Vulture fund to sell currently tenanted homes in Dublin 15

quadrifoglio verde

Villa05 wrote: »

Would this company selling be availing of any tax breaks in the sale of these properties and if so is there a way to block these tax breaks

Not that I can see. Capital gains exemption would only apply of held for seven years and bought between December 2011 and Dec 2014.
However not sure if cgt applies to this fund

Corporation tax would be applied at a rate of 25%

A poster on here, Marcusm knows tax around property investment quite well

davo10

Villa05 wrote: »

Would this company selling be availing of any tax breaks in the sale of these properties and if so is there a way to block these tax breaks

Why would you want to block their tax breaks if they exist? Though it is very unfortunate that so many people are being evicted at the same time, the owners are not breaking any law and are entitled to sell their assets. The tenants are free to make offers for the houses and by the sounds of things, mortgage repayments may be less than the rental costs

PhoenixParker

The_Conductor wrote: »

Simple fact- we are not building 'family homes' in the Dublin area- they are desireable- and there will be queues of people lining up to purchase these- providing they are priced in a reasonable manner (price of course being key here).

In fairness D15 is one of the few places in the country where that's not true. There are two new housing developments nearby - Hansfield in Ongar and Hollywoodrath with family homes that would result in a mortgage roughly equal to what he's citing in rent. Hollywoodrath probably wouldn't even need the kids to change schools. There are a few other developments in D15 on sale, on site and at planning permission stage. Deposits are probably the major stumbling block.

All of that said I do think there should be some mechanism which encourages the sale of houses with sitting tenants rather than what's being done here.

handlemaster

If some on here had their way businesses wouldnt be able to do anything if their actions went against public opinion

The_Conductor

handlemaster wrote: »

If some on here had their way businesses wouldnt be able to do anything if their actions went against public opinion

Or opinion pieces written by either the Indo or Dennis O'Brien........

Just because morons in the media like to harp on in a particular manner- doesn't make it so. People have very short memories........

April 73

I heard today that the current tenants are being offered first refusal on purchasing the property they have been renting. The house won't go to the open market & competing bids won't be accepted if the tenant wishes to purchase.

If they don't wish to or are not in a position to do so then they are in the same situation as any tenant whose landlords wishes to sell.

The only difference here is the number of houses involved.

CageWager

1. It's an inconvenience for the tenants who will have to seek alternative accommodation and given the environment propagated by the former government is a difficult task to say the least.

BUT

2. If you are a private tenant you sign a lease which can be broken by either party within the parameters of a fair notice period. If you rented an apartment and served notice that you were leaving as you found somewhere nicer, should the landlord be outraged and threaten legal action because they don't want the hassle of finding new tenants? No - they just get on with life.

AND

3. Just like Irish Water, this "Vulture Fund" headline has become a political football. Left leaning politicians and media outlets are falling over themselves and competing to see who can appear most outraged - playing to the gallery. If they could all get a grip of themselves long enough to stop political points scoring and actually deal with the underlying issues Ireland would be a better place.

athtrasna

Speaking of politics, enough of political chat please

Mod

Eugene Norman

Merry Prankster wrote: »

The crash and subsequent vilification of the banks has created a weird attitude to debt and home ownership in this country. The logic seems to be that, because the banks are evil, debts can be ignored and home ownership, like water, is a God-given right

I know plenty of people who have chosen not to pay the mortgages on their properties (both on their own residence and their rental properties) because they prefer to spend their money on the luxuries in life - new cars, foreign holidays etc. They are outraged that the banks are threatening to repossess the houses. (I'm not saying that this is the case here, though.)

My mum is 60 and commutes to Dublin from Wexford every day. She leaves at 8am each morning and sometimes doesn't get back until 1am. She is paying off a €300,000 mortgage on a house that is now worth €100,000 (if that) and wouldn't dream of reneging on her debt.

It seems that the Homer Simpsons far outnumber the Frank Grimeses.

Yes, the banks had a huge role in the crash and subsequent devaluation of property prices and should be made to shoulder a far greater portion of the financial burden. But that doesn't mean that you can expect to be given a house for which you do not pay. Ultimately, someone has to foot the bill.

These are renters not house owners. Now if all house owners in arrears, particularly those taking the piss, were tossed out of their houses these particular renters could swap places. The rental situation wouldn't be solved but at least the cost would be borne by the imprudent rather than by the prudent, the young or recent arrivals to Ireland.

Eugene Norman

CageWager wrote: »

1. It's an inconvenience for the tenants who will have to seek alternative accommodation and given the environment propagated by the former government is a difficult task to say the least.

BUT

2. If you are a private tenant you sign a lease which can be broken by either party within the parameters of a fair notice period. If you rented an apartment and served notice that you were leaving as you found somewhere nicer, should the landlord be outraged and threaten legal action because they don't want the hassle of finding new tenants? No - they just get on with life.

AND

3. Just like Irish Water, this "Vulture Fund" headline has become a political football. Left leaning politicians and media outlets are falling over themselves and competing to see who can appear most outraged - playing to the gallery. If they could all get a grip of themselves long enough to stop political points scoring and actually deal with the underlying issues Ireland would be a better place.

I'm afraid that won't do.

1) there's no free market when a government agency buys up debts and sells into a vulture fund. A free market would be all houses in arrears going on the open market. Anything else is manipulated.
2) there's no free market when tens of thousands of home owners in arrears aren't having their loans called in by state owned banks.

You get to preach the free market to renters when there is one.

Ray Burkes Pension

Only way to solve our housing problem is enact a law that stops anyone from selling a house for more than you bought it for. You could adjust it for inflation to make it fair. Houses are there to be homes for people to live in. They should not be investments sitting empty for people to sell on. There are empty houses all over the country while working people are homeless in hotels.

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

Do share the reasons you think the notices are not legal.

According to the asset managers issuing the notices:

"Achieving vacant possession is undertaken in a statutory manner and is governed by the residential tenancies act. Every element of the act and the regulations governing private residential tenancies was followed by Twinlite in this process and will continue to be."

I am not going to alert the vulture fund regarding the mistakes in their notices. You are quoting the person who issued the notices. He would say that wouldn't he?
The vulture funds use the law for their ends. Why shouldn't the tenants?
They should all get together and a few hundred euro from each of 200 houses would create a sufficient fund to maximise their position.

HeidiHeidi

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I'm afraid that won't do.

1) there's no free market when a government agency buys up debts and sells into a vulture fund. A free market would be all houses in arrears going on the open market. Anything else is manipulated.
2) there's no free market when tens of thousands of home owners in arrears aren't having their loans called in by state owned banks.

You get to preach the free market to renters when there is one.

Which government agency are you referring to in 1) ?

Eugene Norman

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Which government agency are you referring to in 1) ?

Nama.

HeidiHeidi

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Nama.

As far as I know NAMA had/has nothing to do with this transaction.

Ulster Bank sold the loan book to the fund.

ED E

@Conductor there was a post in the AH thread stating the development is for a group purchase not single sale so for the moment the residents can't opt to buy out their home.

Villa05

davo10 wrote:

Why would you want to block their tax breaks if they exist? Though it is very unfortunate that so many people are being evicted at the same time, the owners are not breaking any law and are entitled to sell their assets. The tenants are free to make offers for the houses and by the sounds of things, mortgage repayments may be less than the rental costs

Tax breaks are in the norm provided for something that is of benefit to the country.

Through recent history tax breaks for property speculation have had disastrous results for the country and society and should be ceased immediately

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

I am not going to alert the vulture fund regarding the mistakes in their notices. You are quoting the person who issued the notices. He would say that wouldn't he?
The vulture funds use the law for their ends. Why shouldn't the tenants?
They should all get together and a few hundred euro from each of 200 houses would create a sufficient fund to maximise their position.

You are joking aren't you? A few hundred Euro wouldn't bring a High Court case, each tenant would have to commit thousands.

I'm pretty sure that the owners would have sought legal advice before serving notice, they certainly would be showing an incredible level of incompetence to confirm in a statement that they have followed all legal requirements, if they had neglected to do so.

The tenants can use the law to their own ends if there is a law to use for their own ends. If however the owners have followed the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act, the tenants would be confined to bring a Judicial Review to challenge the decisions off the Courts in relation to the Act, they better have very deep pockets.

Perhaps you should offer your services on a no win no fee basis to the tenants, if you are that certain that you can overturn the eviction notices.

davo10

Villa05 wrote: »

Tax breaks are in the norm provided for something that is of benefit to the country.

Through recent history tax breaks for property speculation have had disastrous results for the country and society and should be ceased immediately

Tax breaks such as section 23 or urban renewel were introduced to stimulate development in areas which were lagging behind, is Tyrrelstown one of those areas?

Even if the development did have a tax break, why block it if the owners have followed the terms of that tax break and are operating within the law? Why punish someone if they haven't done anything wrong?

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

You are joking aren't you? A few hundred Euro wouldn't bring a High Court case, each tenant would have to commit thousands.

I'm pretty sure that the owners would have sought legal advice before serving notice, they certainly would be showing an incredible level of incompetence to confirm in a statement that they have followed all legal requirements, if they had neglected to do so.

The tenants can use the law to their own ends if there is a law to use for their own ends. If however the owners have followed the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act, the tenants would be confined to bring a Judicial Review to challenge the decisions off the Courts in relation to the Act, they better have very deep pockets.

Perhaps you should offer your services on a no win no fee basis to the tenants, if you are that certain that you can overturn the eviction notices.

That is nonsense. The tenants cannot judicially review the decision to issue notices. Judicial review can only be used in respect of the actions of public bodies which the vulture fund is certainly not. Each of the tenants can challenge the validity of the notice in the PRTB at a cost of €25. They can get legal advice between all of them regarding validity and the submissions to be made. The cost per tenant would be very low. They can appeal the decisions of the adjudicator to the Tribunal and then they have the possibility of appeal on a point of law to the High Court. This can be done by way of a sample case so the expense is effectively shared.
The cost is probably nil overall since they will inevitably be paying higher rents when hey leave their current homes.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is nonsense. The tenants cannot judicially review the decision to issue notices. Judicial review can only be used in respect of the actions of public bodies which the vulture fund is certainly not. Each of the tenants can challenge the validity of the notice in the PRTB at a cost of €25. They can get legal advice between all of them regarding validity and the submissions to be made. The cost per tenant would be very low. They can appeal the decisions of the adjudicator to the Tribunal and then they have the possibility of appeal on a point of law to the High Court. This can be done by way of a sample case so the expense is effectively shared.
The cost is probably nil overall since they will inevitably be paying higher rents when hey leave their current homes.

Absolute rubbish. The Judicial Review would be in relation to the inferior Court/ tribunals (public bodies) rulings. In effect the tenants would be arguing that the Act is unconstitutional in order to try and overturn a valid notice of termination as laid out in the RTA.

If the notice is valid (again if you think it isn't, you should contact them, I'm sure they would be delighted to hear from you) due to the properties being sold and the term of their contracts being up, the PRTB will have no hesitation in validating it as it is in accordance with the Residentual Tenancies Act. If they bring it to the High Court, they will have to pay for it. No Barrister will take this on without a hefty retainer because the chances of winning are very low.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. The Judicial Review would be in relation to the inferior Court rulings. In effect the tenants would be arguing that the Act is unconstitutional in order to try and overturn a valid notice of termination as laid out in the RTA.

If the notice is valid (again if you think it isn't, you should contact them, I'm sure they would be delighted to hear from you) due to the properties being sold and the term of their contracts being up, the PRTB will have no hesitation in validating it as it is in accordance with the Residentual Tenancies Act. If they bring it to the High Court, they will have to pay for it. No Barrister will take this on without a hefty retainer because the chances of winning are very low.

What inferior court rulings? There is no basis for arguing the Act is unconstitutional. Any case challenging the constitutionality of an Actmust start in the High Court. It would have no chance of success. You are assuming that the notices are valid, relying on statements from the vultures. That is like asking the Garda if a warrant is valid. The PRTB hesitate quite a lot as many people will testify. Again all it needs is a small contribution to allow one test case to run in the HIGH Court. meantime the tenancies continue.

ThisRegard

ED E wrote: »

@Conductor there was a post in the AH thread stating the development is for a group purchase not single sale so for the moment the residents can't opt to buy out their home.

AFAIK the properties aren't been sold off in one go, they're being sold over the next few years. And the current owners said the current tenants will be given the first opportunity to buy them.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

What inferior court rulings? There is no basis for arguing the Act is unconstitutional. Any case challenging the constitutionality of an Actmust start in the High Court. It would have no chance of success. You are assuming that the notices are valid, relying on statements from the vultures. That is like asking the Garda if a warrant is valid. The PRTB hesitate quite a lot as many people will testify. Again all it needs is a small contribution to allow one test case to run in the HIGH Court. meantime the tenancies continue.

Ok.
The tenants confirmed they received written notices when their leases ended, the notice periods range from 2-6 months depending on how long they were there, the notice was due to sale of property, a fact confirmed by, wait for it, by the owners offering to sell to the tenants. Have I missed something?

High Courts do not require "small contributions" they require large ones to retain a Barrister to research and argue the point of law. I seem to remember a recent high profile eviction case in the High Court where every possible view of the eviction process was examined including tenancy law, and the occupants were still evicted at enormous cost.

Not one media outlet has said the evictions are illegal, you would think if there was a legal issue, some smart journalist would have picked up on it.

I'm just watching Ireland am, a tenant confirmed that the legal advice they received is that the notices are valid.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Ok.
The tenants confirmed they received written notices when their leases ended, the notice periods range from 2-6 months depending on how long they were there, the notice was due to sale of property, a fact confirmed by, wait for it, by the owners offering to sell to the tenants. Have I missed something?

High Courts do not require "small contributions" they require large ones to retain a Barrister to research and argue the point of law. I seem to remember a recent high profile eviction case in the High Court where every possible view of the eviction process was examined including tenancy law, and the occupants were still evicted at enormous cost.

Not one media outlet has said the evictions are illegal, you would think if there was a legal issue, some smart journalist would have picked up on it.

I'm just watching Ireland am, a tenant confirmed that the legal advice they received is that the notices are valid.

High Courts do not require any contribution. When a large number of similar cases are taken, the Court selects one and runs it with the others agreeing to be bound by the decision. The cost is spread over all of the cases. This happens quite a lot.
The tenant I have seen said they went to Citizens advice. The first question about legal advice is the source. If the tenant had engaged with lawyers who actually know something about termination notices there might be some basis for saying there is nothing wrong with them. Journalists know little or nothing about landlord and tenant law so it would be entirely surprising for a newspaper to say there was something wrong with the notices. If they made such a statement which turned out to be wrong the newspaper would be sued.

athtrasna

There is a forum for legal discussion if you want to continue to discuss the intricacies.

Butters1979

4ensic15 wrote: »

High Courts do not require any contribution. When a large number of similar cases are taken, the Court selects one and runs it with the others agreeing to be bound by the decision. The cost is spread over all of the cases. This happens quite a lot.
The tenant I have seen said they went to Citizens advice. The first question about legal advice is the source. If the tenant had engaged with lawyers who actually know something about termination notices there might be some basis for saying there is nothing wrong with them. Journalists know little or nothing about landlord and tenant law so it would be entirely surprising for a newspaper to say there was something wrong with the notices. If they made such a statement which turned out to be wrong the newspaper would be sued.

I think it's obvious by now that the termination notices were legal and compliant. If not that would have been noticed and reported on by now. And if you had any idea why you would have said so by now.

You still haven't explained why you think they are illegal and you entire argument seems to me to just be if someone asks you to leave their home as they are selling it, then bring frivolous complaints to the courts to delay the inevitable as much as possible.

It's a waste of money and time for everyone involved because of some morale outrage that has nothing to do with the law or what is actually right.

During my lifetime me and my OH have had to leave rented accommodation on 3 separate occasions because the LL was selling the house. Each time it was done within the law and was done amicably. We were renting and always new it was possible. We didn't drag the LL through the courts and stop paying rent because of some weird sense of self entitlement.

There's too many people in this country who think that because someone else has more than them they have some right to their money and property because they can't understand the fact that life doesn't always work out equally.

These people were renting in a home owned by a vulture fund. Why is what's happening now a surprise to them or anyone else?

The_Conductor

ED E wrote: »

@Conductor there was a post in the AH thread stating the development is for a group purchase not single sale so for the moment the residents can't opt to buy out their home.

Just read the EPF statement there- took a while to find it.
Option 1- a single institutional investor- who would offer the existing tenants the option to stay on at open market rates.
Option 2- disposal of the 103 units separately- at whatever the market will bear.

I wasn't aware that it was actually an Irish company driving all this- the initial media reports blamed 'foreign vulture funds' (Twinlight- a Goldman fund- are a minority shareholder in the project apparently).

If the 103 properties are sold as a group- the tenants will have to face up to paying open market rates- which would appear to be increases in the region of 25-35% on their current rents (going by what comparable properties in Dublin 15 are being let for).

Personally- I believe selling the properties individually on the open market, rather than to an institutional investor- is the most equitable way to go- and presumably most of the purchasers are probably renting somewhere else- so it would free up a commensurate number of rental properties, some of which are probably in the vicinity........?

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Just read the EPF statement there- took a while to find it.
Option 1- a single institutional investor- who would offer the existing tenants the option to stay on at open market rates.
Option 2- disposal of the 103 units separately- at whatever the market will bear.

I wasn't aware that it was actually an Irish company driving all this- the initial media reports blamed 'foreign vulture funds' (Twinlight- a Goldman fund- are a minority shareholder in the project apparently).

If the 103 properties are sold as a group- the tenants will have to face up to paying open market rates- which would appear to be increases in the region of 25-35% on their current rents (going by what comparable properties in Dublin 15 are being let for).

Personally- I believe selling the properties individually on the open market, rather than to an institutional investor- is the most equitable way to go- and presumably most of the purchasers are probably renting somewhere else- so it would free up a commensurate number of rental properties, some of which are probably in the vicinity........?

Twinlite is the vehicle of the Larkins not Goldman; it has been involved in a number of developments. My understanding is that it retains only a minority interest in the rump Tyrrelstown properties with the bulk held by a Goldman sponsored fund which bought the Larkins debt,

jimmycrackcorm

The_Conductor wrote:

Personally- I believe selling the properties individually on the open market, rather than to an institutional investor- is the most equitable way to go- and presumably most of the purchasers are probably renting somewhere else- so it would free up a commensurate number of rental properties, some of which are probably in the vicinity........?

At some point in time someone is going to have to either sell these properties individually or rent them. But they are going to end up in any case with buyers or tenants.

So the problem is essentially, like all rental property, that tenants will have to move.

Unless the owner dumps all the properties on the market in one go, I can't see how this will be news in a week or two.