got a letter looking for a rental from a multinational

utmbuilder

Got a letter today from a big name multi national, looking for a rental for their employee,

"The jist the letter was

multinational

A Senior Executive of our company is looking to rent in this area for a 12 month period.

Him his family of four are offering 2 months rental deposit and rent of €2500 per month.

Bank Statements, ID, Previous Landlord references, will be supplied.

If you have been considering renting your home please contact David Maurice in our office on

01-*** ****"


My question is can multi nationals do this without being registered as property agents?


If the senior executive didnt pay up could you sue the multi national for the introduction?

jimmycrackcorm

utmbuilder wrote:

My question is can multi nationals do this without being registered as property agents?

But they're not property agents. They're not offering a property to rent.

Licherandkebab

Isn't the company basically just acting as a reference though? I'd imagine unless someone representing the company signed the rent agreement they have no liability. I'd be very interested to hear what a solicitor says about it though.

begbysback

What's the hullabaloo for ? Just take the money, or say no.

You can be sure if they are a big multi national then they will pay up, reputation means more than a couple of grand rent.

mikemac2

Multinationals care more abut their brand than anything else, even their employees!

They will pay you for sure, if you don't like the offer just say no.

subrosa

Maybe I'm too suspicious, but sounds a little like a scam? I'd always be wary of unsolicited letters offering riches.

Yogaqueen

Hi, please be very carefull here. It sounds too good to be true and may be a scam

jamesthepeach

I have my place rented to a multinational on a rolling short term basis.
It really is a doddle.
Ok would check out this guy who sent you the letter very carefully though.
My multi national contacted me via agent. But contacted the agent via Airbnb.
They pay good rent, almost double what I would get on normal rental, always on time, in advance. Looks after cleaning themselves and in the contract they will give it back in exactly the same condition or better than they took it.
Also they have paid in advance til the end of the year with the option of another year.
So well.worth it, but vet the guy to make sure it's on the up and up. Even call the company and ask for him. Don't call the number in the letter, get the number from the company website and ask for him there.

Allegedly a lot of companies are doing this now.
Company rents the apartment for a year and then puts whoever in. Landlord just forgets about it. At the end of the lease they either renew or give it back to you the way you gave it. So you only deal with the company and not any tenants. Really that's the way hap should work to but that's another story.

begbysback

Yogaqueen wrote: »

Hi, please be very carefull here. It sounds too good to be true and may be a scam

Too good to be true?? 2.5k per month in a desirable area is pretty much the going rate...

the_syco

begbysback wrote: »

Too good to be true?? 2.5k per month in a desirable area is pretty much the going rate...

I'd wonder if it's someone chancing their arm to get a place near their work?

The_Conductor

Helped a colleague with a similar offer which they received unsolicited from a US multinational 2 weeks ago.
They agreed the following:

2 month deposit
3 months rent in advance paid quarterly
12 month lease- to the company itself- not the employee

They weren't too happy- but it was a take-it-or-leave-it offer from the girl- and it was a really nice 3 bed apartment in a high demand area.

The EUR2,500 a month is slightly over the going for the area (2,000-2,200 is more normal)- but the issue is complete and utter lack of supply.

From PMs received from posters in this forum- Microsoft, Oracle and Intel are actively pursuing this technique to try and get accommodation for staff in the Dublin area at present- and comments from the US chamber of Commerce suggest its actively being discussed by other companies. Tends to be for staff at a particular level- Intel have posters up asking staff about spare bedrooms for a cohort coming over from Israel- for example- for more junior staff (including a few interns)..........

If you're not satisfied- just walk- the properties that have been discussed by some folk here are all in high demand areas- and the only reason they eventually went with them- was they managed to get the contracts with the companies- rather than with the individuals- which was a far preferable way of doing it.

Normally these people have a corporate contract with cleaners etc- you could chance your arm and try and get that included in the contract (wouldn't be a deal breaker if it wasn't- but it would be the icing on the cake, if it were).

Mena

This is pretty normal. I'd check everything per posters above but we follow the same process basically, depending on country and rental situation.

I've expatted a few of my employees and we've gone this route, but it's dealt with by a specialised global mobility department.

davo10

I have an apartment in Docklands rented to an employee of a financial company, he told me there are probably hundreds of employees in the financial services looking for similar apartments. Some very big players are looking at Dublin as a hub due to Brexit but can't get accomadation for those moving from London. If you have a property to rent and the company is paying for it, you won't have to worry about RTB so pick a figure and reply.

davindub

davo10 wrote: »

I have an apartment in Docklands rented to an employee of a financial company, he told me there are probably hundreds of employees in the financial services looking for similar apartments. Some very big players are looking at Dublin as a hub due to Brexit but can't get accomadation for those moving from London. If you have a property to rent and the company is paying for it, you won't have to worry about RTB so pick a figure and reply.

It still comes under the rtb / rpz. A lot of pressure on the government to start enforcing rpz rules as well.

davo10

davindub wrote: »

It still comes under the rtb / rpz. A lot of pressure on the government to start enforcing rpz rules as well.

Ah to be sure you're right of course.

If Barclays are moving their European hub to Dublin and they need to house an employee, do you think Barclays are going to complain to the RTB?

This is undoubtedly going to add fuel to the fire of upward rent in Dublin. Multinationals will not give a damn about the RTB or rent pressure zones/staid rent increases, all they will care about is housing their employees. The RTB respond to complaints from tenants, corporations are not going to complain, they want properties for their traders and the Government will welcome their taxes with open arms.

MysticMonk

Its a scam letter..look at the wording.

davindub

davo10 wrote: »

Ah to be sure you're right of course.

If Barclays are moving their European hub to Dublin and they need to house an employee, do you think Barclays are going to complain to the RTB?

This is undoubtedly going to add fuel to the fire of upward rent in Dublin. Multinationals will not give a damn about the RTB or rent pressure zones/staid rent increases, all they will care about is housing their employees. The RTB respond to complaints from tenants, corporations are not going to complain, they want properties for their traders and the Government will welcome their taxes with open arms.

Yes the multinational might not complain (employee might in future), it probably wouldn't be worth chasing the difference...although I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.

But with recent developments and highlighting of breaches of the RPZ, it can be expected there will be measures introduced to tackle this year.

davo10

davindub wrote: »

Yes the multinational might not complain (employee might in future), it probably wouldn't be worth chasing the difference...although I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.

But with recent developments and highlighting of breaches of the RPZ, it can be expected there will be measures introduced to tackle this year.

Unless that includes knocking on doors and asking what you are paying, and and having ia record of what previous tenant was paying I don't see how what you are saying will work.

davo10

davindub wrote: »

Yes the multinational might not complain (employee might in future), it probably wouldn't be worth chasing the difference...although I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.

But with recent developments and highlighting of breaches of the RPZ, it can be expected there will be measures introduced to tackle this year.

Only the person paying rent can complain, if the lease was agreed by the multinational, the employee is a non entity.

davindub

davo10 wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

Yes the multinational might not complain (employee might in future), it probably wouldn't be worth chasing the difference...although I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.

But with recent developments and highlighting of breaches of the RPZ, it can be expected there will be measures introduced to tackle this year.

Unless that includes knocking on doors and asking what you are paying, and and having ia record of what previous tenant was paying I don't see how what you are saying will work.

3 things, 1 you declare rent when registering a tenancy , 2 revenue returns , 3 statistical analysis investigate the highest rents in an area.

Whole range of other methods including asking every owner to make a declaration of rent for the last ten years & like revenue more than likely prison if misrepresent, or make the fines so large it deters.

davindub

davo10 wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

Yes the multinational might not complain (employee might in future), it probably wouldn't be worth chasing the difference...although I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.

But with recent developments and highlighting of breaches of the RPZ, it can be expected there will be measures introduced to tackle this year.

Only the person paying rent can complain, if the lease was agreed by the multinational, the employee is a non entity.

The person residing there is the tenant, providing the type of rental is not exempted from the RTB act. Don't forget a employee does not get the apartment for free, they pay bik on the mv of the rent. If they left the company they can retain procession but the payee would change. Similar to Hap.

Victor

davindub wrote: »

I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.

Well, they can have a skilled worker at a total package of X or they can have no skilled worker and forego sales of 10X. Which would you like?

99nsr125

Ask for more money
You'll need to rent somewhere
3.5k to cover

utmbuilder wrote: »

Got a letter today from a big name multi national, looking for a rental for their employee,

"The jist the letter was

multinational

A Senior Executive of our company is looking to rent in this area for a 12 month period.

Him his family of four are offering 2 months rental deposit and rent of €2500 per month.

Bank Statements, ID, Previous Landlord references, will be supplied.

If you have been considering renting your home please contact David Maurice in our office on

01-*** ****"


My question is can multi nationals do this without being registered as property agents?


If the senior executive didnt pay up could you sue the multi national for the introduction?

jamesthepeach

davindub wrote: »

Yes the multinational might not complain (employee might in future), it probably wouldn't be worth chasing the difference...although I have seen new CFO's start and go ballistic over every cost, not inconceivable they would use any leverage they have.

But with recent developments and highlighting of breaches of the RPZ, it can be expected there will be measures introduced to tackle this year.

I'm renting to the company itself. I don't even know who is in there. As far as I am concerned the name on the lease is the company name, well the CFOs name it is I think that signed it.. They could put a donkey in there for all i care as long as they pay the rent. The company can make a profit if they want or give it away for free.
But they are responsible for that donkey. They answer calls, deal with problems, collect whatever they want off themin return for lodgings, and remove the donkey at the end.
Suits both parties.

If the govt wanted to rent from me like this tjen that would work too. But they don't so I'm not taking hap. And I want nothing to do with the rtb so no regulate letting either.
The short term is working out so much better so far. The day it stops working out is the day I sell, unless I have a use for the property myself at the time.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

The person residing there is the tenant, providing the type of rental is not exempted from the RTB act. Don't forget a employee does not get the apartment for free, they pay bik on the mv of the rent. If they left the company they can retain procession but the payee would change. Similar to Hap.

Technically they should pay bik, the reality could be quite different if the apartment is rented in the name of the company.

Similar to how some employees company cars are "pool cars" so no bik is applicable.

What people are saying when they talk about no RTB is that it's the company renting the place and they can just kick out an employee if they wish so the LL has no concerns about overholding, rent not being paid etc.

jamesthepeach

Melanie Cuddly Pint wrote: »

What people are saying when they talk about no RTB is that it's the company renting the place and they can just kick out an employee if they wish so the LL has no concerns about overholding, rent not being paid etc.

Exactly.

davindub

Melanie Cuddly Pint wrote: »

Technically they should pay bik, the reality could be quite different if the apartment is rented in the name of the company.

Similar to how some employees company cars are "pool cars" so no bik is applicable.

What people are saying when they talk about no RTB is that it's the company renting the place and they can just kick out an employee if they wish so the LL has no concerns about overholding, rent not being paid etc.

From the act

“tenant” means the person for the time being entitled to the occupation of a dwelling under a tenancy and, where the context so admits, includes a person who has ceased to be entitled to that occupation by reason of the termination of his or her tenancy.

So any employee there for 6 months or more will gain part 4 rights.

As I said there is an exemption in s.24, but IMO it would require specific steps to be taken by the company and would be better applied to property owned by the company or accommodation onsite, it would be harder to apply it to an property they sourced for a particular employee to reside in long term.

BIK is definitely due on the MV of the rent, it's a specific rule, there are exemptions, like if the employee must live on the premises due to the nature of their employment.

jamesthepeach

Of course an employees and a companies tax affairs are their own business as far as I'm concerned.

But seriously we are getting into aunties having balls territory here at this stage.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

From the act

“tenant” means the person for the time being entitled to the occupation of a dwelling under a tenancy and, where the context so admits, includes a person who has ceased to be entitled to that occupation by reason of the termination of his or her tenancy.

So any employee there for 6 months or more will gain part 4 rights.

As I said there is an exemption in s.24, but IMO it would require specific steps to be taken by the company and would be better applied to property owned by the company or accommodation onsite, it would be harder to apply it to an property they sourced for a particular employee to reside in long term.

BIK is definitely due on the MV of the rent, it's a specific rule, there are exemptions, like if the employee must live on the premises due to the nature of their employment.

Do you really think that a tenant won't be given a week to vacate by the company if they are no longer employed there or bring the company into disrepute. The company is the lease holder no they can so I'm reality they can do as they please with the employee living there. I have heard of this type of set up plenty of times and the company moves around the people living there as they please.

As for bik, I never said it wasn't due but the fact it's due doesn't mean it will be paid.

davindub

Melanie Cuddly Pint wrote: »

Do you really think that a tenant won't be given a week to vacate by the company if they are no longer employed there or bring the company into disrepute. The company is the lease holder no they can so I'm reality they can do as they please with the employee living there. I have heard of this type of set up plenty of times and the company moves around the people living there as they please.

As for bik, I never said it wasn't due but the fact it's due doesn't mean it will be paid.

As I said, it really depends on the employment agreement between the employee and the company, the company would need to take steps to ensure that the employee is excluded from the act.

Non payment of BIK would be highlighted in any company that undergoes annual audit. TBH most companies would force bik to be paid, they are responsible for the collection.

TheChizler

How does one register a company with the RTB given the lack of a PPS number? Is it not a commercial letting in that case?