Glut of repossessed houses could depress prices ‘by up to 25%’

Villa05

Under part 4 is selling a valid reason to give notice

ChRoMe

Villa05 wrote: »

Under part 4 is selling a valid reason to give notice

Quite, and is the reason for the assertion that tenants have very little to no rights in this situation.

cookie1977

Villa05 wrote: »

Under part 4 is selling a valid reason to give notice

Once they give correct notice and reasons (such as selling) they can evict but simply taking over a property and evicting without reasons or notice is utterly ridiculous and illegal.

Ray Palmer

ChRoMe wrote: »

Quite, and is the reason for the assertion that tenants have very little to no rights in this situation.

They still have to give you notice which is a right. Yes they can ask you to leave but they must give correct notice and honour any lease you have in place already even if signed by the original owner. That is a lot of rights.

cookie1977

ChRoMe wrote: »

Quite, and is the reason for the assertion that tenants have very little to no rights in this situation.

I disagree with you about tenants and rights and responsibilities. They have plenty which unfortunately (like landlords) they don't know about nor do they utilise.

Frank Lee Midere

This termination of contract on selling is something which is radically different from other countries, if that's true. I know in Germany that property has to be sold with tenants in place. They may have long term tenants with 1+ years notice ( countries with large rental populations including middle class renters have such laws).

I wonder though as in all these cases whether people are talking about implicit tenancys. As I've said on similar threads contract law should supercede normal tenacy laws. With most business purchases you inherit the contract.

Frank Lee Midere

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I don't buy that. Your contract is with the old owner, not the new one. They are not a landlord, they signed nothing to that effect.

Businesses inherit contracts.

cookie1977

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Businesses inherit contracts.

Hence why we see on ads "tenant in situ".

Snakeblood

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Businesses inherit contracts.

But the bank isn't inheriting the business, they're taking over the assets.

ChRoMe

Ray Palmer wrote: »

They still have to give you notice which is a right. Yes they can ask you to leave but they must give correct notice and honour any lease you have in place already even if signed by the original owner. That is a lot of rights.

The fact they will tell you they are terminating the lease early when the tenant has done nothing wrong, doesn't seem like a strong right to me personally.

Yes it is a "right", just not a particularly fair one. Tenant would have no hope of doing the same thing in the opposite direction.

"Hey landlord, I've decided I don't want to live here anymore, I know I'm only three months into the lease but you know whatevs"

cookie1977

ChRoMe wrote: »

The fact they will tell you they are terminating the lease early when the tenant has done nothing wrong, doesn't seem like a strong right to me personally.

Yes it is a "right", just not a particularly fair one. Tenant would have no hope of doing the same thing in the opposite direction.

"Hey landlord, I've decided I don't want to live here anymore, I know I'm only three months into the lease but you know whatevs"

The tenant must receive up to 16 weeks (depending on how long the've been there) notice with a valid reason for termination. If the tenant wanted to leave they only have to give between 4 weeks and 8 weeks notice depending on how long the've been there. That's not a bad deal in my mind.

ChRoMe

cookie1977 wrote: »

The tenant must receive up to 16 weeks (depending on how long the've been there) notice with a valid reason for termination. If the tenant wanted to leave they only have to give between 4 weeks and 8 weeks notice depending on how long the've been there. That's not a bad deal in my mind.

So I can terminate any lease no matter what stage I'm at once I give a max of 2 months notice? That doesn't sound right, however happy if it is the case.

cookie1977

For your rights read here:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html

ChRoMe

cookie1977 wrote: »

For your rights read here:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html

Ah but you still lose the deposit which is a bit of a $hit deal.

Ray Palmer

ChRoMe wrote: »

The fact they will tell you they are terminating the lease early when the tenant has done nothing wrong, doesn't seem like a strong right to me personally.

Yes it is a "right", just not a particularly fair one. Tenant would have no hope of doing the same thing in the opposite direction.

"Hey landlord, I've decided I don't want to live here anymore, I know I'm only three months into the lease but you know whatevs"

They can't terminate a lease early is the point. They can end a part 4 tenancy but that is not a lease. You are mixing the two up. Tenants routinely end leases with little or no recourse for the LL. Tenants simply don't pay the last months rent then leave. Happens all the time and often posted here.

cookie1977

ChRoMe wrote: »

Ah but you still lose the deposit which is a bit of a $hit deal.

It's a crap deal? What are you on about. How long would you plan on staying in a rented property for and if you were only staying a while would you not look for short term leases?

on_my_oe

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

My understanding of a repossession is, there are two distinct situations.

There are your rights as a tenant in which your landlord must uphold.

Then there is the fact that the landlord no longer owns the property.

So the bank has no obligation to your rights as a tenant, because they are not your landlord. And you can try recover the costs and damages of immediate eviction from your actual landlord but I think at that point you are on a long list of people looking for money.

Unfortunately for us, according to Threshold and our local Citizens Information we discovered you are right

cookie1977 wrote: »

You now have a new landlord and that does not superced your rights as a tenant. The tenancy was in place prior to repossion so it still stands. Rights and laws must still be upheld and any evictions must fall under the proper procedures.

We were told by Threshold and our local Citizens Information that as the landlord had not obtained agreement from the bank, he had effectively entered into an illegal agreement with us, and so we had no rights.

Villa05 wrote: »

@on my oe
Will up please write a letter to your fg, lab td asking them why you are paying rent to a ll and at the same time paying taxes to bail out banks and your reward is evivtion. While the landlord escapes with theft aided by the banks bailout

Include the proof if possible

Thats a great idea, but I suspect the local TDs wouldn't care.. and as we are not Irish they'll even less.

Instead I will simply sit here and fume whenever I see anyone claim there are no strategic defaulters, and say a little prayer that the right property will come on the market for us to buy. I'm really hoping karma is on our side! :rolleyes:

cookie1977

Threshold really told you that? So how many tenants in this country have zero rights because their landlord hasn't told the bank they're renting out the property. That sounds completely insane and wrong. Are you sure?

on_my_oe

Yes... It seemed so wrong that I phoned another branch to cross check the information and got the same story. The only thing the second branch could add was to suggest that we attended the court hearing to have our say. They didn't seem very confident that it would have any positive influence.

We conceded defeat and moved.

cookie1977

on_my_oe wrote: »

Yes... It seemed so wrong that I phoned another branch to cross check the information and got the same story. The only thing the second branch could add was to suggest that we attended the court hearing to have our say. They didn't seem very confident that it would have any positive influence.

We conceded defeat and moved.

I must say I would have understood that the law would supercede any contract.

ChRoMe

cookie1977 wrote: »

Threshold really told you that? So how many tenants in this country have zero rights because their landlord hasn't told the bank they're renting out the property. That sounds completely insane and wrong. Are you sure?

What was that about tenant rights you were saying?

stevedublin

if a property is listed on the prtb.ie website, is it fair to deduce that the landlord is paying their mortgage?

jay0109

stevedublin wrote: »

if a property is listed on the prtb.ie website, is it fair to deduce that the landlord is paying their mortgage?

Nope, registration infers nothing like that.
The landlord could well be a lot more afraid of Revenue than he/she is of the Bank

cookie1977

ChRoMe wrote: »

What was that about tenant rights you were saying?

To be honest I dont believe he was advised correct. I still stand by the fact that there are plenty of rights for both tenant and landlord that if both of them knew them and their obligations it would go along way to limiting the number of complaints from both sides.

cookie1977

jay0109 wrote: »

Nope, registration infers nothing like that.
The landlord could well be a lot more afraid of Revenue than he/she is of the Bank

Registration means nothing, neither tax compliant nor mortgage payer.

The Spider

ChRoMe wrote: »

What was that about tenant rights you were saying?

All of this is so off topic, what does it have to do with repos reducing prices?

Villa05

The Spider wrote: »

All of this is so off topic, what does it have to do with repos reducing prices?

The main argument against repossesions is that we cant evict people from their homes in large numbers. It happens to renters all the time, very often through circumstances outside their control. Whats good for the goose etc

jmayo

The Spider wrote: »

All of this is so off topic, what does it have to do with repos reducing prices?

Well it has more to do with house prices than what the independent "newspaper", you know the one that you often quote to back up your ascertions, believe has a bearing on house prices increasing i.e. roy Keane back in the Irish fold.

Note: I put the word newspaper in quotes since not sure if it applies in this instance.

ChRoMe

The Spider wrote: »

All of this is so off topic, what does it have to do with repos reducing prices?

You think the rental and mortgage markets are completely siloed from each other?

They both influence each other.

The Spider

ChRoMe wrote: »

You think the rental and mortgage markets are completely siloed from each other?

They both influence each other.

Nope I don't but that's a discussion about contracts not how rentals affect the price of property.