Landlord declared bankruptcy - what happens nu?

bo0li5eumx12kp

Yeah - this could suck.

Dude before me was renting this place for like 10 years - then all of a sudden I'm here 6 months, and I get this letter saying title of the property has been foreclosed to some third party by way of bankrupt asset seizure.

Basically, that means the property has changed hands, so;

New landlord may stake a claim that he wants vacancy?

Or he could hike my rent (which would make sense cause he could easily get more than I am paying, for this place especially).

Would he have to come around to speak with me before he does this?
Cause I have a way with greedy ass people - but not when the only form of communication is mail, telling me I have one month to pack my sh1t and go; needs to be - man to man.

I'm down the country, where as it seems the new owner is in Dublin so, I guess that means he'd be less inclined to bother coming down here, the hassle of re-renting etc - for an extra 100 euro a month?

Any experiences with this?

AlmightyCushion

Are you there more than 6 months?

bo0li5eumx12kp

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Are you there more than 6 months?

Yasss!!!

But it's still changed hands, so I know from previous experience new owners can request vacancy?

(I hope I'm wrong - when it comes to asset seizure)

AlmightyCushion

As far as I understand, you're now in a part 4 tenancy and you can only be evicted in certain circumstances. Wanting to sell the property is one of those reasons but the asset transferring from the landlord to someone else doesn't count. That someone else would have to sell it.

bo0li5eumx12kp

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

As far as I understand, you're now in a part 4 tenancy and you can only be evicted in certain circumstances. Wanting to sell the property is one of those reasons but the asset transferring from the landlord to someone else doesn't count. That someone else would have to sell it.

What about putting up the rental price?

I was basically depending on the good grace of the former landlord, to NOT do that.
Not sure if that's how it works or not.

I am actually here longer than 12 months; my initial contract was for 12 months, but it never got re-upped as, as a mature student I am availing of HAP and was informed that, that in effect, acted as a long term rental contract.

Does that sound about right?
Or do I need to bust ass down to the rental office to get my contract re-upped before the new owner realizes he can sting me for mo' money?

Dav010

Change of ownership does not effect your tenancy rights, the LL, new or old, has to follow the regulations. As the property has been repossessed, chances are the finance company will want to sell the asset and recover their money, so in all likelihood they will serve notice to terminate the tenancy in due course. A bank is more likely to want vacant possession to sell the property, so it is more likely that you will receive a notice of termination than a notice of rent review/increase.

I really don’t know what kind of “dude” you are, but the man-to-man talk with greedy people is kinda laughable, so I wouldn’t count on that working out. Banks deal in a cold, professional way, either by post or through a property management agency, so slapping the puss off them isn’t going to work.

dennyk

Is the property in an RPZ? If so, then they can increase the rent every 12 months, but only by a certain amount, basically 4% per year prorated based on how many months it's been since the rent was last set or reviewed (when your tenancy began, in your case, if the landlord has never raised it). If you're not in an RPZ, then they can raise the rent to "market rates" as demonstrated by the three comparable properties they have to provide in your notice, but only after you've been there for at least two years.

HAP gives you no security of tenure, but as you've been there more than six months, you have security under Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act and your tenancy can only be terminated for one of the allowable reasons. However, one of those reasons, as noted previously, is if the owner intends to sell the property, however, and if it's a bank or some other entity that has no interest in being a landlord long-term, they may in fact decide to sell at some point, and they can give you notice for that. Nothing you can do about that, really, assuming they follow the correct notice requirements and such (and if it's a bank or other large corporate entity, they will likely have their legal team overseeing the process to make sure the rules are followed).

Not sure what you mean by "rental office"; is the property being let through an agent of some sort? It's unlikely the agent will offer a new fixed term lease to you unless the owner has explicitly authorised it, and if the owner is planning to sell, they definitely won't, so that may not gain you much. You could certainly make the attempt, though, and if they do agree then you'll at least be secure for the next 12 months or however long they give you a lease for.

bo0li5eumx12kp

dennyk wrote: »

Is the property in an RPZ? If so, then they can increase the rent every 12 months, but only by a certain amount, basically 4% per year prorated based on how many months it's been since the rent was last set or reviewed (when your tenancy began, in your case, if the landlord has never raised it). If you're not in an RPZ, then they can raise the rent to "market rates" as demonstrated by the three comparable properties they have to provide in your notice, but only after you've been there for at least two years.

HAP gives you no security of tenure, but as you've been there more than six months, you have security under Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act and your tenancy can only be terminated for one of the allowable reasons. However, one of those reasons, as noted previously, is if the owner intends to sell the property, however, and if it's a bank or some other entity that has no interest in being a landlord long-term, they may in fact decide to sell at some point, and they can give you notice for that. Nothing you can do about that, really, assuming they follow the correct notice requirements and such (and if it's a bank or other large corporate entity, they will likely have their legal team overseeing the process to make sure the rules are followed).

Not sure what you mean by "rental office"; is the property being let through an agent of some sort? It's unlikely the agent will offer a new fixed term lease to you unless the owner has explicitly authorised it, and if the owner is planning to sell, they definitely won't, so that may not gain you much. You could certainly make the attempt, though, and if they do agree then you'll at least be secure for the next 12 months or however long they give you a lease for.

So - a new lease will ensure I can't be evicted, despite the fact the new owner is selling and/or wants vacancy?

Cause maybe I could hustle that. We never re-upped the contract but, we spoke about it and I was told, if I want it re-upped, no problem - but honestly I was too damn lazy.
Plus the (former) owners were cool people, so I never envisaged a problem.
I didn't know they were experiencing financial difficulties however - at that time.

So yeah, I guess that's worth a spin?

"Little bit of back dating here, back dating there - never hurt anyone?"


What this letter is telling me is, apparently the place is co-owned (news to me).
They want I now submit monthly rent to a new leasing agent, who's based in Dublin.

What the....?

Is that typical protocol - if the insolvency agent wants to sell, they'll pass the property to a new agent, who happens to be out of town?

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

Change of ownership does not effect your tenancy rights, the LL, new or old, has to follow the regulations. As the property has been repossessed, chances are the finance company will want to sell the asset and recover their money, so in all likelihood they will serve notice to terminate the tenancy in due course. A bank is more likely to want vacant possession to sell the property, so it is more likely that you will receive a notice of termination than a notice of rent review/increase.

I really don’t know what kind of “dude” you are, but the man-to-man talk with greedy people is kinda laughable, so I wouldn’t count on that working out. Banks deal in a cold, professional way, either by post or through a property management agency, so slapping the puss off them isn’t going to work.

That could take the form of a leasing agent?

I guess they lease, and sell - you know - at the same time?

Yeah this sucks.

Where's a cheap town to move to at the moment?
I wouldn't mind getting out of here actually.

Looking to rent a place around five to six hundred euro.
I'm foot loose and fancy free.

Some place within an hour to an hour and a half commute of Dublin would be nice though.

Mullingar?

Hows the rents about them parts?

bo0li5eumx12kp

dennyk wrote: »

Is the property in an RPZ? If so, then they can increase the rent every 12 months, but only by a certain amount, basically 4% per year prorated based on how many months it's been since the rent was last set or reviewed (when your tenancy began, in your case, if the landlord has never raised it). If you're not in an RPZ, then they can raise the rent to "market rates" as demonstrated by the three comparable properties they have to provide in your notice, but only after you've been there for at least two years.

HAP gives you no security of tenure, but as you've been there more than six months, you have security under Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act and your tenancy can only be terminated for one of the allowable reasons. However, one of those reasons, as noted previously, is if the owner intends to sell the property, however, and if it's a bank or some other entity that has no interest in being a landlord long-term, they may in fact decide to sell at some point, and they can give you notice for that. Nothing you can do about that, really, assuming they follow the correct notice requirements and such (and if it's a bank or other large corporate entity, they will likely have their legal team overseeing the process to make sure the rules are followed).

Not sure what you mean by "rental office"; is the property being let through an agent of some sort? It's unlikely the agent will offer a new fixed term lease to you unless the owner has explicitly authorised it, and if the owner is planning to sell, they definitely won't, so that may not gain you much. You could certainly make the attempt, though, and if they do agree then you'll at least be secure for the next 12 months or however long they give you a lease for.

Okay so again re-reading this - even if I get my contract re-upped, they can still terminate tenancy cause the new owner wants vacancy?

Have I - nailed the pertinent effect?

Just wondering whether it's worth my while getting a new (possibly backdated) rental contract drawn up?

Dav010

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Okay so again re-reading this - even if I get my contract re-upped, they can still terminate tenancy cause the new owner wants vacancy?

Have I - nailed the pertinent effect?

Just wondering whether it's worth my while getting a new (possibly backdated) rental contract drawn up?

Though you can ask for a new term lease, if the house has been repossessed, you won’t get a term lease or Re-up as you put it. They will keep you on a Part 4 and probably terminate on the basis that the property is to be sold.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

Though you can ask for a new term lease, if the house has been repossessed, you won’t get a term lease or Re-up as you put it. They will keep you on a Part 4 and probably terminate on the basis that the property is to be sold.

Say I had a valid term lease at the moment say, for another 12 months.

Could they still terminate this on the basis of the sale?

Dav010

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Say I had a valid term lease at the moment say, for another 12 months.

Could they still terminate this on the basis of the sale?

If you have a term lease, they can’t terminate the tenancy until the lease has expired, but as you don’t, you have a part 4 tenancy so they can terminate if they want to sell.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

If you have a term lease, they can’t terminate the tenancy until the lease has expired, but as you don’t, you have a part 4 tenancy so they can terminate if they want to sell.

Does the idea of trying to sweet talk the former (female) owner into giving me a back dated term lease, sound completely ludicrous?

By rights I guess they should have provided another term lease at the 12 month mark but, alas - I didn't follow up on this.

Thus - maybe I could swing a "backdated" lease at this point?

Dav010

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Does the idea of trying to sweet talk the former (female) owner into giving me a back dated term lease, sound completely ludicrous?

By rights I guess they should have provided another term lease at the 12 month mark but, alas - I didn't follow up on this.

Thus - maybe I could swing a "backdated" lease at this point?

By rights there is no need to give you a term lease after your 12 month one expired, you have Part 4 rights.

If your previous LL wants to shaft the bank she could give you a back dated one, but chances are she will have washed her hands of the property.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

By rights there is no need to give you a term lease after your 12 month one expired, you have Part 4 rights.

If your previous LL wants to shaft the bank she could give you a back dated one, but chances are she will have washed her hands of the property.

The letter informing me of this situation, stated that the property is "co-owned".

I know what "co-owned" means but - what's mean?

Is it unusual for a property to be co-owned?

What I'm inferring is that, if it's co-owned, but I'm paying the rent to some new out of town rental agent, that could possibly mean that - said out of town rental agent, CAN'T sell, cause they can't sell what's not fully theirs?

Y/N?

Probably difficult to tell.

It doesn't tell me who the co-owner is - only that I need to start paying the rent into the new rentla agents account instead of the former (now bankrupt) owners.

Maybe this could be my saving grace - cause hell my alternate options, well - no easy way to say it - they SUCK!!

Plus - nobody wants to have to move involuntarily (especially to some dump that's half as nice and twice as expensive).

Wesser

i would advise you to do nothing just put your head down and be cool

bo0li5eumx12kp

Wesser wrote: »

i would advise you to do nothing just put your head down and be cool

Based on?

Not necessarily second guessing that opinion but - being pedantic about information basis - you advise this course of action because....?

I mean I'm gonna have to clarify with the former owners that they're not longer gonna be receiving rent from me at least.

Dav010

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

The letter informing me of this situation, stated that the property is "co-owned".

I know what "co-owned" means but - what's mean?

Is it unusual for a property to be co-owned?

What I'm inferring is that, if it's co-owned, but I'm paying the rent to some new out of town rental agent, that could possibly mean that - said out of town rental agent, CAN'T sell, cause they can't sell what's not fully theirs?

Y/N?

Probably difficult to tell.

It doesn't tell me who the co-owner is - only that I need to start paying the rent into the new rentla agents account instead of the former (now bankrupt) owners.

Maybe this could be my saving grace - cause hell my alternate options, well - no easy way to say it - they SUCK!!

Plus - nobody wants to have to move involuntarily (especially to some dump that's half as nice and twice as expensive).

My wife and I co-own properties.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

My wife and I co-own properties.

No kidding?

So - if you went bankrupt and had to forfeit your assets, basically what you're saying is your wife still owns part and, on that basis, a sales agent couldn't simply sell the property from under the current tenant, as - it's basically not all theirs to sell?

In terms of reclaiming lost money, they'd have to settle for the tenants rent?

General idea of how that works?

Of course the other side to it is - maybe she'd WANT to sell, to help you out..... n stuff?

Dav010

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

No kidding?

So - if you went bankrupt and had to forfeit your assets, basically what you're saying is your wife still owns part and, on that basis, a sales agent couldn't simply sell the property from under the current tenant, as - it's basically not all theirs to sell?

In terms of reclaiming lost money, they'd have to settle for the tenants rent?

General idea of how that works?

Of course the other side to it is - maybe she'd WANT to sell, to help you out..... n stuff?

As co-owners we are joint and severely liable for the debt.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

As co-owners if there is a mortgage we are joint and severely liable for the debt.

Leaving aside the slang, can you just tell us if it is being repossessed by the lender?

So, in your opinion - what happens in this situation?

They're gonna try and force a sale?

They're gonna boot me mercilessly into the cold hard streets?

They're gonna "LOL - R U SERIOUS?", when I ask for a renewal of my term lease, in desperate attempt to prevent the above?

Dav010

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

So, in your opinion - what happens in this situation?

They're gonna try and force a sale?

They're gonna boot me mercilessly into the cold hard streets?

They're gonna "LOL - R U SERIOUS?", when I ask for a renewal of my term lease, in desperate attempt to prevent the above?

In my opinion, if the property has been repossessed, the creditor will want to sell it to recover money, and will want vacant possession to do that.

Listen, there is no desperation on their part and the sale will not be “forced”.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

As co-owners if there is a mortgage we are joint and severely liable for the debt.

Leaving aside the slang, can you just tell us if it is being repossessed by the lender?

Hold up - I didn't get the edited part in my response;

Repossessed by the lender?

If by lender you mean, the bank who are claiming assets to make up for lost money?
Are they repossessing?

The letter only said I should now pay the rent into a new bank account - gave me details of said account.

It didn't say anything about repossession/potential sale etc - not yet at least.

But based on what ya'll are saying - that seems like it's only a matter of time?

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

In my opinion, if the property has been repossessed, the creditor will want to sell it to recover money, and will want vacant possession to do that.

Yes but it's jointly owned.

As the letter states.
Only one of the two owners seems to have gone bankrupt.

So - what are they, gonna sell half an apartment?

My question to you was, if you and you missus were in this situation - you're both liable?
Even though just one of you has been made bankrupt....

Maybe they don't want to let go of the apartment?
It is a fine apartment.
Maybe the missus of my landlord is - how you saying - hanging on with her nails?

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

In my opinion, if the property has been repossessed, the creditor will want to sell it to recover money, and will want vacant possession to do that.

Listen, there is no desperation on their part and the sale will not be “forced”.

Not forced?

As in - no man to man discussions?

As in - I have absolutely no say in the matter?

As in - effortless on their part, as to the aforementioned, booting me in to the cold hard streets?

(I gotta keep a sense of humor during these difficult times).

Dav010

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Hold up - I didn't get the edited part in my response;

Repossessed by the lender?

If by lender you mean, the bank who are claiming assets to make up for lost money?
Are the repossessing?

The letter only said I should now pay the rent into a new bank account - gave me details of said account.

It didn't say anything about repossession/potential sale etc - not yet at least.

But based on what ya'll are saying - that seems like it's only a matter of time?

Op, I’m not sure why you are asking these questions, no one here is privy to that info.

I’m going to (hopefully) make this as simple as possible.

• No matter who owns the property, your tenancy rights, Part 4, are not effected.
• if the property has been ceased/repossessed, the creditor who the owner owes money to will want to sell to recover the debt.
• To do that, they will want vacant possession.
• You need to confirm that the letter is genuine, contact the owner and the creditor identified on the letter you received, google is your friend.
• Continue to pay your rent or you will evicted far earlier for non payment of rent.
• Start looking for a new property.

Dav010

Iker Thundering Sender wrote: »

Not forced?

As in - no man to man discussions?

As in - I have absolutely no say in the matter?

As in - effortless on their part, as to the aforementioned, booting me in to the cold hard streets?

(I gotta keep a sense of humor during these difficult times).

The penny has just dropped, you are trolling.

Just in case you aren’t, why would they talk man to man? And why would you have a say in the matter? You are not the property owner.

daheff

first thing i'd do is stop paying any rent until you can confirm 100% who owns the place, then get a contract confirmating new payment details (where to pay). i would fight any attempt to change price (via rtb if necessary).

bo0li5eumx12kp

Dav010 wrote: »

Op, I’m not sure why you are asking these questions, no one here is privy to that info.

I’m going to (hopefully) make this as simple as possible.

• No matter who owns the property, your tenancy rights, Part 4, are not effected.
• if the property has been ceased/repossessed, the creditor who the owner owes money to will want to sell to recover the debt.
• To do that, they will want vacant possession.
• You need to confirm that the letter is genuine, contact the owner and the creditor identified on the letter you received, google is your friend.
• Continue to pay your rent or you will evicted far earlier for non payment of rent.
• Start looking for a new property.

Thank you for your candid responses here.

The sticking point for me is, point number 1.

- You're earlier assertion that, my term lease of 12 months ended two months ago.
- You had said that - they were not obligated to renew my term lease as I was now under part 4 of the RTA, which acts as a lease.
- Part 4 of the RTA will not protect me from eviction if the new owner wants to sell
- But a term lease, WOULD protect me from said eviction - until the end of the term.

I have checked the leasing agent in the letter - they are a real company.

What will be will be.

The only means I can buy myself time here is - if what you have formerly said is the case, "they can't evict you on a term lease, but they CAN do so on a part 4 lease" - that means I will be making ends to getting a new motherf$$kin' f$$kin' term lease - ASAP; as unlikely as I am to be successful here.

And I'm still not clear on the co-ownership.
It's still partly owned by someone who is not the creditor/repossesser - so how can the creditor/repossesser sell out from under them without their consent or their agreement to the sale?

Dav010

daheff wrote: »

first thing i'd do is stop paying any rent until you can confirm 100% who owns the place, then get a contract confirmating new payment details (where to pay). i would fight any attempt to change price (via rtb if necessary).

Would you be concerned that you would be served with a notice of rent arrears and then notice to terminate? It certainly would be quicker to remove a tenant in that way.