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

Rental house gone back to bank

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Toastytoes
    Registered Users Posts: 435 ✭✭Toastytoes


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Just because something happened to you doesn't mean it was correct in law. Was there a hearing? Was the issue argued?

    THe receiver confirmed that it was correct actually. We had a valid lease. We were going nowhere. All parties were bound by the lease.


  • Options
    #33
    Toastytoes
    Registered Users Posts: 435 ✭✭Toastytoes


    Graham wrote: »
    Got it, thanks.



    Source: Minister Eoghan Murphy's Address

    I notice the BPFI also claim in their information leaflet A Residential Tenant’s Guide to Receivership

    Why quote about exceptional circumstances? Most cases are not exceptional and most buy to lets are mortgaged with buy to let mortgages, with the banks being well aware that the property is rented.


  • Options
    #34
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Toastytoes wrote: »
    Why quote about exceptional circumstances? Most cases are not exceptional and most buy to lets are mortgaged with buy to let mortgages, with the banks being well aware that the property is rented.

    I suspect you're right, the majority of buy-to-lets are financed as buy-to-lets.

    There are however sufficient accidental landlords for this not to be the case in a very significant number of rental properties.

    As we (or the OP) have no idea on what basis the property was financed, it is potentially relevant to the discussion.


  • Options
    #35
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Graham wrote: »
    I suspect you're right, the majority of buy-to-lets are financed as buy-to-lets.

    There are however sufficient accidental landlords for this not to be the case in a very significant number of rental properties.

    As we (or the OP) have no idea on what basis the property was financed, it is potentially relevant to the discussion.

    In mortgages post 2009, The consent of the mortgagee is not required for a lease.All of the foreclosures are of Pre 2009 mortgages as there was virtually no buy to let lending since and such as there was is only on a very conservative LTV. Pre 2009 written consent of the mortgagee for each letting was a condition of the loans, even if the bank knew it was buy to let and financed it on the basis of the rental income. The bnaks and receivers are often happy to accept a lease and get in some rent from a receivership property before selling it on. There is no need to pay for security of the unoccupied dwelling and no danger of the owner moving in and forcing repossession of it as a family home which could take years.


  • Options
    #36
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Toastytoes wrote: »
    Why quote about exceptional circumstances? Most cases are not exceptional and most buy to lets are mortgaged with buy to let mortgages, with the banks being well aware that the property is rented.

    I once parked on a street near Leinster House. I had a drink and so left the car parked in a parking space, without putting a valid parking ticket on display. I returned the next day at 1.00 PM. I hadn't been clamped or ticketed. By your logic, that should mean anybody can park on that street in that space without paying.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Toastytoes
    Registered Users Posts: 435 ✭✭Toastytoes


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    I once parked on a street near Leinster House. I had a drink and so left the car parked in a parking space, without putting a valid parking ticket on display. I returned the next day at 1.00 PM. I hadn't been clamped or ticketed. By your logic, that should mean anybody can park on that street in that space without paying.

    Did you also have a drink before posting this?


  • Options
    #38
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Toastytoes wrote: »
    Did you also have a drink before posting this?

    I'd need one after reading that!


  • Options
    #39
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Guys- behave.


Advertisement