Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
got a letter looking for a rental from a multinational
Options
Comments
-
Melanie Cuddly Pint wrote: »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.
It's not often that I 100% agree with Nox, but in this case he's spot on.
Whatever about the legal grey areas.
Multinationals have lawyers and HR people who seriously know how to manage risk.
Of your last day with a multi-national, you WILL be handing back your company laptop, cellphone, credit card, house, whatever.
It's not about whether someone else has an immediate use for them. It's about removing the risk that a former employee will do something inappropriate with the asset.
You can try to fight it if you want - but the lawyer you can afford will be eaten for breakfast by the one the company can afford.0 -
am on linkIn and similar sites with the demand in rpz this is the way to let forget daft and others
should always google names and phone no
just got a let through my twitter account...0 -
Mrs OBumble wrote: »Melanie Cuddly Pint wrote: »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.
It's not often that I 100% agree with Nox, but in this case he's spot on.
Whatever about the legal grey areas.
Multinationals have lawyers and HR people who seriously know how to manage risk.
Of your last day with a multi-national, you WILL be handing back your company laptop, cellphone, credit card, house, whatever.
It's not about whether someone else has an immediate use for them. It's about removing the risk that a former employee will do something inappropriate with the asset.
You can try to fight it if you want - but the lawyer you can afford will be eaten for breakfast by the one the company can afford.
Degrading into fantasy and cliché here.0 -
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.
You continue to miss the point; if the multinational's employee is unhappy with the accommodation and needs to be rehoused, he will be rehoused. If there is a problem with the services in the building, that will have to be taken upon with the landlord by the company. The employee will not be a registered tenant with the RTB and if he tried to register a case it would ultimately fail as he is not a tenant, there is no sublease, you are simply implying or creating facts which are not in existence. If the MNC wants to raise a case with RTB, it has standing to do so (at the employee's behest). However, as a commercial matter, where a problem like this arises, the MNC will generally seek to terminate and move on as there is no upside in staying in a troublesome situation.0 -
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, s.
A tenancy can only be implied if there is an intention to create a tenancy. That has been the case since 1860.
Deasy's Act.
."The relation of landlord and tenant shall be deemed to be founded on the express or implied contract of the parties, and not upon tenure or service, and a reversion shall not be necessary to such relation, which shall be deemed to subsist in all cases in which there shall be an agreement by one party to hold land from or under another in consideration of any rent."
The person residing in the property is a licencee of his employer. He may be able to establish that he is a sub tenant of his employer in some circumstances. That is unlikely. The wording of his employment contract will be such that he is permitted to reside at accommodation provided to him by the company for such time as he is employed by the company and the company reserves various rights over the accommodation to prevent a sub tenancy being established.
The planning permission will be for residential use only so the company will not be able to claim a 20 year lease as it can't carry on a business at the property.0 -
Advertisement
-
Claw Hammer wrote: »A tenancy can only be implied if there is an intention to create a tenancy. That has been the case since 1860.
Deasy's Act.
."The relation of landlord and tenant shall be deemed to be founded on the express or implied contract of the parties, and not upon tenure or service, and a reversion shall not be necessary to such relation, which shall be deemed to subsist in all cases in which there shall be an agreement by one party to hold land from or under another in consideration of any rent."
The person residing in the property is a licencee of his employer. He may be able to establish that he is a sub tenant of his employer in some circumstances. That is unlikely. The wording of his employment contract will be such that he is permitted to reside at accommodation provided to him by the company for such time as he is employed by the company and the company reserves various rights over the accommodation to prevent a sub tenancy being established.
The planning permission will be for residential use only so the company will not be able to claim a 20 year lease as it can't carry on a business at the property.
Deasy's is an important case when learning law, but the RTB act is self contained. You can note that landlord and tenant acts contained a similar term as in Deasy's, the RTB act did not, it changed the standards considerably. It meant that very few properties if rented for consideration would be excluded from the act.
You couldn't possibly ignore that the act itself makes a provision for the exclusion from a part 4 tenancy a property tied to an employment contract, this is blatant proof that the RTB covers such properties even if left confused by whether a tenancy can exist.0 -
You continue to miss the point; if the multinational's employee is unhappy with the accommodation and needs to be rehoused, he will be rehoused. If there is a problem with the services in the building, that will have to be taken upon with the landlord by the company. The employee will not be a registered tenant with the RTB and if he tried to register a case it would ultimately fail as he is not a tenant, there is no sublease, you are simply implying or creating facts which are not in existence. If the MNC wants to raise a case with RTB, it has standing to do so (at the employee's behest). However, as a commercial matter, where a problem like this arises, the MNC will generally seek to terminate and move on as there is no upside in staying in a troublesome situation.
I do see your point, you are stating in substance a tenancy does not exist, but there is no support for this within the act, the person in occupation and the type of occupation is the key determinate for application of the act.
The questions you are asking are not tests that the RTB uses thus far, as I just mentioned to another poster there is reference to tenancies subject to employment in relation to part 4 but not application of the act.0 -
I've said earlier that this thread was approaching aunties with balls territory. It's there now.
Tbh I'm not one bit worried about the company I've handed over my property to or anyone they might put in it. I have zero concern about anything going wrong with either the company or the tenant and have full confidence in the company dealing 100% with whoever they put in the property.
That is a lot more than I can say for regular long term let's, which I will forever more avoid, even if it came selling up or just leaving the place empty.0 -
jamesthepeach wrote: »I've said earlier that this thread was approaching aunties with balls territory. It's there now.
Tbh I'm not one bit worried about the company I've handed over my property to or anyone they might put in it. I have zero concern about anything going wrong with either the company or the tenant and have full confidence in the company dealing 100% with whoever they put in the property.
That is a lot more than I can say for regular long term let's, which I will forever more avoid, even if it came selling up or just leaving the place empty.
This is the way to go. I suspect there is a lot less risk when renting to a corporation and they, rather than whoever they have living in it, will be responsible for any damage.0 -
This is the way to go. I suspect there is a lot less risk when renting to a corporation and they, rather than whoever they have living in it, will be responsible for any damage.
Someone is not likely to do damage to the property provided by their employer and is likely to treat it very well. Employer is not likely to let their employee live in a kip and will keep it tip top.
Win/win. Respect and happiness all round.0 -
Advertisement
-
I do see your point, you are stating in substance a tenancy does not exist, but there is no support for this within the act, the person in occupation and the type of occupation is the key determinate for application of the act.
The questions you are asking are not tests that the RTB uses thus far, as I just mentioned to another poster there is reference to tenancies subject to employment in relation to part 4 but not application of the act.
again, a tenancy does exist; it subsists between the landlord and its tenant, I.e. The MNC/company/corporation/employer. The basis of occupation by the employee of the tenanted property will depend on the rights which the tenant (I.e. Company) cedes to its employee, it might be occupied under a licence agreement or, more likely, they might occupy it as a guest. In either case, it does not create the relationship of landlord and tenant with the employee. The RTA is very explicit, dare I say exhaustive, about the circumstances in which such relationships are created. It deals with the position of explicit tenancies, tenancies which are assigned, sub letting arrangements and multiple tenant situations. None of these will subsist in the circumstances contemplated.0 -
Deasy's is an important case when learning law, but the RTB act is self contained. You can note that landlord and tenant acts contained a similar term as in Deasy's, the RTB act did not, it changed the standards considerably. It meant that very few properties if rented for consideration would be excluded from the act.
You couldn't possibly ignore that the act itself makes a provision for the exclusion from a part 4 tenancy a property tied to an employment contract, this is blatant proof that the RTB covers such properties even if left confused by whether a tenancy can exist.
The Residential Tenancies Act is not self contained, nor does it purport to be. It is manifestly clear that it can only apply to dwellings which are leased. A dwelling may be leased in connection with an employment contract or it may be licensed.0 -
Claw Hammer wrote: »Deasy's is an important case when learning law, but the RTB act is self contained. You can note that landlord and tenant acts contained a similar term as in Deasy's, the RTB act did not, it changed the standards considerably. It meant that very few properties if rented for consideration would be excluded from the act.
You couldn't possibly ignore that the act itself makes a provision for the exclusion from a part 4 tenancy a property tied to an employment contract, this is blatant proof that the RTB covers such properties even if left confused by whether a tenancy can exist.
The Residential Tenancies Act is not self contained, nor does it purport to be. It is manifestly clear that it can only apply to dwellings which are leased. A dwelling may be leased in connection with an employment contract or it may be licensed.
And how do you distinguish between a lease and a license? There is no special exemption for employment accommodation excluding it from the act, so what you are suggesting is that all landlords can exclude themselves from the act by retaining property rights?
The act is self contained, it was enacted as such. What legislation or common law have you experienced in terms of the act?0 -
And how do you distinguish between a lease and a license? There is no special exemption for employment accommodation excluding it from the act, so what you are suggesting is that all landlords can exclude themselves from the act by retaining property rights?
The act is self contained, it was enacted as such. What legislation or common law have you experienced in terms of the act?
At the risk of exposing myself to the wrath of others for engaging you on this, the lease is with the company, they sublet to the employee making the employee a type of licensee and therefore has no tenancy rights. Ergo, no right to bring a dispute to RTB as employee has no lease with LL.0 -
And how do you distinguish between a lease and a license? There is no special exemption for employment accommodation excluding it from the act, so what you are suggesting is that all landlords can exclude themselves from the act by retaining property rights?
The act is self contained, it was enacted as such. What legislation or common law have you experienced in terms of the act?
At the risk of exposing myself to the wrath of others for engaging you on this, the lease is with the company, they sublet to the employee making the employee a type of licensee and therefore has no tenancy rights. Ergo, no right to bring a dispute to RTB as employee has no lease with LL.
Subletting is an lease as well. It's not excluded from the act either. The lease with the LL is not important either, banks recover properties with tenants in situ, rights are not extinguished.
Futher on this some employee accommodation (tied houses) is excluded from part 4, so they are included in the act.0 -
Subletting is an lease as well. It's not excluded from the act either. The lease with the LL is not important either, banks recover properties with tenants in situ, rights are not extinguished.
Futher on this some employee accommodation (tied houses) is excluded from part 4, so they are included in the act.
I'm sorry, I'll take the bait. When ownership is transferred, the tenants rights go with it. If the person renting is a tenant before the transfer, they are a tenant after, the same also applies to a licensee.
Do you agree that a licensee is different from a tenant?
There isn't much point in arguing any further with you, you are certain you are right even though the multinational holds the lease and rent if it is paid by the employee, is not paid to the property owner. Who they allow stay there is their business, but they are certainly not tenents of the landlord, and the multinational is certainly not the landlord.0 -
I'm sorry, I'll take the bait. When ownership is transferred, the tenants rights go with it. If the person renting is a tenant before the transfer, they are a tenant after, the same also applies to a licensee.
Do you agree that a licensee is different from a tenant?
There isn't much point in arguing any further with you, you are certain you are right even though the multinational holds the lease and rent if it is paid by the employee, is not paid to the property owner. Who they allow stay there is their business, but they are certainly not tenents of the landlord, and the multinational is certainly not the landlord.
Firstly, sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, but this is an area I did a lot of work in when I was newly qualified, before and after 2004 so we spent a lot of time going over the application of the act and what was / not intended to be included. It was important as we had clients who were in various different types of properties coming to us for help.
A licensee is of course different, there are no property rights transferred, what you are entitled to is established by license agreement. But the reason you have heard of licensee's at all since 2004 in residential terms is the exclusion provided by the act where the landlord resides in the property.
I quoted from the act earlier on this tread, the act applies to every dwelling subject to a tenancy. "Tenancy" is not defined, so apply the normal meaning of the word, occupation of a property by lease or payment of rent (RTB uses "exclusive occupation test" related to this). The relationship between landlord, company and tenant will be determined by the companies contract with the tenant, but the tenancy will not be affected, so you could have the company as the landlord, or the company might state that we have rented this property on your behalf and will pay the rent, etc. Even where the employee does not pay anything for the apartment, they still do, it is deemed income of the employee and taxed.
I will leave it at that, but read the terms regarding application of the act and part 4 and its hard to come to a different conclusion.0 -
The act is self contained, it was enacted as such. What legislation or common law have you experienced in terms of the act?
Where in the Act does it say that it is enacted as a self contained act? The only references to self contained in the act are in relation to dwellings and bedsit accommodation. The Act abolishes or repeals other legislative and common law provisions so therefore must be presumed to preserve and recognise others.0 -
Theres a lot of what ifs on here, with no actual evidence at all of the RTB having control over a short term let to a company.
I can tell you as someone who has recently stopped regular lets and gone to letting to a company only
a) I am not the least bit worried about doing short term letting to a company. I am delighted with it. Its not risky in any way.
b) I am scared sh!tless of what has happened and what is still happening when doing regular letting. I dont see myself ever going back to it. Too risky.0
Advertisement