got a letter looking for a rental from a multinational

davo10

davindub wrote: »

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.

You are over thinking this.

davindub

davo10 wrote: »

You are over thinking this.

Which part?

The RTB act applies to all residential lettings unless the exemption criteria is met, how has the exemption criteria been met? If not, its RTB.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Which part?

The RTB act applies to all residential lettings unless the exemption criteria is met, how has the exemption criteria been met? If not, its RTB.

Who is going to stop the company throwing out the employee if they wish? They are the leaseholder not the LL the RTB have no power over them.

davo10

davindub wrote: »

Which part?

The RTB act applies to all residential lettings unless the exemption criteria is met, how has the exemption criteria been met? If not, its RTB.

I can see it now, google sends over their best attorneys for the RTB case: Google -v- Sean O''Donnell.

Victor

TheChizler wrote: »

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?

Companies have tax registration numbers, but remember that not all employers are companies.

Melanie Cuddly Pint wrote: »

Who is going to stop the company throwing out the employee if they wish? They are the leaseholder not the LL the RTB have no power over them.

The employer would need to create a licencee situation with the employee, but it could be precarious legally. The objective of the act is to protect tenants and that's what a judge will look at when dealing with an illegal eviction.

jamesthepeach

If I rent my apartment to Company A.
They then sublet it to person B or person C. Maybe they have a contract with person B saying you can have the use of our property while you are working for us and while we don't need it for someone else. I don't really care as I let it to.company A.
I have nothing to do with person B.
I don't even know person B exists.
Person B doesn't even know I exist.
There is no relationship whatsoever between me and person B.

davindub

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Maybe they have a contract with person B saying you can have the use of our property while you are working for us and while we don't need it for someone else.

Good. That would be a step in the right direction, have they got this in place?

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I don't really care as I let it to.company A.
I have nothing to do with person B.
I don't even know person B exists.
Person B doesn't even know I exist.
There is no relationship whatsoever between me and person B.

It doesn't matter, what matters is the person in the property, person b has possession and its B you need to remove.

Manion

davindub wrote: »

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.

Thats what the supply problem needs, prison terms for landlords who fail to report rent correctly. I think you'll find people chopping at the bit for a piece of that.

jamesthepeach

davindub wrote: »

t doesn't matter, what matters is the person in the property, person b has possession and its B you need to remove.

Nail on the head.
A person I didn't let my property to, never met, and didn't know was even in the property has full possession and control of MY property.
Well it's no wonder landlords don't think the system is working for them and are looking for ways out.

jamesthepeach

Manion wrote: »

Thats what the supply problem needs, prison terms for landlords who fail to report rent correctly. I think you'll find people chopping at the bit for a piece of that.

This legislation situation is all a bit farcical. Are you trying to make.it even more farcical than it is already?

So if you send landlords to prison for reporting rents wrongly, what do you suggest we do when people don't pay the rent and won't leave?

Manion

You missed the sarcasm

jamesthepeach

Manion wrote: »

You missed the sarcasm

I never miss sarcasm, though sometimes the sarcasm in my replies gets missed. Sometimes a smiley helps, but sometimes it doesn't.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Good.



It doesn't matter, what matters is the person in the property, person b has possession and its B you need to remove.

Person B might be in occupation but what does his right to occupation epend on? lease or licence or becuase of his office or occupation. Only if it is a lease can he go to the RTB.

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

Person B might be in occupation but what does his right to occupation epend on? lease or licence or becuase of his office or occupation. Only if it is a lease can he go to the RTB.

The girl who I helped a couple of weeks ago- has registered the tenancy with the RTB, listing the company who are letting the property as the tenant- and has no idea who the actual person they are putting in the unit is (and it was also implied it may be vacant for periods between being occupied, and it may also be used by the company as a venue for training sessions etc- however, it is a residential letting).

The company *are* the tenant- and the contact person if there is an issue- is the head of personnel.

Yes- it would be interesting- if there was ever a dispute- however, the landlord is certain the company will vouch for the good behaviour of whoever lives in the unit- as their good name is on the line- and the girl is very happy with the corporate cleaning of the unit etc- alongside the schedule for payments (3 monthly in advance, paid quarterly).

Everyone seems to be a winner here- and the company in question are a Canadian company- who are expanding their Dublin footprint, post Brexit and were having severe issues getting accommodation of a reasonable standard, in good locations, for traders.

If you google statements from the US Chamber of Commerce- you'll see several detailed discussions on this.

4ensic15

The_Conductor wrote: »

The girl who I helped a couple of weeks ago- has registered the tenancy with the RTB, listing the company who are letting the property as the tenant- and has no idea who the actual person they are putting in the unit is (and it was also implied it may be vacant for periods between being occupied, and it may also be used by the company as a venue for training sessions etc- however, it is a residential letting).

The company *are* the tenant- and the contact person if there is an issue- is the head of personnel.

Yes- it would be interesting- if there was ever a dispute- however, the landlord is certain the company will vouch for the good behaviour of whoever lives in the unit- as their good name is on the line- and the girl is very happy with the corporate cleaning of the unit etc- alongside the schedule for payments (3 monthly in advance, paid quarterly).

Everyone seems to be a winner here- and the company in question are a Canadian company- who are expanding their Dublin footprint, post Brexit and were having severe issues getting accommodation of a reasonable standard, in good locations, for traders.

If you google statements from the US Chamber of Commerce- you'll see several detailed discussions on this.

This does not answer my question!

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

This does not answer my question!

Its a contractual arrangement between the occupant and the leaseholder- in this instance the HR Department of the company concerned. Its not catered for in the Residential Tenancies Act- though it would be at the discretion of either party to either take- or defend a case there. How any defence of such a case, or whether they were even willing to hear a dispute- would go- I honestly do not know- its wholly uncharted waters.

4ensic15

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its a contractual arrangement between the occupant and the leaseholder- in this instance the HR Department of the company concerned. Its not catered for in the Residential Tenancies Act- though it would be at the discretion of either party to either take- or defend a case there. How any defence of such a case, or whether they were even willing to hear a dispute- would go- I honestly do not know- its wholly uncharted waters.

Either the RTB has jurisdiction or it doesn't. It can't have jurisdiction just because one side wants to go there. I know of a landlady who had a case brought by a tenant to the RTB thrown out because of a lack of jurisdiction.

Marcusm

4ensic15 wrote: »

Either the RTB has jurisdiction or it doesn't. It can't have jurisdiction just because one side wants to go there. I know of a landlady who had a case brought by a tenant to the RTB thrown out because of a lack of jurisdiction.

The employee will not have any basis to take an RTB case as it is not a tenant as it does not pay rent in respect of the dwelling. Whether the company can take a case is a different matter. Fundamentally, in such circumstances if the landlord fails to maintain the property or provide any required facilities, it will result in a termination not a dispute.

Loon E. Tick

The_Conductor wrote: »

Everyone seems to be a winner here- and the company in question are a Canadian company- who are expanding their Dublin footprint, post Brexit and were having severe issues getting accommodation of a reasonable standard, in good locations, for traders.

If you google statements from the US Chamber of Commerce- you'll see several detailed discussions on this.

A lot of multinationals have always sourced accommodation for some staff which they have had to bring in from outside the country to fill vacancies short-term. An issue which has been flagged for some time is that some multinationals need to bring in hundreds more fill vacancies due to expansion and there's not going to be anywhere to accommodate them. Those staff already relocating here longer term are demanding higher salaries due to high rents and can cause tension among existing staff who are not getting similar increases. There really isn't going to be sufficient supply to house extra employees and that's just only in the IT sector.

davindub

Marcusm wrote: »

The employee will not have any basis to take an RTB case as it is not a tenant as it does not pay rent in respect of the dwelling. Whether the company can take a case is a different matter. Fundamentally, in such circumstances if the landlord fails to maintain the property or provide any required facilities, it will result in a termination not a dispute.

There is no basis for denying a tenant standing to take a case because they do not pay rent, nor that a third party pays rent.

Just to clarify what is in the act.

RTB act applies to all residential lettings unless exempted.

(2) Subject to section 4 (2), this Act does not apply to any of the following dwellings—

(a) a dwelling that is used wholly or partly for the purpose of carrying on a business, such that the occupier could, after the tenancy has lasted 5 years, make an application under section 13 (1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 in respect of it,

(b) a dwelling to which Part II of the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act 1982 applies,

(c) a dwelling let by or to—

(i) a public authority, or

(ii) a body standing approved for the purposes of section 6 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992 and which is occupied by a person referred to in section 9 (2) of the Housing Act 1988 ,

(d) a dwelling, the occupier of which is entitled to acquire, under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act 1978 , the fee simple in respect of it,

(e) a dwelling occupied under a shared ownership lease,

(f) a dwelling let to a person whose entitlement to occupation is for the purpose of a holiday only,

(g) a dwelling within which the landlord also resides,

(h) a dwelling within which the spouse, parent or child of the landlord resides and no lease or tenancy agreement in writing has been entered into by any person resident in the dwelling,

(i) a dwelling the subject of a tenancy granted under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 or under Part III of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1931 or which is the subject of an application made under section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 and the court has yet to make its determination in the matter.

Part 4 will arise unless s.25 applies

PART 4

Security of Tenure

Chapter 1

Preliminary

Non-application of Part.

(4) This Part does not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling—

(b) if the entitlement of the tenant to occupy the dwelling is connected with his or her continuance in any office, appointment or employment.

.

I have highlighted the only relevant step a company can take to exclude the apartment from the RTB act.

Part 4 can be probably be prevented by non-exclusive occupation of the dwelling where only employees have access. I don't think it can be achieved on a one bedroom apartment or house let for a single person.

The_Conductor

(2) Subject to section 4 (2), this Act does not apply to any of the following dwellings—

(a) a dwelling that is used wholly or partly for the purpose of carrying on a business, such that the occupier could, after the tenancy has lasted 5 years, make an application under section 13 (1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 in respect of it,

I.e. the landlord who has a short clause inserted in the lease to the company- allowing for occasional use of the property for the purpose of holding training and/or other off-site courses for staff- has covered themselves- whether or not the company chooses to use this function- being another matter.

I was talking to a local estate agent at the weekend (Lucan Village) who told me they are on retainer for a large multinational in the immediate vicinity to bring any high spec units coming to the market, to their attention- before they are publicly announced. I suspect we are going to see a whole lot more of this in future........

Victor

The_Conductor wrote: »

I was talking to a local estate agent at the weekend (Lucan Village) who told me they are on retainer for a large multinational in the immediate vicinity to bring any high spec units coming to the market, to their attention- before they are publicly announced.

This might not be landlord friendly.

Marcusm

davindub wrote: »

There is no basis for denying a tenant standing to take a case because they do not pay rent, nor that a third party pays rent.

Just to clarify what is in the act.

RTB act applies to all residential lettings unless exempted.



Part 4 will arise unless s.25 applies



I have highlighted the only relevant step a company can take to exclude the apartment from the RTB act.

Part 4 can be probably be prevented by non-exclusive occupation of the dwelling where only employees have access. I don't think it can be achieved on a one bedroom apartment or house let for a single person.

You're missing the point; the employee does not occupy the property under a "tenancy" from the "landlord" and is thus not a "tenant" vis a vis that landlord. The employee occupies the property as a provision of his/her employment and has rights as against his/her employer. The employer likely has direct recourse against the landlord. In the old days this would have been referred to as privity of contract.

davindub

Marcusm wrote: »

You're missing the point; the employee does not occupy the property under a "tenancy" from the "landlord" and is thus not a "tenant" vis a vis that landlord. The employee occupies the property as a provision of his/her employment and has rights as against his/her employer. The employer likely has direct recourse against the landlord. In the old days this would have been referred to as privity of contract.

I can see where you are coming from but, common law that contradicts or changes the intention of the act has been repealed by the act.

Tenancy can be implied and does not require an intention to create a tenancy, and as I mentioned earlier, an employee in exclusive occupation of a property is not going to be denied the protections afforded by the RTB act. You can also see this where property has been sublet, tenants still protected.

Whether that is against the employer as a landlord or the landlord who wants to evict, could vary, it would depend on the contract between the landlord and employer and tenant. But ultimately the tenant has their rights.

Mrs OBumble

Whatever about tenancy law.

Multi-nationals employ smart people and retain clever lawyers. You can bet your bottom dollar that they know how to ensure Joe Bloggs has moved out of his company accommodation the day he ends his job - or shortly afterwards if the job ending is unexpected.

The type of tenant we are taking about cares which his/her ex employer and co-workers think of them, and likely needs a reference to get a new job. They also know that lawyers are the only winners in these scenarios.

davindub

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Whatever about tenancy law.

Multi-nationals employ smart people and retain clever lawyers. You can bet your bottom dollar that they know how to ensure Joe Bloggs has moved out of his company accommodation the day he ends his job - or shortly afterwards if the job ending is unexpected.

The type of tenant we are taking about cares which his/her ex employer and co-workers think of them, and likely needs a reference to get a new job. They also know that lawyers are the only winners in these scenarios.

The legislation is the same for everyone.

Company would have little use for an empty apartment. Easier just to introduce the tenant to the landLord as in situ and terminate.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

The legislation is the same for everyone.

Company would have little use for an empty apartment. Easier just to introduce the tenant to the landLord as in situ and terminate.

You are kidding yourself if you think a company won't remove someone from an apartment they are renting the minute their employment ends.

The company are paying the rent and the employee will have signed legally binding contracts to say they can only stay in the apartment while employed by the company. Do you really think multinationals would be snapping up rentals if they could not maintain control of them?

davindub

Melanie Cuddly Pint wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

The legislation is the same for everyone.

Company would have little use for an empty apartment. Easier just to introduce the tenant to the landLord as in situ and terminate.

You are kidding yourself if you think a company won't remove someone from an apartment they are renting the minute their employment ends.

The company are paying the rent and the employee will have signed legally binding contracts to say they can only stay in the apartment while employed by the company. Do you really think multinationals would be snapping up rentals if they could not maintain control of them?

Why would they want to maintain control? It's not an asset merely a perk to attract an employee to work for them.

Who pays the rent is immaterial - hap tenants don't pay rent directly to the landlord.

The name on the lease is immaterial - tenants who are not party to the lease are allowed to take cases.

To be honest it's another example of what doesn't work to exclude a letting from the rtb.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Why would they want to maintain control? It's not an asset merely a perk to attract an employee to work for them.

They care because they rent houses to house employees, and as soon as an employee finishes employment they are out and the house is given to another employee. That's how it works.

In fact the more common thing would be for an employee to live there for maybe a few months before moving on to their own place and the apartment given to another employee or even shorter term than that.

They will no more leave someone not in employment living in a house they rent than they will allow a former employee to keep their company car. They will have signed a legally binding contract stating that they will vacate the property at the end of their employment exactly the same as they will legally have to hand back a company car. You can be 100% sure that the type of lawyer retained by multinationals etc will have every base covered.

davindub

Melanie Cuddly Pint wrote: »

They care because they rent houses to house employees, and as soon as an employee finishes employment they are out and the house is given to another employee. That's how it works.

In fact the more common thing would be for an employee to live there for maybe a few months before moving on to their own place and the apartment given to another employee or even shorter term than that.

They will no more leave someone not in employment living in a house they rent than they will allow a former employee to keep their company car. They will have signed a legally binding contract stating that they will vacate the property at the end of their employment exactly the same as they will legally have to hand back a company car. You can be 100% sure that the type of lawyer retained by multinationals etc will have every base covered.

There is no car rights legislation.

But look the legislation is above, I don't think too many solicitors would be confident tackling this from your perspective. But in your example where stays are limited to a couple of months, RTA applies, part 4 does not apply before 6 months or where the exemption listed above has been met.