Property bought with sitting tenants

beaufoy

I bought the property at allsop auction bought as seen with sitting tenants. I employed an agent who charged me the full rate for renting out the apartment despite the fact that they did not have to advertise or show tenants around the apartment. It seems the agents think it is fair to charge full rate for a new rent with old tenants. However, they do not think they should do the work. They claim that they did not bother to get correct references from the tenants because they were already in the apartment. The agents do not dispute that they knew the tenants could not be trusted, but claim it was to awkward to show distrust in the tenants by doing a inventory list of what was in the apartment. They also said that furniture inside the apartment does not give me the right of ownership until I get an inventory list from the vendor solicitors. I retorted that solicitors would not normally do an inventory list and as the apartment was bought as seen the contents are assumed to come with the apartment unless it can be proved any of the contents are owned by other parties
How is right who is wrong

The_Morrigan

I have no idea who is right or wrong in this instance - this transaction for you has been an almighty mess going by your threads.

Here are some suggestions for you:

• Engage a solicitor for all your legal needs in this country
• Engage a tax consultant to deal with your annual tax returns in this jurisdiction.
• Engage a good estate agent or managing agent - if they do not do their job as per the agreed contract complain to their regulator http://www.psr.ie/website/npsra/npsraweb.nsf/page/index-en
• Try and create a relationship with your existing tenants
• Read up on all Irish tenancy law.

jack1000

As far as I know solicitors would always carry out an inventory report of what was included. If the tenants came with the apartment you couldn't have just put them out anyway.

Eldarion

jack1000 wrote: »

As far as I know solicitors would always carry out an inventory report of what was included. If the tenants came with the apartment you couldn't have just put them out anyway.

I get the impression the OP may have dove into this head first and didn't engage the services of a solicitor at all.

If the tenants have been there long enough they could argue they didn't feel the need to retain receipts to prove ownership of their own possessions.

You need to look through the contract of sale, or better yet get a solicitor to do it, and see what's explicitly stated as being included in the sale.

beaufoy

concerning the point made as to what is included in the sale. In an auction sale the vendor Solicitors claim to only sell the apartment and not the furniture. However, the apartment is bought as seen and as such the purchaser has more right to the contents than anyone else. The previous owner and/or the tenant can make a claim on some/all the contents but this should be done before completion and it is up to the person claiming to show evidence of buying said contents

The_Morrigan

beaufoy wrote: »

concerning the point made as to what is included in the sale. In an auction sale the vendor Solicitors claim to only sell the apartment and not the furniture. However, the apartment is bought as seen and as such the purchaser has more right to the contents than anyone else. The previous owner and/or the tenant can make a claim on some/all the contents but this should be done before completion and it is up to the person claiming to show evidence of buying said contents

If the auction documents state the apartment only then that is all you have claim to.
If there are sitting tenants in an apartment that was rented unfurnished you don't have claim to the contents just because they are currently within the four walls.

Mrs OBumble

beaufoy wrote: »

concerning the point made as to what is included in the sale. In an auction sale the vendor Solicitors claim to only sell the apartment and not the furniture. However, the apartment is bought as seen and as such the purchaser has more right to the contents than anyone else. The previous owner and/or the tenant can make a claim on some/all the contents but this should be done before completion and it is up to the person claiming to show evidence of buying said contents

Ahh, I think you're wrong there.

If the apartment was rented out, and the previous owner owned the furniture, then were would have been an inventory list taken by them when the tenants moved in. If this list wasn't provided to you as part of the sale, then I don't think you can assume any of the contents were included.

And I think it is you, or your solicitor, who should have insisted on seeing this list before completion.

To help show how ridiculous this is - do you think that the tenants' clothes are now your property, because they were in the apartment at the time of sale? What about the food in the cupboards? And all the kitchen utensils? What about their laptop? And TV (most Irish apartments are rented without a TV). Sheets, pillow and duvets? Mattress? Beds? Armchair? Kitchen table? Etc.

Without an inventory from the previous owner, there is no way that you can know where to draw the line.

beaufoy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, I think you're wrong there.

If the apartment was rented out, and the previous owner owned the furniture, then were would have been an inventory list taken by them when the tenants moved in. If this list wasn't provided to you as part of the sale, then I don't think you can assume any of the contents were included.

And I think it is you, or your solicitor, who should have insisted on seeing this list before completion.

To help show how ridiculous this is - do you think that the tenants' clothes are now your property, because they were in the apartment at the time of sale? What about the food in the cupboards? And all the kitchen utensils? What about their laptop? And TV (most Irish apartments are rented without a TV). Sheets, pillow and duvets? Mattress? Beds? Armchair? Kitchen table? Etc.

Without an inventory from the previous owner, there is no way that you can know where to draw the line.

To follow your chain of thought to a conclusion an inventory would have to include what clothes are inside the house and what food. I understand what you are saying but I believe you could have thought things out a little better

antoinolachtnai

What are you trying to achieve here? The furniture inside a house that has been rented for a few years, especially under difficult circumstances like these, is not going to be worth very much.

beaufoy

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What are you trying to achieve here? The furniture inside a house that has been rented for a few years, especially under difficult circumstances like these, is not going to be worth very much.

Yes you are correct the furniture is not worth a lot but would cost a fair lump of change to replace.Are you suggesting that people who have not very good furniture should give it away. The furniture I believe has been there as long as the tenants which is five years, so if you think I should not worry about losing five year old furniture. Then maybe you could give me all the furniture you have that is over five years old

beaufoy

The_Morrigan wrote: »

If the auction documents state the apartment only then that is all you have claim to.
If there are sitting tenants in an apartment that was rented unfurnished you don't have claim to the contents just because they are currently within the four walls.

Who said the apartment was rented unfurnished, sorry you made an assumption and it was wrong

The_Morrigan

beaufoy wrote: »

Who said the apartment was rented unfurnished, sorry you made an assumption and it was wrong

It was an example.
You also made an assumption that you own the contents despite the auctioneer saying otherwise.
Beaufoy you seem to be clutching at straws here.

antoinolachtnai

beaufoy wrote: »

Yes you are correct the furniture is not worth a lot but would cost a fair lump of change to replace.Are you suggesting that people who have not very good furniture should give it away.

It's not a question of giving it away. It's a question of how much time and trouble you want to invest to hold on to it.

The furniture I believe has been there as long as the tenants which is five years, so if you think I should not worry about losing five year old furniture.

It is not altogether clear to me that this furniture actually belongs to you. It is really the old owner's, but he has clearly abandoned it. It has never been in your possession. The tenant might consider himself/herself to be as entitled to it as you are.

This is an interesting legal question, and you could easily spend 25,000 euros getting a definitive answer. Pursuing the whole question of who-owns-what is not going to make you any richer.

Then maybe you could give me all the furniture you have that is over five years old

Can you collect?

You are taking this personally. To be a successful landlord, you need to not take things personally.

Sunny Dayz

Op - are your tenants on a fixed term lease? Have you a copy of the lease agreement as this would usually have an inventory.

K.Flyer

It would seem that through your lack of experience in these matters you presumed that whatever is in the apartment is yours, this is not always the case and why it is up to the purchaser to satisfy themselves before purchasing what is actually included in the sale.
Your error in not obtaining this information from the outset leaves it up to you to now ascertain what is actually included in the sale.
The time and effort to unravel all of this may cost you more than had you contracted a good solicitor in the first place.
There is an old saying ".. possession is nine tenths of the law" without paper work its your word against theirs.

garhjw

OP, you need to engage a solicitor. I can't see how you can assert ownership rights to something you did not buy.

As others have said in this thread, and in my experience, an inventory would be included in the sale documents if contents are included.

Beaner1

Lol amateur hour. How much did you waste on letting agents for sitting tenants?

beaufoy

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It was an example.
You also made an assumption that you own the contents despite the auctioneer saying otherwise.
Beaufoy you seem to be clutching at straws here.

You also made an assumption that the auctioneer stated that I do not own the contents he never said any such thing. Please read what I write before trying to clutch onto non existant straws

beaufoy

garhjw wrote: »

OP, you need to engage a solicitor. I can't see how you can assert ownership rights to something you did not buy.

As others have said in this thread, and in my experience, an inventory would be included in the sale documents if contents are included.

A lawyer would have been reluctant to have done an inventory. If the purchasers Solicitor decided he would follow instructions and do an inventory then the vendor solicitor might have objected and the sale cancelled.The apartment is bought as seen and there was furniture. I do not believe I have stated that I own the furniture, from the beginning I have stated that other people can make a claim on said furniture prior to the sale being completed. As a matter of interest who do you believe owns the furniture? Maybe the last owner of the apartment?
He is bankrupt and as such if he claimed the furniture then he would have to give it to the receivers and they would have to sell it

beaufoy

Beaner1 wrote: »

Lol amateur hour. How much did you waste on letting agents for sitting tenants?

Very good point letting agents are in normal circumstances a waste of money (so are lawyers and accountants) but the apartment is in Dublin and I am in Chiang mai Thailand hence I thought a letting agent would save me traveling back to Dublin to sort out problems with the tenants......it would seem I was wrong and I apologize for my stupidity

Eldarion

The more I think about it the more I think the OP may have some kind of case. Typically speaking apartments being rented completely unfurnished is very rare in Ireland.

Now if the auction explicitly stated that the furniture is not included then it seems put to bed in terms of claim, but I'd find it unusual to say the least if the tenants furnished the place themselves. It's been said before in the thread already, but what would help OP's case hugely would be finding a previous fixed lease for the apartment and see if it includes an inventory of items belonging to the previous landlord.

jack1000

Eldarion wrote: »

The more I think about it the more I think the OP may have some kind of case. Typically speaking apartments being rented completely unfurnished is very rare in Ireland.

Now if the auction explicitly stated that the furniture is not included then it seems put to bed in terms of claim, but I'd find it unusual to say the least if the tenants furnished the place themselves. It's been said before in the thread already, but what would help OP's case hugely would be finding a previous fixed lease for the apartment and see if it includes an inventory of items belonging to the previous landlord.

It was his or his solicitors responsibility to have looked for and received this before the sale closed.

Eldarion

jack1000 wrote: »

It was his or his solicitors responsibility to have looked for and received this before the sale closed.

So nice little windfall of free furniture/inventory for the sitting tenants? No contention?

K.Flyer

I have seen plenty of apartments where the long term tenants have practically re-furnished the apartment from their own pocket. One of which the quality was so high I thought I had gone into the wrong apartment.
I know of at least three in one small block where the tenants own almost everything in the apartment and these apartments have just been sold by the receivers.
You can bet your life that the tenant's furniture was not included in the sale.

antoinolachtnai

If it is a genuine land receiver's sale, then it is very unlikely the furniture is included. This is because the bank's mortgage is over the real property (i.e., the apartment itself) and not the furniture.

Sunny Dayz

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If it is a genuine land receiver's sale, then it is very unlikely the furniture is included. This is because the bank's mortgage is over the real property (i.e., the apartment itself) and not the furniture.

That is true - but realistically the value of the furniture is negligible to the landlord that it's easier for them just to leave it there. Also you have to remember that it is the receiver selling the property, not the landlord and the receiver is not interested in selling off the couches, the dining table, the beds etc separately.

Grolschevik

Looking around the living room in my rented apartment, I'd say about 90% of the furniture is mine.

seamus

beaufoy wrote: »

To follow your chain of thought to a conclusion an inventory would have to include what clothes are inside the house and what food. I understand what you are saying but I believe you could have thought things out a little better

I don't think you do understand what he's saying.

An inventory would list all of the furniture (+ fixtures & fittings) inside of the property which is included in the sale.

Everything not listed in the inventory, is by implication not included in the sale.

In short, if there is no inventory, then nothing except the property can be assumed to be included in the sale.

The onus at this point is not on the renters to prove that they purchased the furniture, but instead the onus is on you to prove that you purchased the furniture. Having bought it "as seen" or in a receiver's sale does not automatically mean the furniture belongs to you.

The agents are correct - you need an inventory list from the vendor's solicitor before you can assume ownership over the contents. Your own solicitor should be doing this legwork for you.

In the event that the tenants claim that they purchased the furniture in the apartment, then there is effectively very little you can do about that. Again, the onus would not be on them to prove ownership, but on you to disprove it.

Look at it this way - imagine they bought the TV but didn't keep the receipt so can't prove ownership. Does that automatically mean it becomes your property? Nope. Unless the original lease stated that property came fully furnished and included an inventory list, then any court would fall in favour of the tenants being the legal owners of anything they claim to have purchased.

beaufoy

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It's not a question of giving it away. It's a question of how much time and trouble you want to invest to hold on to it.



It is not altogether clear to me that this furniture actually belongs to you. It is really the old owner's, but he has clearly abandoned it. It has never been in your possession. The tenant might consider himself/herself to be as entitled to it as you are.

This is an interesting legal question, and you could easily spend 25,000 euros getting a definitive answer. Pursuing the whole question of who-owns-what is not going to make you any richer.



Can you collect?

You are taking this personally. To be a successful landlord, you need to not take things personally.

reference the early bit of your reply I think you have lost your memory pertaining to the original question
reference the later part please send me pictures of all your furniture which is over five years old and I will make arrangements to collect the bits I like

beaufoy

seamus wrote: »

I don't think you do understand what he's saying.

An inventory would list all of the furniture (+ fixtures & fittings) inside of the property which is included in the sale.

Everything not listed in the inventory, is by implication not included in the sale.

In short, if there is no inventory, then nothing except the property can be assumed to be included in the sale.

The onus at this point is not on the renters to prove that they purchased the furniture, but instead the onus is on you to prove that you purchased the furniture. Having bought it "as seen" or in a receiver's sale does not automatically mean the furniture belongs to you.

The agents are correct - you need an inventory list from the vendor's solicitor before you can assume ownership over the contents. Your own solicitor should be doing this legwork for you.

In the event that the tenants claim that they purchased the furniture in the apartment, then there is effectively very little you can do about that. Again, the onus would not be on them to prove ownership, but on you to disprove it.

Look at it this way - imagine they bought the TV but didn't keep the receipt so can't prove ownership. Does that automatically mean it becomes your property? Nope. Unless the original lease stated that property came fully furnished and included an inventory list, then any court would fall in favour of the tenants being the legal owners of anything they claim to have purchased.

There is no dispute that the apartment was rented furnished from the last land lord and from me. Please read the original question

Grolschevik

The issue is what was it furnished with. Without an inventory, you don't know. Many tenants have their own furniture too.