Landlord Repossesing House.

Fengol

I have been living in a rented property since 15th December on a fixed term 1 year contract.

About 3-4 weeks ago I get a call from my Landlord telling me he is facing financial difficulties and needs to sell the house and that we have to move out.
I was fairly certain that this wasn't legally allowed but I hadn't been happy in the house so I started looking elsewhere.

However, on Tuesday I get a text from him saying that the repossessors are arriving on Thursday and that if our stuff was still left there they would take it (thinking that myself and my gf were him and his gf).

Luckily we had managed to secure a place the day before this had happened and did a rush move yesterday into the new place. However I wasn't able to arrange removal of some of the bulky items I wanted to throw away (desk chairs, desks etc) as well as remove the rubbish.
I am meeting with him tonight to hand over keys and get the deposit (hopefully) and just want to check that if he does complain about the stuff left there and threaten to keep the deposit I would have a leg to stand on in arguing my side of things.

ABajaninCork

OP, I think an urgent call to Threshold might be in order!

gaius c

Fengol wrote: »

I have been living in a rented property since 15th December on a fixed term 1 year contract.

About 3-4 weeks ago I get a call from my Landlord telling me he is facing financial difficulties and needs to sell the house and that we have to move out.
I was fairly certain that this wasn't legally allowed but I hadn't been happy in the house so I started looking elsewhere.

A 1 year contract is a 1 year contract. He can't evict you like that.

However, on Tuesday I get a text from him saying that the repossessors are arriving on Thursday and that if our stuff was still left there they would take it (thinking that myself and my gf were him and his gf).

As in bank repossessors?
Threshold. Call them right away as you could come back to the house to find all your stuff taken and the locks changed.
Also, start calling local elected representatives and newspapers if they touch any of your belongings.

Luckily we had managed to secure a place the day before this had happened and did a rush move yesterday into the new place. However I wasn't able to arrange removal of some of the bulky items I wanted to throw away (desk chairs, desks etc) as well as remove the rubbish.
I am meeting with him tonight to hand over keys and get the deposit (hopefully) and just want to check that if he does complain about the stuff left there and threaten to keep the deposit I would have a leg to stand on in arguing my side of things.

He's being repossessed by the banks but has the money to give you back your deposit? Sorry to say but I wouldn't be too hopeful here.

As for not clearing the place out, you are being evicted at short notice less than half way into a 12 month lease. I think you have a fairly strong case for getting your deposit back (assuming he has the funds) if you need to go to the PRTB.

This kind of BS annoys the piss out of me. No wonder nobody wants to rent when you are faced with the prospect of having to flee your home like Cromwell is coming to town because your landlord can't add or subtract!

Fengol

Thankfully we got all our stuff out yesterday so they can't take anything we want. The only stuff left there is the bits I was intending to take to the city dump. I just wanted to make sure that I can argue a point if he starts kicking up a fuss about why we didn't take all the rubbish away with us.

I definitely would have contacted threshold earlier if we had been happy with the place, but as I said earlier, we really weren't and had been contemplating contacting the landlord about this. So moving out was a good thing. Getting a days notice wasn't :P

the_syco

Fengol wrote: »

Getting a days notice wasn't :P

If he doesn't give you the deposit back, don't give back the keys, and have a mad "leaving party" at the weekend.

Zulu

the_syco wrote: »

If he doesn't give you the deposit back, don't give back the keys, and have a mad "leaving party" at the weekend.

While it's "funny" and al, you are essentially encouraging the OP to cause damage/destroy someone elses property.

Not cool.

the_syco

Zulu wrote: »

While it's "funny" and al, you are essentially encouraging the OP to cause damage/destroy someone elses property.

Not cool.

Not cool at all at all, but following

Fengol wrote: »

However, on Tuesday I get a text from him saying that the repossessors are arriving on Thursday and that if our stuff was still left there they would take it (thinking that myself and my gf were him and his gf).

if the landlord doesn't give them back their deposit for whatever reason, the landlord deserves a bit of hassle.

Personally, I'd be looking for proof of the repossession, as it sounds like a great way to get tenants out of the house.

Fengol

the_syco wrote: »

Personally, I'd be looking for proof of the repossession, as it sounds like a great way to get tenants out of the house.

That's one of the reasons I've requested to meet him at the house tonight after work to do the handover. I'll be getting there a little earlier and should hopefully be able to see whether the 'repossession' was legit or not.

gaius c

How does a guy in such severe financial difficulty that the property is being repossessed have 1) the ability to give you your deposit back 2) the ability to gain access to a house that is legally no longer his?

Think you've been sold a pup but since you didn't want to stay there, it's no biggie.

Chris_5339762

I have been living in a rented property since 15th December on a fixed term 1 year contract.

About 3-4 weeks ago I get a call from my Landlord telling me he is facing financial difficulties and needs to sell the house and that we have to move out.

Some of the people on here may advise better, but a 1 year contract is just that. He CANT evict you, and the new owner (be it a private person, a bank, NAMA) will buy the house with a sitting tenancy which means your 1 year contract IS STILL VALID.

This, to me, is an illegal eviction.

valleyoftheunos

+1 to the above, neither the LL or anybody reposessing the house had any right to evict you from the house. As you wanted to leave anyway it has worked out for you but I would think you are entitled to compensation. Speak to Threshold and pursue it.

Marcusm

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Some of the people on here may advise better, but a 1 year contract is just that. He CANT evict you, and the new owner (be it a private person, a bank, NAMA) will buy the house with a sitting tenancy which means your 1 year contract IS STILL VALID.

This, to me, is an illegal eviction.

You need to watch last week's Consumer Show with Keelin Shanley - they did a piece on it including representatives from Threshold, people who had suffered it and Institute of Insolvency people. It seems that it is legal although the insolvency people would like a code of practice to ensure that appropriate notice is given and deposits refunded by the receiver.

The issue, as set out in threads here before, is that unless they lease or tenancy has been explicitly consented to by the lending institution, the contract is effectively a personal promise of the landlord and not an interest in the property which is enforceable against the financial institution. Accordingly, if they enforce their mortgage and take possession of the property, they are legally entitled to treat the former tenants as in unlawful occupation. The tenant's claim is against the landlord who may not have any funds and certainly doesn't have the ability to allow them stay.

This is an area where I expect the consumer association to take up the cudgels rather than Threshold. What will follow will likely be guidelines rather than law.

Fengol

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Some of the people on here may advise better, but a 1 year contract is just that. He CANT evict you, and the new owner (be it a private person, a bank, NAMA) will buy the house with a sitting tenancy which means your 1 year contract IS STILL VALID.

This, to me, is an illegal eviction.

I believe (I have no proof of this though) that the landlord has not actually informed the bank/buyer that the premise is/was rented.

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I would think you are entitled to compensation. Speak to Threshold and pursue it.

I've pondered this myself, and having to move on such short notice has left me a little out of pocket. I'm hoping that getting the deposit back will sort this. I may still contact threshold just to see what my options are though.

Victor

the_syco wrote: »

If he doesn't give you the deposit back, don't give back the keys, and have a mad "leaving party" at the weekend.

Constructive posts only please.

Moderator

Chris_5339762

Fengol wrote: »

I believe (I have no proof of this though) that the landlord has not actually informed the bank/buyer that the premise is/was rented.

If he's an unregistered landlord and gets busted there are some hefty fines for him.

I think you might be getting the best out of this situation by getting out of there!

sweetie

make sure to let revenue know he is renting too

Glenbhoy

Marcusm wrote: »

You need to watch last week's Consumer Show with Keelin Shanley - they did a piece on it including representatives from Threshold, people who had suffered it and Institute of Insolvency people. It seems that it is legal although the insolvency people would like a code of practice to ensure that appropriate notice is given and deposits refunded by the receiver.

The issue, as set out in threads here before, is that unless they lease or tenancy has been explicitly consented to by the lending institution, the contract is effectively a personal promise of the landlord and not an interest in the property which is enforceable against the financial institution. Accordingly, if they enforce their mortgage and take possession of the property, they are legally entitled to treat the former tenants as in unlawful occupation. The tenant's claim is against the landlord who may not have any funds and certainly doesn't have the ability to allow them stay.

This is an area where I expect the consumer association to take up the cudgels rather than Threshold. What will follow will likely be guidelines rather than law.

Very interesting, however, are you sure there is no notice period required at present for tenants, from the institution taking possession of the property? I would also be surprised that an institution could forcibly evict a tenant without that tenant having been given time to find suitable alternative accommodation.

Chris_5339762

If the repossession can immediately kick tenants out, then thats a disgrace, along with the whole "clamp a tenants car because the landlord hasn't paid their management fee" farce.

Marcusm

Glenbhoy wrote: »

Very interesting, however, are you sure there is no notice period required at present for tenants, from the institution taking possession of the property? I would also be surprised that an institution could forcibly evict a tenant without that tenant having been given time to find suitable alternative accommodation.

Not sure what you mean by "forcibly" as I didn't suggest that. My understanding is that the approach is send 7 days notice to quit and/or wait for them to be out, enter the property, change the locks and place the belongings outside.

I don't condone it one bit but I think it would be better for people to look at the programme than simply read statements saying it's untrue. RTE still has some level of editorial standards and the participants include Threshold. It's clear that it's accepted to be legally permissible even if a very poor practice.

Marcusm

sweetie wrote: »

make sure to let revenue know he is renting too

Not likely to matter much if the property is being repossessed due to non payment/inability to pay.

ABajaninCork

But won't Revenue chase the LL for any outstanding tax? That debt won't be going away...

Marcusm

ABajaninCork wrote: »

But won't Revenue chase the LL for any outstanding tax? That debt won't be going away...

True but it doesn't mean they'd receive anything. If the bank has a competent arrears dept, they would seek attachment/garnishee type orders for any surplus income or cashflow of the landlord before the Revenue can even get an assessment of the past rental profit. Wouldn't be much left for the Revenue to get. The debt would remain but it's a bit academic.

Glenbhoy

Marcusm wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by "forcibly" as I didn't suggest that. My understanding is that the approach is send 7 days notice to quit and/or wait for them to be out, enter the property, change the locks and place the belongings outside.

I don't condone it one bit but I think it would be better for people to look at the programme than simply read statements saying it's untrue. RTE still has some level of editorial standards and the participants include Threshold. It's clear that it's accepted to be legally permissible even if a very poor practice.

I wasn't having a go or disbelieving you, just saying I'd be pretty surprised if a family/tenant could be forcibly evicted in this country, that's from the knowledge that it's extremely difficult to secure a repossession order in this country in the first place and knowing that judges, rightly or wrongly almost always side with the property owner if at all possible. Given that, I would be surprised if institutions didn't do everything in their power in order to secure an amicable settlement for all parties. We should also bear in mind that TV programs have a vested interest in sensationalism and worst case scenarios make good tv.
It's also my understanding that in almost all circumstances the evictor has to allow reasonable time for the tenants to relocate and I don't think 7 days would constitute reasonable time.

By forcible eviction, I mean exactly that, an eviction which all concerned parties are not in agreement with.

Fengol

Well a quick update on what happened:

I went round and took a look at the house before the LL got there. Nothing had been taken so obviously the repossession didn't happen.
LL turned up and I asked him why and he said that he just wanted us out of there 'in case the repo guys came'.
I explained that we didn't have time to clean it since we only had a days notice. He said this was fine.
I later asked if he was selling it or if it was getting repossessed and he said 'I'll probably have to sell it'.

Clearly the repossession thing was just a lie to get us out the house.

Two days later my Girlfriend get a text from the LL's GF saying that its shocking that we didn't clean the house as they have a baby. This had me furious as clearly they're now living in it and the whole thing has just been a way to get us out so they can move in.

However, I have my deposit back and I'm living elsewhere now (in a place far nicer) so I'm thinking of just ignoring anything else and writing this one off as a bad experience.

listermint

Fengol wrote: »

Well a quick update on what happened:

I went round and took a look at the house before the LL got there. Nothing had been taken so obviously the repossession didn't happen.
LL turned up and I asked him why and he said that he just wanted us out of there 'in case the repo guys came'.
I explained that we didn't have time to clean it since we only had a days notice. He said this was fine.
I later asked if he was selling it or if it was getting repossessed and he said 'I'll probably have to sell it'.

Clearly the repossession thing was just a lie to get us out the house.

Two days later my Girlfriend get a text from the LL's GF saying that its shocking that we didn't clean the house as they have a baby. This had me furious as clearly they're now living in it and the whole thing has just been a way to get us out so they can move in.

However, I have my deposit back and I'm living elsewhere now (in a place far nicer) so I'm thinking of just ignoring anything else and writing this one off as a bad experience.

Id report him to the PRTB regardless. He was completely fraudulent in what he did and is he registered?

D3PO

listermint wrote: »

Id report him to the PRTB regardless. He was completely fraudulent in what he did and is he registered?

Id agree that was an illegal eviction. I wouldn't be letting that go even if you got your deposit back and were happy to be out of there.

Fengol

Just checked and it doesn't look like the property was registered with the PRTB, so yeah I'll stick in a report.

the_syco

Keep a record of when the texts were received, etc, as these should help your case against him. Make the f**ker pay for the inconvenience he put you through!

Norwesterner

the_syco wrote: »

Not cool at all at all, but following

if the landlord doesn't give them back their deposit for whatever reason, the landlord deserves a bit of hassle.

Personally, I'd be looking for proof of the repossession, as it sounds like a great way to get tenants out of the house.

The house no longer belongs to the landlord.
It's been repo-ed by some bank (probably a taxpayer-owned bank).
Any damage done will be paid ultimately for by your good self.

Esoteric_

Norwesterner wrote: »

The house no longer belongs to the landlord.
It's been repo-ed by some bank (probably a taxpayer-owned bank).
Any damage done will be paid ultimately for by your good self.

Maybe read the whole thread? It hasn't been repossessed, the landlord and his girlfriend moved back into it by the look of things.

OP, make sure to follow up on your report. Landlords like that shouldn't get away with pulling stunts like that.

Anynama141

the_syco wrote: »

Not cool at all at all, but following

if the landlord doesn't give them back their deposit for whatever reason, the landlord deserves a bit of hassle.

Personally, I'd be looking for proof of the repossession, as it sounds like a great way to get tenants out of the house.

It looks to me like the 'landlord' actually told the bank that the property was his principal private residence, so he could avail of a lower interest loan. It also looks to me like he hasn't been paying back this loan for a couple of years, but was pocketing the rent - it takes years of non-payment to repossess a PPR.

Any damage you do to the house won't come out of the landlord, it will come out of the bank - and the likelihood is that it will be a bank owned by the taxpayer.

Edit - ah, so it was just a con on the part of the landlord. Report the bastard. He wasn't paying any tax on your rent either.
Crooks like this landlord should be locked up. Sorry for your trouble, OP.