

Look! there's an ambulance .. shouldn't you be chasing it.

pawnacide

jmayo wrote: »

Would you might explaining to us what are christian values ?
Would these have been the ones primarily practiced by the population and governing authorities in this country throughout the 20th century which turned a blind eye to all the sh**e that went on ?

It's an expression is all, but if you must have an answer .. Christian values as i see them refer to a set of behaviors necessary for the peaceful co-existance of large populations. They are the same values espoused by the majority of religions and modern philosophies. Whether or not Catholics or others have chosen to disregard these values for their own benefit is irrelevant, the basic values remain the same.

By and large I think most people agree with these values but are will willing to throw them aside when it comes to making or saving money. I'm not , you clearly are .. best of luck with that.

2ndcoming

pawnacide wrote: »

Let's be clear here, The OP is talking about contacting people in 'Distressed' situations .. his words not mine .. and offering them SFA to rent the properties .. if ye see nothing wrong with this bottom feeding, vulture like behaviour then the celtic tiger has truly had a horrific effect on the cultural and moral behavior of its cubs.

Look! there's an ambulance .. shouldn't you be chasing it.

I am dreadfully sorry for including the words <possibly distressed> in my original post and offending you so. What a despicable creature I must be.

I had almost forgot about this thread, alas I return a week later to find that it appears to have been commandeered by someone who clearly doesn't have a clue what I'm on about.

First of all, I never mentioned anything about contacting people directly I said contacting auctioneers and estate agents.

Let me point out my own personal situation. I purchased an insanely overpriced 2 bed apartment in November 2007. In early 2009 my partner at the time, who was joint owner, and I broke up. For the following year she continued to reside in the property.

For the two years since it has been rented out, which brings us up to early 2012. Recently, my ex has decided that she wants to sell the place, as she doesn't want to be tied down to it and is considering emigrating.

Now I have no problem with this, we've both moved on with our lives so either of us moving back in there isn't really an option, so when the current tenancy is up, which will be soon, the property will be put up for sale for what I imagine will be a lengthy period given the current market.

So rather than service the 1200 p.m. mortgage on our own shoulders for the next 6 months or year, I would be quite happy to let it on a short term basis if it even halved that liability.

You may be shocked to hear I'd be so happy with being plundered, pillaged and taken advantage of like this I might not even call the Rape Crisis Centre.

The flipside being while we're both already carrying this financial burden, it's very difficult to afford to rent suitable properties, so the same arrangement would suit us (or anyone else in our situation) down to the ground.

Maybe I will start a pro-choice abortion thread shortly in AH for you to focus your moralist rants on a different subject and leave the rest of the progressive people on this thread to get on with things.

pawnacide

2ndcoming wrote: »

I am dreadfully sorry for including the words <possibly distressed> in my original post and offending you so. What a despicable creature I must be.

I had almost forgot about this thread, alas I return a week later to find that it appears to have been commandeered by someone who clearly doesn't have a clue what I'm on about.

First of all, I never mentioned anything about contacting people directly I said contacting auctioneers and estate agents.

The flipside being while we're both already carrying this financial burden, it's very difficult to afford to rent suitable properties, so the same arrangement would suit us (or anyone else in our situation) down to the ground.

Maybe I will start a pro-choice abortion thread shortly in AH for you to focus your moralist rants on a different subject and leave the rest of the progressive people on this thread to get on with things.

Lol .. interesting take on the meaning of 'progressive' ..

so why not just put it on the rental market for 600 .. I'll take a leaf out of your book and rent it for 300 and sublet for 600 .. u get 300 off you mortgage, I get 300 I can donate to the anti abortion campaign and everyone's a winner.

Oh happy days.

2ndcoming

Clearly you can't let a property on a 6-month or 1 year lease and have it for sale at the same time but I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain this to you.

For what it's worth I would say when 8 previous posters agree with me and 0 agree with you maybe you should just say to yourself, 'okay, maybe I'm just not getting this', and go away and troll some other thread.

I certainly won't be replying to you again and I'd appreciate if you stopped dragging the thread down some imagined moral side-road. As said by everyone else, what I'm talking about is win-win for both parties, if you can't understand that yet you're not going to.

pawnacide

2ndcoming wrote: »

Clearly you can't let a property on a 6-month or 1 year lease and have it for sale at the same time but I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain this to you.

yes u can .. just put it in the lease.. It happens all the time. try ringing around a few agents and try asking for a 2/3/4/5/6 month lease the number of yes's u get will go up as the number of months go up and the price will go up as the number of months go down. There's agents out there that specialize in short term lets an its not coz they make less money.

I'll stand by what I said, I'll rent ur apartment for half the market value as long as you allow me to sublet.

pawnacide

2ndcoming wrote: »

I certainly won't be replying to you again and I'd appreciate if you stopped dragging the thread down some imagined moral side-road. As said by everyone else, what I'm talking about is win-win for both parties, if you can't understand that yet you're not going to.

You wanna gain from others misfortune, be a man/woman and stand by what u said .. world is too full of self righteous greedy shopkeepers 'fumbling in their greasy tills'.

You wanna rent a house go rent one. If you can explain why anyone other than a completely uninformed, down on their luck person would rent you a house for significantly less than the market value I'd be only too delighted to retract all I've said.