Pressure from Receiver

SM746

First off not looking for Legal Advice as I'm meeting solicitor on Tuesday. Just looking to see if anyone had same issue. To cut a very, very long story short:
Landlord into receivership and letters came in from reciever so started dealing with them after a letter threatening eviction if we didn't reply within 5 days. After we paid rent they have rang us looking for entry to the apartment complex "as the previous landlord will not answer their calls". Had 5 calls from him asking us to grant them entry which we have refused as we didn't kmow legally where we stood doing that. 6th call from him saying he needed entry just to our apartment which obviously means entry to the whole apartment complex hence why I'm meeting solicitor before I reply to this one. Just cannot understand why they cannot just enter as they have a Deed of Appointment.
Anyone ever have a similar situation with the above scenario?
As I said meeting solicitor on Tuesday so he will point me in the right direction legally so just wondering anyone else ever have this mess forced upon them.

SM746

Apologies this went up three times - stupid internet today. Please delete the other 2 mods. Apologies once again.

The_Morrigan

You should read this: http://www.ibf.ie/gns/publications/formsguides/Tenant_guide.aspx

Also, they can't just enter the property because they have a deed of appointment as you have to agree to give them access as per your tenant rights.

SM746

The_Morrigan wrote: »

You should read this: http://www.ibf.ie/gns/publications/formsguides/Tenant_guide.aspx

Also, they can't just enter the property because they have a deed of appointment as you have to agree to give them access as per your tenant rights.

Cheers a very useful link.
Yeah sorry meant it in relation to why can they not just enter the Apartment complex in general if they have a Deed of Appointment. I've no idea why they originally wanted us to grant them access to the complex. I'll learn more on Tuesday hopefully.

gaius c

SM746 wrote: »

Cheers a very useful link.
Yeah sorry meant it in relation to why can they not just enter the Apartment complex in general if they have a Deed of Appointment. I've no idea why they originally wanted us to grant them access to the complex. I'll learn more on Tuesday hopefully.

Your landlord is contesting it and wouldn't give them the keys?

The_Morrigan

SM746 wrote: »

Cheers a very useful link.
Yeah sorry meant it in relation to why can they not just enter the Apartment complex in general if they have a Deed of Appointment. I've no idea why they originally wanted us to grant them access to the complex. I'll learn more on Tuesday hopefully.

If the landlord is not responding to them, they may need help to get a copy of keys or access codes.
Just talk to them and be frank and honest with them that you're unsure of your position in this whole affair and would like open communications with them, ie no surprises from them.

percy212

Screw them. Its between them and the landlord and the bank. Anyone who sends a letter threatening eviction for no valid readon can go to hell. Ask your lawyer if you can sue for emotional distress.

SM746

The_Morrigan wrote: »

If the landlord is not responding to them, they may need help to get a copy of keys or access codes.
Just talk to them and be frank and honest with them that you're unsure of your position in this whole affair and would like open communications with them, ie no surprises from them.

Yeah I think the LL is contesting but no idea tbh as the info forthcoming from him was contradictory at the outset.
Yeah have tried that but no idea who to believe as the Receiver has changed his story already once and claimed he needs access now for a different reason than he originally claimed to me. As my solicitor briefly said last Wed when I made the appointment its bizarre sounding from what I've told him. I'm sure the Recirver just trying to do his job but his general cluelessness about the complex and changing of his story has set my alarm bells ringing.

The_Morrigan

percy212 wrote: »

Screw them. Its between them and the landlord and the bank. Anyone who sends a letter threatening eviction for no valid readon can go to hell. Ask your lawyer if you can sue for emotional distress.

Percy maybe you should read the link I provided to the op, barging into a thread and offering 'advice' that is quite frankly ill advised isn't really helpful to the OP or anyone who may be in the same position. Having a receiver appointed to a property where a tenant is in situ does involve the tenant, and the receiver can start eviction proceedings without having to go through the PRTB process that a landlord must adhere too.
Also, no the OP can't sue for emotional distress.

The_Morrigan

SM746 wrote: »

Yeah I think the LL is contesting but no idea tbh as the info forthcoming from him was contradictory at the outset.
Yeah have tried that but no idea who to believe as the Receiver has changed his story already once and claimed he needs access now for a different reason than he originally claimed to me. As my solicitor briefly said last Wed when I made the appointment its bizarre sounding from what I've told him. I'm sure the Recirver just trying to do his job but his general cluelessness about the complex and changing of his story has set my alarm bells ringing.

The receiver has been appointed by the bank and may be getting fed contradictory stories from both sides - it is his job to find out the whole truth about the situation. I understand that you are stuck in the middle and this is a pain the behind, so ask the receiver to only deal with you in writing (email should suffice) so that you can keep a track of all correspondence for your records.
Also, it may not be a bad idea to set up a meeting with the receiver to ask about his future for the property as it is your home and you need to know where you stand.

percy212

Its a public forum. I will "barge" where I choose. I posted what I PERSONALLY would do. The receiver sounds like a **** and clueless to boot. You do not know what the op may sue for or not. Threatening a persons home and mentioning eviction is not acceptable or professional behaviour and is hardly conducive to building a healthy working relationship with a sitting tenant. They deserve to sweat a little.

Doesn't anyone else get tired of all these property "professionals" in cheap suits acting like fools.

**** them.

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Percy maybe you should read the link I provided to the op, barging into a thread and offering 'advice' that is quite frankly ill advised isn't really helpful to the OP or anyone who may be in the same position. Having a receiver appointed to a property where a tenant in situ does involve the tenant, and the receiver can start eviction proceedings without having to go through the PRTB process that a landlord must adhere too.
Also, no the OP can't sue for emotional distress.

Victor

percy212 wrote: »

Its a public forum. I will "barge" where I choose.

...

**** them.

You were asked nicely. Banned.

Moderator

Lantus

SM746 wrote: »

Cheers a very useful link.
Yeah sorry meant it in relation to why can they not just enter the Apartment complex in general if they have a Deed of Appointment. I've no idea why they originally wanted us to grant them access to the complex. I'll learn more on Tuesday hopefully.

getting keys off the landlord or tenant is much easier than going to the management company who own and maintain these common areas. Maybe refer them to the management company? Put everything you do in writing.

jd

Lantus wrote: »

getting keys off the landlord or tenant is much easier than going to the management company who own and maintain these common areas. Maybe refer them to the management company? Put everything you do in writing.

I doubt the management company would/should give keys to a receiver as he is just a rent receiver, he doesn't own the property.

Lantus

jd wrote: »

I doubt the management company would/should give keys to a receiver as he is just a rent receiver, he doesn't own the property.

I thought a rent receiver became the effective owner once appointed and looked after all maintenance and building issues? The rent receiver would pay any service fee and acts on behalf of the landlord.

The_Morrigan

jd wrote: »

I doubt the management company would/should give keys to a receiver as he is just a rent receiver, he doesn't own the property.

The receiver is an agent of the landlord, so would be entitled to a set of keys in the event of emergency like an EA would.

Lantus

The_Morrigan wrote: »

The receiver is an agent of the landlord, so would be entitled to a set of keys in the event of emergency like an EA would.

According to RICS a fixed charge receiver assumes the full responsibilities and rights of the owner. I would interpret that they therefore would be entitled to common area access as per the unit owner subject to contractual compliance of course.

The_Morrigan

Lantus wrote: »

According to RICS a fixed charge receiver assumes the full responsibilities and rights of the owner. I would interpret that they therefore would be entitled to common area access as per the unit owner subject to contractual compliance of course.

The best practices from the banking federation classify the receiver as an agent as they need to ensure that the tenant can still rely on the RTA and chase the landlord through the PRTB if required. The receiver isn't legally responsible for repairs for instance, nor will they have the tenants deposit.

It's six of one, half dozen of another really though in most cases.

Lantus

The_Morrigan wrote: »

The best practices from the banking federation classify the receiver as an agent as they need to ensure that the tenant can still rely on the RTA and chase the landlord through the PRTB if required. The receiver isn't legally responsible for repairs for instance, nor will they have the tenants deposit.

It's six of one, half dozen of another really though in most cases.

its a bit of a minefield all right! Found this on a website: -


"The Fixed Charge receiver's powers to act are set out firstly in the LPA but more specifically in the mortgage deed. Once appointed the receiver stands in the shoes of the borrower and is described as acting as agent for the borrower. This is not to be confused with an estate agent or similar. By agent we mean acting in loco parentis. Once an appointment has been made the borrower no longer has any rights to act he cannot collect rents or issue valid receipts, he cannot sell or let the property and he has no rights in terms of the management of the property. He has no right to enter the building indeed he has no rights to interfere in the management of the asset in any way. The receiver on the other hand has the power to collect rents, enter into leases, enter into contracts for sale or indeed any other relevant contract pertaining to the management of the building. However whilst appointed by the lender and acting for the bank the receiver still owes a duty of care to the borrower and is treated in law as the borrower’s representative. Finally it is important to remember that the borrower remains the legal owner of the property and therefore responsible for all costs and liabilities not the receiver and more importantly not the bank. The most obvious of these is empty rates. An LPA receiver also has a number of legal responsibilities which we will touch on shortly."


So in the case of external issues like a management company the owner is still legally responsible? Wouldn't that cause huge problems if an owner gives two fingers and the tenants cannot gain access to common areas? There would seem to be a contradiction between the owner having no rights in terms of the management of the property and his legal obligation to pay service fees which are intrinsically connected to such rights.

Surely in this case the rent receiver would act in 'good faith' and pay the service fees to avoid loss of income and ensure the mortgage is serviced.

jd

The_Morrigan wrote: »

The receiver is an agent of the landlord, so would be entitled to a set of keys in the event of emergency like an EA would.

But from the landlord not the Owner's Management Company, surely? You mention EAs - they would get keys from their clients, not the OMC.

The_Morrigan

Lantus wrote: »

its a bit of a minefield all right! Found this on a website: -


"The Fixed Charge receiver's powers to act are set out firstly in the LPA but more specifically in the mortgage deed. Once appointed the receiver stands in the shoes of the borrower and is described as acting as agent for the borrower. This is not to be confused with an estate agent or similar. By agent we mean acting in loco parentis. Once an appointment has been made the borrower no longer has any rights to act he cannot collect rents or issue valid receipts, he cannot sell or let the property and he has no rights in terms of the management of the property. He has no right to enter the building indeed he has no rights to interfere in the management of the asset in any way. The receiver on the other hand has the power to collect rents, enter into leases, enter into contracts for sale or indeed any other relevant contract pertaining to the management of the building. However whilst appointed by the lender and acting for the bank the receiver still owes a duty of care to the borrower and is treated in law as the borrower’s representative. Finally it is important to remember that the borrower remains the legal owner of the property and therefore responsible for all costs and liabilities not the receiver and more importantly not the bank. The most obvious of these is empty rates. An LPA receiver also has a number of legal responsibilities which we will touch on shortly."


So in the case of external issues like a management company the owner is still legally responsible? Wouldn't that cause huge problems if an owner gives two fingers and the tenants cannot gain access to common areas? There would seem to be a contradiction between the owner having no rights in terms of the management of the property and his legal obligation to pay service fees which are intrinsically connected to such rights.

Surely in this case the rent receiver would act in 'good faith' and pay the service fees to avoid loss of income and ensure the mortgage is serviced.

This is why we do not permit legal advice here - it is a minefield and requires the input of a legal professional (which the OP has engaged).

I've a sneaking suspicion that the quote is not Irish law though, the wording isn't typical of the usual receiver language used in Irish credit documents.

jd wrote: »

But from the landlord not the Owner's Management Company, surely? You mention EAs - they would get keys from their clients, not the OMC.

Sorry yes, I didn't mention the management company - I was just pointing out that the receiver is entitled to a set of keys to gain access as he doesn't just receive rent, he has other obligations. Point badly made on my part.

SM746

Cheers thanks for the insights; some interesting points and I'll report back with what the solicitor advises me. Half tempted just to move place at end of month or end of March as it's a mess I really want no part of to be honest.

Lantus

Apologies re UK law. Had a quick look at the conveyancing act 1881 and it would seem to state that the receiver does have a responsibility to pay any rates or other bills associated with a property. So in that sense they are responsible for service fees? If so they should contact the OMC to get a summary of any outstanding charges and arrange access accordingly.

The_Morrigan

Lantus wrote: »

Apologies re UK law. Had a quick look at the conveyancing act 1881 and it would seem to state that the receiver does have a responsibility to pay any rates or other bills associated with a property. So in that sense they are responsible for service fees? If so they should contact the OMC to get a summary of any outstanding charges and arrange access accordingly.

That law has been updated, there is 2009 law also.

Lantus

The_Morrigan wrote: »

That law has been updated, there is 2009 law also.

says the same as far as I can see: -

109.— (1) Subject to section 110 (4), the receiver shall apply all money received in the following order—
[CA 1881, s. 24(8)]
(a) in discharge of all rates, rents, taxes and other outgoings affecting the mortgaged property,

percy212

Who will bear the costs of the consultation? Send the bill to the receiver who has harassed you to the point that you are considering leaving your home.

SM746 wrote: »

Cheers thanks for the insights; some interesting points and I'll report back with what the solicitor advises me. Half tempted just to move place at end of month or end of March as it's a mess I really want no part of to be honest.

drumswan

The_Morrigan wrote: »

The best practices from the banking federation

Have you a vested interest in this organisation or this process?

the_syco

SM746 wrote: »

Cheers thanks for the insights; some interesting points and I'll report back with what the solicitor advises me. Half tempted just to move place at end of month or end of March as it's a mess I really want no part of to be honest.

Before you do so, ask the landlord who has your deposit, for "clarification". I've a feeling the LL has no money and/or doesn't have your deposit, and the receiver will refer you back to your landlord for your deposit.

The_Morrigan

drumswan wrote: »

Have you a vested interest in this organisation or this process?

Considering I'm unemployed - no. What is the relevance of your question to this discussion?

SM746

Once again cheers for all the advice / suggestion people came on with.
Met the solicitor this morning for 30 minutes and got answers to all the questions I asked of him and literally more or less what had been said on here apart from a few things added; potential for fraud with letters that were 'sent to us' that we didn't receive, the opened letters, etc and the fact that no phone interaction should take place in this case, dealing directly with the receiver and not his representative is a requirement we can ask for considering the letters situation, no onus to grant receiver access to the complex, etc, etc along with 5/6 other small points that greatly helped. Like I said all was pretty straightforward and now I'll produce it to him tomorrow once I get it posted and basically tell him the exact legal advice I was given.

One other point I totally forgot to ask him and I will ring him tomorrow evening but maybe someone on here might know the answer or have had a similar situation in the past - as our deposit is gone I am correct in saying we do not have to give the Receiver full notice as per terms of lease??

The_Morrigan

SM746 wrote: »

Once again cheers for all the advice / suggestion people came on with.
Met the solicitor this morning for 30 minutes and got answers to all the questions I asked of him and literally more or less what had been said on here apart from a few things added; potential for fraud with letters that were 'sent to us' that we didn't receive, the opened letters, etc and the fact that no phone interaction should take place in this case, dealing directly with the receiver and not his representative is a requirement we can ask for considering the letters situation, no onus to grant receiver access to the complex, etc, etc along with 5/6 other small points that greatly helped. Like I said all was pretty straightforward and now I'll produce it to him tomorrow once I get it posted and basically tell him the exact legal advice I was given.

One other point I totally forgot to ask him and I will ring him tomorrow evening but maybe someone on here might know the answer or have had a similar situation in the past - as our deposit is gone I am correct in saying we do not have to give the Receiver full notice as per terms of lease??

Do you know that your deposit is gone?

You are still required to adhere to the terms of your lease, you don't want to have the receiver pursuing you for a breach of contract.